Our Latest Ad: Double Life

For Immediate Release
October 9th, 2008
Contact: Mike Spellings
507.424.2010


Davis Campaign Sets the Record Straight on Walz's Attempt to Distort his Record
Responds to Walz's "Davis ad Watch"

Rochester -- Despite Congressman Walz's effort to paint Brian Davis' campaign ad as "false and misleading," the Walz campaign continues to want to have it both ways. Instead of refuting any of the facts contained in the Davis ad, Walz decided to tout measures that put him on both sides of the issue. This kind of campaigning is in keeping with his desire to have his cake and eat it too, and is what makes citizens so cynical about Washington style politicians.

Davis' ad re-states a point made by the Washington Post: "Timothy Walz has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.6% of the time during the current Congress" (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/w000799/). The Walz campaign released a document attempting to refute this fact, stating Walz was ranked "moderate" by the National Journal, claiming he is "more conservative than 35.7% of congress." Despite the fact that the National Journal rank falls well short of a "moderate" stance, Walz again attempts to distract from the fact that he votes with liberal leadership over 96% of the time.

In spite of Congressman Walz's claim of being a "moderate," by pointing to an arbitrary score that rates him "more conservative than 35.7% of Congress," The American Conservative Union gave Walz a rating of "0" (zero), in 2007. (http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#MN)

Walz goes on to reference an NRA endorsement to point to his "moderate" stance. However, as the Washington Post points out, this is simply the 3.4% of the time he doesn't vote with his liberal leadership, again falling well short of "moderate." Additionally, while the NRA supports a multifaceted list of candidates, it may not be as pleased with Walz's support for Barack Obama, as they lashed out at Obama's Second Amendment stance citing, "His radical record of opposition to our constitutional rights." Walz also claims a VFW endorsement points to a "moderate" stance. However, as Walz is a veteran himself, it seems rather fitting the VFW would endorse the veteran in the race, as opposed to the "moderate" in the race. Nowhere on the VFW website do they claim to support the candidate with the most "moderate" stance, or even signify that as a prerequisite or consideration for an endorsement. (http://www.vfw.state.mn.us/)

When it comes to the statement that Congressman Walz "voted for a ban on drilling," Walz makes a remarkably misleading statement, intimating that he authored a bill for new drilling: "Walz Drilling Bill Expands Drilling and Funding For Renewables" (sic) (Walz "Davis ad Watch" 10/8/08). However, as there is a total absence of legislation in the Library of Congress bearing Walz's name as the author of such legislation, or legislation by that name, this again points to his disappointing tendency to say one thing in Minnesota and do quite another in Washington, and, in so doing, intentionally mislead the public. (http://www.loc.gov/index.html)

The Davis ad cites 7 votes Walz made that would ban or prohibit the lifting of a ban on expanded drilling:
Voted to block consideration of a bill that would allow oil drilling in ANWR, use the revenues to fund alternative energy research, and prohibit the export of ANWR oil to other countries (House Roll Call 526, 7/24/08)
Voted to block consideration of the American Energy Act, an "all of the above" energy bill (House Roll Call 524, 7/24/08)
Voted to block consideration of a bill that would establish new refineries, allow energy exploration in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf, and provide incentives for alternative energies (House Roll Call 391, 6/10/08)
Voted to block consideration of amendments that would allow oil drilling in ANWR (House Roll Call 341, 5/21/08)
Voted to block consideration of a bill that would extend many alternative energy and energy efficiency tax credits, and also block consideration of amendments that would permit oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf (House Roll Call 340, 5/21/08)
Voted against comprehensive energy legislation that would allow offshore and ANWR drilling and promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels (House Roll Call 831, 8/4/07)
Voted against lifting the ban on offshore oil and gas drilling (House Roll Call 553, 6/26/07)
Davis notes, a vote to block consideration of a bill is not simply a proxy vote against drilling, it is an outright vote against the furthering of legislation to expand domestic drilling by standing in the way of lifting the ban. Either you are for drilling or you are against it. While Walz attempts to hide his disappointing voting record on energy by pointing to recent votes that include "some drilling," Davis points to a headline in an article published in the Rochester Post Bulletin as recently as June stating, "Walz says no to expanded drilling; opponent says yes" (Rochester Post Bulletin, June 20, 2008, By Matthew Stolle). Walz went on to call expanded drilling a "Red Herring" in the very same article. Are we to believe Congressman Walz now supports what he previously called a "Red Herring?"

Walz notes he voted recently to allow the drilling ban to expire, in the face of mounting public opposition to his long established favor of a drilling ban. However, Davis again points to Walz being on both sides of the issue. As illustrated above, Davis will not allow Walz to simply talk about whichever vote he cast that is the most politically expedient, and ignore his previous opposition to drilling time and time again, as if he has been for drilling all along.

