Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given our looming fiscal crisis and record deficits, it's critical that we look at smart spending cuts in a responsible way that doesn't hurt our national security--in fact, the budget deficit and our huge national debt are a threat to national security by making us economically beholden to foreign powers--and I propose an amendment that would do just that. My amendment would get most of the 80,000 troops, U.S. troops, out of Europe where they're no longer needed. We will save over $1 billion. My amendment would reduce the total amount of troops stationed in Europe to 30,000 troops from 80,000, which would not affect the troops being used in our wars in the Middle East. That's estimated to be about 12,000 to 15,000 of those troops. We would also leave ample troops to be part of NATO joint exercises and fulfill our obligations to our European allies. My amendment would allow the Department of Defense to save money by closing bases across Europe that are simply no longer needed. They have no strategic rationale. By pulling some of our troops out of Europe and closing these bases, we can save money and reduce our redundant military force. My amendment would gradually cut the 50,000 troops from our force in Europe, would save over $1.3 billion over 10 years, reduce overall troop levels in phases so we can responsibly draw down the troops without impacting those who are currently deployed. On top of the savings by reducing troop level, my amendment allows us to close bases across Europe that are, frankly, relics from World War II and the Cold War and currently serve no strategic purpose for our country. The need for these bases was understandable in the shadow of the threat of the Nazis and when Europe was rebuilding from the devastation from World War II. The presence of the troops was understandable when we faced the menace of the Soviet Union. What is the justification for our ongoing presence now? U.S. taxpayers did not sign up to defend Europe from a nonexistent threat forever at our own expense when we can't afford it. These bases cost U.S. taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. On top of that, they're often unpopular with local people in the countries we're protecting. I don't understand why we're wasting so much money to maintain bases where they aren't needed, aren't wanted, and don't fulfill any of our strategic objectives. Our European allies, Madam Chair, are some of the richest countries in the world. So why are we subsidizing their defense spending? Our European allies have enjoyed a free ride on the American dime for years now. The average American spends over $2,500 on defense; the average European $500. If Europe, itself, has made the decision it can afford to spend less on defense, shouldn't we be confident that we can spend less on their defense as well? Now, I understand that many of the troops in Europe support the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and personally, while I hope this won't be an issue soon as we begin to withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, my amendment leaves in place enough troops to fully support the ongoing operations even at their current levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. My amendment does not weaken our commitment to NATO. With modern technology, we can move troops and weapons quickly across the globe. We fulfill our responsibilities with troops stationed at NATO headquarters and fully participate in joint exercises. My amendment also allows for a war emergency if, for instance, there was really a reason to station troops in Europe. If our European allies were attacked, my amendment allows the President to waive the requirements of the bill. It's time to think about our priorities in defense spending. We're not under threat, Madam Chair, from the Nazis. We're not under threat, Madam Chair, from the Soviets. We are under threat from a global terrorist threat that is a stateless menace. And, in fact, less of that menace emanates from Europe than it does from Asia and Africa. Maintaining a network of bases across Europe is simply not a sane response to the terrorist threat, nor is it fiscally responsible. These cuts are based on the recommendations of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, a bipartisan project organized by Congressman Frank, Congressman Paul, and Congressman Jones, as well as Senator Wyden. The Sustainable Defense Task Force brought together defense experts across the ideological spectrum and proposed commonsense recommendations for saving taxpayer money and improving our national security. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, Madam Chair. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, even Donald Rumsfeld believes it is time to change this policy. In his recent book, he wrote, ``Of the quarter million troops deployed abroad in 2001, more than 100,000 were in Europe, the vast majority stationed in Germany . . . Those deployments were obviously not taking into account the 21st century reality that Germany was now one of the wealthier nations in Europe . . . I believed our troops had to do more than serve as symbols of security blankets for wealthy allied nations.'' Madam Chair, experts across the ideological spectrum agree that the time is right for these smart cuts that will improve our national security, allow us to fulfill all our obligations to NATO, as well as include the 10,000 to 15,000 troops that experts say are necessary to fully support operations at our current levels in the Middle East and Africa. Again, I express my own personal desire that less is needed in that regard, and it seems to be our direction; but even at those current levels, we would fully support those operations. This is a smart cut, one of the easier ones we could go to. It improves our national security, and I urge a ``yes'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Would the Chair specify the definition of her last statement.