Rob Bishop: “This amendment is perhaps well-intentioned. I am going to make that assumption. But the problem with this amendment is…”

“This amendment is perhaps well-intentioned. I am going to make that assumption. But the problem with this amendment is it is not a comprehensive amendment. The goal of this amendment is to specifically illustrate what kinds of issues will be studied by this GAO report, and they are all the negative aspects that could come from this report. There is no aspect here, I mean, it neglects totally to try and set any kind of benefits that would happen from development of oil or gas consumer. Now, that would be a true study. That would be a fair study. That would be a good study. That would be a valuable study. What this has done, in a statement of what will be considered, basically skewed what the GAO will do, so you have come up with a predetermined outset. We can predict exactly what will come out from this study because it is not comprehensive and it hasn't tried to be inclusive. What you should have done is simply direct the GAO to evaluate how taking resources off the table like this will affect our dependence on imports from foreign actors like Russia, whose environmental standards, whose efficiency standards, and whose human rights standards certainly are unacceptable to us in the United States. Doing so--if you had done that, that would have been a comprehensive, that would have been an accurate representation, and that would have been a good and decent study. So I oppose this particular amendment because I think it missed the mark. Mr.…”