Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), co-author of the underlying bill.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Well, George, we have come a long ways. We have come a long ways, because, as you know, I have been working on this since I got here, and when I first started, all I heard was there is nothing wrong with the act that a little bit more money would not solve. Here we are today, everybody saying that there is problems with the law and we have to fix it. So we have come a long ways, and I am being attacked for spending more money under the act on the reauthorization. First of all, I wanted to respond to your comments on jeopardy. We stay with current law. That is what is in the bill, is current law. We stay with current law. We had a different definition in the bill originally, and that caused the administration to say that it would result in new litigation, so we said we will stay with current law; and that eviscerates the act, staying with current law that they have so dutifully defended. I have heard here today that the underlying bill guts, eviscerates, euthanizes, is unreasonable, and then I get a handout that talks about how much the substitute is like the base bill. When it comes to critical habitat, both bills use identical language. When it comes to providing certainty for landowners, both bills contain identical language. When it comes to providing incentives for landowners, both bills contain identical language, and on and on and on, about how much alike the bills are; and yet they gut, eviscerate, euthanize, and they are unreasonable. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) I think is right about this: The real difference between the two bills is how private property rights is protected. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and I spent months debating the meaning of a word, and we finally came pretty close to getting a bill put together. The substitute represents, I think, a step back in the negotiations in that everything that you wanted that you did not get, you put in the substitute; change the words a little bit so that they really do not mean anything. There is no protection for private property owners. I remember 10 years ago, I introduced a bill on endangered species, and one of the major provisions in that bill was to utilize public lands, and I got ripped over it because 90 percent of the species have their habitat on private land. You cannot just put the focus on public lands. You cannot. But if it is going to work, if we are truly going to put the focus on recovery, if we are truly going to try to bring these species back from the brink and do the responsible thing, private property owners have to be part of the solution. We hear a lot of horror stories about things that have happened in my district and Mr. Cardoza's district and Mr. Costa's district and Mr. Baca's district, in your district, Mr. Miller. If you do not do something to protect the property owners, those stories are never going to stop. The act has been a failure in recovering species. Now we can all agree. When it comes to protecting private property owners, regardless of what all the hot rhetoric is, what the underlying law says is that if you meet State and local zoning laws, if you go through the process of getting that approval, then you have something. If you are a farmer farming your land and they tell you that you cannot farm your land anymore, you can get compensated for agriculture land. If you are a developer who has gone through the process, gotten your land zoned and they tell you you cannot use it, then that is what you get compensated for. But once land has that restriction on it, whoever buys it cannot come back again and say they want something else, because they know it is restricted. So this argument is totally out of line and off base. We protect private property owners. That is what leads to recovery. The substitute just does not. Vote against the substitute, support the base bill, and let us move on with some decent legislation. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Tracy National Little League All-star team, from my hometown in Tracy, California. This group of 12-year-olds rose up through the ranks, first becoming District 67 champs, then Section 3 champs, then Northern California champs, and finally Western Region Runner-ups. Players Casey Anklam, Brock Blades, Jeramee Campbell, Dominic D'souze, Alex Flores, Michael Hager, Jacob Lopez, Kyle Moses, Tyler Sanfilippo, Tyler Trew, Jacob Valdez, Joshua Wesley and Casey Wichman showed great talent and teamwork. Their hard work and dedication really paid off, taking them nearly all the way to the Little League World Series. Manager Emmett Lee and Coaches John Moses and Rob Wichman provide great leadership for the boys, and were instrumental in their success. As many of you know, I am a big baseball fan. My son Richie plays on his high school team, and each year I look forward to playing in the Congressional Baseball Game. I am very proud of these kids from Tracy, and know that the skills they learn on the diamond--teamwork, competition, dedication--will serve them well throughout their lives. I look forward to following their progress again next season and know they will be even better.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the United States has been a party to ``The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage'' (World Heritage Convention) for over thirty years. This convention, administered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), currently protects 20 World Heritage Sites in the U.S. Moreover, the ``Tentative List'' of U.S. World Heritage Sites (www.cr.nps.gov/worldheritage) presently contains 70 properties including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In order for a site to be nominated as a potential World Heritage Site, it must first be on a nation's ``Tentative List.'' The House Committee on Resources has jurisdiction over U.S. participation in the World Heritage Convention. Because of my concern for protecting private property rights and American sovereignty, I monitor the activities of the World Heritage Committee as do some U.S. organizations advocating these same principles. Sovereignty International, based in Hollow Rock, TN and chaired by Henry Lamb, contacted me earlier this year requesting my assistance in its efforts to video tape the proceeding of World Heritage Committee's meeting held earlier this month in Durban, South Africa. Despite my efforts to advance this very modest proposal, Sovereignty International's request was denied in writing by the Secretary of UNESCO's World Heritage Committee based in Paris, France. Because I believe strongly that governments and international organizations should make all reasonable efforts to be transparent, I have asked UNESCO for a detailed written explanation of why it denied Sovereignty International's request which is very modest by American standards. I urge my colleagues to read this letter and be forever vigilant in requiring the United Nations and other international organizations to be much more transparent in their daily operations. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC, July 12, 2005. Hon. Francesco Bandarin, Secretary, UNESCO WorId Heritage Committee, Paris, France. Dear Director Bandarin: As you may know, the House Committee on Resources has jurisdiction over the United States' participation in the World Heritage Convention. Earlier this year, I was contacted by Mr. Henry Lamb of Sovereignty International requesting the Committee's assistance in his efforts to tape proceedings of the World Heritage Committee's July meeting in Durban, South Africa. Since Sovereignty International has solid credentials as an NGO and has taped official proceedings of the House Committee on Resources and many federal agencies, I can only consider this modest request as reasonable. As UNESCO frequently advocates increasing its ``transparency'' and this request is not only consistent with but also furthers transparency, it seems only logical that UNESCO would encourage taping of the proceedings. Thus, I was surprised to read your June 22, 2005 letter to Mr. Lamb which stated, ``the World Heritage Committee is a public meeting, except when otherwise decided by the Committee. The World Heritage Committee has not approved requests to film the proceedings in the past.'' To better understand your decision regarding the request to video tape the Durban proceedings, I respectfully request the following: 1. A copy of the World Heritage Committee's official policy on taping that served as guidance for this decision to deny Mr. Lamb's request. 2. A list of Committee Members (and UNESCO and Centre staff) that addressed Mr. Lamb's request and an explanation of how they interpreted this official policy to reach their decision. Minutes of any relevant meetings would be most helpful. 3. A list of other organizations that have requested to ``film the (Committee's) proceedings in the past,'' copies of any correspondence regarding these requests and an explanation as to how each of these requested were handled. Finally, I would like to meet with you on this and other matters when you next visit Washington, DC. It would allow us both to better understand each other's concerns. Thank you in advance for your assistance and a timely reply on this matter. Sincerely, Richard W. Pombo, Chairman.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, on July 29, 2005 I missed one recorded vote. I take my responsibility to vote very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I pledge to the gentleman that as we move forward with a long-term solution, that the interests of all the States bordering the Gulf will be protected, and the gentleman will be part of those discussions.

Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the answer is yes.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with both of the gentlemen and the entire Florida delegation to resolve all of these problems so that we do what is in the best interest of Florida the other States and the country. I appreciate all the work that the gentlemen have put into this already.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. While I want to start off by congratulating the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the great work that went into putting this bill together, I would say this is a good bill. It is not a great bill. I think we started with a great bill in the House, but in the spirit of compromise in working with the other body, we were able to come up with a good bill that is finally going to be able to pass. There is a lot that we need to do to have energy independence in this country and to lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources. A lot of that we did not include in this bill. Unfortunately, ANWR is not in this bill. It increased domestic production. We do not go as far as we should have in being able to streamline the process to bring in more alternative energy and renewable energy. A lot of that we were not able to get in. But it is a good first step. It is a way to move forward. There are a lot of things that we were able to get into this bill that over a period of time will increase domestic production. It is a great start. It is a great way for us to begin to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. One of the things that is frustrating with all of the process is that a lot of my colleagues voted against every single increase, anything that had to do with increasing energy independence in this country. We need to continue to work on this. Again, I congratulate the chairman because I do believe this is a good bill.