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill in its current form. By delaying the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, this bill will weaken our Armed Forces and further confuse an issue that our country and our military have simply moved past. This bill in its current form says to gay and lesbian servicemembers, you're welcome to fight and die for our country as long as you live in secret. Mr. Speaker, Don't Ask, Don't Tell requires brave men and women in our military to live in constant fear of being dismissed for an aspect of their personal lives that has no bearing on their job performance. It's a law that serves no purpose. It's a law that hinders our military's effectiveness. It's a law that Congress has already voted to appeal. And it's a law, frankly, that's un-American. Yet here we are, again, considering a bill that would continue to codify discrimination. We should not go back to those dark days, and we will not go back. In April, the service chiefs reported to the House Armed Services Committee that the process of certifying the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is moving forward, and the response from servicemembers has been overwhelmingly positive. Vice Admiral Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported the appeals process was moving ahead without incident. Clifford Stanley, under Secretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, told the committee that training programs to prepare for the repeal are going ``extremely well.'' So we know the military supports moving forward, as do the vast majority of the American people: 72 percent support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Don't Ask, Don't Tell hurts military readiness and national security every day. To date, over 13,000 servicemembers who have been trained at taxpayer expense have been forced out of the military under this policy. It's hard to believe that dismissing mission-critical servicemembers or linguists fluent in Arabic, Korean and Farsi will somehow make us more effective or combat ready. The Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, who I might add was originally appointed by President Bush, as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, support repeal. Mr. Speaker, it's time for Don't Ask, Don't Tell to move from the law books to the dustbins of history. Its only value is as a lesson to future generations that our Nation is stronger when we welcome all members of the American family and weaker when we divide and discriminate.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1229 would impose an artificial and arbitrary 30-day deadline, with up to two 15-day extensions, for a total of 60 maximum days for Interior Department action on drilling permit applications. If at the end of the 30- to 60-day period Interior has not acted by approving or disapproving the permit, the permit is ``deemed'' approved automatically even if the environmental and safety review processes haven't been completed. If the Secretary decides that the agency hasn't had enough time to approve the permit, then his only choice is to deny the permit, undoubtedly leading to additional lawsuits from companies. Mr. Chairman, this legislation doesn't get to the root of the problem. We all know through the numerous hearings last year that one of the fundamental causes of the BP spill was a lack of not only enough inspectors but a lack of inspectors with high levels of expertise and engineering knowledge. You wouldn't referee a game by doing away with the rules because the referee didn't know them; you'd get a better referee. If the Department isn't going to be given enough resources and expertise to do the job right and on time, the Department shouldn't be forced to do the job too fast. We should be working to make government more efficient and more effective. My amendment addresses the root of this issue by lifting the arbitrary timeline requirements if the Department isn't given the necessary resources it needs to properly process applications expeditiously. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment. Mr. Chair, instead of taking this opportunity to correct the fundamental problems underlying the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, this bill simply moves to cut any last semblance of oversight or safeguards our country has placed on the inherently risky process of offshore deepwater oil drilling. H.R. 1229 would impose an artificial and arbitrary 30-day deadline, with up to two 15-day extensions, for a total of 60 days maximum, for Interior Department action on drilling permit applications. If at the end of that 30- to 60-day period Interior has not acted by approving or disapproving the permit, the permit is ``deemed'' approved automatically even if the environmental and safety reviews have not been completed. This is the exact wrong legislative response to the BP disaster. Rather than acting to make off-shore drilling safer and smarter, the underlying bill