Roskam passes meaningless amendment he previously voted against

Sneaky Pete is at it again. Yesterday his office sent out a press release praising his work in passing an amendment that he claims will save taxpayers $10 million. He goes on to talk about how great alternative fuels are, despite the fact he voted last month against collecting taxes owed from oil companies to fund development of alternative fuels.

The problem is that his amendment and press release is a complete farce. If I can get wonkish for a second, his basis for claiming to have saved taxpayers $10 million is that his amendment makes the new spending conform to pay-as-you-go (known as pay-go) budget rules, which requires new spending to be offset by reductions in spending (or increases in revenue) elsewhere. But the thing sneaky Pete doesn’t mention is that the House already passed pay-go budgeting rules. I know he is a new member and all, but how is it possible he missed the fact that the Democratic led House of Representatives already adopted pay-go budget rules for all of their legislation – a rule he voted against? Here are just a few samples out of the tons of articles and media devoted to this:

“House Adopts Pay-as-You-Go Rules” Washington Post, 1/6/07.

“Day Two: House passes new budget rules. Democrats push to increase spending only with cuts in other funding” MSNBC, 1/5/07.

“Congresswoman Melissa Bean Hails Return to Pay-as-you-go Budget Rules,” from the office of Roskam’s neighboring congressional colleague, 1/5/07.

So basically, sneaky Pete offered an amendment to follow rules that everyone already agreed to follow – and is now trying to claim credit for it. There is a reason why his amendment passed by voice vote, which signifies that not a single member objected to its passage. That reason is because it doesn’t do anything new. The only reason he was even allowed to offer such an amendment is because the non-controversial bill (it passed 400-3) came to the House floor under an open rule which meant there were no limits on amendments that could be offered, no matter how pointless they were. If there were limits I assure you that such a pointless amendment would have never been allowed.

And what makes bragging about this pointless amendment especially ridiculous is the previously mentioned fact that Roskam actually voted against the original pay-go budgeting rule which passed last month 280-152. So he literally voted against this rule before he submitted an amendment for it. Talk about flip-flopping.

All of this brings me to a completely all together different subject. Some of you may noticed me use the term sneaky Pete throughout this post. I’ve actually adopted this from a reader who used this nickname on an earlier comment. I’ve been thinking for quite some time that we need a good nickname for Roskam – and sneaky Pete certainly sums him up in regards to this amendment. I haven’t been able to come up with anything catchy myself, especially as I do not want to make any personal attacks on this blog. The purpose of this blog is strictly to follow Roskam’s votes and policy. In that vein, the sneaky Pete label here refers to his legislative actions in bragging about an amendment that 1) doesn’t do anything and 2) is in support of a rule he previously voted against. But does anyone else have any suggestions for a good label/nickname? Keep in mind “way too conservative Roskam” isn’t very catchy – although it is certainly true!

Record profits for Exxon

Exxon Mobile just announced that it has posted the largest annual profits by any U.S. corporation ever - $39.5 billion! Good thing Rep. Roskam broke a campaign pledge and voted to give Exxon extra subsidies rather then to actually tax them and use that money for sustainable energy independence. But on the bright side, at least in Roskam's world seniors should have a better retirement. Back in the real work, my Grandmas and I still aren't celebrating and rejoicing at this news.

Roskam continues to vote out of step with Il-6

Rep. Roskam continues to be a rubber stamp for the Republican leadership too conservative for Il-6. Yesterday's out of touch vote was for a Fiscal 2007 Continuing Resolution, which in layman’s terms is the spending budget for 2007 that was needed because the Republicans failed to complete a budget when they were in power. This resolution would basically continue the 2006 budget but with added funding for veterans' health care, the National Institutes of Health, tenant-based housing vouchers, Pell Grants, and military housing allowances.

The bill passed overwhelmingly, 286-140. While I don’t have polling data, I think most Americans would support continued 2006 spending with these needed additions. But not Roskam – he once again joined the minority of hard line conservatives with his dissenting vote. Seeing him once again vote against the majority of Americans and his Congressional colleagues, I thought it would be interesting to look at the most recent polling to see how Roskam’s other early votes compare to public opinion. Not surprisingly, it is clear the Roskam is voting way too conservatively and is out of touch with the majority of Americans and Il-6 residents.

Now to be fair, there is very little Il-6 specific polling out there so most of the polls I cite are national polls. But lets face it, Il-6 is a battleground district in the Chicago suburbs so we would tend to be pretty similar to the rest of the country. None of the polls are really even close, but if anyone can give me a reason why Il-6 would be so radically different from the rest of America, I’m all ears. And remember, Wheaton college enrollees make up only a small part of the electorate and even there they now allow dancing – so you’ll have to come up with a better reason then that!

Anyways, without further ado I’d like to present Roskam’s early voting.

Minimum Wage – Jan. 10th – HR 2
Despite the fact 86% of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, Roskam still voted no. It passed the House overwhelmingly, 315-116.

Stem Cell Research – Jan. 11th – HR 3
Overall Americans support using stem cell research to help cure diseases by a nearly 2-1 margin with 61% in support against only 31% who oppose such a measure. All of the leading Illinois Universities strongly supported allowing this critical research. Even State House Republican Leader Tom Cross recognizes the popularity of using stem cell research to find cures, "Stem cell research has bi-partisan support in both chambers, just as it has overwhelming support across the state and across the country." Despite Roskam’s no vote, it sailed through the House 253-174.

