Bulletin E-Edition:
Timber payments lose Walden’s vote
Lawmaker splits with Oregon delegation over funding plan
By Keith Chu / The Bulletin
Published: June 05. 2008 4:00AM PSTGreg Walden questions the plan’s legality.
WASHINGTON — An extension of timber payments to rural schools and counties is likely to go down in defeat on the floor of the U.S. House today, with Rep. Greg Walden, R-Hood River, poised to vote against it.
Republicans and Democrats split along party lines in debate Wednesday on the House floor over the proposal due to how it would fund timber payments — by increasing fees on some existing oil and gas leases.
While partisan sparring is regular in Washington, D.C., it has been less common on this topic among Oregon’s House members. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Springfield, and Walden, who represents Central and Eastern Oregon, had worked closely on extending timber payments for years. On Wednesday, however, the pair traded blame during the House debate.
“It’s schools, teachers, cops,” DeFazio said, gesturing with one hand, “and Big Oil,” motioning with the other.
DeFazio’s roughly $2 billion bill would extend county payments for four years, decreasing funding by 10 percent each year. It is paid for by increasing fees on some existing oil and gas leases, which is what caused the split in Oregon’s delegation.
A vote on the measure is expected today. President Bush has said he will veto the bill, according to The Associated Press.
advertisement:
“Given their record profits, given that otther companies are paying fees for oil and gas extraction on public lands, it’s only fair,” DeFazio said of his funding idea.
Walden said he would oppose DeFazio’s county payments bill because it would fund, or “offset,” county payments by rewriting existing oil and gas contracts and spend the money in a way that is illegal.
The funding scheme is “a seat on a bus going off of a cliff,” Walden said on the House floor. “What we have today is an offset of questionable legality.”
The payments provided about $3.1 million for roads last year in Deschutes County. Crook County received $2.3 million, and Jefferson County got more than $550,000, according to county officials.
Two-thirds needed
While DeFazio said he believes the bill will receive a slight majority in the House today, it needs a two-thirds majority to pass because of procedures used to bring it to the floor.
If the bill does fail “we’ll be in a world of hurt,” DeFazio said, referring to the chances of getting an extension of county payments passed this year.
County payments backers could try to bring the bill back for another vote, under a different set of rules, but Republicans would need to agree not to bring up proposals to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge as part of the county payments debate, DeFazio said.
In an interview, Rep. David Wu, D-Portland, compared Republican opposition to this bill with the biblical story in which Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, at God’s request: “These rural western Republicans sacrificed their kids because Big Oil asked them to,” Wu said. “They need to learn Big Oil isn’t God.”
Walden’s position
Speaking after he left the House floor, Walden said he “could care less about these oil companies,” but that he could not support breaking existing oil and gas contracts.
In his floor speech, Walden also said Democrats broke their promise to find a new way to fund county payments. He quoted a spokeswoman for Natural Resource Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., who told The Bulletin last year that Democrats would find a new way to pay for the bill before it came up for a vote.
A Congressional Research Service report from June 2007 determined that a nearly identical proposal to rewrite oil and gas contracts would not be “clear violations” of companies’ rights.
Walden said DeFazio and Democrats rejected a possible compromise Tuesday evening, offered through the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition, a nonprofit that lobbies for a timber payments extension.
Bob Douglas, the executive director of the coalition, declined to comment on the proposal but confirmed that he delivered another plan to DeFazio.
“I’m not going to enter into a partisan food fight over this,” Douglas said. “We very frankly think (an extension) is possible if for a while people will set aside their partisan differences and find an offset that will work for everyone.”
But Douglas urged lawmakers to settle their differences and quickly pass an extension to the payments.
Back in Oregon, county commissioners had mixed reactions to Walden’s opposition to a bill he once championed.
Deschutes County Commissioner Tammy Melton said she doesn’t blame Walden for opposing the county payments bill.
“I trust his judgment and I trust he will make the best decision with the best information he has at the time,” Melton said. “This is one of those times when you are just happy you’re not him.”
Jackson County Commissioner Dave Gilmour was less supportive.
“He’s going to do what he has to do for political reasons, but he’s going to find it a bit embarrassing if DeFazio champions it and he shoots it down,” Gilmour said. “He’s going to have to justify it to all of us when he comes by.”
ARTICLE ACCESS: This article is among those available to all readers. Many more articles are available only to E-Edition members. Sign up today!
comments powered by Disqus
