Steve Pearce

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 1791, a bill to amend the Lease Lot Conveyance Act of 2002. The Lease Lot Conveyance Act of 2002 directed the Secretary of the Interior to convey property to 403 cabin sites to the Elephant Butte/ Caballo Leaseholders Association at fair market value. The necessary appraisals are almost done, and this land will be conveyed to the association in accordance to the 2002 act. The need for the amendment has arisen because the 2002 act was unclear and did not state specifically what the Bureau of Reclamation should do with the receipts. The original agreement was for the money to be derived from the sale of this property to be deposited into the Reclamation Fund for immediate use by the applicable irrigation districts to help with their annual operations and maintenance costs. Because of a drafting oversight, the Bureau of Reclamation cannot fulfill the responsibilities of the original agreement of the 2002 act. This bill simply corrects the oversight. According to the Congressional Budget Office, S. 1791 would have no effect on Federal revenues. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Senate S. 878 which authorizes the creation of certain new U.S. circuit and district judgeships as well as converts temporary judgeships to permanent status. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and his staff for their leadership in addressing the urgency for additional Federal district judgeships in the United States District Court of New Mexico, especially in Las Cruces, New Mexico. This desperate judicial situation in the southern New Mexico district is manifest in crushing caseloads, unique geographical factors, and the exhaustion of judicial resources. Data indicates that the district has the fourth highest total criminal caseload per judgeship in the Nation with 739 weighted cases per judgeship. This is 46 percent higher than the national average and a 150 percent increase from 1996. This extraordinary caseload is primarily attributed to the geographical factors unique to the district. Immigration and narcotics cases are almost exclusively driving the increase, placing an extraordinary burden on the Las Cruces Federal Courthouse, which is just 50 miles away from the U.S.-Mexico border. The district has begun to exhaust all judicial resources. One option to handle the enormous caseload in Las Cruces is assigning rotating duties to district judges from Albuquerque and Santa Fe, requiring judges and their staffs to travel more than 450 miles roundtrip during the week. Many of the judges are even called in from other jurisdictions. U.S. district judges from Vermont to Kansas have presided in Las Cruces regularly and conclude that they have never seen a caseload as high as in the entire time they have been on the bench. One judge commented that, in 28 days, he handled more capital cases in 28 days than he did during an entire year in Vermont. The desperately needed judges provided for in this legislation will decrease the weighted filings by half, bringing the district on parity with the rest of the districts in the United States. Again, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his fine leadership on this legislation and urge passage of S. 878.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I request to address the House for 5 minutes out of turn.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, as I contemplate the debate from last week, I realize that again the Democrat nominee for President, Mr. Kerry, continues to debate with himself. I was very amazed to learn throughout the debate that he was talking about the need for multilateral action, until it came to the one circumstance where we are engaged in multilateral action in which he felt we should go back to bilateral action. Now, that is, of course, in the case of Korea, and we found that the Mainland Chinese have been very, very effective at working with us to back the North Koreans down from the bluster and the rhetoric that they have thrown in front of the world stage for the past couple of years. Amazingly, in that circumstance, Mr. Kerry wants the Chinese to be quiet, and he wants the U.S. to go back to bilateral negotiations with the North Koreans. What that accomplishes is to give the North Koreans standing which they have not had in the past 2 years under the Bush doctrine. We give a terrorist state, a state that is starving its own people, a state that is incapable of making the changes in the government that are required to bring the nation into this century, and he would give them standing while moving the Mainland Chinese and our other allies off to the side. He did not explain that, and it was in complete contradiction with everything else he brought up during the debate. So, again, we find that the gentleman from Massachusetts continues to debate himself. I contemplated also his need for a global test. From my own perspective, when the President says that we will not ask permission to defend America, that is the clarity and plainness that most Americans want, and so this global test for me is fraught with questions. Which test would we apply? Which of our allies? Would it be France? We want France's approval before we go and do some action that would prevent attacks on U.S. citizens here on American soil? Again, I have very deep questions about the gentleman from Massachusetts' plan. One of the most stunning things that I watched in the debate, Mr. Speaker, was the assumption that Mr. Kerry has to sell, and that is, that the war in Iraq is a mistake. He says, on the one hand, it is a mistake, and on the other hand, he is going to win it. But I will tell my colleagues, if you convince enough people in this country to vote for the gentleman who says it is a mistake, those people have to believe the war is a mistake because much of his campaign is based on that presumption and that willingness to change the course in this country; but if he convinces the Americans that