With relation to Walz supporting higher taxes that hurt the family farm, Davis points out Walz's opposition to the elimination of the Estate Tax and that he is in favor of increasing the Capital Gains Tax, as noted in the Congressional National Political Awareness Test, Nov 7, 2006. Farmers who support Walz would be loathed to know he does not support allowing them to pass their family farm down from generation to generation without suffering a massive tax on the transaction, which in some cases, prohibits a family farm from being passed down at all. Walz also cites an endorsement from the National Farmers Union PAC as evidence of his pro-farmer stance. However, despite his inability to receive the Minnesota Farm Bureau endorsement as a sitting congressman in an agricultural district, the National Farmers Union PAC may be slow to inform their members that Walz voted in favor of the "Employee Free Choice Act." The "Employee Free Choice Act" is a deceptively named bill that strips workers of the right to vote by secret ballot in union formation proceedings.

In their endorsement of Brian Davis, the Associated Builders and Contractors point out: "Mr. Davis opposes the fraudulently-named 'Employee Free Choice Act.' This bill would actually take away rights to a free and private election for unionization drives. His opponent [Walz] supports this abuse, and seems to think that employers and union officials should know who votes for or against the union formation. ABC feels that it is unconscionable for Mr. Walz to sell out American workers this way."

As further evidence that Walz says one thing in Minnesota and does another in Washington, the non-partisan political watchdog website ontheissues.org, rates Congressman Walz as "Left Liberal," (http://house.ontheissues.org/House/Tim_Walz.htm) again justifying the statements in Davis' ad.

Finally, other groups have rated Congressman Walz's voting record in a way that further buttresses Davis' claim that Walz has a liberal voting record. The National Taxpayer's Union assessed Mr. Walz's voting record at 3% out of a possible 100%, tied for the worst record in the Minnesota congressional delegation. Also, the Club for Growth has listed Walz's voting record as being 394th out of 435 of members in the U.S. House of Representatives. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has scored Walz's voting record at 60%, also one of the lowest in the Minnesota congressional delegation. Other groups' ratings can be found here: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=65443.



###

Brian Davis for Congress: Television Ad

Brian Davis for Congress Releases Their First Television Ad
Davis: Criticizes Walz for voting to adjourn congress while energy legislation is stalled

For Immediate Release
August 26, 2008
Contact: Brad Biers
651.261.2182

(Rochester, MN) - Today, the Brian Davis for Congress campaign announced the release of its first television ad. The ad focuses on the issue of high gas prices and Congressman Tim Walz' lack of support for increasing domestic oil exploration and drilling. The campaign is running the ad across the First Congressional District from August 25 until the Primary Election on September 9th.

"As I've campaigned across southern Minnesota, I hear time and again that the high cost of gas and diesel fuel are at the top of the list of voters' concerns," said Davis. "It's clear that high fuel costs are undermining the health of our economy and that people are suffering. In the short time he's been in Congress, Mr. Walz has voted eleven times against an expansion of drilling or allowing Congress to even consider it for debate. He simply isn't getting the job done for residents of our District."

Brian Davis, the endorsed Republican candidate in Minnesota's First Congressional District faces a primary challenge on September 9th. He and his wife Lori live in Rochester where they are raising their four children.

###

Open Up Oil Fields, Or Else: Letter to the editor

Vote to pen up oil fields, or else

Rochester Post Bulletin
8/5/2008 11:43:46 AM

My heating bill arrived today with an increase in my monthly even pay amount for natural gas. It's going up over $100 per month starting in July. Yep, in July.

I called the gas company to ask why. My usage has consistently gone down over the last several years, and again this year, due to a great deal of weatherizing for our home. The lady at the gas company says it's going up now because natural gas prices are expected to rise again sharply for this coming winter.

The oil fields that are not currently open to production also offer natural gas production opportunities.

If Tim Walz won't open up oil and natural gas production, then I am voting for Brian Davis. It's just that simple. I thought the gasoline situation was bad, but now I know it's only part of the story.

Muriel Hanson
Preston

Drilling debate strikes oil in Minnesota farm country

The Republican Eagle - 08/05/2008

REDWOOD FALLS, Minn. — A southern Minnesota congressional challenger used a Tuesday farm forum to drill home his support for off-shore oil drilling.

Republican challenger Brian Davis in the 1st Congressional District, serving most of southern Minnesota, repeatedly told the FarmFest audience that opening waters off the country's coast to oil drilling would help lower farmers' energy costs. He talked about off-shore drilling when answering more than half of the farm leaders' questions at the forum.

His Republican opponent, Dick Day, also called for more drilling, but not as often as Davis.
Davis, a Mayo Clinic doctor, and state Sen. Day are locked in a Republican primary election battle. The winner of the September vote will face Democratic U.S. Rep. Tim Walz in the November general election.

The forum came at FarmFest, an annual southwestern Minnesota gathering of farmers and agri-businessmen. Western Minnesota's 7th Congressional District and southern Minnesota's 1st district were the only ones in which all major candidates appeared.

While many speakers at FarmFest talk of saving the family farm, the often-blunt Day has his own assessment: "Whether you like it or not, the small family farm is gone."

Day and Davis were critical of new federal farm policy, but mostly because 70 percent of it has little to do with farming. Walz defended the bill.

"It made sure the safety net is there," Walz said.

However, Walz added, commodities such as crops probably could have fared better.
Day's big concern for federal farm policy is over-regulation.

"A fringe group" opposes farmers, he said, and that group should not control farm policy.
Energy was a major part of the forum discussion. Walz said he likes renewable energy standards recently put into law.

"They have done wonders," the first-term congressman said.

