Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown). (Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal), one of the chief authors of the bill.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent request to Mr. Duncan.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the majority whip, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have before us today an extremely important bill. Earlier in the day we had quite a bit of debate on the rule. Unfortunately, much of that debate had very little to do with this bill. Much of that debate had more to do with other issues that Congress has failed to address over the last several years; but we do have the opportunity today to move forward in terms of a national energy policy and taking a step in the right direction. I look forward to a very active debate, a very insightful debate; and I hope that my colleagues can actually debate the bill that is in front of us today because that is what we are debating. I hope that we have the opportunity to have a full hearing on what is important to this country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. POMBO. Yes, sir. Reclaiming my time, it actually gives the State the first 50 miles that they do not have to do anything, and they could ban anything within that first 50 miles.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4761.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I am filing in the House a copy of the private sector mandate analysis for H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006. This analysis was not included in the cost estimate prepared for the Committee on Resources' report on the bill. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, June 28, 2006. Hon. Richard W. Pombo, Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed estimate of the impacts of private- sector mandates in H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006. CBO's analysis of the federal costs and intergovernmental impact of H.R. 4761 was transmitted on June 26, 2006. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Tyler Kruzich. Sincerely, Donald B. Marron, Acting Director. H.R. 4761--Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006 Summary: H.R. 4761 would make several changes to programs related to the development of federally-owned resources, particularly oil and natural gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The bill would impose new ``conservation of resources'' fees on oil and natural gas production on certain deep-water acreage, as well as on all deep-water acreage that is not in production. At the same time, the bill would make additional areas of the OCS available for lease for oil and natural gas production. It also would change some of the terms of existing leases to the benefit of the lessees. CBO estimates that, if the bill were enacted, private entities would make additional payments to the government totaling about $12.5 billion over the 2007-2016 period. It is unclear whether those payments would be the result of new mandates as defined in the Unfunded Reform Mandates Act (UMRA). Private-sector mandates contained in the bill: H.R. 4761 would establish a set of ``conservation of resources'' fees for certain leaseholders. Section 6 would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require that the Department of the Interior issue regulations establishing a ``conservation of resources'' fee set at $9 per barrel for oil and $1.25 per million Btu for natural gas on production from certain leased acreage. This fee would effectively apply to certain deep- water leases entered into in 1998 and 1999 that provided royalty relief regardless of the market price of oil or gas. Those leaseholders could avoid the fee, though, if they request that the Secretary of the Interior renegotiate the royalty relief provisions of their original leases so that they would pay royalties on oil and gas production when prices exceed $40.50 per barrel of oil and $6.75 per million Btu of natural gas (both prices in 2006 dollars). The Department of the Interior also would be required to issue regulations establishing a ``conservation of resources'' fee on all acreage that is not in production for both new and existing leases. The bill would direct the Secretary to set that fee at no less than $1 per acre and no more than $4 per acre. Both fees would apply retroactively to volumes produced since October 1, 2005. CBO estimates that leaseholders affected by the fee on wells currently in production would pay an additional $11.4 billion over the next 10 years. assuming most leaseholders opt to pay royalties under a renegotiated lease instead of the proposed fee. The ``conservation of resources'' fee on leased acreage that is not in production would cost the private sector an estimated $1.1 billion over the next 10 years. These costs to the private sector are equal to the fees that would be collected by the federal government, as reported in CBO's federal cost estimate of H.R. 4761 released on June 26, 2006. It is, however, unclear whether these fees are mandates as defined in UMRA. The fees would apply to existing deep-water leases that include a standard provision providing that they are subject to ``all regulations issued pursuant to [the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act] in the future which provide for the prevention of waste and conservation of the natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf and the protection of correlative rights therein.'' Excluded from UMRA's definition of ``federal private-sector mandate'' are duties ``arising from participation in a voluntary federal program.'' Therefore, CBO considers any requirements that are imposed pursuant to a voluntary contract with the federal government, such as a deep-water lease, not to be private- sector mandates. It is unclear whether the imposition of ``conservation of resources'' fees is so clearly contemplated by the existing lease agreements that it can be said to have been voluntarily accepted by the leaseholders and therefore is not a mandate under UMRA. If the fees do not constitute pre-existing duties under the leases, they would represent new enforceable duties imposed by H.R. 4761 and would be mandates under UMRA. The bill contains other changes in the financial terms of oil and gas leases that would benefit the private sector. Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would offer some OCS areas for leasing that otherwise may not be leased over the next 10 years under current policies. Section 17 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to repurchase and cancel certain federal leases and to compensate the lessee for the amount that the lessee would receive in a restitution case for material breach of contract. Also, some terms of existing leases would be changed to the benefit of leaseholders. Previous CBO estimate: CBO's analysis of the federal costs and intergovernmental impact of H.R. 4761 was transmitted on June 26, 2006. Estimate Prepared by: Tyler Kruzich. Estimate approved by: Joseph Kile, Assistant Director for Microeconomic Studies.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in recent memory, Kelo v. City of New London. One year ago, the Court struck a blow against property owners everywhere and delivered the government's long-standing assault on property rights on farms and ranches in rural America right to the doorsteps of American suburbs. The Kelo decision expanded the traditional understanding of ``public benefit''--roads, bridges, schools, etc.--to include more abstract benefits like tax revenue. If a local bureaucrat decides that your house, local church, or business would be more productive if it were torn down to make room for a shopping center, the Court now says this is ok. The 5th Amendment guarantees that private property shall not be taken by the government for public use without just compensation. These safeguards have been under assault for decades and until this decision, the typical victims were family farmers and ranchers in the West. Now we know no one is safe. In the past year, more than 5,700 properties have been threatened or taken by eminent domain, not to build roads or schools, but for private development. This is unconscionable and goes against everything our Nation stands for. This terrible ruling did have a silver lining--it brought great public attention and outrage to an issue some of us in Congress have been fighting for our entire careers. In the wake of the decision, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act. Using Congress' power of the purse, we made a strong, bipartisan statement to State and local governments that the abuse of eminent domain for private purposes would not be tolerated. Any use of eminent domain for private benefit would result in a two-year loss of federal economic development funds. Similar restrictions were placed on funds in the FY06 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The fight has also been taken up at the local level, with 25 states passing legislation aimed at curbing eminent domain abuse. This was a heartening response, but there is much more to be done. The Senate must act on similar legislation. And, we can further what we have started by introducing more legislation to protect private property. While the initial public outcry over this decision has died down, these abuses are still occurring every day, and we must keep up the fight. Mr. Speaker, property rights are the heart of individual freedom and the foundation for all other civil rights guaranteed to Americans by the Constitution. Without the freedom to acquire, possess and defend property, all other guaranteed rights are merely words on a page. As we look back on one year of life under Kelo, we must never forget the simple truth. We must be steadfast in our defense of the rights of property owners.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honor of welcoming Father Luke Palumbis to offer the Morning Prayer in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives. Today marks the first day of summer and indeed the sun is shining down upon the Capitol as we open the morning hour, as we do each day the House of Representatives is in session, with a prayer to express our tremendous gratitude and to instill the strength to act resolutely and with sound judgment with the day's proceedings. I am pleased to have Father Palumbis here to give thanks and prayer to the proceedings of the House. He has taken the time to fly from Stockton, California, where he serves the Greek Orthodox community of Saint Basil. This is a historic occasion as it is the first time an Orthodox clergyman from the west coast has given the Morning Prayer, and I am pleased he comes from California's 11th Congressional district. A canonically ordained priest of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Father Palumbis graduated from Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, in Brookline, MA, with a Master in Divinity in 2003, and is currently enrolled in a Master in Theology Thesis program at the same institution. Previously Father Palumbis attended the University of Portland, in Portland, OR, where he earned a Bachelor of Business Administration and was a member of the university's intercollegiate basketball team. Father Palumbis is married to his wife Eleni Palumbis and they are awaiting the birth of their first child next month. I wish them both the very best of health and happiness back home in Stockton.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on June 19, 2006 on the House floor. I take responsibility to vote very seriously and would like my intentions included in the Congressional Record. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 289 for H.R. 5540, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 217 Southeast 2nd Street in Dimmitt, Texas, as the Sergeant Jacob Dan Dones Post Office; ``yea'' on rollcall 290 for H.R. 5504, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6029 Broadmoor Street in Mission, Kansas, as the Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Building; and ``yea'' on rollcall 291 for H. Res. 826, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a National Youth Sports Week should be established.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Coral Reef Conservation Legacy Act of 2006, an important environmental conservation bill, during Congressional Oceans Week. This legislation builds on the foundation of bills introduced earlier this Congress by Senator Inouye and Congressman Faleomavaega. Both of those bills sparked a discussion on coral reef conservation. I appreciate the leadership of these two gentlemen on this issue and I look forward to working with them as the legislation moves through Congress. The development of the Coral Reef Conservation Legacy Act is a result of a collaborative effort to incorporate comments from a number of coral reef experts within the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the Coral Reef Task Force, and non-governmental organizations. All of these groups made suggestions on ways to improve the earlier legislation and this bill incorporates a number of their suggestions. I believe the Coral Reef Conservation Legacy Act will benefit coral reef conservation and will strengthen the roles of the states and territories through community-based planning grants and through the