Steve Pearce

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have no other comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding and for his work on behalf of H.R. 1526. New Mexico is a home to multiple national forests. We see firsthand the effect of our national Forest Service policy. Last year, in the middle of the year, a fire broke out. It was about 4 acres for 2 or 3 days. The Forest Service's policy was basically ``let it burn.'' They let it burn for 3 or 4 days, had enough people to swat it out with whisk brooms, when suddenly the winds got up, as they do in New Mexico always, and blew that fire into 10,000 acres. It almost immediately started burning down homes, 255 homes. It's at that point we began to speak publicly about the Forest Service policies that would create infernos in our western forests. Formerly, we had a policy in the Forest Service of the 10 a.m. rule. It was, if you get a fire, you put it out by 10 a.m. tomorrow. If you're not successful by 10 a.m. tomorrow, then it's 10 a.m. the next day. You dedicate all the resources you can to putting out the fire. Those policies have been amended by current Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell into saying, We're going to let them burn. We're watching right now wondering if the sequoias will survive this Forest Service policy. Many of the forests in New Mexico and the West are not surviving. Hundreds of millions of acres are at risk every year. It's not a matter of if they will burn, but when. As we talked publicly about Forest Service management policies during that fire, then we started getting calls from individuals around the country who had retired out of the Forest Service saying, Yes, keep talking. We, as retired professionals, disagree with the current philosophies in the Forest Service. We invited one of those 30-year employees--Bill Derr--into our district to run a congressional study and to come up with recommendations. He basically had two, after months of study. He said we should be mechanically thinning our forests--that is, logging in our forests--and, secondly, returning to the 10 a.m. policy. What are the downstream effects of bad Forest Service management? First of all, we're losing the habitat for millions of species; we're burning millions of species in the fire. These are endangered species sometimes, but otherwise we're just killing lots of animals. Also, we're destroying a watershed. In New Mexico, in the Whitewater- Baldy fire, the forest around one of the lakes there that provides drinking water for Alamogordo was at risk. The Forest Service said they should clean it, and instead lawsuits were filed to stop that. The fire burned right up to the edge of the lake, and the lake now has 50 feet of fill in it. All the fish are dead, starved for oxygen, exactly like the gentlelady from Wyoming said. The streams are now filling with silt. Forest Service personnel tell us we will be having to empty that lake for the next 15 years. That's 15 years of dead fish; 15 years downstream facing flooding; 15 years without the drinking water that sustains a community of about 30,000. These are what we face. Also, the West is starved for jobs because of Forest Service policy. The original Organic Act, the act that created the U.S. Forest Service, said that they should be logging to create local commerce and jobs and they should be protecting the watershed. The U.S. Forest Service is negligent on both of the underlying reasons for their existence. We in the West are suffering lost education opportunities, destroyed habitat, and destroyed forests. Those forests will not grow back for 100 years according to the Forest Service personnel. It's time for us to pass H.R. 1526. I support it.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for leading this discussion. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Now, what would be in the minds of the people who wrote those words? It would do well to look at where they came from. They came from countries where kings ruled. The kings could tell you what church you had to be in. They could tell you what you had to believe, what you had to profess. If it conflicted with what you said, they had the ultimate power over you. And so they came here to establish a new government. They wanted this Constitution, this contract with the people and the government that said the government cannot bridge certain lines. And the establishment of religion and the free practice thereof were protected. The gentleman from Virginia mentioned early in his comments, there was a young couple in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the State that I represent. She had a way with cameras and started a little in-home photography business. Elaine Huguenin and her husband, Jonathan, just wanted to give expression. But they also wanted to defend their rights to believe what they did, so they made a pact between themselves that they would do nothing that compromised their faith, their religious beliefs. The Constitution protects that. Very soon after establishing their business, they had an inquiry from a gay couple, asking that they photograph their vows. The young couple in the photography studio refused and were surprised when they were taken before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were equally surprised when that commission found they had no rights of religion in this country. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission said that you are guilty of violating a different law, one that did not comport with the Constitution. They fined them $6,000. The young couple appealed to the New Mexico appeals courts, and just recently, the New Mexico Court of Appeals found also that they were in violation--a court of appeals in this country ignorant of what the Constitution protects. It's exactly these kinds of things that our Founding Fathers were alarmed about--commissions that would show up and tell you what you had to believe, what you had to profess. Catholics are afraid they're going to have to provide contraceptives from a government of the same mind. Doctors who are opposed to abortion fear that this government is going to tell them what they must do in violation of their consciences. Are we, the American people, supposed to stand by? I think not. I think it's time for us all--not just Congress, not just your Representatives, but all--to raise their voices and speak out against a government that is too strong and that has forgotten its limitations written into that Constitution, especially under the First Amendment-- protecting our free exercise of religion. Speak with us. Stand up and speak with us.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Right now, emerging technologies critical to our readiness and the safety of our soldiers has developed 23 major range and test facilities within DOD. Recently, a problem has come to our attention, and that problem plays out in the White Sands Missile Range that's in my district. Basically, this center piece of the range is controlled by DOD, the land and the air above it. These pieces here, the north and the south, the air is controlled by the Department of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, but the land is controlled by the BLM. And the BLM recently has approved an encroachment across this land which threatens 33 percent of the missions in White Sands. There's a launch facility that is up in this very northern corner, and we use the entire 140-mile length. It's the largest overland test base, and we use that to test these new emerging technologies. With the encroachment, then it endangers fully one-third of the missions of the base. So our amendment simply says that no Secretary of any agency should be able to come in here and put at risk these tests of the 23 different sites located with DOD and with a split jurisdiction like we have here. It's a very simple amendment. It simply says that you've got to go through the process and ask the people here. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. I yield the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) 1\1/ 2\ minutes.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, again, the situation is quite simple and quite transparent. We're just trying to resolve who can make the decisions on land that is owned by one agency and aerospace owned by the other. Nowhere else in the U.S., nowhere else in the world do we have this long, uninterrupted range in which we can test weapons. The recovery of the bodies of those weapons gives us great insight into the failures or the successes. So if we're going to preserve this national asset, this ability to test new and different weapons, then let's get a clear line of understanding. I would urge passage of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and we will hold those comments quietly between ourselves here. You bring up a point that absolutely must be discussed in public. We need to highlight those things that are going on right now from our government towards its citizens. Our Founding Fathers understood this policy very well, this concept. They said: When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. I hear constantly from people in America right now that we fear the government, we fear the retribution, we fear that they're going to come in and take things from us, that they're listening to us at all times. Many would discard that as simply paranoia, until now. An 83-year-old grandmother in Albuquerque, New Mexico, who I've known for the last 15 years, since I've gotten into political circles--she's probably the most joyful, ebullient person in all of politics because she's here for what comes in the heart, not for what it can do for her. You see, she's a naturalized citizen who was born in Indonesia. She came here and ended up, from ages 12 to 16, spending time in the Japanese internment camps because of her origin, though she's not Japanese herself. She has experienced the government that would become heavy-handed in a time of war. But the government that would become heavy-handed over political processes is a completely different government than that during World War II. She helped establish the Children's Freedom Scholarship Fund, where she hands out patriotic coloring books to youngsters in the Albuquerque area. And because of these activities that got the attention of the IRS, they came in and audited and harassed this 83-year-old grandmother. I had an email before the scandal broke about one of my constituents in Socorro, who said: I was audited and we couldn't figure out why. I talked to my accountant. During the audit, we couldn't figure it out. There was no unusual question. But during the audit, I noticed a handwritten name across my file, and I just made mental note of it. After an audit that asked nothing specific, the auditor asked, Do you know--and he read the name. The guy says, It doesn't ring a bell to me. It did not. On the drive home, he said, Wait a minute. That's that meeting I went to 3 years ago. That's the meeting where I said, I don't want to be a part of this group. They're interested in the Constitution and the debt. I know about all that stuff. He writes a small check, leaves and never goes back. One meeting with the guy who later formed the Tea Party--it wasn't even formed--causes an audit. When our government knows this kind of minute information and is willing to single you out, to veritably persecute you, because persecution is when we're dealt with differently, we have a different set of rules, that then qualifies as persecution. When this government is willing to do that, it causes us to say, Wait. This is not paranoia. This is justifiable fear of our government. A small school in my hometown wanted to charter itself and