it is a mistake, how then is he going to turn on his heels against the will of the American public who has sided with him and then win the war? Mr. Speaker, I would say that he has no intention of winning the war, that instead he is going to go to those allies who say that the war is a mistake, whether it be Syria, whether it be France, whether it be Russia, whether it be any of the nations who were involved in the Oil- For-Food scandal that took $10 billion out of money that should have bought food for hungry Iraqis, and he would go to them and ask them their opinion for this global test that he has suggested. Mr. Speaker, I would say that within weeks the gentleman from Massachusetts would unilaterally pull out of Iraq, leaving all of our allies in that region in very deep distress. If the United States pulls out of the Middle East, I think that we stand to lose our friends, the Saudi Arabians; our friends, the Kuwaitis; the Jordanians. I think Pakistan would be at risk. I think Syria would be at risk. I think that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not clearly contemplated the effects of declaring that this war is a mistake and being willing to ridicule our friends, being willing to ridicule the prime minister from that war-torn region who is putting his neck on the line every single day, and the gentleman from Massachusetts declares him to be a puppet. We have seen in Pakistan the President, Musharraf, has twice just barely escaped assassination attempts. That region is very unstable, and we have one of the candidates for President of the United States who is willing to say that this coalition, these partners of ours, are bribed and coerced. Where is he going to find the people to become a part of this multinational cooperation when he makes those kinds of statements? I think that the gentleman from Massachusetts has ill-thought-out his words, has ill-established a doctrine and stands the chance of ruining America's hopes for world peace.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time and rise in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment. There, again, needs to be the general statement that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, and I will work to support that right, but they do not have the right to define marriage for all of us. As far as the question of bigotry and civil rights, 60 percent of African-Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Are they bigots? I do not think so. Shelby Steele, an African-American scholar, said properly, ``Gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle for freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete social acceptance. Black leaders . . . have distanced themselves from the gay marriage issue.'' We have had a little lecture on tolerance, and yet it is the side of the people who are arguing against this marriage act who have called death threats in to the original sponsor. It is those people who e-mail daily hateful comments. I wonder where the question of tolerance is at this point when someone dares to differ with them. There is a question of, who gets harmed from same-sex marriage? When we approve same-sex marriage, we are going to be required to teach that it is okay. In fact, it is going to be wrong to teach against it. If we think that that is not going to happen, look at what has happened to the Boy Scouts of America who dared to take a stance. The all-out assault on the institution of the Boy Scouts of America has been unending, trying to get them to change their stance, simply saying, we want to teach our values. Religious groups like Catholic Charities or Salvation Army may lose their non-profit status and other facilities unless they endorse gay marriage. Is that what we want? Do we want common, decent, God-fearing people to be declared as bigots, to be declared as speakers of hate speech? That is where this discussion is going, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue. Is it a blatant attempt by Republicans to score political points in a political season? I am sorry, but it was not the Republicans who brought up the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision on May 17. We have very little influence in that particular matter. From my friends on the other side of the aisle who declare to us that amending the Constitution is just the extension of rights, I would remind them that the Dred Scott decision that said that slavery is correct and proper for these United States was, in fact, turned around in a very similar situation that we are facing today. A Supreme Court is positioning itself to declare a certain thing which is in opposition to the will of the majority of the people, and we are simply going to turn that around with a constitutional amendment, the same as the Thirteenth Amendment turned around the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court. Now for the discussion about what this is really about. Once we leave the discussion of what is right for children as the heart of the discussion, we begin to get confused about what is right. When we talk about the fact that there are loving, gay couples who would like to raise their children, we seem to depart from the facts because only one out of three lesbians living in the same household are actually raising children, and among gay men, only one out of five. This issue is not about the right to raise children. This issue is about their rights to redefine marriage for the entire Nation, and I will disagree with my friends on the other side of the aisle that it is worth fighting for right now. It is worth fighting for in this House, and it is worth fighting for on the streets of America so that we have this national public discussion to determine what is most effective for our children. If we want examples, we can look to Scandinavia where more than 60 percent now of the children are born out of wedlock, just a few short years after they have taken the same step that we are taking here. This discussion is about what is right for children. It has nothing to do with what is right for adults. How can we say that the rights of adults to choose their desire is more important than what is necessary to correctly and properly raise our children? What is right for our children is a discussion.