The standards help to encourage things like ethanol and wind power, both good for Minnesota, he said.

He also said he would accept ideas like off-shore drilling that Davis promoted. But, he added, it would only be if big oil companies did not overly profit.

Day joined Davis in calling for more oil drilling. He specifically said he supports more drilling in a controversial area of Alaska.

Davis said government regulations "messed up" the nuclear power industry. He did not specifically call for less federal regulation, but did encourage more nuclear power plants to be built.

Walz said 14 hearings he held on the farm bill shows his leadership ability.

Davis said he has traveled more than 50,000 in the southern Minnesota district, finding that more oil drilling and estate and capital gains taxes are hurting farmers.

Day promoted his time in the state Senate, where he has dealt with transportation and agriculture issues, and said he is fine with his status "a little outside the Republican Party."

Western Minnesota voters have a choice between a powerful U.S. House Agriculture Committee chairman and a second-time challenger who thinks a recently enacted farm bill falls short.

Republican challenger Glen Menze said on Tuesday that the farm bill, which sets federal agriculture policy for years, did not have enough specific "risk management" provisions such as crop insurance for farmers. The omissions are especially hard on small farmers, he said.

However, he was in the minority of Democrats and Republicans who spoke at a FarmFest forum. Most other congressional candidates praised the farm bill.

Menze's opponent, Democratic U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, was a major author of the legislation as ag committee chairman. Peterson presented the farm bill as a compromise that treats Minnesota farmers well.

Steve Sarvi, a Democratic challenger in the 2nd Congressional District, said young people will remain in rural Minnesota if they have economic incentive, but added: "Rural communities need to be more than just farming." His Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. John Kline, did not attend FarmFest.

Brian Davis campaigns for Congress on conservative values

Fillmore County Journal
Friday, August 01
By John Torgrimson

Brian Davis, a Mayo physician and researcher from Rochester is the endorsed Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in the 1st District. He is being challenged by Sen. Dick Day of Owatonna in the September primary election to run against incumbent Democratic congressman Tim Walz in November.

Davis recently spoke with Journal editor John Torgrimson about his candidacy and his stand on a range of issues. Excerpts from that conversation follows.

Journal: Why, with your background, are you choosing to run for Congress in the first district?

Davis: The change in representation in 2006. I feel like Congress was trying to take the country in the wrong direction. I believe there are solutions that need to be addressed: solutions in energy; solutions in health care. So in early 2007, I visited with state Republican leaders and I chose to run. On March 29 I won [Republican] endorsement.

Journal: When I say George Bush, what does that mean to you? Positive, negative? Good legacy?

Davis: I think we'll leave that to the historians to determine. I think some of the analogies with Harry Truman being resolute, and sometimes people even say "inflexible," but there may come a time down the road when people will look back and he [Bush] will have a stronger public perception than he does now. People in this district voted for George Bush both in 2000 and in 2004. So, I will tell you that I'm running in 2008 for the future. I don't agree with everything that he's done, but I will tell you I supported him in 2000 and 2004, as did the majority of this district.

Journal: The Iraq war?

Davis: The Iraq War is a part of our larger struggle with radical Islam, who are totally opposed to our way of life, our freedoms, our freedom of speech and freedom of the press, our ability to have this conversation and not be afraid that someone's going to knock on our door in the middle of the night and take us away. And I believe that we need to be strong against it, whether that's in Iraq or Afghanistan. But I think for us to move forward regardless of what one's opinion has been on this war we should ask the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to have a referendum and pose the question "Do you want the US military to stay or to go?" If the people vote freely in democratic elections and say 'we think it's time for the US military to go', then we can leave and hold our heads up high, we helped them put forward a democratic government, and in that respect we won the war and our military can be proud of a lot of things that have happened there.

Journal: Will there be a political settlement in Iraq?

Davis: I would like to see a political settlement in Iraq that would be based on having a referendum there. I think it's unquestionable that the change in strategy has been successful. It's bought us time, it's bought the government of Iraq time. But I don't think it's in our interest or in the interest of the countries in the Middle East to have the US government and the military leave there with the perception that we were chased out of there by a few thousand terrorists or suicide bombers. If we leave, have us leave because it was a mutual decision between the democratically elected governments, and the people of Iraq, and the United States government, not because of some partisan political contest in Washington D.C.

Journal: What about the economy?

Davis: Energy is the lifeblood of a modern economy. And the higher the cost of energy, and the more constraints the government places on energy production, the more costly it will be and people in our country will suffer economically.

Some think America would be better off if we had $5 gasoline. I don't believe that. The majority of the people of this country don't believe that. I'm in favor of clean air and clean water. In fact, our air is so much cleaner than it was 30 or 40 years ago because of the Clean Air and Water Act. You can have intelligent technology--it costs a little more but it's not such that it will shut down an industry.

Journal: Speaking of energy, what are the elements of an energy policy you think will work?

Davis: First of all, we have to realize that 85% of our energy in this country is carbon based. Coal, oil, natural gas. Throw in nuclear power, and that's the four major sources of energy. That's over 90% of the energy we use in heating, transportation and electricity and we can't turn off those switches easily. That's the bedrock, those are the pillars of energy. In Minnesota, I'm proud of the fact that we are among the leaders in the country in wind-power and ethanol. And anything we do that reduces our dependence on foreign oil is a good thing. I'm optimistic that over the long-term these forms of energy will be competitive over the open market.