would make drilling faster and more reckless. Under this bill, we could actually have less rigorous oversight and review of offshore drilling than we had before the Deepwater Horizon disaster. By imposing an artificial and arbitrary deadline, the bill heavily biases the permitting process toward approval, placing undue burdens on reviewers to accelerate the process regardless of safety and environmental concerns. If the Secretary decides that the agency hasn't had enough time to approve the permit, then his only choice is to deny the permit undoubtedly leading to additional lawsuits from companies and the unrelenting onslaught of industry and Republican criticism. This bill is simply a catch 22 for the Department to either risk another disaster, or open up the Department even more to the vitriolic and false claims from industry and the Majority party of being anti- business or anti domestic energy--not that the facts have kept that misinformation from being spread in the past. Mr. Chair, this legislation doesn't get to the root of the problem. We all know through the numerous hearings last year that one of the fundamental causes of the BP spill was a lack of not only enough inspectors, but a lack of inspectors with high levels of expertise and engineering knowledge. Prior to the spill, the few inspectors the government did have simply had to take the oil companies' word that everything was in order. I'm sure we all remember when the big five oil companies were caught pointing the finger of blame squarely at BP in a hearing last year, only to have it disclosed moments later that every one of their spill response documents and other application material was not only identical, but included completely inaccurate information, listing for example walruses as a critical species for the Gulf of Mexico and citing as an emergency contact a professor from Florida Atlantic University, who had long since passed away. We shouldn't have to take a company's word for it when there is so much at stake. We should ensure that the watchdogs have the tools they need to verify that everything is done properly. This is what my amendment aims to do. Congress shouldn't set an arbitrary timeline if Congress doesn't give the Department enough resources they need to properly do their job within that timeline. In fact, the recommendations of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon spill contain an entire section on ``The Need for Adequate Funding for Safety Oversight and Environmental Review,'' which lists a number of policy options letting the oil companies, not the American people, foot the bill. Sadly, the underlying legislation includes none of them. Mr. Chair, you wouldn't referee a game by doing away with the rules because the referee didn't know them; you'd get a better referee. The fact is that the regulators been grossly underfunded and understaffed in the past. With the Continuing Resolution's partial step toward reversing the ``shameful'' and years-long underfunding of offshore oversight, it was only half of what's needed to do the job right. The Director of the agency that oversees permitting, Michael Bromwich, just last month said: ``That is less than we need, but it is a significant sum, especially in a constrained budget environment where the funding of most other agencies is being cut. We desperately need more environmental scientists and more personnel to do environmental analysis. We desperately need more personnel to help us with the permitting process and much more.'' If the Department isn't going to be given enough resources and expertise to do the job right, then the Department shouldn't be forced to do the job fast. Instead of creating unnecessary catch 22's for government, we should be working to make government more efficient and more effective. My amendment addresses the root of this issue by lifting the arbitrary timeline requirements if the Department isn't given the necessary resources it needs to properly process applications. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, following last year's BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, one would think that a foundational and critical element of any bill related to offshore deepwater oil drilling would be to improve our safety and environmental safeguards based on the lessons that we learned the hard way from a horrific national tragedy, costing jobs and reducing health and damaging the environment. While H.R. 1229 does include a provision that states that the Secretary shall not issue a permit without ensuring that the proposed drilling operation meets critical safety system requirements and oil spill response and containment requirements, it fails to make mention of and omits requiring the Secretary to ensure that critical environmental and economic laws are adhered to, a prolific problem leading up to the Deepwater Horizon spill. Mr. Chairman, for years an ongoing problem in issuing permits for offshore drilling has been the Department of the Interior's failure to follow requirements set out under our Nation's foundational environmental protection laws and fisheries laws. These laws, like the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Magnusson-Stevens Fishery Act, protect wildlife as well as fisheries and beaches that sustain the gulf's fishing and tourism industries. In the gulf region, the number of jobs dependent on tourism and fishing is five times the number of jobs related to the oil and gas industry. While reforms within the Obama administration are moving in the right direction, the fact is that this bill, in its current form, leaves out a major chunk of what should be included in any safety or oversight review that we require of the Secretary, and I'm grateful for the rule for allowing a full discussion and vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, a May 2010 New York Times article, entitled, ``U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits,'' outlines the roots of this problem in detail. The article clearly explains how the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Department of the Interior's drilling permit agency is required to get permits for drilling where it might harm endangered species and marine animals. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, is partially responsible for protecting endangered species and marine mammals. It said on repeated occasions that drilling in the gulf does affect these animals. That's simply science. The records show that permits for hundreds of wells, including the BP disaster well itself, were granted without getting the permits required under existing Federal law. Federal records show that NOAA instructed the minerals agency that continued drilling in the gulf was actually harming wildlife and needed to get permits in compliance with Federal law; but, sadly, those permits were never sought. With regard to the National Environmental Protection Act, the government has time and time again performed cursory environmental assessments, failed to integrate NEPA analyses with related Federal statutes, and even exempted entire projects from NEPA review, including the Macondo well. In the past, the only way to ensure permits have complied with NEPA has unfortunately been through lawsuits. My amendment would require these assurances from the Secretary before the permit is issued. [From the New York Times, May 13, 2010] U.S. Said To Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits (By Ian Urbina) Washington.--The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species--and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf. Those approvals, federal records show, include one for the well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig, which exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers and resulting in thousands of barrels of oil spilling into the gulf each day. The Minerals Management Service, or M.M.S., also routinely overruled its staff biologists and engineers who raised concerns about the safety and the environmental impact of certain drilling proposals in the gulf and in Alaska, according to a half-dozen current and former agency scientists. Those scientists said they were also regularly pressured by agency officials to change the findings of their internal studies if they predicted that an accident was likely to occur or if wildlife might be harmed. Under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Minerals Management Service is required to get permits to allow drilling where it might harm endangered species or marine mammals. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, is partly responsible for protecting endangered species and marine mammals. It has said on repeated occasions that drilling in the gulf affects these animals, but the minerals agency since January 2009 has approved at least three huge lease sales, 103 seismic blasting projects and 346 drilling plans. Agency records also show that permission for those projects and plans was granted without getting the permits required under federal law. ``M.M.S. has given up any pretense of regulating the offshore oil industry,'' said Kieran Suckling, director of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental advocacy group in Tucson, which filed notice of intent to sue the agency over its noncompliance with federal law concerning endangered species. ``The agency seems to think its mission is to help the oil industry evade environmental laws.'' Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, said her agency had full consultations with NOAA about endangered species in the gulf. But she declined to respond to additional questions about whether her agency had obtained the relevant permits. Federal records indicate that these consultations ended with NOAA instructing the minerals agency that continued drilling in the gulf was harming endangered marine mammals and that the agency needed to get permits to be in compliance with federal law. Responding to the accusations that agency scientists were being silenced, Ms. Barkoff added, ``Under the previous administration, there was a pattern of suppressing science in decisions, and we are working very hard to change the culture and empower scientists in the Department of the Interior.'' On Tuesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced plans to reorganize the minerals agency to improve its regulatory role by separating safety oversight from the division that collects royalties from oil and gas companies. But that reorganization is not likely to have any bearing on how and whether the agency seeks required permits from other agencies like NOAA. Criticism of the minerals agency has grown in recent days as more information has emerged about how it handled drilling in the gulf. In a letter from September 2009, obtained by The New York Times, NOAA accused the minerals agency of a pattern of understating the likelihood and potential consequences of a major spill in the gulf and understating the frequency of spills that have already