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will encourage development of our Nation's diverse energy resources, reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, and strengthen the country's energy and economic security. The U.S. has been at the top of the economic food chain for most of recent history. One of the major reasons we've been so successful is that we recognized early-on that the foundation for economic growth is built with energy and minerals. But our continued success fostered apathy and disinterest in the energy and mineral resources that created this success. In the past, U.S. concerns about energy and minerals supplies simply centered on the general issue of availability of these resources for our national purposes. It did not matter if those resources were located in the U.S. or in another country. Over the years, inadequate domestic energy and minerals policies created a regulatory system that discouraged domestic investment. Capital began flowing overseas into resources-rich countries where regulatory and investment climates in the energy and minerals sectors were more attractive. As a result, the U.S. produced less and became increasingly reliant on foreign sources of energy and minerals. Last year, the U.S. imported more than 63% of its oil, placing our energy needs increasingly at the mercy of foreign governments. Yet the U.S. government continues the cycle of tolerating irresponsible energy and mineral policies, thereby continuing to discourage investment in domestic energy and mineral production. The end result is that the U.S. continues to send money and jobs overseas and becomes more dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs. Crude oil prices have hit nominal all-time highs, and natural gas prices are sustaining elevated price levels for the foreseeable future. Additionally, U.S. trade deficit in energy is more than 25 percent of our total balance of payments, and continues to increase at a rapid rate, Today, our problems are two-told. First, the issue of access to domestic resources is still a significant hurdle to bolstering U.S. energy and mineral security. Although industry's technological advancements in exploration and production have sustained some minimal growth, policies preventing access to the responsible development of these resources still remain. Second, the U.S. is facing a global resources future where we are more dependent than ever on foreign sources of energy and minerals while at the same time no longer ``guaranteed'' to be the major recipient of energy and minerals from our traditional foreign suppliers. In fact, emerging economies such as China and India are forever altering the global commodities markets, where demand by these countries for resources such as oil, natural gas, coal, minerals and metals, is outpacing expectations. The road to a better quality of life starts with increased use of energy and mineral commodities. Economic growth rates in China and India have surged as have their demands for energy and mineral resources. The old ``Free World'' versus ``Evil Empire'' dichotomy of energy and minerals availability has been replaced by a rough-and-tumble marketplace for commodities. In that global marketplace, long-running declines in prices for energy and mineral resources have been reversed; and, in the case of mineral commodities, a three decade long decline has been reversed almost overnight. Our energy and mineral supply strategy for the long-term begins with enacting a comprehensive national energy policy that encourages diversity of fuel use, increased domestic production, and self- sufficiency. Among other critically important provisions in this bill, my committee has jurisdiction over Department of Interior (DOI) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) programs that administer the domestic energy and mineral programs for federal lands and the outer continental shelf. Using FY 2005 budget estimates, the energy and mineral programs of the DOI cost around $850 million per year. But these programs will generate about $10.1 billion for the U.S. taxpayer each year, primarily from energy development and production. Outside of the Internal Revenue Service, these are the only programs that provide significant revenue to the feral treasury. But generation of revenue is not the only benefit of domestic energy production on federal lands. Production of energy domestically keeps money at home, creates jobs and reduces our dependence on foreign energy imports. Among other important issues, the provisions in the conference report before us today: encourage increased domestic production of renewable energy from resources like geothermal, wind, hydropower and biomass, to name but a few; encourage domestic production of traditional energy sources such as coal, oil and natural gas by streamlining the federal permitting process sand providing potential incentives for technically challenging oil and natural gas from the deep depths of the outer continental shelf; encourage domestic development of the more than 2 Trillion barrels of oil from oil shale in the Western U.S.; promote a ``good Samaritan'' pilot project to help clean-up the more than 57,000 ``orphan'' wells that have become wards of the federal government; promote sequestration of carbon dioxide as a means of enhancing oil and natural gas production from old and existing wells; maximize federal coal production and returns to the U.S. treasury; seek to establish North American energy independence by launching a commission to review and make recommendations on how Canada, the U.S., and Mexico can coordinate their energy policies to reach energy independence within 20 years; seek extensive review of the impact and challenges to U.S. interests created by the Chinese government's aggressive pursuit of global energy assets; and promote tribal energy development through self-governance of energy resources in Indian Country. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is a good first step in the effort to lower energy prices and reduce our dependence on foreign energy. But there is no question that we must do more to increase domestic production. As demand across the globe continues to skyrocket, it is imperative for America to produce more American energy. Doing so will create jobs, grow our economy and strengthen national security. Tapping the abundant energy resources we have in America will become more and more necessary as we go forward. All we need is the political will in Congress to let an American workforce get these supplies here at home.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, on July 12, 2005, I missed four recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 739, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act of 2005 (rollcall No. 369); ``yea'' on H.R. 740, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act of 2005 (rollcall No. 370); ``yea'' on H.R. 741, the Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2005 (rollcall No. 371); and ``yea'' on H.R. 742, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act of 2005 (rollcall No. 372).