Journal: You talked a little bit about oil, but I know you've been fairly outspoken about drilling. Some experts believe America doesn't have enough oil reserves to drill it's way out of it's problems. Respond to that.

Davis: I think it's doubtful that we would be in a position soon where we're independent of foreign oil. However, we're the third largest producer of oil in the world. And we need to produce more oil in this country, and if we can do it easily and readily, we should. It'll help our economy, it'll employ people, and it'll make us less dependent on foreign oil from countries that don't necessarily share our values. We still get two-thirds of our oil from North America--between Mexico, Canada, and the United States--if we can reduce that percentage of imported oil by using our own resources in an environmentally friendly manner, I'm in favor of drilling in Alaska. I think it should be done. And in off shore areas, we only have less than 5% that is open.

Journal: I've read where you're not a firm believer in climate change?

Davis: We've had climate change since the beginning of recorded history. We know there's areas right here that 13,000 years ago were glaciers. So, climate change happens. But to what extent CO2 production is responsible for the climate change we're observing is not well-quantified, not well-quantified at all. I met with an MIT professor, Richard Lindzen - he's in the National Academy of Science. He has been real outspoken that we don't know how much--if at all--we'd be able to change the climate if we shut down carbon based energy. If we stopped right now, can we predict how much we'd change the climate?

Journal: Are we doing enough as people, as Americans, as a government, to put in place conservation practices?

Davis: I don't favor mandated rationing or mandated conservation. I think that if we let people make their own personal decisions on that, then it is better. The auto makers in Detroit learned a lesson in competition regarding fuel-efficient cars. And it's harder for the government to mandate that than it is for the free enterprise system to respond.

Journal: Your website speaks strongly about conservative values.

Davis: I believe a human life and human being begin at conception. I oppose abortion, I believe we should respect and protect life. I know as a doctor and medical researcher that one does not need to destroy a human embryo to do stem cell research, that there are other sources of stem cells.

When it comes to marriage, I believe marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman. I would oppose civil unions if they are same sex marriage by another name.

Edits provided above by Brian in italics.

Vote to Open Oil Fields, Or Else: Rochester Post Bulletin

Letter to the Editor

Vote to pen up oil fields, or else
7/30/2008 7:32:24 AM

My heating bill arrived today with an increase in my monthly even pay amount for natural gas. It's going up over $100 per month starting in July. Yep, in July.

I called the gas company to ask why. My usage has consistently gone down over the last several years, and again this year, due to a great deal of weatherizing for our home. The lady at the gas company says it's going up now because natural gas prices are expected to rise again sharply for this coming winter.

The oil fields that are not currently open to production also offer natural gas production opportunities.

If Tim Walz won't open up oil and natural gas production, then I am voting for Brian Davis. It's just that simple. I thought the gasoline situation was bad, but now I know it's only part of the story.

Muriel Hanson
Preston

Brian Davis for Congress: Agricultural Policy

August 01, 2008
Davis and agricultural policy

From the Rochester Post Bulletin Online

Brian Davis, the GOP endorsed candidate for Congress in the First Congressional District, and his campaign's Agricultural Advisory Group, issued an Agricultural Policy Statement today, encompasing a wide range of principles including free and fair trade, protecting and improving Minnesota's water resources, estate and capital gains tax policy. It is also seeks to contrast Davis' positions on agricultural position with those of DFL Congressman Tim Walz.

Free and Fair Trade - Access to markets for agricultural products are key for the survival of agriculture in Minnesota. The recent vote by Congressman Walz and others in Congress against the Columbian Free Trade Agreement is viewed as working in opposition to the important interests of our farmers. According to the U.S. State Department, tariffs on 77 percent of all agricultural tariff lines to Columbia - more than 52 percent of the value of current U.S. farm exports - will be eliminated immediately upon implementation of this important agreement, and the remaining tariffs will be phased out over 19 years. Brian Davis strongly supports increased access to world markets for our agricultural products.

Fuel Prices and Economic Well-Being of Agriculture - The cost of energy and oil affect all aspects of our economy, particularly the agricultural community. Markedly rising input costs have an adverse downstream effect. The full effect has not been felt yet by consumers in the grocery store or with home heating bills. In stark contrast to Congressman Walz's views on domestic oil and natural gas development, Brian Davis and the Advisory Group strongly favor increased development of these resources in the United States, including offshore and in Alaska, as part of the solution to the nation's current energy problems.

Protecting and Improving Minnesota's Water Resources - Clean water and a healthy environment are critical to agriculture and to all residents of Minnesota. Brian is a cancer physician who brings health-care expertise to this issue and he strongly supports reasonable and effective efforts in this area. However, Congressman Walz supports legislation (H.R. 2421) which could trigger the largest-ever expansion of Federal powers over all waters in our state. The current proposed legislation is viewed as an infringement on property rights and would adversely affect local control. This legislation has the potential to undermine agriculture and agriculture-related industry in our District.