submitted a 501(c)(3) application. The application was never handled. It went on and on and on. Our office made a call, and then the person listed on the organizational chart was called in for an audit. I will tell you that we were told by the administration spokesman yesterday, Mr. Lew, the Treasury Secretary, that there's absolutely no indication that this was anything political. There's absolutely no indication that it was anything but political, Mr. Lew. Regardless of what you all say down the street, understand that the American people are frightened of the government. They also think, with respect to the idea that we're going to hold people accountable--we hear that: We're going to hold people accountable; we're going to bring them in; we're going to look; we're going to find the facts, and then we're going to hold them accountable. The American people look with a little bit of curious disregard for those statements. Why would Americans be suspicious of the government, that they won't actually do anything to the people who are involved, that they won't actually get to the bottom of it? Well, there's a track record in the last 5 years that has caused the American citizens to look with disdain at any promises that there will be penalties, that the wrongdoers would be punished. You can start with the Fort Hood shooter. He has not yet been brought to trial. He murdered dozens of people, and he has drawn $287,000 in pay because they can't take him off the payroll until he comes to trial. Meanwhile, the victims can't get their pay from the government that they're supposed to receive, and the American people understand an injustice is occurring from this White House because they will not pursue convicting a man that everyone knows has committed murder. Well, it's said that's one instance. We can, then, take a look at Fast and Furious. I was one of the first to call for Attorney General Holder to resign, and we should look more closely at his participation in the Fast and Furious, where rifles were sent across the border and came back and killed an American employee of the Border Patrol. Yet no one has been held accountable for that action there.

Mr. PEARCE. I think the gentleman's points are well made, and to continue the discussion of why Americans might be skeptical about whether anyone will pay any price for what has happened in the targeting of certain groups in this country by the Internal Revenue Service, it's also important that we look at other cases that have not yet been prosecuted and in which wrongdoing occurred. MF Global was a commodities trading firm. Jon Corzine, a Democrat- elected official, took over that firm. It's against the law, when you have your money in these trading accounts, whether it be Merrill Lynch or whoever, it is against the law to take your money out and use it for corporate governance activities, for corporate organizational activities. And yet Jon Corzine reached down into customer accounts and pulled out $1.5 billion of money from account holders and spent it trying to keep his failing organization together. His efforts failed. MF Global filed bankruptcy. That was in 2011, and still Mr. Corzine has not had to answer any questions, has been convicted of no wrongdoing, hasn't been brought to trial, and hasn't had a grand jury impaneled. Bernie Madoff, we saw him take billions from investors. And for decades, the regulators had reports that he was doing it, and not one regulator has been held accountable for their oversights and omissions. No one has ever checked. So when we hear the administration say, Trust us; we're going to get to the bottom of this IRS scandal and we're going to hold people accountable, there is an anger building among the American people that says we don't think that Washington will hold anyone accountable. You have the AP reporters whose phone records were gotten, and not just the ones who were involved, but the broad pool of reporters, and yet nothing is happening to the people in the Justice Department who did that. Benghazi is another element where we believe no one will ever be held accountable. In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says, What does it matter? What it matters, ma'am, is that someone allowed American soldiers to be killed without reinforcements. C-130s were within flying time. Drones were there. Lasers were locked onto the artillery that were firing rounds into that compound, and no one says a word. And so we have the Internal Revenue Service investigating and holding audits for law-abiding citizens like this 83-year-old grandmother. Meanwhile, there are over $1 billion of unpaid taxes by Federal employees. Why doesn't the Internal Revenue Service go after the Federal employees who refuse to pay their own taxes. The highest profile case is Mr. Geithner, who became Treasury Secretary; and we were told that he's such an important person, he can't be held to account for small actions like that. Yet one political party, one political viewpoint has been singled out by this administration in order to put the chill on people who might be involved in activities that would disagree with the government. We've seen governments like this before in American history. We've seen tyrants before. We've seen tyranny before in world history, and I think Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are going to stand up on these issues and demand accountability from Washington. I think the American people are coming together with a will and a backbone that will stand up and say, You, the people who perpetrated these evils and these crimes, will be accountable. That's what makes this country great. That's what makes this country the envy of all other nations because we have a Constitution that our Founding Fathers put in place which gives the people the power. The government is working at the approval of the American people. I think the American people are coming together across racial lines, across party lines, across religious and cultural lines to say that we demand accountability from our government officials, that we will not allow any citizen to be treated this way. The Nation spoke this way when it was Richard Nixon, and I think the Nation will speak this way under this administration. The parallels are extreme. When the government gets too strong, it's time for the people to stand up and say, No, you are not all powerful, that we the people do establish and ordain. I think the people of this country are going to question this establishment and are ordaining. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

