Richard Pombo: “I do agree with one thing that my colleague and neighbor from California said, which is that this motion to recommit has…”

“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.…”