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments, Again, I would reiterate this question is about children. To those who would ask what about the gays and lesbians who are affected, no one would choose for them the lifestyle that they have chosen. But we do contend earnestly to defend the right of the people to continue to define marriage in the traditional sense as between a man and a woman. There are those who would say, what gives you the right to limit the gays' and lesbians' freedoms? And the response is what gives us as a society the right to choose our desires over the needs of children? Because children are the question, and children are the objective of the marriages. There are those who say that traditional marriage is plagued with divorce and should we not fix divorce if we are so concerned about the traditional marriage? You would have to look at other arguments in the same vein. We all drive cars, and cars have crashes. Would crashes not argue against the use of cars? No, crashes simply tell us we should design better cars, we should drive more carefully, we should act with restraint, but they do not tell us we should not drive cars. Neither does divorce, no matter how heinous it is, and it is a deep problem in our society, but it does not argue against the traditional marriage. The people wonder who gets harmed if we make this change. If we redefine the marriage in society, who is harmed by that? I will tell you who gets harmed: the people of this Nation, who lose the right to define marriage as the union of a husband and wife get harmed, because even now in this country there are attempts to define and to codify and to put into law hate crimes legislation which would begin to chill the discussion about values that one family would like to pass on to their kids and to their grandkids. If courts rule that same sex marriage is a civil right, then people like you and me who believe that children need moms and dads, we will be treated like bigots and racists. Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemption or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities unless they endorse gay marriage. It gets to a point where in the classroom every description of families would have to include the whole universe of families, because we have already seen that happen. We have seen that the people on the liberal left would redefine even the way that we talk to our children. Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate is just the same as a husband and wife being intimate. That is not something that many of us feel comfortable with, and that is not something that I think should be forced on us by an activist Supreme Court. If that is to be the way we are to govern and that is to be the way we live, it is right and proper that we would take that discussion to the American people. That discussion should be on every street corner, not in the closed chambers of the supreme court of some State, any State, or even the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court has made decisions before about values, and we have had to amend the Constitution to change that. The most notable example is when the Supreme Court said in the Dred Scott decision that the will of the majority cannot be used to tyrannize the minority. It is almost the same rationale that was used in Lawrence v. Texas. The will of the majority cannot be used to tyrannize minority, the court said, and we fought a civil war over it, because the will of the majority said slaves should be free and the Supreme Court said the slaves will not be free. Not to have learned their lesson after the Civil War was fought and after we amended the Constitution, the Supreme Court came back 100 years later in the Plessy v. Ferguson case and said that if we could not have our way and mandate slavery, we, the Supreme Court, will mandate separate but equal facilities. Again, it took our society a long time to overcome those Supreme Court decisions. It would be much simpler and much easier if we would recognize right now that the American people should be the ones to determine this issue; and I, for one, am supporting the attempt of the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) to amend the Constitution of the United States to declare in the minds of people for once and for all that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I will stand and fight for any one person's right to choose their life style, but I will also oppose their attempt to redefine for all of America exactly what marriage is. Madam Speaker, I recognize that my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), would like to address this issue again, and would yield to him.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa. A couple more questions. People ask, is it fair? What about benefits? Are gay couples, if they cannot marry, denied benefits? If medical proxies are not working, let us fix that problem. If people need health care, let us fix that problem, but let us not mess with marriage. Marriage is about children and it is about the best institution for raising children, and that is the issue. Kids are better off with a mother and father. The issue is not whether gays can be good parents or not; no one is talking about that. We are saying that children are generally better off with a loving mother and a loving father; and that is the role, that is the method, that is the paradigm that works best. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the people who have helped me present this case to this body.