Mr. PEARCE. I am. I've been there many times. They're people concerned about small government. They're concerned about the debt and the deficit. They understand that these are the biggest risks that we face, and they speak articulately and coherently about that. They are also groups that hold elected officials accountable for their actions. I think those are positive things.

Mr. PEARCE. We had been listening. Before everyone recognized it was a nationwide scandal, we were hearing these reports. No matter that we disagreed with the Obama administration on policies, we never believed these reports to be true. So we investigated, but you could never substantiate. And now, then, 2 and 3 and 4 years later, to find out that it was systemic, that it was intentional, and that it was politically motivated causes one to fear for the very institution that we call our Constitution and our government.

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, I would agree with the gentleman. Something seems awry. The American people have a fascinating intuitiveness about them. It's reported that the unions spent $40 million to defeat Scott Walker. The reason Scott Walker won, he won 40 percent of the union vote. People who are supposedly represented by the union bosses understand that when their leadership begins to take this country in the wrong direction, that they will exercise their voices and they will speak up; and that's the very powerful reminder that we, as people, have at the ballot box. When the American people are left without government interference, without government threats, without the IRS intimidation, the American people choose rightly an awfully big percentage of the time. So I have the ultimate belief, because I'm hearing Democrats here on Capitol Hill as outraged as Republicans. I heard Republicans under the Nixon administration as outraged as Democrats. It's when we come together in a common belief that our Nation, regardless of political viewpoints, represents all viewpoints, that we all have a right to speak, that we all have a right to compel. That's what's made us strong through our history. And so those Democrats who now are saying that the IRS and this administration have gone too far are the strength of this country, as Republicans were under the Nixon administration. So I have the ultimate belief that we, as Americans, are coming together again in our core principles to understand that no government, no matter which party, is powerful enough to come in and have watchdogs over us, to allow members of their party to take $1.5 billion from segregated accounts without being held accountable for the criminal actions. They understand that we cannot break the laws of this Nation and other nations, sending guns to a foreign country illegally; not even the government can do that. And they understand there's something intrinsically wrong when we hear the pleas of our four embassy personnel saying we need help, and we refuse it. The American people have had enough. It doesn't matter that it's Democrat. If it was a Republican, it would be enough too. And I think the American people are coalescing into an idea that we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And I believe that coalescing is going to provide us the framework for a new political institution. Don't know what it'll look like, don't know how it's going to shape up, but the American people are saying that enough is enough. Enough corruption. Enough scandals. Let's start cleaning out the mess. And that's what I hear from constituents from both parties every week I'm at home. We're going to continue our work here, but I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his bringing this issue to the floor.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 142, I am not recorded because I was absent from the House of Representatives for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 137, I am not recorded because I was absent from the House of Representatives for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, April is National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month. In fact, today is National DNA Day, where we commemorate the discovery of DNA's double helix and the subsequent scientific advancements. DNA has revolutionized public safety and criminal justice in this country. It helps solve unsolved crimes. Since its inception in 1994, the DNA database system has solved more than 200,000 cold cases that provided closure to over 200,000 families. It assists prosecutors in taking criminals off the streets. It also exonerates the innocent, having freed more than 300 convicted criminals. Katie Sepich was a 22-year-old graduate student at New Mexico State University in my district. In August of 2003, she was brutally raped, burned, strangled to death, and abandoned at a dumpsite. But Katie Sepich was a fighter, having the DNA of her offender under her fingernails. Through DNA, they were able to find and convict her offender and put him in jail. The bill, which was signed into law here in this Congress last year, helps the State collect evidence. DNA has transformed our justice system and provided closure for families.