Value-Added Agriculture - Minnesota is among the leaders in the development of value-added agriculture and renewable fuels. As an engineer with work experience in the energy industry, Brian understands that we must continue to develop alternative energy sources while supporting efficient and clean use of conventional sources. The energy sector of the First District related to agriculture, including ethanol, biodiesel, and wind power makes rural Minnesota an energy provider and produces a positive economic impact.

Direction of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) - Brian supports the CRP for protecting land that is environmentally sensitive including highly erodible and marginal cropland. Acres that are scheduled to expire from the CRP in the next two years and thereafter that are not environmentally sensitive should be considered for return into agricultural production.

Estate and Capital Gains Tax Policy - The current estate tax that is scheduled to increase on January 1, 2011 will place a tremendous financial burden on families who wish to pass down a farm from one generation to the next, particularly in the current setting of increased land prices where it is difficult to start a farming operation. Likewise, expiration of the capital gains tax rates and their subsequent increase pose an excessive tax burden which will be placed on farmers choosing to sell property and assets. Brian Davis wants to promote an environment where young farmers can continue the family business. Congressman Walz's positions on these tax issues are not helping farmers transfer their assets to our next generation of farmers or to realize the equity built up from years of hard work.

Posted on August 01, 2008 at 01:35 PM Permalink

Washington Post Editorial: No Drilling, No Vote

Speaker Pelosi won't let the House debate the merits of offshore drilling.
Friday, July 25, 2008; A20

WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won't be hearing it in the House of Representatives -- certainly, you won't find lawmakers voting on it -- anytime soon.

Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor. Why not? "What the president would like to do is to have validation for his failed policy," she said yesterday when asked that very question. "What we're saying is, 'Exhaust other remedies, Mr. President.' . . . It is the economic life of America's families, and to suggest that drilling offshore is going to make a difference to them paycheck to paycheck now is a frivolous contention. The president has even admitted that. So what we're saying is, 'What can we do that is constructive?' "

If there is an explanation buried in there about why that makes offshore drilling off-limits for a vote, we missed it. Ms. Pelosi is correct that drilling is no panacea for the nation's energy woes. The short-term effect of lifting the moratorium, if there were any, would be minimal. That doesn't mean the country shouldn't consider expanded drilling as one of many alternatives. There are legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of such drilling -- environmental concerns that, we would note, exist in other regions whose oil Americans are perfectly happy to consume. But have technological improvements made such drilling less risky? Why not have that debate?

When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that "bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives." Why not on drilling?

Meanwhile, the dispute has snarled progress on spending bills for fear of having drilling amendments attached. Citing "the uncertainty in how the oil and gas drilling issue is currently playing out on the Senate floor," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) called off committee consideration of spending bills on which Republicans were threatening to offer drilling amendments. The result threatens to be the first time since at least 1950 that lawmakers will go home for the August recess without either chamber having passed a single appropriations bill.

If drilling opponents really have the better of this argument, why are they so worried about letting it come to a vote?

Davis touts conservative values, oil drilling in quest to unseat Walz

Published - Wednesday, July 23, 2008
By Ryan Henry of the Houston County News

Gas prices in southeastern Minnesota have reached nearly $4/gallon, which not only hits people in the wallet, but has affected the overall economy. That’s why it’s time to start drilling for oil in United States, both offshore and in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, according to Brian Davis.

“It’s been shown, with the oil drilling that’s up there right now, that it can co-exist with wildlife and vegetation,” he said. “They have a pipeline that’s not being used to full capacity.”

Davis, who stopped by the Houston County News office last week, is the Republican-endorsed candidate running for a United States House of Representative seat out of Minnesota. He’ll likely face off with DFLer Tim Walz, who defeated long-time Congressman Gil Gutknecht two years ago. However, he’ll be challenged by Senator Dick Day in a September 9 primary.

Much of the suffering from fuel prices which in turn affect food prices and the housing market is due to Congress’s micro-management of the nation’s energy production, he said.

“We need to have a cheap and clean supply of energy to keep this modern economy moving forward,” Davis said. “Right now, government is really ham-stringing the economy with some of the policies it has in place.”

Davis has experience in the energy industry, both as a student and a full-time engineer. He’s seen what government policy did to the nuclear power industry, although the U.S. produces more energy from nuclear energy than any other country, it still doesn’t have a growing nuclear energy industry like he believes it should.

“I think we need to lift the moratorium on nuclear power in Minnesota,” he said.

He’s also in favor of continuing development of alternative energy sources like ethanol, wind power, solar energy, and bio-diesel.

With healthcare, he believes there needs to be more competition and less government intervention because of the looming crisis with the aging of baby-boomers and unfunded liability of Medicare. He thinks Washington needs people, like himself, who have practical experience with healthcare, which consumes 17 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. And he doesn’t believe the country should adopt a nationalized or socialized healthcare system.

Davis is pro-life and believes it’s important to respect all human life from dawn to sunset. As a doctor, he said he knows embryos don’t need to be destroyed to do stem cell research, and that there are other sources of stem cells, such as bone marrow.

He supports the traditional family, with marriage between a man and a woman. He said he’d support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, if it’s ever presented.