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, on July 11, 2005, I missed two recorded votes. I take my responsibility to vote very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 168, a resolution condemning the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for the abductions and continued captivity of citizens of the Republic of Korea and Japan as acts of terrorism and gross violations of human rights, rollcall No. 363; and ``yea'' on H. Res. 333, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a ``National Weekend of Prayer and Reflection for Darfur, Sudan'', rollcall No. 364.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) for the work he has put in to this issue and for the tone that he used in this debate. This is an important issue and it never ceases to amaze me to see that Members come to the floor and try to make it a partisan issue and try to complicate what is already a very complicated issue. This is not about free trade or free markets. If it was it would be a very different debate. If we were talking about Exxon and Chevron or BP competing to buy Unocal, that would be a completely different debate. What we are talking about is a company that is 70 percent owned by the Communist government of China, competing against a U.S. company to purchase a U.S.-based energy company. That is not free market. And no matter how you twist or turn or try to make this sound good, that is not free market. That is free market competing against the Communist- financed company. That raises concerns just because of that. But let us look at it a little bit more and look at the assets of the company they are trying to buy. They are trying to buy a major U.S. energy provider. That is a major concern. In the world today, in the world market today we are near an energy crisis. We are almost equal in terms of supply and demand, and that is why the price of oil has gone up dramatically. The U.S. economy is growing. The Chinese economy is growing. The Indian economy is growing. The Brazilian economy is growing. All of these different economies are growing and they are competing for the same source of energy. And that has caused energy prices to go up worldwide. Now, I tell my colleagues, you have got to wake up here. This is a wake-up call to all of us, to America and to us here, the Chinese have figured out that in order for their economy to grow, they need a safe, dependable supply of energy, primarily oil, coming into their market, in order for their economy to continue to grow. That is how you grow your economy. It is based on energy. What are we doing to increase our domestic energy supplies? What are we doing to provide a greater amounts of a safe, dependable supply of energy into this country? We have been trying to pass an energy bill for 5 years. Wake up. It is time for us to get together and figure out what our energy future is. We cannot, in my opinion, we cannot afford to have a major U.S. energy supplier controlled by the Communist Chinese. But what we are asking for in this resolution is for the President, for the administration to convene the Commission on Foreign Investment into the United States and investigate this possible sale, to look at it and determine whether or not this is in the best economic and national security interests of the United States. That is the purpose of the Commission on Foreign Investment. That is what we are asking them to do. We are asking them to step forward and look at this and report whether or not this is in our best interest. It is my opinion it is not. It is my opinion that it is a huge risk that we run to allow a foreign government to own one of our major U.S. energy producers. That is a huge risk that we are running. At a time like this when we are looking at international shortages on energy, skyrocketing prices, we need to do what we can to increase domestic supplies and to hold on to what we have got. And at the same time I would encourage my colleagues to begin to put enough pressure so that we finally get an energy bill passed. I heard one of the previous speakers talk about alternatives and solar and wind and fuel cells. I would just suggest read the energy bill. That is in it. But it also has the realistic view that in the short term, we are dependent on fossil fuels which are oil, gas and coal. That is the reality. That is what fuels the U.S. economy today. We need to do both. Part of it is increasing domestic production of our fossil fuels and making that competitive in this market. The other part of it is looking at the future and how are we going to replace our dependence on current technology. That is the direction we are going. If we allow this sale to go forward, we are taking a huge risk. And I would encourage my colleagues to support this resolution. It is the right policy, the right thing for this country, and the right thing for Congress to do.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for this day for 13 years, and that is to have all of my colleagues down on the floor talking about protecting private property rights. The Supreme Court did do us all a favor because this is a battle that has been going on across rural America for decades, where they have misused and abused Federal and State law to take private property away from property owners. What this particular case does is it takes it right into urban and suburban America. It goes right into every homeowner in this country; and they say you are not safe in your home, we can take it away from you if we want to. That is exactly what they have been telling every farmer and rancher in this country for the last 30 years, that is, if we think your property is better used as critical habitat to recover species or to protect a wetland, we are going to take it, and there is nothing you can do about it. Now Mr. and Mrs. America realize what the farmers and ranchers and property owners of this country have been going through for the last 30 years. The Supreme Court has now told you we do not care that it is your private