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments and appreciate his principled stand on so many issues. Madam Speaker, we have to admit that marriage is universal. People ask me when I make the comment that nature has defined what marriage is first, law simply tries to capture it in language: What does it matter that nature describes what marriage is? Basically, there is a design to all things. There is an order to the universe. Marriage is universal. What the left is trying to do is to upset that order and to take order completely away because there will be no order once there are not restrictions on exactly the definition of marriage. But beyond that, we must understand that when nature designs, any time we break a design, things just do not function as well. For instance, a car, that has a design to run on gasoline with oil in the engine. If we reverse the process and put oil in the gas tank and gasoline in the oil containment part of the vehicle, the design is not well served, and the machine simply does not work. It is very true in nature, too. Our bodies are designed with blood to run through our veins, the heart pumping blood. But if we take the blood out and replace it with water, we find that the design simply quits working. And it is the contention of many social scientists that marriage is one of the natural designs that simply will quit working if the design is not understood and adhered to. So it is very critical, as we look at these things, to understand that marriage is far more than just a current-day definition. It is something where men and women have come together throughout history in all nations. All nations of different government types, tyranny, freedom, they all have one constant, that marriage is between a man and a woman and the family is better served, children are better served, when we have a clear definition of what marriage is. And children are the issue in this debate. I have a gentleman here tonight from Iowa who is a good friend and whose views I often wait to hear. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. They address the issue in a very sensitive and appropriate way. We have many people who say to me also, What does it matter? Gays can love each other. Should they not be allowed to marry? And it is a very compelling question, one that we should look at. I will tell the Members that emotions are not the basis for raising children. They are not the basis of relationships. If emotions are the basis of relationships, if love is the question, two brothers can love each other. Would we allow them to marry? But when we bring that argument up, our opponents say, no, no, we do not want to go there. But I am sorry, that is where we go if we begin to say that love, that emotions are the basis of relationships. If love is the basis, two men can love two women. Why not all four get married? One man can love five women. If we are going to do that, if we are going to allow emotions to determine that love is fine for the same-sex marriage, what we do is we give away the legal standing for prohibiting those things which become more onerous: incestuous marriage; the polygamists; polymorphism; or, even worse, the child-adult relationships that we have been able to keep so far as a thing that should not be approved in society. But once we give in to the rationalization that the marriage relationship is only about love, not about nature, we give up all the legal arguments that would keep us from moving into each one of those successively. One might say that is ridiculous, that no one would do that. But I will tell the Members that there are websites currently suggesting each one of those forms of relationships should be legalized, standardized and to be made public. So it is a very critical question here, what we are dealing with, and I think the Nation must be involved. We must not leave it to the decisions my friends say of the United States Supreme Court. My greater fear is that it is going to be one of the State Supreme Courts that makes the decision for the rest of the Nation, and I think that we see that potential time after time. We are joined tonight by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary's Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Subcommittee. I appreciate his willingness to talk about this issue and give his insights. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, there are a lot of questions that I am given when I bring this subject up in the district that I represent and they are fair questions and they are good questions and I think that we have a responsibility to deal with some of those questions. Many people say, aren't you just infringing on the rights of the gays and lesbians? It does not appear that we are. What appears that we are trying to do is to say that gays and lesbians have the right to choose any life- style they want but what we are going to limit is their ability to redefine what marriage is. Marriage is not defined by the Constitution. Marriage really is not even defined in law first. Marriage was defined in nature first. It is in nature that we find that men and women come together to have children and in the process of having the children, the sexual acts that caused the children create bonds that cause the couples to stay together. Those bonds create the family that sustain and nurture and raise and defend and protect our children. This argument is not about what is right for any class of people except children. When we move the children out of the central focus, we begin to stray away from the most vital, important part of this discussion because it is through the children that we have the next generation, the generation that will work and sustain us, the generation that will produce succeeding generations. Those countries which have already admitted same sex marriages as a right and as a law, we find that in those societies that marriage is beginning to dissipate and disappear. Some would say, so what? So what is that the main structure, the main defense mechanism, the main way that children are born, raised and put onto the path in life that they should be put on is the family. So we cannot have a so-what attitude about it. We must understand that if we choose this, that it is going to radically affect our Nation and radically affect those things in society which keep our standards the way they are which make this Nation great. If it is the decision of the majority of the American people to do that, it is one thing; but if it is the opinion of some activist judges who wish to redefine the American culture, then I think America is speaking out right now and we have an obligation to listen to what America is saying. I would like to recognize another one of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) who is always involved in issues involving the family.