Gerry Connolly

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to protest that publicly.

And is it also true that production on the Outer Continental Shelf actually also increased under the Obama administration over the Bush administration?

And is it also true that applications for permits to drill actually increased in the Obama administration over the Bush administration?

It is not true, as a matter of fact, that domestic oil production in the Obama administration is actually higher than that of the Bush administration?

But really my question, isn't that--that's not our only choice. The question is: Could we in retrospect have tightened up regulation and been more rigorous in the review process?

I regret very much you're not running for President. I think you would have added some good, common, political sense and a lot of good humor.

It is our obligation as Members of the U.S. Congress to develop constructive ways to help people in the gulf rebuild their lives and their livelihoods.

This is the definition of partisanship and it undermines the integrity of this committee.

I have to say that I am disappointed by your actions today.

I am encouraged that now more than a year later, officials in both the oil industry and our government appear to be heeding these lessons and retooling the way they do business.

So I would urge OMB to look at No Child Left Behind in a timely fashion so the Congress can benefit from your analysis before we consider legislation later this year.

Well, if I could commend it to your review, as somebody who ran the eleventh largest school district in America, it costs a lot of money to implement No Child Left Behind, well in excess of $100 million.

But presumably, again, we use that word externalities, but, I mean, the value of a human life, the prevention of the loss of it has to factor in to the decision about whether or not A, to enforce regulations and/or new regulations, I mean…

But you might agree that if a subsequent administration finds that, deliberately or inadvertently, there is in fact, by the issuance of a permit, the circumvention of existing statutory framework with respect to regulation, it is incumbent…

When only Members of one party vote for it and not a single Member of the other party vote for it, I don't know that is a normative statement; I think it is just a factual statement, it is a partisan budget.

I just wanted to ask one followup to your line of questioning.

Obviously, if we don't address that inadequacy, all it does is shift the cost of cleanup when an oil spill occurs, such as did at Deepwater Horizon, onto the public, is that not correct?

I mentioned in my opening statement that in the partisan budget that passed the House here a few months ago, it slashes Medicaid funding 35 to 49 percent.

The cruelty and political toxicity of Chairman Ryan's proposed privatization of Medicare has received a great deal of attention in the press, but the evisceration of Medicaid would have a similar negative effect on individuals, and…

In aggregate, OMB says this regulation will produce $12.4 billion in benefits for consumers for only $3.7 billion in costs, a 4 to 1 ratio.

Now, that same budget also, in many respects, eviscerated the ability of EPA to continue to regulate under the Clean Air Act.

Ultimately, slashing Medicaid is a shell game in which the House majority would shift costs to the States and localities and the families of America.

Empirical data repeatedly and consistently suggests that the benefits of Federal regulations outweigh the costs by considerable margins.

The consequences of failing to prevent global warming could be severe.