Local Action Strategies. The bill supports the continued use of these successful conservation management tools. To be successful in the long-term it is imperative to have the local and regional entities involved in the conservation of coral reef resources from the start. This legislation also recognizes the important role the Department of the Interior has played in coral reef conservation and would authorize much needed funding for their activities. This bill, however, does not change the fundamental jurisdictions and roles of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce, but recognizes that the Department of the Interior has a role in this endeavor. In addition the bill continues to support and recognize the accomplishments and conservation efforts of the Department of Commerce. Both agencies have participated in coral reef conservation activities and this bill encourages their continued cooperation and coordination. While the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 has been very successful in restoring and protecting coral reefs, it has had limitations in its grant program. The Coral Reef Conservation Legacy Act would allow for multi-year cooperative agreements between the Federal Government and other agencies, states, territories, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations. This multi-year authority will allow more stability in funding for important projects that might now be finalized in or limited to one year. This legislation also codifies the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. The Task Force has been an important voice for coral reef activities and has coordinated the activities in support of coral reef conservation. This codification recognizes the important work of the Task Force and the indispensable role they have played in the conservation of coral reefs. The Coral Reef Conservation Legacy Act will continue the ongoing efforts to protect and restore coral reefs. I look forward to working with my colleagues as this bill moves through the legislative process.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 2006 I missed recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 226, 225, 224, and 223.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to extend the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. Joining with me in this effort are Representatives Nick Rahall, Wayne T. Gilchrest, Thelma Drake, Mark Kennedy, John D. Dingell and Curt Weldon. First enacted in 1989, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act or NAWCA has become one of the most popular and effective conservation programs in the history of this Nation. Since the first Wetland Grant was a warded 15 years ago, more than 1,500 conservation projects have been funded involving more than 3,200 partners. As a result, more than 23 million acres of wetlands and associated habitat has been protected, restored or enhanced in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Wetlands are among the world's most productive environments. They are critical to the survival of not only thousands of species of marine fish and invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds and wildlife populations but also to the people who live along our coasts. In essence, they are horizontal levees. Without these wetlands and coastal barriers, the impact of last year's huge hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico would have been far worse in terms of loss of human life and wildlife habitat and the destruction of private property. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, for every 2.7 miles a hurricane travels across marshes and wetlands the storm surge is reduced by one foot. Wetlands protect ground and surface water, purify water by removing sediments and nutrients, reduce the severity of flooding, prevent erosion and provide habitat for a diverse community of plants, animals, fish and birds. In particular, millions of migratory birds depend on wetlands throughout their life cycles as breeding, staging and resting grounds. Sadly, more than half of our Nation's original colonial wetlands have been lost. The fundamental goal of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act is to conserve remaining wetland habitat. It is a program that is working and it is a sound investment of U.S. taxpayer funds. In my own Congressional District in California, there have been a number of approved NAWCA projects. A recent example is the $1 million grant issued to the North San Joaquin Valley Wetland Habitat Project to protect, restore and enhance over 36,000 acres of wetlands, riparian and upland habitats. The prime sponsor of this project is the California Waterfowl Association. This organization is working, with local landowners to ensure that critical habitat can provide maximum benefits to migratory birds and a host of other wildlife species. Under their leadership, the California Waterfowl Association and its non- governmental partners will contribute $2.3 million towards the success of this grant. Since the inception of this program, the amount of private non- governmental matching money has been remarkable. In fact, it now stands in excess of $2.1 billion. This unique public-private wetland conservation partnership effort is a classic case of how government should work and because of these proactive conservation grants dozens of species are witnessing a renaissance in the growth in their population numbers. It is, therefore, not surprising that this program has been enthusiastically supported by nearly every conservation organization in America including Ducks Unlimited, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, California Waterfowl Association, National Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy, the National Rifle Association, Pheasants Forever and the Wildlife Management Institute. For the past 5 years, Congress has appropriated about $40 million each year for the North American Wetlands Conservation Program. In its budget submission, the Bush administration recommend an allocation of $41.6 million and under current law the maximum amount that can be appropriated in FY'07 is $75 million. Under the terms of this legislation, the North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2006, existing funding levels would be extended for an additional 5 years. Mr. Speaker, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act has been remarkably effective and successful in conserving wetlands. This program has earned an extension and I compliment my colleagues for joining with me in this effort. I am confident that this important legislation will be warmly embraced by the Administration and President Bush who has stated that ``The North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act shows our concern for the environment and our respect for future generations of Americans''. I look forward to giving the President the opportunity to sign this important conservation measure into law this year.