Walz makes correct votes on Off-shore Drilling

Before the House passed H.R. 6899, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, it had to decide whether HR 6709, the National Conservation, Environment, and Energy Independence Act, which Congressman Tim Walz (MN-01) co-sponsored, should be considered. The vote to consider Walz’s bill failed.
Walz stood in opposition of the majority of Democrats and voted with a majority of Republicans to consider his bill. That failing, Walz voted with the Democrats to move forward HR 6899. It should be noted that Republican Jim Ramstad (MN-03) joined Walz in his support for HR 6899 while Republicans John Kline (MN-02) and Michelle Bachmann (MN-06) voted against drilling.

Is HR 6899 (the one that was approved) an inferior bill ?
Depends upon your viewpoint.
For those who have read my blog already realize that I do not oppose drilling, but want a fair return in royalty payments directed to the US Treasury and not to the bordering states. I also oppose subsidies for nuclear power and the oil industry.
HR 6899 is a narrower bill than some of the others being considered and meets my main objectives. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office report “enacting the legislation would reduce future budget deficits (or increase surpluses) by about $3.5 billion over the 2009-2013 period and by about $6.7 billion over the 2009-2018 period.” That’s good. It would repeal $18 billion in oil industry tax breaks and use the money to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. And it would force oil companies to pay additional royalties for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

What’s this mean ?
Not much … Walz’s bill is not dead, just that the House just determined that it wanted to move HR 6709 forward instead.
And more importantly, not much because the Senate must approve it. That is not likely since it has its own version of legislation it may consider plus the clock is running out on the session. Also, the White House has said it will veto HR 6899.

During the debate on Walz’s bill, Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat from Hawaii, spoke the truth blasting John Boehner, the Republican Minority Leader, and Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, for both pushing legislation that could only be supported by a majority of their own political parties claiming that the bi-partisan HR 6709 that would generate the most support.

To me, Tim Walz and Jim Ramstad get a thumbs-up but Nancy Pelosi gets a thumbs-down.
For Tim Walz, this is just the first step. This bill was largely a to have Democrats go on record supporting some version of off-shore drilling. The Democrats who voted for HR 6899 have now voted for off-shore drilling. They cannot move back from that position. Next term, a more expansive bill ... possibly Walz's will be enacted.
For Jim Ramstad, this is just another example of a responsible Congressman who will be sorely missed in the 111th Congress.

Why Republicans Love Farm Subsidies but NOT the Farm Bill

At the Republican Presidential Candidates debate, Ted Faturos asked “I'm curious which candidate could label themselves fiscally responsiblee, will endorse the elimination of farm subsidies if they are elected president in 2008.”

Mitt Romney responded “I believe in supports” and Rudy Giuliani added “The governor's right.” Giuliani went on to say “The subsidies in Europe are far higher than they are in the United States. We could reduce subsidies here if they would do it there. But we shouldn't do it on our own.”
{NOTE : For an additional comment on this logic, please see the SIDEBAR below.}

So the two leading Republican candidates professing love for subsidies … but what about the people who really authorize spending – Congress ?

With all the media attention about farm subsidies ( Link -Farm Subsidies Go to Billionaires “Farmers” of New York City , Link - Deceased Farmers Got USDA Payments , Link – How Growers Double their Subsidies , etc.), Congressman Ron Kind tried to address these issues during the House debate. Kind’s proposal would have overhauled the farm bill by ending payments to farmers earning more than $250,000 a year (which was in line with what President Bush proposed), limiting payments farmers can receive under guaranteed loan programs, expanding conservation programs and replacing many subsidies with crop insurance and other protection that pays only if farmers lose money.
Roll Call Vote 747 was voted down by the Republicans 151 – 44 with Minnesotans Bachmann and Kline supporting continuing the subsidies.

Therefore, to an overwhelming majority of Republicans, subsidies are good government. So why hasn’t the Senate moved the bill forward ?

Well, like so many other pieces of legislation, there are a number of competing purposes. So, while Republicans Love Subsidies, there are other parts of the bill that they don’t like – taxes and welfare.
Collin Peterson said at FarmFest "We are spending less than 12 percent on farmers. Over 68 percent of the farm bill is for nutrition, for food stamps and the other feeding programs." {MORE on this in a commentary tomorrow.} Further, the bill would impose taxes on some foreign and multinational corporations operating in the United States that do not now pay taxes on some earnings as a result of international treaties.

There we have the crux of the Farm Bill problem. Republicans Hate Taxes ( I suspect as much as they Love Subsidies) … even closing loopholes to help to pay for the subsidies. Futher, they Hate Welfare (unless its Corporate Welfare which is synomosis with Subsidies.)

There is reason why Congress's approval is so low ... all they want to do is reward potential contributors and not be fiscally responsible in ensuring that our citizen’s receive the essential needs of substance.

SIDEBAR : Romney and Giuliani both complained that foreign governments pay subsidies. Therefore, if America didn’t do also, American farmers would be a competitive disadvantage.
Yet, neither recognize that many of these same governments also provide health care for their citizens … thus the logic would be that American business should not have to provide health care for their employees but instead it should be provided through the government. Don’t US companies that provide health care benefits operate at a competitive disadvantage to their competitors?
Oh, uh … I can see another “subsidy” program in the making.