Medicare Part D – Jan. 12th – HR 4
79% of Americans support having Medicare use its bulk purchasing power to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices while only 17% are in opposition. Does Roskam side with American seniors and the 79% who would like them to have access to cheaper prescription drugs? Of course not. Despite Roskam siding with the pharmaceutical industry, the bill easily passed the House 255-170.

Energy – Jan. 19th – HR 6
Already written several posts about this vote. Despite Roskam’s no vote, it passed by over 100 votes, 264-163.

Not that it was needed, but there you have it. Further proof that Roskam is out-of-touch with his constituents and too conservative for Il-6.

Are you kidding?

Did anyone else see Roskam's justification for voting for H.R. 6 and tax cuts for oil companies? Get this:

“The bill is overflowing with unintended consequences. One of the most disturbing is severely damaging the retirement savings of seniors. Retirement and pension accounts hold forty-one percent of domestic oil and gas company shares. When our domestic companies’ production levels shrink, so do the hard-earned and well-deserved savings of our seniors."

Oh please. Only a trial lawyer could come up with such baloney. Remember this quote - If in the future he votes for legislation that will hurt seniors (he's already voted against allowing the government negotiate for cheaper prescription drugs), I will be sure to bring this quote back up.

Of course, its complete nonsense that he voted against repealing these corporate handouts because of seniors. Remember, having the government collect the $14 billion it should be collecting would leave lots more money available for Social Security (which doesn't depend on the inequitable owning of stocks), Medicare, and the promotion of clean energy (I'm sure a few retirees have stocks in clean energy companies too).

And how much of this corporate handout are actually going to the stockholders? According to the 13th Annual CEO Compensation Survey:

*The top 15 U.S. Oil Barons are paid 281 percent of the average CEO
compensation in comparably sized businesses. The top 15 U.S. Oil
CEOs were paid an average of $32.7 million in 2005 while the average
compensation for CEOs of large U.S. firms in all industries was
$11.6 million.

*Top three highest paid U.S. oil chieftains in 2005:
#1 William Greehey (Valero Energy) = $95.2 million
#2 Ray R. Irani (Occidential Petroleum) = $84.0 million
#3 Lee Raymond (outgoing CEO of ExxonMobil) = $69.7 million

And lest anyone think that is the pay required to get a CEO capable of running an oil company:

*The second- and third-largest oil companies in the world are both foreign firms, British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell. Both pay their
CEOs considerably less than comparable U.S. oil companies. While
they operate in the same global marketplace, their average pay was
$4.8 million, compared to the average of $39.2 million for the top 2
U.S. oil CEOs.

If Roskam really cares about the minority of retirees that have stock in oil companies, perhaps he should look into doing something about CEO pay disparity? Of course, maybe the $127,065 he's received from energy interests is the real reason he voted to keep their corporate hand-outs. It certainly isn't to protect an average American retiree. That is one of the lamest justifications for voting the wrong way I've ever heard.

Roskam breaks promise on environment

I've already bashed Roskam for his vote to give tax breaks for oil companies instead of working for clean energy solutions, but there has been 2 new developments since then. First of all, President Bush made clean energy and reducing oil consumption by 20% a major part of his State of the Union address the other day. Second, I came across this letter in today's Chicago Sun Times. Until then, I didn't even realize that Roskam had signed a pledge to support clean energy during the his campaign. Can we trust his word on anything? We'll see how the rest of his term goes, but breaking a campaign pledge and harming our enviroment in the first 100 hours is not a good start.

Roskam's vote for Big Oil

U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) did not support the Clean Energy Act despite his campaign promise to work toward a new energy future. Almost a year ago, President Bush acknowledged that we are ''addicted to oil.'' Unfortunately, instead of being invested in clean energy solutions, billions of taxpayer dollars have been used to subsidize big oil companies at a time of record profits for the oil industry.

On Jan. 18, the U.S. House took the first step and passed legislation that will repeal $14 billion in Big Oil handouts and use that money to fund the clean energy technologies that reduce our dangerous dependence on oil. Unfortunately, Roskam voted against the Clean Energy Act despite his signature on a New Energy Future promise that he signed during his election campaign. One can't help but wonder how Roskam will keep his promise to put us on a path to a new energy future when his very first vote cast on energy policy is in favor of the oil companies.
LuCinda Hohmann,
field associate,
Environment Illinois

Roskam votes for big oil

So Roskam once again goes with the hard line conservatives and votes for tax breaks for Exxon and other big oil companies (H.R.6). I guess he missed the headlines about the record setting $10.7 billion in quarterly profits Exxon recently made. What about helping the working classes Mr. Roskam? Maybe he voted because Big Oil companies contributed $70,765 to help him get elected? I guess he does take after his indicted former boss and K-Street project founder, Tom Delay, when it comes to influence peddling.

Giving away $14 billion dollars to companies making record profits is a terrible idea. If we are ever to become energy independent it makes sense to use this $14 billion towards an apollo like enery project. From the Apollo Alliance, I've learned that $14 billion can potentially: Power 4.2 million homes with wind energy. Create 29,000 jobs in the solar industry. Or fund incentives to help 5.6 million Americans purchase hybrid cars. But unforturtunately, Roskam once again votes the wrong way. He is way too conservative for Illinois.