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements and hard work of Carol Davis. Carol is President and CEO of Manteca's Give Every Child a Chance Program. Give Every Child a Chance is committed to developing and maintaining a quality mentor program that will have a positive impact on the lives of children in our community. In 2005, the Association of California School Administrators, ACSA, had selected the Give Every Child a Chance Program as the year's Partners in Educational Excellence Award recipient. Through Carol's leadership, Give Every Child a Chance has touched the lives of thousands of students throughout the San Joaquin area. The program provides innovative approaches to deal with the complex challenges facing public education. Give Every Child a Chance was nominated by Manteca Unified School District Superintendent, Dr. Cathy Nichols-Washer and was selected by a panel of school administrators throughout the State. Carol's dedication to the future of our children is one that has not gone unnoticed, and I would like to wish her many more years of continued success.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Madam Speaker, I do agree with one thing that my colleague and neighbor from California said, which is that this motion to recommit has absolutely nothing to do with ANWR, because it has absolutely nothing to do with ANWR. It is, again, a cynical attempt to try to kill the bill. While I have to share his concerns over a so-called mistake that was made by the Clinton administration, that they forgot to put price triggers in when they were signing multiple leases with oil companies, they somehow forgot to put in those triggers that said when oil did reach $55 a barrel that they wouldn't get royalty relief anymore. In the bill that they are trying to recommit, there is no royalty relief in the bill. Again, the motion to recommit has absolutely nothing to do with the bill that they are trying to recommit. What does concern me is that at this point, trying to kill the chance of creating 250,000 to 750,000 new American jobs, somehow that is okay for political gain, I imagine. It kills the chance to increase the amount of money to our Treasury by CRS' estimate of between $111 billion and $170 billion, which far exceeds any royalties they would collect under this scheme that they have cooked up. It kills the chance to lower our dependence on foreign oil. As I said in my closing, at some point they have to say ``yes.'' At some point you have to say ``yes'' to new American energy. At some point you have to be for something. Being against everything is not an energy policy. A cynical attempt to try to kill this bill again is not going to win this time. It hasn't won the 11 times before this, and it is not going to carry this time. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and to support the underlying bill.

Mr. POMBO. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have had this debate before many, many times with all of my colleagues that had an opportunity to come to the floor today and voice their opinions. Quite frankly, this is about a lot more than just opening up ANWR. We have narrowed this down to a couple of thousand acres out of an area nearly the size of 100 million acres, and that is what this bill actually deals with. But, obviously, we have heard a lot about energy policy in general. Unfortunately, our energy policy in this country for the last 30 years has basically been to become more and more and more dependent on foreign energy sources. Every time an idea has come forward about opening up a new area, about creating more domestic energy, about keeping jobs here at home, those on the minority side have voted against it. We have heard them talk a lot today about alternative energy and renewable energy, and they are right. We need to invest in renewable energy and alternative energy. They are absolutely correct on that. In fact, last year, we had a vote on alternative renewable energy, and almost every single one of them voted against it. They are not consistent in terms of their arguments and their votes. Quite frankly, we do need to adopt an energy policy that really does reflect the future of America. But unless we have people that are willing to create domestic energy, whether that be from increased fossil fuels or whether it be from renewables, we need to have a policy that creates increased domestic energy. Right now we don't have that policy. ANWR is not the answer. ANWR is a small part of the answer. All of the things that you have heard about today are things that we have to do. But we cannot get them through Congress. We cannot get them through the other body unless you are willing to support them. So far, your response to everything has been ``no.'' And you have this pie-in-the-sky that we are going to invent a 100-mile-per-gallon carburetor and all of a sudden our problems are going to go away. They were talking about that the last time we had an energy crisis under Jimmy Carter, and it never happened. I know, somebody bought the patent to that carburetor and it is hidden away in a safe somewhere. Well, you know, your arguments hold about as much water now as they did 30 years ago when you started making them. We need to develop energy here at home. That involves more fossil fuels, because that is what powers our Nation. But it also involves renewable energy, and it involves alternatives. You have got to come up with something better than ``no.'' Right now gas in my district is almost $3.50 a gallon. We need to do something about providing energy here at home. You can't continue to say ``no'' on everything. I encourage my colleagues to finally step up and begin to pass a domestic energy policy that creates energy here at home. ANWR is the first step in that. We will have the opportunity to continue to vote on new technology and new renewable resource issues, and we will see how many of you will step up to the plate and actually vote for the things that today you are saying you are in favor of, because your past history has shown you are not going to vote for it. So as your constituents continue to pay more for gasoline and more for electricity and more for products because the cost of energy has gone up, as they continue to lose their jobs because the cost of natural gas has gone up, at what point will you step up and say ``yes'' to something? Support the underlying bill.