Davis thinks there’s a problem with illegal immigration in the U.S. There’s thought to be 12 million illegals in the country, but that can’t be known for sure, he said, because local law enforcement agencies haven’t been empowered to check into that. He’s in favor of the border fence Congress authorized, one issue he and Walz differ on.

He has been endorsed by the Republican Party in both Houston and Winona counties. Since 1996, Davis has been a staff physician in the radiation oncology department at Mayo Civic in Rochester, where he lives. He has a wife Lori, and four children.

You’ll have a chance to meet Davis this year in the Applefest King Apple Parade September 21.

All stories copyright 2006 Houston County News and other attributed sources.

Minnesota Voters Want Solutions and Clear Answers to Our Energy Problems Not More Partisanship

Davis: Walz fails to give Minnesota voters clear answers on his position regarding offshore drilling.

For Immediate Release
July 24, 2008
Contact: Brad Biers
651.261.2182

(Rochester, MN) - Today, Brian Davis, the endorsed Republican candidate for the First District of Minnesota, has called upon Congressman Walz to clarify his stance regarding offshore drilling and development of shale oil. In a recent article in the Star Tribune, Congressman Walz was the only member of Minnesota's Congressional delegation who did not give a clear answer regarding his position on development of shale oil. In addition, he was also unclear regarding his position on offshore drilling.

Dr. Davis stated, "While Minnesotans and the nation are feeling the economic consequences of high gas prices and a suffering economy, Congressman Walz is failing to let Minnesotans know where he stands. Like the majority of Americans, I strongly support offshore drilling and am very encouraged by yesterday's report from the U.S. Geological Survey that estimates there may be up to 90 billion barrels of oil in the arctic that are in unexplored areas, mostly offshore."

Davis continued, "Congress should let the moratoria on offshore drilling expire on September 30 as scheduled and not renew it. We are the only major industrialized country in the world that has the majority of offshore areas off-limits to oil exploration. This is bad for our country and bad for the family budgets in Minnesota's First District."

Brad Biers, the Davis campaign manager added, "Voters in the First District should ask for whom does Tim Walz work? The residents of southern Minnesota or Speaker Pelosi? Many families are struggling with their family budgets and have mounting credit card debt, including Congressman Walz with credit card debt in the neighborhood of a hundred thousand dollars. Congress isn't getting the job done and shouldn't go on its August 1 recess if it can't even vote on this issue of national importance. It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that Congress has the lowest approval rating in the history of polling."

Brian Davis is a physician who treats cancer patients and resides in Rochester with his wife Lori and their four children.

# # #

You can support Brian Davis for Congress HERE !

No Excuses: It's Time to Drill

Over to You, Speaker Pelosi
Let's drill. by Matthew Continetti
07/28/2008, Volume 013, Issue 43

Gas is still at $4 a gallon, but the good news is there's an emerging consensus on a measure that would help: Drill for more oil here at home. President Bush dropped the executive ban on offshore oil and natural gas exploration last week, and House GOP leader John Boehner plans to lead a congressional delegation to Colorado and Alaska to highlight America's abundant energy resources this week. Polls show more than two-thirds of the public support increased domestic energy exploration and production. Guess who stands in the way.

Congress has its own ban on offshore energy exploration, and the Democrats who run Congress have shown no sign that they are willing to follow Bush's example. They have preferred to make excuses--about why the price of oil is rising, who is to blame for its rise, and why increasing domestic supply won't do anything to ameliorate the problem.

It isn't working. Democrats are losing the fight over gas prices, and they know it, too.

They have slowly changed positions as the absurdity of their arguments has become clear. First they ignored the problem altogether. Earlier this summer, Senate Democrats wasted time debating a carbon cap-and-trade scheme that would have raised energy prices dramatically at a time when those prices were already at record highs. Cap and trade crashed and burned.
For a long while, Democrats simply blamed the oil companies for the spike in gasoline prices. They proposed new windfall profits taxes on "Big Oil," which would of course be passed on to the consumer, making gasoline even more expensive. They even threatened to sue OPEC. Nonstarters all. The price of oil didn't drop.

Then the Democrats--and, to their discredit, plenty of Republicans--decided to scapegoat "speculators." The thinking here is that commodities traders have a financial interest in watching prices go up. Well, some do. Others--those betting prices will fall--do not. The fact that there are traders of oil futures has nothing to do with why those prices increase. The "speculators" just make bets on where the price of a commodity will be by a certain date. This year, the bets on higher oil prices have been good because the falling dollar, rising global demand, and political instability in the Middle East and Africa are driving the price of this particular commodity upward.

When ignorance and finger-pointing didn't work, Democrats dusted off the law of supply and demand. But they refused to acknowledge that one of the best ways to increase supply is to expand America's production capacity by opening new territory to exploration. Rather, they demanded that Bush release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, forgetting that the reserve is called "strategic" for a reason. It's meant to be used in a national emergency. Bush has stopped new shipments to the reserve, increasing supply on the (microscopic) margins.
Meanwhile, New York senator Charles Schumer demanded that other oil-producing nations increase production in order to lower U.S. gas prices. If only the Saudis "produced half a million barrels more oil a day," Schumer said, "the price would come down a very significant amount." Maybe so. But why rely on the Saudis? Why not take steps to increase our own supply? Are we dependents?

