http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/08/15_blackout.html
Now he wants to know why things broke down?
Of course the money should have been spent to upgrade the grid.
Or do you Bushistas think differant?
Reeder: if I spend the time to debunk this, will you acknowledge the correction and apologize?
Well, I don’t think we can really blame Bush for this. After all, the grid has worked well since 1965. Things break. The grid was a big thing, and when it broke, it had big influence.
I do think that it is seedy of Bush oppose the funding for the upgrade then, and now state, albeit bumbling foolishly, that the grid needs modernization for political gain though. Such is the way of polliticos.
Sure.
Go for it.
Bwah-hah-hah-hah!
That was an a very revealing Freudian slip in the OP there.
Bricker, go ahead and do Cecil’s work here, but you are dreaming if you think it will do Reeder any good. Of course, someone must think of the lurkers…
Since when is it the federal govt’s responsibility to fund the power generation industry? I suppose had Bush lobbied for the bill, you would’ve claimed he was squandering tax money to pay off his “energy cronies”.
Read the article Mr Mace.
They were to be loans.
You do know what a loan is don’t you?
I read the article. A loan is a form of funding. You do know what funding is, don’t you?
Ahh yes…but it is a funding that must be repaid…usually with interest.
If anything, botched deregulation sounds like the most likely culprit: creating many companies without financial incentives for coordinating their emergency efforts properly. But it’s probably too early to really even judge that.
Don’t mind me…I’m just waiting on Bricker.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61117-2003Aug15.html
When I read this in the Post this morning, and then Reeder’s OP, I thought there must be a disconnect. Why would the Post claim Bush had worked FOR a bill, and then Reeder claim he was against it?
Let’s see what the truth is. Reeder said Roll Call vote #169 on 20 June 2001 was against “…legislation to provide $350 million worth of loans to modernize the nation’s power grid because of known weaknesses in reliability and capacity.”
However, that’s not what it was. It was for H.R. 171, which in turn provided for consideration of H.R. 2216, a full supplemental appropriations bill. And it passed.
218 Republicans, one independent, and three Democrats voted in favor of consideration. 204 Democrats and one independent vote against.
Source: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2001&rollnumber=169
So what was in this bill?
Lots of stuff. Funding across the government. See here. I won’t quote the huge list of funding.
So what’s this Farr legislation that seems to be at heart of Reeder’s claim?
Well, on June 20th at 5:00 PM, Mr. Farr offered an amendment to the bill to “…add a new paragraph authorizing the Secretary of Energy to make direct loans and loan guarantees in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $350,000,000 for the purpose of improving existing electric power transmission systems within the United States.” Source.
Now, this is an appropriations bill. That amendment does NOT appropriate any money. Instead, it changes the existing law to permit the Secretary of Energy to offer loans and loan guarantees.
The House Rules forbid legislation in an appropriations bill. In other words, you cannot sneak changes in law into being by placing them in a bill designed to allocate money. This is especially important since the House, rather than the Senate, is the place in which all appropriations bills must originate. Article I, Sec. 7
So Mr. C. W. “Bill” Young, R-Florida, raised a point of order objection to the amendment, saying it did not comply with House rules. The chair sustained the point of order, and the amendment was not in order.
The bill went on to gain a couple of other amendments, was passed, passed by the Senate, and signed into law, becoming Public Law 107-20.
So - nowhere do we have “congressional leaders” voting against “legislation”. The legislation was offered in a place where it had no legal business being, and in which Mr. Farr knew he had no chance of his amendment sticking. Unless Mr. Farr is an idiot, he knew that offering a legislative amendment to a spending bill was a guaranteed loss. So why would he do it?
According to a friend of mine, who once served as the deputy chief of staff for a very-long-serving senator, such moves are common on both sides of the aisle. They allow the legislator to claim he introduced certain legislation, without any worries that it will actually become law.
Without speculating further on Mr. Farr’s motives, it’s safe to say that neither the Bush administration nor “congressional leaders” worked against or voted down Mr. Farr’s “legislation.” It was an amendment contrary to the rules of the House, and was ruled out of order without a vote.
- Rick
Over the course of several years, yes…
Good work Mr Bricker.
My apologies to any and all concerned.
That being said…had the amendment been allowed…could the blackout have been avoided?
Well, it raises a couple of questions. If this rule of appropriations is pristine and inviolate, whatever possessed Mr. Farr to such a futile and pointless gesture? Had the amendment been passed without this procedural objection being made, would it not have had the force of law?
I think Bricker has already given a few potential answers to this question.
Again, the whole point of putting the bill in the wrong place was the knowledge that it would get struck down. So maybe the question to ask is, if Mr. Farr was serious about this bill, why would he put it somewhere that it could be struck so easily? After all, by placing the bill in an inappropriate place, the loyal opposition was able to strike it by merely raising a point of order, rather than having it struck by vote in committee or on the floor.
What next, blame the weather on Bush?
Not likely. This was a scant two years ago. Even if the amendment had passed, it’s well-nigh impossible for the sort of improvements necessary to the grid to be planned, contracted, tested, and implemented inside two years, even with favorable loan guarantees from the government.
Nor is clear to me even now that loan guarantees are they way to solve the problem. The idea with the most steam now seems to be an oversight body with regulatory and enforcement powers. Loan guarantees put the utilities in the driver’s seat with no effective way of enforcing the required changes.
No argument on this point: had this amendment been offered in a legislative form, we’d be farther along now than we are. So I’m not saying it was useless or even bad - just that it wasn’t what the original post suggested it was.
As I explained above, it’s a common tactic for both sides of the aisle to offer legislation in places where it will have no effect, and the member knows it. It allows the member to claim hs support for initiatives that please his lobbyists or constitutents, without having to actually fight for the legislation. Note that not only did Mr. Farr offer this amendment ina place clearly out of order, but he didn’t so much as appeal the ruling of the chair, which the Rules entitled him to do, and to call for the roll-call vote of the committee for that appeal, which the Rules also permit him to do.
I don’t make the claim that SPECIFICALLY, this was Mr. Farr’s purpose. For all I know, he was unaware of the Rules, or felt so strongly about this amendment that he was willing to make the quixotic effort here, and then was struck with a sudden intestinal attack from the House cafeteria soup and forced to retire without appealing the decision of the chair.
But … with all due respect… I don’t think that’s likely.
If you’ll browse through Thomas, you’ll find every single Appropriations session going back years has members - both Democrats and Republicans - proposing legislation and having it shot down by a simple point of order, and not following it up with any sort of appeal or debate. I really doubt the soup is that potent.
- Rick
Oh, an addendum: I believe that, had it passed the House notwithstanding the Rules, and made it thorugh the Senate and the President, it would be law. The House is presumed to know its own Rules, and if they passed the bill anyway, they are implicitly overruling that prohibition in that particular case.
No serious legislation happens like that, though.
God only knows. I had not heard of this particular bit of baroque parliamentary behavior. My question is raised not so much in defense but in curiosity, and remains unanswered: has this particular thing never worked? Perhaps the poor dumb schmuck thought the fix was in?
Seems to stand to reason that if an amendment was agreed to in contravention to the rules, but nobody objected, its still a done deal, right? So…did it ever happen? Or never?
Keep in mind, just askin’, ok? I don’t know this guy Farr from Adam, and just having a (D) after your name doesn’t cut that much shit.