occurred there. The letter accuses the agency of highlighting the safety of offshore oil drilling operations while overlooking more recent evidence to the contrary. The data used by the agency to justify its approval of drilling operations in the gulf play down the fact that spills have been increasing and understate the ``risks and impacts of accidental spills,'' the letter states. NOAA declined several requests for comment. The accusation that the minerals agency has ignored risks is also being levied by scientists working for the agency. Managers at the agency have routinely overruled staff scientists whose findings highlight the environmental risks of drilling, according to a half-dozen current or former agency scientists. The scientists, none of whom wanted to be quoted by name for fear of reprisals by the agency or by those in the industry, said they had repeatedly had their scientific findings changed to indicate no environmental impact or had their calculations of spill risks downgraded. ``You simply are not allowed to conclude that the drilling will have an impact,'' said one scientist who has worked for the minerals agency for more than a decade. ``If you find the risks of a spill are high or you conclude that a certain species will be affected, your report gets disappeared in a desk drawer and they find another scientist to redo it or they rewrite it for you.'' Another biologist who left the agency in 2005 after more than five years said that agency officials went out of their way to accommodate the oil and gas industry. He said, for example, that seismic activity from drilling can have a devastating effect on mammals and fish, but that agency officials rarely enforced the regulations meant to limit those effects. He also said the agency routinely ceded to the drilling companies the responsibility for monitoring species that live or spawn near the drilling projects. ``What I observed was M.M.S. was trying to undermine the monitoring and mitigation requirements that would be imposed on the industry,'' he said. Aside from allowing BP and other companies to drill in the gulf without getting the required permits from NOAA, the minerals agency has also given BP and other drilling companies in the gulf blanket exemptions from having to provide environmental impact statements. Much as BP's drilling plan asserted that there was no chance of an oil spill, the company also claimed in federal documents that its drilling would not have any adverse effect on endangered species. The gulf is known for its biodiversity. Various endangered species are found in the area where the Deepwater Horizon was drilling, including sperm whales, blue whales and fin whales. In some instances, the minerals agency has indeed sought and received permits in the gulf to harm certain endangered species like green and loggerhead sea turtles. But the agency has not received these permits for endangered species like the sperm and humpback whales, which are more common in the areas where drilling occurs and thus are more likely to be affected. Tensions between scientists and managers at the agency erupted in one case last year involving a rig in the gulf called the BP Atlantis. An agency scientist complained to his bosses of catastrophic safety and environmental violations. The scientist said these complaints were ignored, so he took his concerns to higher officials at the Interior Department. ``The purpose of this letter is to restate in writing our concern that the BP Atlantis project presently poses a threat of serious, immediate, potentially irreparable and catastrophic harm to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and its marine environment, and to summarize how BP's conduct has violated federal law and regulations,'' David L. Perry, a lawyer acting on behalf of Kenneth Abbott, a BP contractor, wrote in a letter to officials at the Interior Department that was dated May 27. The letter added: ``From our conversation on the phone, we understand that M.M.S. is already aware that undersea manifolds have been leaking and that major flow lines must already be replaced. Failure of this critical undersea equipment has potentially catastrophic environmental consequences.'' Almost two months before the Deepwater Horizon exploded, Representative Raul M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, sent a letter to the agency raising concerns about the BP Atlantis and questioning its oversight of the rig. After the disaster, Mr. Salazar said he would delay granting any new oil drilling permits. But the minerals agency has issued at least five final approval permits to new drilling projects in the gulf since last week, records show. Despite being shown records indicating otherwise, Ms. Barkoff said her agency had granted no new permits since Mr. Salazar made his announcement. Other agencies besides NOAA have begun criticizing the minerals agency. At a public hearing in Louisiana this week, a joint panel of Coast Guard and Minerals Management Service officials investigating the explosion grilled minerals agency officials for allowing the offshore drilling industry to be essentially ``self-certified,'' as Capt. Hung Nguyen of the Coast Guard, a co-chairman of the investigation, put it. In addition to the minerals agency and the Coast Guard, the Deepwater Horizon was overseen by the Marshall Islands, the ``flag of convenience'' under which it was registered. No one from the Marshall Islands ever inspected the rig. The nongovernmental organizations that did were paid by the rig's operator, in this case Transocean. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, this underlying legislation's very basic safety review provision simply doesn't address the broad swath of problems that need to be addressed by any serious offshore drilling bill. My amendment is a simple way of ensuring that the many shortcomings are at least considered by the Secretary, as articulated in Federal law, and are discussed during this debate. Unfortunately, this bill does not take into account the lessons our country learned from the terrible BP Deepwater disaster. In addition to accepting my amendment, I certainly hope that the committee will address these problems with even stronger language in any future work it does on this bill or on the issue of offshore drilling in general with regard to safety and the environment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers the BP respill bills. That might not be what they are officially called, but it's a much more accurate title for this legislation. It's clear that the authors of these BP respill bills did not learn any lessons from the Deepwater Horizon disasters. These bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for offshore workers, 11 of whom died on the Deepwater Horizon. These bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for the environment, which was coated with 4.1 million barrels of oil along the Gulf Coast and is killing fish and wildlife in the area to this day as a result of BP's recklessness. These bills would make offshore drilling more dangerous for our national security because they reinforce the complete myth that America can somehow drill our way out of dependence on oil. And these bills are more dangerous for the economy, risking destroying fishing and tourism jobs in affected areas. But one thing these bills do not do is make filling up at the pump any more affordable at all for American families. According to the American Petroleum Institute itself, the main advocacy group for oil interests, even if we opened all Federal land to oil drilling, including offshore areas, including Alaska's wildlife refuge and all Federal land that is in the national parks, they can't even say that it would reduce gas prices or oil prices. In fact, the cheap oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, which calculates gas prices for AAA, the motorist organization, said: ``This drill, drill, drill thing is tired. It's a simplistic way of looking for a solution that doesn't exist.'' So if this legislation isn't about reducing the price at the pump, what is it about? It's about exploiting our legitimate concerns about high gas prices to deliver another huge giveaway to Big Oil, an industry that made over $35 billion in profits in the last quarter alone. Meanwhile, the majority refuses to end Big Oil's nearly $50 billion of special interest tax breaks. Yesterday in the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern brought forth a bill that would have ended the giveaway of tax revenue to Big Oil. Unfortunately, the Republican majority chose not to allow that amendment in this rule. Had that been allowed under the open rule that Mr. McGovern proposed, I would have brought forth an amendment on the floor to use those $50 billion of revenue to reduce the corporate tax rate to help create jobs in America. Instead, the Republican majority is continuing to seek to keep American taxes high, to keep corporate taxes high, and this is another example of a job-destroying bill that keeps taxes high while picking winners and losers in the economy and using government subsidies to aid an industry that is one of our most profitable industries. We should allow American businesses of all sizes to compete. The America corporate tax rate of 35 percent is higher than most of the rest of the world, which is why many companies continue to engage in operations overseas. If we can reduce it from 35 percent to 30 or 28 or 26 percent--and we could have done had Mr. McGovern's amendment passed in the Rules Committee yesterday, and that is one of the reasons I oppose this rule today--that would create an enormous engine of economic growth. While frequently the Republicans give lip service to lower taxes, they continue to use special interest tax breaks to keep taxes high on small- and middle-sized American companies that don't have the same lobbyists here in Washington to lobby us for special interest tax breaks. We know that Big Oil would rather do without the fuss of showing that they can drill safely; but that's what this bill, in fact, delivers. This legislation states that the Interior Secretary must act on any drilling permit within 60 days, or it's automatically approved. What should be a very serious process to ensure safe drilling, to ensure that there aren't further disasters, and to ensure that jobs are not destroyed turns into little more than a rubber stamp, a rubber stamp for the further degradation of our economy and of our environment. The second bill this rule makes in order claims to restart the process, or issuing, of oil and gas leases. Now, what the majority is doing in this is essentially validating what the administration has already done. The administration has already restarted offshore drilling in February. In fact, the administration has announced plans to offer all three Gulf of Mexico lease sales that are mandated in this bill this year or early next year. Again, this particular policy is one that I don't agree with fully with