The Democrats' next tack was to suggest that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of oil and not doing anything about it. Last week House Democrats tried to pass a "use it or lose it" law that would have denied federal land leases to oil companies if the companies couldn't demonstrate that they were producing energy on existing plots. The bill was rejected, and for good reasons. For one, there is already a "use it or lose it" provision in federal law. For another, the bill was premised on the idea that 4.8 million barrels of oil a day could be extracted from these "unused" lands. Boehner has asked Speaker Pelosi where this unsubstantiated statistic comes from. She hasn't said. That is because the number is a joke.

Finally, Democrats are attacking the pro-drilling folks for thinking ahead. Exploring deposits on the continental shelf "wouldn't produce a drop of oil for seven years or longer," wrote Senator Dianne Feinstein. Nobel laureate Al Gore said last week, "It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now."

Leave aside, for a moment, the fact that no one is saying drilling is a short-term answer to the long-term energy challenge. Recall, instead, that Feinstein and Gore are simply echoing what critics say every time the drilling issue arises. Whether it is twenty or ten years ago or today, the answer is always, "You won't see anything for ten years." Okay, then. But if we had drilled ten years ago, wouldn't those supplies be on the market today?

No one pretends that drilling will solve all our problems overnight. But it will send a powerful signal to the markets that America is serious about energy and the global economy. It will send a signal that we are taking action, that we are not helpless. The 25-year boom of the 1980s and 1990s coincided with, and to an extent depended on, an era of cheap and plentiful energy. To get there again requires favoring the national interest over the parochial interests of environmentalists. No excuses. It's time to drill.

--Matthew Continetti, for the Editors

© Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Letter from a Concerned Citizen: Congressman Walz is Bluffing and is Beholden to an Impractical and Extremist Environmental Agenda

The following was sent to our campaign from a concerned citizen:

Dear Mr. R,

Thank you for contacting me regarding domestic oil production. I appreciate hearing from you.

The rapid increase in gas prices is putting a serious strain on all Americans. A number of factors contribute to the high cost of gasoline, including the growing global demand for crude oil, the limited capacity within the United States for refineries, and market uncertainty regarding the threat of supply disruption due to conflicts in the Middle East.

While there are no quick fixes, Congress is currently considering a number of proposals to address rising fuel costs. As part of these proposals, some suggest that by opening up more areas for drilling within the United States we can lower gas prices and reduce our dependence on foreign imports.

Instead of rushing to open new areas for drilling, I believe that oil companies should make use of the land they already have available. Today, oil companies hold leases to about 92 million acres of federally-owned land, both onshore and offshore. Roughly 67 million of those acres-more than 70 percent of the area they own the rights to-are not being used for production. These are areas that oil companies are authorized to start drilling, which have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, nearly double total US oil production.

I have supported legislation in Congress that tells the oil companies to "use it or lose it," and either make use of the land they have leased, or turn it over to a company that will. Unfortunately, while this should provide some relief in the medium term, most experts agree that we cannot drill our way out of the current energy crisis.

That's why I believe that we should be harnessing American ingenuity and innovation to develop long term solutions to our current energy crisis. By developing renewable resources such as wind and solar power, biofuels, and geothermal heat, we can move beyond fossil fuels to an energy policy which is sustainable, renewable and produced in America by American workers. Rest assured that as Congress continues to debate these issues, I will keep your views in mind.

Thank you again for sharing your views with me, and I look forward to hearing from you again in the future. For more information about my activities representing southern Minnesota in Congress, please visit http://walz.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,

Tim Walz
Member of Congress

***************************************************************


Nice bluff Congresmen Walz. No wonder Congressional approval ratings are in the upper teens.

Your (or maybe Nancy Pelosi's) paragraph on having oil companies make use of the land that they already have available is very misleading. To come up with this statistic, you assume that roughly 23 million acres of federal land are producing 1.6 million barrels each day. Since roughly three times as many federal acres are leased to oil companies you assume that the US could be producing three times as much oil, which is the 4.8 million barrels of oil that you get.

However, oil and gas are not going to be found under each and every acre. Also, oil production in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska has been stalled by groups like the Sierra Club.

Don't count on bluffing the residents of the 1st Congressional District too long!

We Need to Increase Our Domestic Oil Production: About Those Estimates

From the U.S. Department of Interior, Mineral Management Service




Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable
Oil and Gas Resources of the Nation’s Outer Continental
Shelf, 2006


Using a play-based assessment
methodology, the Minerals Management
Service estimated a mean of
85.9 billion barrels of undiscovered
recoverable oil and a mean of 419.9
trillion cubic feet of undiscovered
recoverable natural gas in the
Federal Outer Continental Shelf of
the United States.



...
This assessment provides estimates of the undiscovered,
technically and economically recoverable oil and natural gas
resources located outside of known oil and gas fields on the
OCS.



From an editorial in the Albert Lea Tribune regarding these estimates: But these are only estimates. Without allowing American oil companies to explore these regions, we won’t know how much is there.



It's time to Drill Here! And Drill Now! Sign our Petition! And contribute to our campaign here!

Letter to the Editor: Liberals like Walz will hurt the price of oil

Published Saturday, July 12, 2008

Please refer to our 1st District Congressman Tim Walz’s article printed in our Tribune on June 26 titled “Why isn’t Big Oil using leases it already has?”