property. We do not care. The Constitution does not count because if the city, the county, the State or the Federal Government decides that your property is a better use for something else, we are going to take it. Yes, we have taken the debate, we have taken the battle right into suburban America. And you know who is really going to get hurt in all of this, the same kind of people who are hurt in rural America. It is not the big guys. It is not the big landowners that get it; it is the little guys who end up getting it because what this law, what this decision allows is it allows the city to decide who gets your property. If they decide that someone else can make a better and higher use of your property, they will take it by eminent domain and give it to them. That is what it allows. It is not the big developer; it is not the rich corporation. It is the guy who does not even know who their city councilman is that is going to get it. It is the guy who cannot afford to hire a lobbyist, a lawyer, an attorney, a biologist, to go in and defend them. Thank you for coming down here and defending property rights. And I am thrilled that this House is going to finally pass legislation hopefully unanimously to protect Mr. and Mrs. America and their single family home. But I ask Members, when we bring a bill to the floor to protect the farmers and ranchers in this committee, to join me in passing that unanimously as well.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Sentinels of Freedom for the work they do in support of out troops. This group of business and community leaders in the San Ramon Valley have worked together to help a wounded soldier returning from Iraq. This group, led by Mike Conklin of San Ramon, California has created a scholarship that will provide housing, a handicapped-equipped van, education, and job training and placement for a soldier who lost both his legs in Iraq. For the next four years, a team of mentors will help with his transition from the military back into civilian life. I am deeply supportive of the tireless work Mr. Conklin has done in support of the brave men and women of our Armed Services. Along with the Blue Star Moms, SBC Communications, Shapell Industries of Northern California, the community of San Ramon, California, the United States Army and Walter Reed Army Hospital, the Sentinels of Freedom have developed a great program to support our troops. This group is a tremendous inspiration and an example of the best spirit and values the American people have to offer. Please join me in thanking the Sentinels of Freedom and encouraging communities and businesses around the country to follow their lead. The brave men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan give so much for our Nation and deserve nothing less then our complete support as they transition back to civilian life.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations in honor of the 100th Anniversary of Roche, one of the leading healthcare innovators in the world. Roche is a specialty care company that employs over 10,000 people in America and 60,000 globally. I am pleased to represent Roche Molecular Systems, which employs hundreds of people in my District, all of whom are dedicated to improving the quality of health care for millions of people. For a century now, Roche has invested in advanced research and manufacturing techniques that have yielded breakthroughs in healthcare. Founded in Switzerland in 1896, Roche's roots in America are deep and strong, dating back to the opening of its New York office in 1905. From its start in Manhattan in 1905, Roche has extended its reach to nine sites across the United States, in California, Indiana, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Colorado. As an industry leader in the field of diagnostics, Roche's products help patients manage their diabetes, give physicians and hospitals the ability to identify illnesses more quickly and more accurately, and tailor treatments in a way that best suit an individual's personal medical condition. These inventions are part of why we are proud that Americans enjoy the highest quality medical care in the world. I commend the people of Roche Molecular Systems in California and Roche employees worldwide for their impressive achievements, and congratulate them again on this very special 100th Anniversary.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 309) expressing the importance of immediately reopening the famous Beartooth All-American Highway from Red Lodge, Montana, to Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, during the days of May 16 and May 17 of this year, devastating mudslides bisected six sections of the scenic Beartooth All-American Highway between Red Lodge, Montana and Yellowstone National Park. Consequently, visitors to Yellowstone National Park coming from the States of Montana and Wyoming are now and for the foreseeable future required to take a detour to get to the northeast entrance of our Nation's oldest park. This detour could be in place for the entire summer season. Annually, an average of 190,000 visitors come to the park through the northeast entrance. Mr. Speaker, my resolution acknowledges the importance of the highway in accessing the park and requests that the President take all necessary action to assist the State of Montana in reopening the road. I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for allowing this bill to be scheduled. The following is an exchange of letters with him: House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC, June 9, 2005. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter dated 9 June 2005 regarding House Resolution 309. I appreciate your willingness to allow the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to be discharged to allow it to be considered on the Floor today. I will include a copy of your letter and my response to the Congressional Record during deliberations on the bill. Thank you again for your cooperation. Sincerely, Richard W. Pombo, Chairman.