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) for cosponsoring this amendments. We hear a lot of discussion in this Nation about tolerance and about diversity and we should hear all sides of the discussion, but I will tell Members that the same people who shout loudest about tolerance and diversity have been the same people who have attacked the sponsor of this amendment to the Constitution. She has had threats made on her life. She has had slurs and insults thrown into her face, and she has tolerated abuse no one should have for simply speaking in America. I worry in this same discussion about what the marriage is and what the family is and what it consists of, I worry that the opponents in this argument really do not want free speech, they do not want a public discussion. And that is what we are saying on this side of the aisle, that the discussion should be taken to the American people, that judges who are not elected should not make this decision; and that is exactly what is going to happen if we do not have the courage to make a stand and to identify what we think is the language which should amend the Constitution of the United States. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for having the courage to withstand the death threats from the people who disagree with her, and for standing tall and for defining the moment in American history that is before us right now. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) to talk about this issue.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the body for allowing us to speak tonight on this extremely important issue. The state of a society is an ongoing process. We tend to want to think that we can pass along our values and the rights and freedoms that we have in a current age to those in the next generation. For instance, I just think that I can pass along the right to my daughter, who can pass along to our grandson and granddaughter the rights to own a business or the rights to a public education, or maybe even the right to understand exactly what society is about, the good parts and the bad parts. Well, the Nation is involved right now in a discussion about what is best for America when it comes to marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Court made a decision a couple of months ago that began to cause us all to think about what is the right definition for marriage, how should we change it, why should we change it, or should we change it. We have several Members here on the floor tonight to help present this discussion to this body, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) who is the sponsor to the amendment to the Constitution that would declare marriage as simply between a traditional man and woman. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman to explain her ideas.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4808 and would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Rahall), the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the ranking member, for working with me on this important legislation and for moving it expeditiously. I also appreciate the bipartisan support from the Committee on Resources members in reaching a compromise that is reflected in this legislation. The need for Congress to pass H.R. 4808 arose when a munitions storage bunker was built at Holloman Air Force Base in 1997 and 1998. Holloman Air Force Base serves both the United States' and the German Air Force's training and readiness functions, with Holloman being the home to the F-117 stealth fighter. The Holloman air-to-ground training ranges consist of 1,385,262 acres, almost exclusively in Federal land, and air-to-air training ranges provide 8,352,878 acres of airspace for national security and training. The total military training routes at Holloman Air Force Base is 8,657,964 acres, which includes DOD, DOI, USDA and private lands. Without an explosive clear zone, Holloman Air Force Base is unable to fully utilize the designed capacity of the bunker, and it adversely impacts the storage quantity of munitions required for training and operations. This directly impacts the ability of Holloman Air Force Base to fully meet its mission of training, readiness, and national security, as well as training our NATO partner, Germany. The cost to replace the munitions storage area is estimated by the Air Force to be $40 million. The problem is the proposed explosive clear zone encroaches on private property. The Federal Government originally sought to take the private property through condemnation, leaving little choice but for the property owners to vigorously defend their private property rights. This bill resolves the issue and protects both private property and the investment made by the Air Force, and would simply exchange Federal lands in close proximity to ranch boundaries. Mr. Speaker, this bill reverses a history of over 50 years of the Federal Government either coercing, cajoling, or confiscating property from the landowners. I am proud that the 2nd District has so much land to offer to the Federal Government. I will tell my colleagues that we should not continue to get it through confiscation. I would like to thank the committee staff members, both minority and majority, for working with my staff member Matt Meagher over the weekend, through the nights, and through very difficult hurdles to solve this bill. This bill protects our national security, saves the taxpayers a minimum $40 million, protects private property, guarantees the Federal Government will receive value for value given, and is fair to all the parties concerned. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4808.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, this weekend I attended the dedication of a new sanctuary service at Church on the Move in Roswell, New Mexico. As I sat there watching the efforts of Pastor Troy Smotherman come to a culmination of just building his congregation and extending it, I thought of the labors of all pastors across the country, like Dr. Dean Mathis whom my wife and I have studied with for over 20 years, and realize that the work of these good and decent individuals to exhort their members toward justice, kindness, peace, faith, love and just quiet living of decent lives is indeed a tribute to this Nation. It is entirely appropriate that, at this point where we are going to discuss the Federal marriage amendment on the floor of the House in front of the people, that we recognize that these quiet ministers building congregations across the country do not have the right or the freedom to speak from their pulpits about this very important subject. Mr. Speaker, I would recommend and request that the House and the Senate consider the language that stifles conversation from the pulpits of this Nation.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3734 would designate the Federal building located at Fifth and Richardson Avenues in Roswell, New Mexico, as the Joe Skeen Federal Building. On December 7, 2003, the Nation lost a leader, but New Mexico lost a friend. As others have said, Joe Skeen was born in Roswell, New Mexico. He was an Aggie, and he stayed an Aggie for his whole life. He joined the Navy and he served there. Again, that has been mentioned, but I do not think that other people realize just how much he saw the light when he left the United States Navy and scooted over to the U.S. Air Force, but as a former Air Force pilot, I recognized what was going on in his life. He continued to see the real light when he saw Mary Helen Jones and married her in 1945. I will tell my colleagues that Mary and Joe continued to be favorites throughout their entire careers in New Mexico. Even today people say, ``Tell Mary that we are thinking about her.'' One of the most important things that people remember about Joe was his sense of humor, and I hear about that constantly. When I go to town hall meetings, they listen to me for 2 hours, and then the first thing they say is, ``Joe Skeen was funny.'' I have enjoyed the comparisons. They also tell me that ``Joe Skeen left big shoes to fill; make sure you fill them, son.'' Joe was just a lifelong servant to the Nation and to the State. He has been recognized throughout New Mexico, though. They have begun to name different buildings after him already. He helped at New Mexico State University, New Mexico Tech, Holloman Air Force Base and White Sands, and those institutions have begun to name buildings after him. New Mexico Tech named their library after Joe Skeen. New Mexico State University named their new agricultural research building after Joe and Mary Skeen. Chaves County named their new administrative building after Joe Skeen, and New Mexico has named Highway 70, the Joe Skeen Highway. Today, I am pleased the U.S. House of Representatives will act so that the Federal Government will name a Federal building after Joe Skeen, who left after 22 years of service in this House of Representatives. Mr. Skeen was a strong supporter of rural New Mexico and all that it requires. He supported roads, schools, medical care, electricity and water and sewage treatment plants. He was impartial when it came to serving the people of New Mexico. Joe was tremendously respected. He was quiet, yet he had a demeanor that created respect. And his sense of humor disarmed people with grudges and helped all citizens realize that by working together we can solve the people's problems. Joe used to say, let us talk about what we can agree on, and we will work from there. The people of New Mexico will never forget Mr. Skeen. He was a man of the people. People in the second district have expressed their love for him as I travel through the district. As I took my place in this national Congress and heard from his many friends, I realized he was just as respected nationally as he was in the state. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3734.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo).

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1658) to amend the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act to validate additional conveyances of certain lands in the State of California that form part of the right-of-way granted by the United States to facilitate the construction of the transcontinental railway, and for other purposes.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3257 sponsored by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and amended by the Committee on Resources would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Western Reserve Heritage Area. The proposed study area under this bill would encompass 14 modern-day counties in Ohio which throughout history have made a unique contribution to the cultural, political and industrial development of the United States. The Western Reserve is every bit as distinctive as the land settled by the people of Connecticut after the Revolutionary War and holds a unique mark as the original wilderness in the West that many settlers migrated to in order to begin life outside the original 13 colonies. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3257, as amended, is supported by the majority and minority of the committee and by the administration. I urge adoption of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.