Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. POMBO. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, opening up ANWR would give the State of Wisconsin 83 years of supply; and with that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise just to point out that the estimated oil from ANWR would fuel the State of Connecticut for 132 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the estimated oil that would result out of ANWR would be enough to fuel the entire State of Massachusetts for 75 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the man that has been entrusted to represent the entire State of Alaska.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 835, I call up the bill (H.R. 5429) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in an environmentally sound program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it was brought up during the debate on the rule that this is not a new bill coming before the House. In fact, it is a bill that the House of Representatives has addressed many times in the past. It deals with opening up a small part of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration. Mr. Speaker, during the debate today we are going to have the opportunity to hear a lot about the pros and cons of opening up ANWR and the 2,000 acres that are included in the bill. We will talk about supply and the mean estimate of 10.5 billion barrels of oil that are available to Americans today. We will talk about jobs and the number of those in organized labor who look at between 250,000 and a million jobs, good paying family wage jobs that will be created by opening up this area. We will talk about revenue deficit reduction. CRS recently did a study where they estimate that between $111 and $170 billion will come into the Federal Treasury as a result of opening this up. But one thing that we will talk considerably about is the environment and new technology. And to start today's debate on this, I would like to discuss that, because I believe this is probably one of the most important parts of this entire debate. Many times those that oppose new energy in this country, new energy of any kind whether we are talking about ANWR or alternative energy, they consistently vote against it no matter what it is. And what we are trying to do is open up these new energy sources so that we become less dependent on foreign energy instead of more dependent every single year. When it comes to environmental protection, we have taken that into consideration and have debated this legislation for 25 years. And during those 25 years we have put in more and more in terms of environmental protection. Technology, obviously, has advanced over the last 25 years to the point today where the footprint has been reduced to the size of less than 2,000 acres. They talk about roads, the roads that will be built will be ice roads that will melt away in the summertime. In fact, over half of the bill, over half of the pages in the bill are dedicated to environmental protection. There is nowhere in the world that would have as much in terms of environmental protection and regulation as opening up this area. I do believe that is important. I do believe that it should be included in the bill. That is why it is in the bill. But I will say that the false choice that we will hear from the other side today is either environmental protection or economic progress and economic development. That is not an option. The option that is in front of us is to protect our environment and to have a healthy, strong growing economy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 5429.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today on the House floor. I take my responsibility to vote very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 179; ``yea'' on rollcall 180, or H. Res. 380, the Rule for consideration of H.R. 5384, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007; and ``yea'' on rollcall 181, or H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. On March 9, 2006 I joined 295 of my colleagues in the House in support of H.R. 4681.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today on the House floor. I take my responsibility to vote very seriously and would like my intentions included in the Congressional Record. I had been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on S. 1235, Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2005. Additionally, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2005.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage Chairman Taylor in a colloquy regarding the State Water Research Institute's program.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Resources Committee, I have fought to add more domestic water supplies to blunt the effects of drought, population growth, and environmental mandates. We have made significant progress in this effort, but more change can be made to existing programs to help create more water supplies. One needed reform is to the State Water Research Institute's program which is funded through the USGS in this bill. This program needs to be reauthorized and changed to reflect current-day water supplies. In fact, the Resources Committee held a hearing just last week on Mr. Doolittle's bill to reauthorize the program by adding water supply creation as a focus and to create better transparency and results-oriented research. I have concerns with the appropriation in this bill to a program in desperate need of change, but I want to work cooperatively with the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina to resolve this concern. Absent such authorization, it will be difficult for Congress to continue its support for this program in the future.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. The Chabot amendment is not about fiscal responsibility. The costs within this program, the cost of appeals and litigation, attempts by the agency to bulletproof all of its documents from those lawsuits amounts to 75 percent of the cost of running the program within the agency. In fact, if you took out those costs that are incurred because of lawsuits, the litigation, the appeals, and attempts by the agency to bulletproof their environmental documents, the Tongass forest sales would actually produce a 13 percent profit margin. In an effort to gain support from fiscal conservatives, some group called the Taxpayers for Common Sense has tried to couch this as a fiscal argument, and again 75 percent of the costs are brought in by many of the same groups that are supporting this amendment. These outside groups, because they have not been able to achieve their goals legislatively of completely devastating the forest program and eliminating any kind of timber sales, have now tried to do it in this manner, in bringing it before the appropriations bill and trying to limit the ability. Again, if you look at the actual cost in this entire program, 75 percent of the costs associated with these timber sales are because of the NEPA reviews, the appeals and the litigation. Only 25 percent is the actual cost of preparing the sale. Yes, I guess if you run up enough lawsuits, if you appeal all of those lawsuits, if you continue to badger the Forest Service, you can run up the cost to make this program unprofitable. But this is a long debate we have had in this House; and trying to couch this as a fiscal debate, I believe, is just a smokescreen over what the true intention of most of these outside groups is, and that is just to try to eliminate the timber program completely. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the Chabot-Andrews amendment.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I appreciate your agreeing to offer this amendment and withdraw it. This is a major issue and you have talked to me several times in the past about this issue and the impact that it has on your district. I fully understand that. It is something that we in the committee have taken very seriously. As we move forward with this issue in the committee, it is something that is extremely important to us and to a number of other Members of Congress; and I can guarantee you that as we move forward that the issues that you raise will be taken under consideration. In terms of crossing State lines and having the ability to locate off current reservation land, we will deal with that. Also we have the issue dealing with tribes who do not currently have land in trust. That is a major issue. It is an issue in California, and something we are dealing with in the underlying legislation. As the authorizing committee moves forward, this is something that we are going to address. I appreciate you bringing this to the attention of Congress. I do know that it is a major issue in your district, and we will deal with it.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just wanted to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Walden, for the fantastic job he has done. And I especially want to thank Mr. Baird for the work that he has put into this. This was an effort to bridge across party lines, across different ideologies in order to produce a bill that is better for the environment, better for the communities and better for our entire country, and I thank them for all of the work that they have put into this in working together to produce the kind of legislation that this House can be proud of, because this is the kind of bipartisan effort that produces the kind of legislation that this country deserves. So congratulations to both of you.