Mr PEARCE

Mr PEARCE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 39 I was unavoidably detained, due to a public hearing scheduled by the Administration in my district. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall 40 I was unavoidably detained, due to a public hearing scheduled by the Administration in my district. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work on the Prayer Caucus. I would also acknowledge my good friend, Mike McIntyre, for his work. This idea of religious freedom and liberty is indeed a bipartisan issue. Our Founding Fathers came here from countries that had monarchs-- kings--kings that could tell a person who they were to marry, what job they could have, what level of education they might attain. They could tell you what church you must be a member of. It was those state- ordained religions that many came to this country to get away from. They came here with an idea of a government that could only declare what your freedoms were, not limit those freedoms. It was that freedom of religion that caused many of the colonies to be organized differently, by different faiths--and some by no faith at all. It was in that backdrop that the Constitution was written which caused our Founding Fathers great pause. The initial Constitution was written and could not be ratified. It could not be ratified by enough States until more freedoms were added, more freedoms that began with the First Amendment to the Constitution, the amendment that declared that we would have religious freedoms, that the government could make no laws concerning those freedoms. Our Founding Fathers well understood the value of free and open expression of religious faith, one that was free from the tentacles of government, one that was free for each person to choose, to exercise or to not exercise. Our Founding Fathers were not hesitant to declare their reliance on divine guidance. Shortly after our Revolution--that revolution of ideas that started this grand experiment of self-governance--it was amazing that France decided they would try the same thing. But they were oh so uncertain about this divine guidance, this relationship with a higher power; and so they wanted something more tangible. Their revolution became about reason. The problem with reason was that it was a human-ordained institution. We ourselves, we as people would not acknowledge that we were to comply with a higher power. That reliance on reason among men resulted in the chaos that became the French Revolution. It never found the success that the American Revolution had. I believe that much of that failure--and much of our success--was the difference in reliance, that difference of internal commitment to values and rules outside oneself. Our Founding Fathers well understood that we, in order to have a Republic, must be a moral Nation. They declared that a Republic or democracy--whichever you would call it--can't impose through tremendous tyrannical restraints. It depends on us having a voluntary compliance with laws. They feared a Federal Government that was too strong. The Constitution repeatedly limits the power of the Federal Government because they knew what strong centralized governments would do. They had to escape from Europe to get away from those exact things. Today, we find a central government that is willing to compromise our freedom of religion and the freedom of expression of religion. Whether a person has a religious belief or not, it should cause you concern that this government is willing to take away the conscience protections. To make people buy products that offend their basic core beliefs should be alarming to any single member of this country, any single citizen. To find a government that will declare doctors have to perform acts that offend their very conscience is something that should give us all pause. But, instead, we see a Federal Government charging more heartily into the fray, even to diminishing and dismissing the belief in a higher power. I think that that's the reason that the Congressional Prayer Caucus is so necessary and so needed at this time, because a Nation that forgets the real values is at risk of much greater catastrophe than what we've seen thus far, much greater catastrophe than an economy sagging brings, the loss of jobs brings. Because right now, we in America are struggling to find out what's in our heart. We see many who are declaring that people are essentially good. The problem is not the person; the problem is in the guns, for example. I would say that the greater problem in America is not guns. The problem in America is the heart of America. Until we acknowledge and begin to reflect on that, until we begin to teach the new generations the importance of our heart in aligning with the heart of God, I think this Nation is going to go through more turmoil, more questions. Our recommendation is that this Congress would stay away from limiting religious freedoms. I would request that every single citizen of this country contemplate those limitations that are currently being considered, those attempts to silence those in the faith community. A secular government is far different from a secular society, and yet that appears to be the discussion that we're having. So, again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership in this issue. I would like to thank all of the members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus. But I would especially like to thank the members and the citizens of this country for the unflagging belief that there is something more important than the human ideas. There's something more powerful, more stable, and more permanent than our current viewpoints on policies. Those are the laws of God that are inherent and knowledgeable to each one of us. Again, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for leading this discussion one more time. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those were the values described by our Founding Fathers. And against that backdrop, we must understand that a Nation is judged the same way that people are judged. We're judged by how we speak for those least able to speak for themselves. The most fragile in any circumstance are those with no voice at all, the unborn. And on this day, 40 years after a Supreme Court decision, 50 million voices with no representation, no opportunity to speak, how will this Nation be judged? I think the answer is clear. Our Supreme Court at that time expressed conflict on when life began, but today's science leaves no conflict. DNA is established on day one. The heartbeat is visible soon thereafter. What Nation would put mothers at odds with their unborn children and declare it to be a matter of choice? This is no matter of choice; it's a constitutional question of protection of life. It's a value that--our Founding Fathers would blanch at our definition today. They would have no concept that we would have these discussions. But the hope lies ahead of us because the younger generations are seeing the technological replays of the unborn and know that it's more than a mass of tissue. Their standing in greater numbers on behalf of life, as is every one of us who are speaking here today. May God bless this Nation as we seek to protect the unborn.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Amendment VIII: ``Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.'' Amendment IX: ``The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'' Amendment X: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for his leadership on this. I rise in strong support of H.R. 6014. Today, Katie Sepich, pictured here, tells us a lot. She is fun, loving, vibrant, outgoing. She was leader in her age group. She made things happen. Katie, beginning in January of 2002, was in her last year of grad school. During that year, in one of the last conversations with her daughter, Jayann Sepich--her mom--asked her the same question that many of us receive from our parents: What are you going to do when you graduate with your master's degree in business? The reply was the same one that many of us have given: I'm not sure, but I want to change the world. That's what each one of us as parents aspires to develop in our children--it's what each one of us tries to train them for--and Katie was at the point of decision. She was on her way until her journey of life was brutally interrupted by someone who raped her and strangled her. Then he burned her body and left her body abandoned at a dumpsite. Now, there was a full DNA sample under Katie's fingernails, attesting to Katie's character, but the uploaded DNA did not match anything in the government database. Meanwhile, Gabriel Avila was arrested 6 weeks after the murder; but because New Mexico and the Federal Government had no laws, no DNA sample was taken, and so no match was made. For 3 years, Mr. Avila walked free on the streets of America and on the streets of New Mexico after having committed this horrendous crime, but there was nothing to link them until New Mexico passed a statute very similar to this one that we are passing today. It simply said that we are going to collect DNA samples when we have people who are under the suspicion of violent crimes. It is no different than my fingerprints, which are available to anyone who wants to look. They were taken by the U.S. Government when I entered into the United States Air Force. I understand the constitutional concerns, but I also understand the pain of families who have no answers. After New Mexico passed this law, Mr. Avila committed another violent crime. This time, by New Mexico law, they had to take his DNA sample, and immediately they matched that now-3-year-old crime that took Katie's life. All this bill does is simply help provide funds to States to take these DNA samples. The U.S. Government will put them in the database and compare them. They're the 21st-century version of fingerprints. One in six American women is a victim of rape or attempted rape, and 90 percent of the people who commit the crimes are repeat offenders like Mr. Avila; yet they walk free because we care more for the rights of perpetrators than of victims. This bill will not prevent violent crimes, but it will help stem the tide of the repeat offenders.

Mr. PEARCE. Dave and Jayann Sepich, Katie's parents, have worked tirelessly, first to get the bill through New Mexico and then to get it to the attention of the Federal Government. The bill stands poised here on the floor of the House of Representatives today, asking that we as Americans and we as legislators take a stand on behalf of the families who have young daughters and young sons who want to change the world; and maybe, just maybe, we will do something right here. Katie's legacy will live on no matter what we do here today, because of her parents and because of her sacrifice. I humbly suggest that we would want to pass this bill.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, New Mexico is celebrating its centennial this year, 100 years as a State. It's not one of the oldest States, but it's one of the richest in diversity, history, and cooperation, home to 19 individual pueblos, two Apache Indian tribes, numerous Navajo chapters. The Spanish came north out of Mexico in the 16th century looking for the seven cities of gold. We're still looking for those today. We did find black gold under the east side of the State and in the northwest corner. New Mexico is home to an agriculture industry that is second to none. It shows the earliest existence of humans there. Clovis Man is named for a town in the east side of New Mexico where they were discovered. Santa Fe is the oldest capital in America, formed in 1610. But that's not where the richness of New Mexico is. It is in our traditions, traditions of hard work, traditions of faith, family, freedom, and service to others. Those are the values I learned when my parents came to New Mexico. They went broke in Texas, came to New Mexico, and built a family there. That's the richness of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I commend New Mexico on its 100 years.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. This bill is straightforward and simple. It allows the Mescalero Apache Indian Tribe to permit or lease or transfer their water rights for a term up to 99 years. The courts decided that they would have these rights back in 1993, but we need the legislation that would permit it. This effort is bipartisan. It's even pursued in both the House and the Senate--Senator Bingaman has a bill--so it's noncontroversial. It simply does the right thing. It's important. It allows the tribe self-determination and it also gives them economic opportunities. The leasing of the water rights will provide them with revenues that they desperately need. It's for the best interest of all New Mexicans. During this current drought, water is of scarce supply in New Mexico, and this would allow the tribe to lease water to communities that are desperately needing water at this point. It's important to the tribes. It's important to New Mexico. I recommend that all vote for H.R. 1461, and urge its passage.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking Subcommittee Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Holmes Norton, Committee Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Rahall for moving H.R. 3742. I rise today in strong support of this bill. This bill is very simple. It would name the United States courthouse located in Las Cruces, New Mexico, as the Edwin L. Mechem United States Courthouse. Governor Mechem was a community leader who dedicated his life to public service. He was a four-term Governor of New Mexico and the first Governor born in New Mexico post-statehood. Governor Mechem also served New Mexico as a member of the New Mexico House of Representatives, in the United States Senate, and as a United States district judge for the district of New Mexico. He presided as United States district judge from 1970 until his death in 2002. Governor Mechem was born in Alamogordo, New Mexico, shortly after New Mexico gained statehood. He attended what later became New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico. And following graduation from the University of Arkansas School of Law, he returned to New Mexico to practice law. Despite having a successful law practice, Governor Mechem answered America's call and joined the FBI during World War II. After the Allied victory, Governor Mechem returned to his practice, but then ran for a seat in the house of representatives, for which he was elected. He served two terms in the State house, then made a successful bid for Governor of the State of New Mexico. He went on to become the only four-term Governor of New Mexico. Governor Mechem then served 2 years as a United States Senator. On October 8, 1970, Governor Mechem took the next step of his life in service when he was confirmed by the United States Senate as United States district judge for the district of New Mexico. He dutifully served in that position until his death in 2002. In a letter to my office, his wife Josephine Mechem wrote: He loved this State from one end to the other, and vacations were rarely taken outside of New Mexico. All his life, the thing he loved most was to spend his free time driving the back roads, checking the water situation, and seeing that all was well with our crops, our businesses, and our communities. This year marks the 100th anniversary of New Mexico's statehood, and July 2, 2012, was Governor Mechem's 100th birthday. Naming this courthouse the Edwin L. Mechem United States Courthouse during 2012 is an honor befitting his life of service; and, as such, I ask my colleagues in the House to vote in favor of H.R. 3742. I would also strongly encourage quick action and passage by our friends in the Senate.