A question such as his only indicates his lack of knowledge on the economics of the oil industry. If his proposals become law, we will be paying much more than $4 per gallon for gasoline. Yes, the oil companies do own the rights to drill on federal land. However, most of this land does not contain “proven” petroleum reserves, and it would be prohibitively expensive to drill on at this time. There is only so much capital available to explore for new sources of oil and that capital must be spent where the best chances of recovery can be found. With modern exploratory techniques, finding new reserves is much more scientific than it was 20 years ago. Why drill where there are chances of finding a small amount of oil when that capital can be better used in finding larger, and less expensive, quantities in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska?

Rep. Walz accuses “Big Oil” of price gouging. Just who is “Big Oil?” It’s a group of common stockholders who have pooled their resources in an effort to bring energy to the marketplace. To do this is a very expensive operation with a high degree of risk. If we were to eliminate the total profits of the major oil companies, we would still be paying about $3.70 per gallon rather than the current $4. Of this approximately 30 cents per gallon gross profit, only about 13 cents is distributed in dividends and the other 17 cents goes toward the exploration for additional petroleum reserves. The final “yield” (dividend) to the stockholder averages about 3 percent in today’s marketplace. To discourage further investment in the oil industry by threatening the real producers of energy is highly counterproductive. If you want higher gasoline prices, follow the advice of our current Congressman Tim Walz, who advocates killing the goose who has been laying the golden egg since the discovery of oil at Titusville, Penn., in 1859.

Not only are Tim Walz and his fellow liberals in Congress attempting to discourage development of the cheapest and most available sources of energy, they also want to subsidize sources that are not economically viable at this time. Tim should better educate himself on the subject of energy before he attempts to sell a counterproductive policy to his constituents. No time in our country’s history have we needed better leadership on the subject of energy.

Charles Foster
Albert Lea

© 2008 Albert Lea Tribune, Inc. All rights

Stewartville Star: Davis says U.S. should drill for more oil offshore, in ANWR

Candidate for U.S. House visits Stewartville
Mark Peterson Editor

Monday, July 07, 2008

The United States can become much more energy independent by drilling for oil in areas Congress has deemed off limits, Republican First Congressional District U.S. Rep. candidate Brian Davis said last week.

Davis will face Republican state Sen. Dick Day in a Sept. 9 primary to determine who will run against Democratic incumbent Tim Walz in this November's general election. Davis spoke about his energy policy differences with Walz during a visit to the offices of the Stewartville STAR last week.

Up to 100 billion barrels of oil are available in offshore areas near the United States, and many billion barrels more could be found in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Davis said.

Drilling for more oil at home would decrease America's dependence on foreign oil and improve the U.S. economy, Davis said. However, Democrats in Congress have blocked proposed increases in domestic oil production, voting down proposals to drill for oil in offshore areas and in ANWR, Davis said.

"It's environmental radicalism that we're paying for at the gas pump," he said.

Davis criticized Walz's record of taxing and spending, saying that Walz ranks 394th among the 435 members of Congress on the Club For Growth Scale, which rates each lawmaker's votes on economic growth issues."Washington taxes too much and spends it all and then some," Davis said.

Davis, a physician at the Mayo Clinic since 1996, has called for a national policy to address the overabundance of malpractice lawsuits against doctors."Malpractice is driving doctors and hospitals out of business, which hurts our access to quality care," he said.

He is also calling for health care reform, saying that healthy individuals should be allowed to take their health insurance policies with them from job to job, across state lines or into retirement.

Also, people who make choices to live healthier lifestyles should be rewarded with lower insurance premiums, he said.

Davis said he believes the U.S. must stay on the offense against radical Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he said he would favor allowing the Iraqi and Afghan people the opportunity to vote in referendums to determine whether they want American soldiers to stay.

"It's apparent that the surge has worked," he said. "It has given the government of Iraq a chance to become more stable."Davis describes himself as pro-life, stating in a campaign brochure that he will always vote in Congress to protect life and emphasizing that he will never backtrack from that position.

"We need to respect life and protect life," he said. More than 1 million babies are aborted each year in the United States, Davis said. Even so, some candidates look at abortion as just another political issue to the polled, spun and used in an election campaign, he said."It was once said that a civilization will be judged by how it treats those in the dawn of life and the sunset of life," he wrote in a campaign brochure. "I agree."

Davis said he is against embryonic stem cell research, saying that scientists can move closer to finding cures for various diseases without destroying human embryos in the process.

He defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Marriage, he said, is a fundamental building block of society."If civil unions are same-sex marriages by another name, then I am opposed to them," he said.

The California Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn the vote of the people and allow same-sex marriage is "a travesty," he said."If given the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment on this subject, I would vote in favor of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," he said.

Davis has put more than 40,000 miles on his car since he began campaigning for Walz's seat. As of last week, he had marched in 21 parades and planned to take part in Stewartville's Fourth of July Summerfest parade.

Davis earned a bachelor of science degree in nuclear engineering at the University of Illinois and worked for three years as an engineer in the electric power industry.

He and his wife Lori, an emergency medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic, have four children.

(Posted 7/13)