Mr. WELCH. I would just say this to my colleague: You and I disagree, obviously, on the subsidies. We don't disagree that the oil industry does provide good jobs to a lot of American families and a product that we need to keep our economy going. But there's a reasonable basis for disagreement about whether a particular subsidy has outlived its useful life. It is real money out of the pocket of the taxpayer.
While the suggestion is made that it would be tough to figure out what the subsidies are, these companies that enjoy these subsidies have accountants who scour the Tax Code to make certain that every legally available subsidy is one that they, in fact, do take. They actually owe that due diligence and that effort to their shareholders to make certain that they get maximum value for the shareholders, and that includes paying not a nickel more in taxes than they're legally required to pay by the
rules that this House of Representatives sets.
So this is not about whether you're for or against the tax subsidies as they exist--we disagree on that--but it is about saying to the American taxpayer, when the company is filling out [Page: H4404]
this application, after they've done their tax filings, which they do every year, they can specify what the benefit is they are getting courtesy of the United States taxpayer. That's really what this is about.
What is the problem with letting people know how their money is being spent?
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will be postponed.
AMENDMENT NO. 4 OFFERED BY MR.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in part A of House Report 112-111.