the administration, but I am glad to see that the Republican majority is validating President Obama's leadership on this energy issue. Together, these bills will not relieve pain at the pump, but they will increase the chances of another Deepwater Horizon disaster, costing lives, livelihoods, and hurting some of our precious natural resources. Why? Because that's what Big Oil wants. If Big Oil wants to keep taxes high for American companies, if Big Oil wants to destroy jobs, then the Republican majority is giving them that. In fact, even the problem the majority purports to be addressing with these bills, the speed of permitting in the gulf and restarting offshore oil drilling, doesn't even exist. Here are the facts: Following the temporary pause on deepwater drilling last year, what Secretary Salazar listed in October, the oil industry wasn't able to demonstrate that it possessed the capacity to contain a deepwater blowout until February 2011. Once oil companies demonstrated that they had the capability to contain a blowout, the first permit was issued 11 days later, February 28, 2011. There have now been a total of 10 deepwater drilling permits issued since that time. In addition, there have been 39 shallow water permits approved since last October, matching the number from before the spill. Let me repeat that: matching the number of permits from before the spill. If anything, the majority, by acting through this bill, is effectively congratulating the administration on its leadership for speedily approving permits. In addition, in the gulf region, the number of jobs that depend on tourism and fishing is five times the number of jobs related to the oil and gas industry. Gulf jobs related to oil and gas and other resource extraction total about 154,000. The total number of jobs for tourism and fishing are 777,000 jobs. So with this bill, the majority is putting at risk those 777,000 jobs for the benefit of 154,000. We should not put them at risk just to make the permitting process easier for Big Oil to exploit. Passage of these bills is not good for the gulf coast's economy or its ecology, although it is best for Big Oil. Again, while I appreciate the Republican majority's efforts to validate the leadership of President Obama on energy issues, this rule could be a lot better. Rather than keeping corporate taxes high, we could help make America more competitive by reducing corporate taxes and helping make American businesses more competitive, including the critical tourism and fishing industries in the gulf coast. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. POLIS. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, in its analysis of the administration's budget, stated that the repeal of oil and gas preferences are ``likely to have no effect on the world price of fossil fuels, and any increase in prices for domestically consumed fossil fuels are likely to be attenuated.'' Again, when we talk about ending the giveaway to Big Oil and Gas, it will have no effect with regard to actual energy prices. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time. With regard to the last comment, it is the oil cartels that drive prices, not the normal functions of the market and supply and demand. With regard to the oil subsidies, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity here today to see where the Republicans and the Democrats in the House stand on deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question, we can and we will reduce the deficit by over $12.8 billion. We have the chance to have the discussion around the continuing resolution, around the budget, around deficit reduction. And here we have an opportunity, without impacting the price of oil, without impacting what consumers pay at the pump, to reduce the deficit by $12.8 billion by defeating the previous question. I think that's what the American people want to see. The American people spoke out in the last election. Let's reduce the deficit. Let's work across the aisle to see what we can do to cut unnecessary government expenditures, to make those decisions to help make sure that we can leave something other than a legacy of debt to the next generation. I think, Mr. Speaker, this is an easy one. Let's defeat the previous question and reduce the deficit by $12.8 billion. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a document from the Treasury Department which states that the manufacturing deduction for oil and gas effectively provides a lower rate of tax with respect to a favored source of income. In fact, it distorts the market by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur under a neutral system. Again, by returning to the free market, we are able to reduce the deficit by over $12.8 billion instead of having Big Government trying to pick winners and losers in the economy with regard to tax policy. General Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 Revenue Proposals--Department of the Treasury, February 2011 Repeal Domestic Manufacturing Deduction for Oil and Natural Gas Companies Current Law A deduction is allowed with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities (the manufacturing deduction). For taxable years beginning after 2009, the manufacturing deduction is generally equal to 9 percent of the lesser of qualified production activities income for the taxable year or taxable income for the taxable year, limited to 50 percent of the W-2 wages of the taxpayer for the taxable year. The deduction for income from oil