Senate Fails To Pass Drilling In Artic Bill

[freespool]

Updated: 2:41 p.m. ET Dec. 21, 2005
WASHINGTON - 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.

Drilling backers fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense measure over the oil drilling issue. Senate leaders were expected to withdraw the legislation so it could be reworked without the refuge language. The vote was 56-44.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was among those who for procedural reasons cast a “no” vote, so that he could bring the drilling issue up for another vote.

The vote was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who for years has waged an intense fight to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He had thought this time he would finally get his wish.

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-Mass., a strong critic of letting oil development disturb the refuge in northeastern Alaska.

During the vote, a grim-faced Stevens, 82, who had fought to open the refuge to drilling since 1980 and is the most senior Republican in the Senate, sat midway back in the chamber, watching his colleagues. 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-Calif.

Long, bitter battle
A decade ago a Republican-led Congress used a parliamentary maneuver to get an ANWR bill successfully past a filibuster, only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. This time President Bush has made ANWR drilling one of his top priorities and is eager to sign a bill.

Drilling opponents long have argued that ANWR’s oil should not be exploited because of the coastal plain’s fragile ecosystem and its wildlife. While the region looks bleak during its long winters and oil can be seen seeping from some of its rock formations, the coastal strip also is the calving ground for caribou and home to polar bears, musk oxen, and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds.

“There are literally hundreds of thousands of Americans following this issue,” William Meadows, president of the Wilderness Society, said Tuesday, adding that there has been “an outpouring of angst and concern” over Stevens’ attempt to link hurricane relief money, low-income energy assistance funds and money for the Iraq war to push the drilling measure through a reluctant Senate.

Drilling proponents say modern techniques can extract the oil without damaging the environment.

Bill passes House
The House passed the $454 billion defense spending bill earlier this week, 308-106, with scores of lawmakers who previously opposed refuge drilling voting for the legislation.

The bill includes $29 billion for Katrina hurricane relief, $2 billion in emergency funding for low-income families pay high heating bills this winter as well as money for troops in Iraq. Stevens’ provision would funnel 80 percent of the proceeds from Arctic refuge oil lease sales to hurricane relief and 5 percent for the energy assistance program.

The legislation anticipates about $5 billion in federal revenue bonus bids from oil leases, the first of which must be issued within 22 months and the second package in 2010. Half of the lease proceeds and future royalties from oil production would go to Alaska.

Alaska relies heavily on proceeds from oil production, a revenue stream that has been in steady decline as the vast Prudhoe Bay oil fields to the west of ANWR become less productive.





salmon hugger

[Thumper]

So be it. :depressed: Lousy way to try to pass it anyways.

[rimrock]

Regardless of one’s position and I have NO desire to go that direction. It is a separate issue from Defense Spending, low-income housing, storm relief… Yes, riders are common to both sides of the isle, so no need to throw stones but with this subject being so in the public eye it would be nice for Congress to address the issue in a separate stand alone bill.

But how do ya remove politics from Washington D.C.???


Thanks for the info freespool.

[freespool]

I guess that proves there is a limit to how low a politician will stoop.
Or this just proves some are not willing to commit political hari-kari, just to prove a point.



salmon hugger

[uhmw]

Dianne finstein knows whats best for Alaska - How dare the people from alaska mess with our pristine enviroment in the middle of no-where. Only califonia should be allowed to puke more toxins in to the envoronment than any other state. besides If alaska was allowed to drill more oil wells you couldnt then complain about how outragous gas prices hurt the poor and middle class who are most burdened by dependance on forgin oil . Burden the poor, uneducated and down troden masses and they will continue to vote for change Lock it up !!!I could care less if gas went to 5 bucks a gallon. Maybe it could lighten my commute when the general public cant afford to drive. She really is looking after our best intrest esspecially the poor and middle class she wants you to take max to work you deserve it. They got what they wanted all along: more pressure on the poor and no help for our troops in combat If the natives(naive people) are not restless they wont vote for change. down with evil corperations we should get rid of each and every one of them right now rather than slowly forcing them to other parts of the world. Dont worry, The government will take care of you and your family

[PapaHog]

It should be a separate issue. Drill or no drill. Up or down vote.

papa

[Fish mojo]

I agree that this is the wrong way to approach the drilling issue. Let it pass or fail on its own merit. You wonder why people don't trust politicians?? Back hand politics is a big reason.

I'm also curious, who are the major political contributors to Stevens and Murkowski? They claim it is for "a matter of national security by reducing U.S. reliance on oil imports". I'm willing to bet big oil is funding them so they push legislation that makes the corporation big $$.

[5 Salt]

Point to consider: Majority of oil produced in Alaska is sold to Japan in exchange for their alocation from Middle east.

This bill, right or wrong, is not about national security or lessening dependence on foriegn (cheapest) oil - it is about reviving steadily decreasing oil revenues for the State of Alaska resulting from reduced productivity of the Pruedo Bay reserves.

Sen.Stevens little ploy didn't work! Let's hope that enough senators show the courage to make sure this drilling scheme nevr passes
A win for the environment today

5-salt,
I don't know if things have changed since I lived in AK but it was federally mandated that ALL Alaska oil be sold to the US and not overseas. This has been a sore point with Alaskans and one of the driving factors in the Alaska Independence movement.


Freespool,

guess that proves there is a limit to how low a politician will stoop.

"Ted the Fed" was never popular with the Alaskans I associated with but this kind of thing is standard political slime. You know how I feel about it but what can be done, legally?

Stew,
ANWAR will be drilled eventualy. It would be better to drill it with lots of enviromental safeguards and the sky didn't fall when Prudhoe Bay was opened when there was far less enviromental regulations.

[uhmw]

If alaska goes independant I am moving . I lived up there 4 years and always knew I would find a excuse to move me and my evil corporation back.

Commonwealth status would be the best and and more likely.

I was on the election committee for the only Alaska Independence Party member to be elected Governor, too bad we couldn't have gotten the illegal statehood compact voided.

[TheRogue]

Excellent.

Up or down vote, no excuses. That way it stands on it's own merit period. Whether you're for our against it, that's the way it should be done.

Politics are brutal sometimes.

TR

[Sweet Melissa]

I did some research on this a few years ago, and even the most liberal estimates of oil production indicated that there was less than a 30-year supply of oil there, assuming none of it was exported. Also, the data on the "footprint" it will leave is based only on where the drilling structures touch the ground, and does not include the miles of pipeline that would cover the area above ground.

Keta,
I agree- it's just a matter of time before it's drilled. Just wish our lawmakers would wake-up and smell the alternative fuel sources. Aside from the environmental impact, it makes me a tad nervous that we have to play footsies with countries who hate our red, white, and blue guts, so our oil-dependent infrastructure doesn't collapse.

[reeldick]

You have to remember, this oil field would mean jobs for Alaskans and lots of money for the state coffers. Alaska gets $ for every barrel pumped.
How do you think they run the state government? There is no income tax or state sales tax.
The Permanent Fund that pays all Alaskans a check every year was funded by oil money. there are billions in the fund today.

[BCF]

So be it. :depressed: Lousy way to try to pass it anyways.

Jack the bill also had a rider for Flu Shots on it. Everything but starving babies were thrown on this lousy piece of legislation.

The shame of it is all these issues should have been discussed on their own merits and not lumped together.

To bad the GOP missed the chance and passed on their responsibility to fund needed money for our troops in Iraq because they threw these riders onto this Defense bill.

They did manage to pass the tax breaks on to the millionaires earlier in the morning though on the Bill that was suppose to stop gap the Deficit.
Of course that meant that Foster care will not be funded as well, College Aid money will be slashed and Medicare costs will be increased to the Elderly. Oh yeah ...next years deficit is projected to be 14.7 Trillion dollars. Fiscal policy to proud of for sure. Not.

BCF

[rimrock]

I’m COMPLETELY indifferent on the pros/cons of Artic Oil. In time I agree it will happen and the longer that is better and less invasive technologies will be developed.

Alternative sources wouldn’t that be great, but how will their development be fully financed. No special interest groups backing this with the money to compete with the oil industry.

In about 2½ years we will hear ALL about campaign finance reform again to clean up politics, and about 4 years after that we will hear about it again. The “soft” money runs much of the political machine in the county and it’s BOTH parties who are equally guilty.

Like has been said, trust politicians?! Backdoor riders on bills, soft money, special interest groups… I’ve worked in D.C. it is an experience I leave it at that. The partisanship and chess play are hard to forget and it’s in every agency in the System.

Again I just hope this issue will be handled separately. Up or Down, and without any reduction in enviro regulation granted at times in these case. Yes, folks strange exceptions are at times granted, so don’t simply think existing enviro laws are a rock solid protection. The pros/cons debate: It’s never that simply for the bar is never fixed.

What do ya do?

The shame of it is all these issues should have been discussed on their own merits and not lumped together

Yup.

[rimrock]

Yup.

[RvW]

Proponents claim ANWR will remove US dependance on Saudi oil for 30 years without a significant impact on the areas ecosystem and wildlife.

Dilusionaly optomistic proponents claim ANWR will provide the US with complete oil independance from the rest of the world for 30 years without any recognizable impact on the delicate ecosystem within.


Oponents claim the amount of oil in the ANWR does not legitamize disrupting the ecosystem and wildlife.

Hostile environmentalist oponenets claim drilling ANWR will kill everything for miles around while simply reducing the US demand for middle eastern Oil by 3% while providing no mentionable jobs for locals, no trickle-down of funds for natives...blah blah blah.

And then we have the senate...

And thats all I can say about the issue without violating the Ifish politics ban.
Surprised the topic was allowed to remain in the first place. If I had posted it...the grumpies would come out of the woodwork to accuse me of instigating a hostile agenda driven debate.

[Snakebite]

Proponents claim ANWR will remove US dependance on Saudi oil for 30 years without a significant impact on the areas ecosystem and wildlife.

Dilusionaly optomistic proponents claim ANWR will provide the US with complete oil independance from the rest of the world for 30 years without any recognizable impact on the delicate ecosystem within.


Oponents claim the amount of oil in the ANWR does not legitamize disrupting the ecosystem and wildlife.

Hostile environmentalist oponenets claim drilling ANWR will kill everything for miles around while simply reducing the US demand for middle eastern Oil by 3% while providing no mentionable jobs for locals, no trickle-down of funds for natives...blah blah blah.

And then we have the senate...

And thats all I can say about the issue without violating the Ifish politics ban.
Surprised the topic was allowed to remain in the first place. If I had posted it...the grumpies would come out of the woodwork to accuse me of instigating a hostile agenda driven debate.

My sentiments exactly! All of 'em!

[BCF]

All that said we are still faced with a poor method of getting important legislation taken care of.

Do our troops that we have asked to protect us and that we have sent into harms way deserve to be funded? Of course no question about that.

Do the people of our nation that have had to endure the loss of their homes and jobs and total way of life need our nations support and help? Absolutely without question.

Do the elderly and babies in our nation that are at the greatest risk of dying if they contract the flu deserve to be protected? Who would deny a baby or Grandma a flu shot? Not me ,they need our help.

Will ANWR be the solution to our energy needs? I don't know. Will it destroy the wilderness? I don't know that one either.

I do know that nothing was done to solve any of these major problems. And we the people deserve and should demand better from our elected officials.

Shame on those that attempted to shove needed funding onto bills that would not support them.

BCF

[uhmw]

Senate fails to fund troops and welfare programs and uses oil drilling as an excuse to veto important social programs that they dont want to see past. These are the same people that will have you belive the economy is falling down and Iraq is about to crumbel to the ground It is in their intrest to fool the poor uneducated and rather naive regular folks that no one cares about them. High oil prices and no money for flood recovery only hurts the people who need it most- It is these people that they seek to disenchant and bring under their wing. Sneaky aint it. Now whos left the flood victims to flounder for them selfs???? cut funding for troops??? All in the name of saving a place that alaska people them selfs say is safe to drill- of course this has never been done befor except once. the sucessfull aleska pipe line. Its not the pipe line they want to disrupt thats the excuse. They are seeking government failur any way they can. Shame on those who voted against progress

[Sweet Melissa]

What do ya do?

That's pretty much my sentiment, too, rimrock. Whether one is for, against, or totally indifferent to drilling, the issue won't be resolved in local coffee shops and internet chat rooms.

[Jennie@ifish]

....resolved in local coffee shops and internet chat rooms.

(Some have!) (GO IFISH!)

And I'm not saying I agree with this topic, cuz it borders on political and scares me.

I'm just saying that some have been... or close to it! :smile:

[BCF]

Senate fails to fund troops and welfare programs and uses oil drilling as an excuse to veto important social programs that they dont want to see past. These are the same people that will have you beleive the economy is falling down and Iraq is about to crumbel to the ground It is in their intrest to fool the poor uneducated and rather naive regular folks that no one cares about them. High oil prices and no money for flood recovery only hurts the people who need it most- It is these people that they seek to disenchant and bring under their wing. Sneaky aint it. Now whos left the flood victims to flounder for them selfs???? cut funding for troops??? All in the name of saving a place that alaska people them selfs say is safe to drill- of course this has never been done befor except once. the sucessfull aleska pipe line. Its not the pipe line they want to disrupt thats the excuse. They are seeking government failur any way they can. Shame on those who voted against progress

I don't believe our nation has anyone or any group smart enough to agree on such a ridiculous conspiracy theory. I also think "OJ actually did it".

Keep it simple for me uhmw. I just want to know if Ted Stevens will actually do what he promised? And that was kill himself if he didn't get this drilling bill through this session.

I wish for once just one of these politicians would do what they say. Let it start with Ted. Please.

BCF

[uhmw]

It seems to me, to be the smoke and mirror games going on. The people in charge cant get what needs to be done cause the people who are not in charge dont want anything to go right for the people in charge- Simple enough?

The take:Symbolic Oil drilling- some oil relief at the pumps for the poor and middle class. Not to mention the extra supply that drives petrolum $ down at the opec level.

The give: exchange for some worth wile social programs and troop funding???? Whats wrong with that????? or are the evil corporations going to take over the world and melt down alaska????

[BCF]

It seems to me, to be the smoke and mirror games going on. The people in charge cant get what needs to be done cause the people who are not in charge dont want anything to go right for the people in charge- Simple enough?

The take:Symbolic Oil drilling- some oil relief at the pumps for the poor and middle class. Not to mention the extra supply that drives petrolum $ down at the opec level.

The give: exchange for some worth wile social programs and troop funding???? Whats wrong with that????? or are the evil corporations going to take over the world and melt down alaska????

Think I'm done with this one and I will just slip out of this net with just a few net marks.............. SEE YA

BCF over and out

[freespool]

These are the same people that will have you belive the economy is falling down and Iraq is about to crumbel to the ground

You need to pay closer attention to what's happening in the world.
Here's a news flash, we blew the holy crap out of Iraq, in fact we're still doing it.
If it crumbles any more it will be flat.


salmon hugger

[TheRogue]

dang, and I thought this thread was going good, too.

shoulda known better.

TR

[rimrock]

It was TR but that was early on.

[BCF]

:lurk: :lurk: :lurk: :lurk: :lurk: :lurk: :lurk: :lurk: :lurk:

That'll do pig.

[Bartman]

Senate fails to fund troops and welfare programs and uses oil drilling as an excuse to veto important social programs that they dont want to see past. These are the same people that will have you belive the economy is falling down and Iraq is about to crumbel to the ground It is in their intrest to fool the poor uneducated and rather naive regular folks that no one cares about them. High oil prices and no money for flood recovery only hurts the people who need it most- It is these people that they seek to disenchant and bring under their wing. Sneaky aint it. Now whos left the flood victims to flounder for them selfs???? cut funding for troops??? All in the name of saving a place that alaska people them selfs say is safe to drill- of course this has never been done befor except once. the sucessfull aleska pipe line. Its not the pipe line they want to disrupt thats the excuse. They are seeking government failur any way they can. Shame on those who voted against progress