Senate blocks attempt to allow drilling in Alaska refuge

[bishop]

article

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate blocked oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, rejecting a must-pass defense spending bill where supporters positioned the quarter-century-old environmental issue to garner broader support. It was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, one of the Senate's most powerful members, who had given senators a choice to support the Alaska drilling measure, or risk the political fallout of voting against money for American troops and for victims of Hurricane Katrina. Democrats accused Stevens, the senior Republican in the Senate, of holding the defense bill hostage to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "It took a lot of guts for a lot of people to stand up," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Connecticut, said after the vote. Republican leaders fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense measure over the oil drilling issue. The vote prompted GOP leaders to huddle in private over their next move. The vote that was 56-44. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for procedural reasons cast a vote with ANWR opponents, so that he might be able to resurrect the issue for another try. But Democrats said they expected the defense bill to be withdrawn and reworked without the Arctic refuge provision. The 43 senators who voted against refuge drilling -- all but four Democrats as well as GOP Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island -- "are intent and unyielding" and not expected to budge should Frist try for another vote, said Lieberman. Stevens called the refuge's oil vital to national security and bemoaned repeated attempts over the years by opponents using the filibuster to kill drilling proposals. Democrats, conversely, accused Stevens of holding hostage a military spending bill that includes money to support troops in Iraq and $29 billion for victims of Hurricane Katrina. "Our military is being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling," fumed Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader. The Nevada Democrat said the Senate could move quickly to pass the defense bill once the refuge issue was resolved. "We all agree we want money for our troops. ... This is not about the troops," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, a strong critic of disturbing the refuge in northeastern Alaska by oil development. During the vote, Stevens, 82, who had fought to open the refuge to drilling since 1980 and is the most senior Republican in the Senate, sat unsmiling in a chair midway back in the chamber, watching his colleagues vote. When it became apparent that he had lost, he briefly talked with Frist, presumably over what move should be taken next. He briefly shook his head, a signal of his disappointment. "We need ... to open up the small area of the coastal plain [of the refuge] for oil exploration and development," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. She called making the oil available a matter of national security by reducing U.S. reliance on oil imports. Senators determined to protect the refuge from development found it difficult to oppose the politically popular defense bill, which has money for troops in Iraq, relief for Katrina hurricane victims and help for low-income families to pay energy bills. "Destroying this wilderness will do very little to reduce energy costs nor does it do very much for oil independence," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California.

[Matt W]

Thanks for posting details, bishop - I keep forgetting to quote the articles I post.... :confused:

[bishop]

i'm kind of glad this failed... i abhor this tactic of slapping failed legislation into other spending bills. all of this because the head of the appropriations committee wants his little pet project.

[Birdzeye]

Quote by: bishop i'm kind of glad this failed... i abhor this tactic of slapping failed legislation into other spending bills. all of this because the head of the appropriations committee wants his little pet project.

Agreed. This tactic of tacking onto "must pass" bills other provisions that may not pass on their merits alone is just deplorable.

And both parties do it all the time.

[bishop]

maybe my memory's bad, but from what i remember the democrats didn't play these sorts of games nearly as much as the republicans have done these past couple years.

not to defend the dems at all, but i can't think of an example where they did something similar.

[Birdzeye]

Well, maybe my memory's bad, but it seemed to me that when the Dems ruled the roost, they were every bit as sneaky and underhanded as the GOPers are today. IMO that's why they lost control, and that's why the GOPers will also lose control, eventually.

[tman_ndsu08]

I don't see why the state of Alaska shouldn't just have their own vote independant of the rest of the nation and do what they want with their own land.

The rest of the nation doesn't get to have a say.

[Chris]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I don't see why the state of Alaska shouldn't just have their own vote independant of the rest of the nation and do what they want with their own land. The rest of the nation doesn't get to have a say.

Its a National Refuge, thats why. :rolleyes:

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: |Chris| Its a National Refuge, thats why. :rolleyes:

It's a "national" refuge that 99.999999% of the nation will never see or care about.