and gas production activities is computed at a 6 percent rate. Qualified production activities income is generally calculated as a taxpayer's domestic production gross receipts (i.e., the gross receipts derived from any lease, rental, license, sale, exchange, or other disposition of qualifying production property manufactured, produced, grown, or extracted by the taxpayer in whole or significant part within the United States; any qualified film produced by the taxpayer; or electricity, natural gas, or potable water produced by the taxpayer in the United States) minus the cost of goods sold and other expenses, losses, or deductions attributable to such receipts. The manufacturing deduction generally is available to all taxpayers that generate qualified production activities income, which under current law includes income from the sale, exchange or disposition of oil, natural gas or primary products thereof produced in the United States. Reasons for Change The President agreed at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so that the United States can transition to a 21st-century energy economy. The manufacturing deduction for oil and gas effectively provides a lower rate of tax with respect to a favored source of income. The lower rate of tax, like other oil and gas preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts markets by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur under a neutral system. This market distortion is detrimental to long-term energy security and is also inconsistent with the Administration's policy of supporting a clean energy economy, reducing our reliance on oil, and cutting carbon pollution. Moreover, the tax subsidy for oil and gas must ultimately be financed with taxes that result in underinvestment in other, potentially more productive, areas of the economy. Proposal The proposal would retain the overall manufacturing deduction, but exclude from the definition of domestic production gross receipts all gross receipts derived from the sale, exchange or other disposition of oil, natural gas or a primary product thereof for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011. There is a parallel proposal to repeal the domestic manufacturing deduction for coal and other hard mineral fossil fuels. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit for the Record a July 3, 2010, New York Times article regarding oil subsidies. Again, this talks of the oil subsidies that continue to benefit this industry to the detriment of the American taxpayer and to the detriment of future generations of Americans who will continue to suffer under an increasing mountain of debt unless we defeat the previous question here today. [From NY Times, July 3, 2010] On Subsidies But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process. According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry. And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by various credits. These companies' returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before. Efforts to curtail the tax breaks are likely to face fierce opposition in Congress; the oil and natural gas industry has spent $340 million on lobbyists since 2008, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors political spending. Some of the tax breaks date back nearly a century, when they were intended to encourage exploration in an era of rudimentary technology, when costly investments frequently produced only dry holes. Because of one lingering provision from the Tariff Act of 1913, many small and midsize oil companies based in the United States can claim deductions for the lost value of tapped oil fields far beyond the amount the companies actually paid for the oil rights. Other tax breaks were born of international politics. In an attempt to deter Soviet influence in the Middle East in the 1950s, the State Department backed a Saudi Arabian accounting maneuver that reclassified the royalties charged by foreign governments to American oil drillers. Saudi Arabia and others began to treat some of the royalties as taxes, which entitled the companies to subtract those payments from their American tax bills. Despite repeated attempts to forbid this accounting practice, companies continue to deduct the payments. The Treasury Department estimates that it will cost $8.2 billion over the next decade. Mr. Speaker, 1 year after the national tragedy of Deepwater Horizon, the majority party has decided not to address a single problem that led to this economic and environmental tragedy. Instead, the majority is pushing through these bills, simply rubber-stamping offshore drilling and maintaining taxpayer subsidies and giveaways to Big Oil, which increase the deficit. During a Special Order speech just the other night, a Member on the other side of the aisle said all you need is an eighth grade understanding of supply and demand to understand why gas prices are high and how we can lower them by drilling more. Fortunately, for those of us who have more than an eighth grade education, like economists and other experts, we know that America cannot drill its way out of high gas prices. Even the American Petroleum Institute, the mouthpiece for Big Oil, is saying that we cannot drill our way out. ``Drill, Baby, Drill'' may look good as a bumper sticker, but it's not a serious energy policy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill and to defeat the previous question so we can reduce the deficit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee.