Alan Simpson: “I stand to oppose this amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. In committee, the gentleman from New York…”

“I stand to oppose this amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. In committee, the gentleman from New York offered an amendment that conditioned eligibility for future leases on renegotiation of price thresholds in old leases. Today's amendment seeks to obtain the same coercive result by indirection. I share the gentleman's concern about the lack of price thresholds in leases negotiated by the Clinton/Gore administration in 1998 and 1999. The Department of the Interior's Inspector General has appropriately launched an investigation into this, as has the Resources Committee. However, these leases were valid legal contracts signed between the government and these companies in good faith. They paid hundreds of millions of dollars in bonus bids for these leases, bidding on the basis of the royalty relief that they were being offered. If the lessees seek to maintain their valid legal rights under these contracts, the amendment would penalize them for doing so, in violation of their due process rights under the Constitution. At best, the amendment is an invitation to litigation, which the government will likely lose at a high cost to the taxpayer. A more dire impact will be the lack of development of energy resources that America badly needs. The amendment would disqualify many companies from bidding on new leases. Remember, these leases were valid leases signed by the government, legally binding. They are contracts.…”