However, every single one of 99% will benefit from the oil there while no animals will be harmed or otherwise displaced in the area.

[Chris]

1) it is a national treasure that regardless of whoever can or cannot afford to visit is besides the point
2) you dont know no animals will be harmed. Opening up this would set a dangerous precedent. Whats next allowing development in Yellowstone, Glacier National Park?

[Troll]

Quote by: bishop maybe my memory's bad, but from what i remember the democrats didn't play these sorts of games nearly as much as the republicans have done these past couple years. not to defend the dems at all, but i can't think of an example where they did something similar.

Biden attaches anti-rave act to amber alert bill http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/

[bishop]

ah.. i remember that (i'm a big electronic music fan)... good job troll.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It's a "national" refuge that 99.999999% of the nation will never see or care about. However, every single one of 99% will benefit from the oil there while no animals will be harmed or otherwise displaced in the area.

I don't like to see figures plucked from the air. Provide a source or at least working out for these numbers or retract them.

[Scribbler1]

IMO, anything Ted Stevens is for is HIGHLY suspect, especially if it's in the home state of the "king of pork."
Acting in your home state's best interests is one thing but this guy is a thief.

[Chris]

Yeah did we forget about the 245M dollar bridge to a community of 50 people? (in Alaska)

[Technosoul]

The importance of that National Wildlife (nature) reserve is that few tourests will contaminate it, I hope 90 percent of people never step foot in there, it is not for human pleasure but for wildlife.

But it is important for some of the population who wish to maintain a real wildlife area for future generaitons to experience (the other national parks with their garbage can bears are shameful) as we should have a place where you can go and sit and not see any signs of human culture, no planes in the sky, no background noise from machine vehicles -etc, no phone poles and wires, no paved highways, parking lots, or hotels. Just pure wilderness. That area is one of the few places we have left under our rule that we can keep as-is.

Drilling for more oil is pointless because we get enough from Canada and a little bit elsewhere and we normally are overstocked without enough factories to refine it all. Plus, we have a large number of oil wells here in the USA that are not operating because they cannot make a good enough profit on the oil (at the price rate of the pre-Bush era). Now Bush already gave a oil company in his home state three million to explore for more oil - if they had got the green light to drill in Alaska then Bush would have budgeted more tax money to give to his oil buddies to go exploring up younder. So at least we should wait til the oil men move out of the White House before attempting to pass laws about and for their interests. (don't ask me to provide sources for the info I related - do your own research).

[Technosoul]

Ever hug an oil well - not a nice as tree hugging - ha!

[Troll]

Quote by: Technosoul Ever hug an oil well - not a nice as tree hugging - ha!

Why would you hug a tree? They aren't nearly as nice as hugging a woman.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: |Chris| 1) it is a national treasure that regardless of whoever can or cannot afford to visit is besides the point

That's one of the main points.

Why bother protecting nothing?

Oh hey look a stupid rock sitting in the middle of a wasteland with no animals or plant life in sight for a 100 miles. Oh hey lets protect it and call it a "national trasure".

Oh shoot, there's a ton of oil in that rock but we can't drill it out because it's a "national treasure".

Darn, I guess we'll have to keep buying oil from the arabs and support terrorism.

2) you dont know no animals will be harmed. Opening up this would set a dangerous precedent. Whats next allowing development in Yellowstone, Glacier National Park?

You have to love how adorable dems are.

They have to compare Yellowstone and Glacier National to a wasteland with nothing in it to try and make an argument.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Birdzeye Well, maybe my memory's bad, but it seemed to me that when the Dems ruled the roost, they were every bit as sneaky and underhanded as the GOPers are today. IMO that's why they lost control, and that's why the GOPers will also lose control, eventually.

You missed the point, which was that the Democrats, when they had the majority in the Senate, didn't tack "onto 'must pass' bills other provisions that may not pass on their merits alone" nearly as much as the GOP has with its GOP majority.

I was hoping a GOP stakeholder might actually do the legwork to prove the assertion wrong so I could learn something. Vague rants like these don't develop the argument one bit.