Battle over ANWR
Posted by Moonage on 19 Dec 2005 | Tagged as: National Politics
The US House, led by a Republican majority, slipped what some might consider an unusual item into the Department of Defense appropriations bill. Namely, to allow drilling in a part of ANWR. Without going into all the pro’s and con’s of drilling in ANWR, of interest to me is the battle royale that will pursue because of this. I see two competing scenarios brewing:
- The Democrats successfully filibuster.
- Republicans cave and send it back to the House.
- The House removes it with Democrat support.
- The Democrats pass it in the Senate. All before Christmas.
OR:
- The Democrats successfully filibuster.
- The Republicans refuse to cave.
- The motion dies on the floor, forcing a reconsideration after Christmas.
OR:
- The Democrats attempt to filibuster.
- Being burned by the miscalculation of Dean and others regarding Iraq, some Democrats don’t feel like expending more political capital by being perceived as jeopardizing the nation’s defense once again by opposing the Defense spending and not doing anything to lessen our reliance on countries supporting Muslim extremists.
- The filibuster fails and the appropriation passes.
- Nancy Pelosi attacks George Bush for destroying Alaska and selling out to oil interests.
- The Democrats are therefore happy and all is well.
I personally am not willing to put money on any scenario. But, I like #3 best. Either way, it’s going to be interesting. You can watch it unfold here starting around 9:30 am EST by clicking on the link below:
http://play.rbn.com/play.asx?url=cspan/cspan/wmlive/cspan2v.asf&proto=mms?mswmext=.asx
Might want to turn your speakers down if you are at work. I bet this is going to get nasty.
For what it’s worth, I see ANWR being as bad for Alaska as the Trans-Alaska pipeline was many years ago:
- Technorati ANWR
15 Comments »
on 19 Dec 2005 at 11:02 pm 1.StormWarning
said …
Just so there is no misunderstanding, essentially I agree with you, but will offer a more expanded point of view on the subject.
I, for one, hope that I’m around a TV to see the CSPAN version of the debates.
I believe that:
I am not naive (and you aren’t either) about government or the way that Congress works. Last night, the House of Representatives voted on the Conference Report for the Defense Appropriations bill, passing it by a measure of 308-106 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll669.xml). Over the 89 Democrats who voted against it, not because they want to vote against the troops, but because they object to the House Republican leadership, with the urging of Senator Frist (and Stevens) in the Senate, appended language to the Appropriations Bill that supports drilling in ANWR. And with that, it is my understanding that the House adjourned and left Washington, not to return until January 31, 2006.
Now, not until Thursday will the Senate meet to vote on the Defense Appropriations bill…on Saturday, 12/17/05, a third CRA was passed, allowing agencies without approved appropriations bills to continue spending at current FY levels. Given that the ANWR provision was not in the previous Conference Report, it is expected that there will be a filibuster on this bill. This move was maneuvered by Senators Frist and Stevens.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1220/p03s03-uspo.html
Only a month ago, the House removed ANWR drilling language…
U.S. House Leaders Strip Alaska Oil Drilling From Budget Plan
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ampp_7U682C0&refer=us
U.S. House Republican leaders removed from a $50.5 billion budget-cutting plan a provision that would have opened an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling in an effort to win support from dissenting members in their party.
The House Rules Committee approved the change last night. The drilling proposal, which the Senate approved last week, would allow oil companies such as Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil Corp. and London-based BP Plc to drill on 1.5 million acres in the 19 million-acre Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. House leaders also removed a provision to allow more offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico…[more]
House GOP makes concession on Arctic drilling
Leaders drop hotly debated ANWR drilling plan from omnibus budget bill
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9984545/
House leaders late Wednesday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling, fearing it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill Thursday.
They also dropped from the budget document plans to allow states to authorize oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts — regions currently under a drilling moratorium.
The actions were a stunning setback…[more]
No doubt that the Republican Party controls the Senate…and perhaps that gives them the ability to “control the football.” The real question then remains whether the American public will ever realize that this last minute political ramrod, using ANWR as a tool to force a final vote before recess to support the Defense Dept., and therefore the troops, was ever done…or if, as I suspect, the American public will simply take a “nay” vote in the Senate on this spending bill as anti-troops when the ANWR provision should never, IMO, have been show-horned into such an important measure. If the Republicans cannot stop the filibuster and get the 60 votes needed to stop the debate, then it is quite possible that the Defense Appropriations bill will not be passed until after the House returns in late January (sine die)…unless of course, the Senate calls the House back to DC and gets them to remove the ANWR language from the Conference Report that they passed.
IMO (not expecting too many to agree), this is playing “fast and loose” with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by appending ANWR language to the very important Defense spending bill.
IMO, ANWR belongs in the Interior or Energy bill. Not in the Defense bill. The Defense bill is about supporting our troops and our war(s)…and our National security.
Shoving the ANWR language into the Defense Appropriations bill at the last possible moment is nothing but transparent (to some) partisan politics at its worst.
…this is playing “fast and loose” with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by appending ANWR language to the very important Defense spending bill.”
The fact is that this tactic is nothing but a move to put the Senate Democrats in a position where if they don’t vote for the Conference Report as passed by the House (with the addition of the ANWR language that was not in the original Conference Report), they will look like they voted against the troops. That is the definition of transparent political BS!
on 20 Dec 2005 at 9:08 am 2.Moonage
said …
Notwithstanding the moves that occurred, some people feel that our dependence on Middle East oil and to return to the status quo of pre-2001 IS a threat to our defense. Simply buying more bullets isn’t going to make the US more secure in the long run. I opposed the Republicans dropping ANWR previously and was glad to see it get back in. Whether it be Commerce, Defense, or the doping commission report, I don’t care. The debate over ANWR is nothing but BS! The Democrats’ successfully killed The Patriot Act as well ( for the time being ). What they are getting is a return to the pre-2001 status quo.
Is that what this country needs?
I don’t think so. I just hope to God it doesn’t get us the same results as the status quo of 2001 did.
on 20 Dec 2005 at 9:41 am 3.StormWarning
said …
The Democratic “strategy” in Congress can do no good. Not for the Nation and not for the mid-term elections of 2006. I’ve written it before that there have been enough issues presenting themselves that could make 2006 an interesting election, but that the way in which the Democrats have been managing themselves in Congress will make it nearly impossible for them to make any of the gains that they might have otherwise made.
As for the Patriot Act, I can only hope that they come to their senses and pass it again. To think that this country would be safer without the Patriot Act is ludicrous. Frankly, I was planning on writing something later today based on something that Conhran posting this morning. Esstentially his premise is that all of the debate over the NSA and FISA is unrelated to the Patriot Act, which time after time has been shown not to infringe on the rights that the “lunatic fringe” somehow thinks that they have lost.
If there is fine tuning to do with the Patriot Act, then that is what should be done. But to toss it aside will open the gates of hell once again.
IMO.
on 20 Dec 2005 at 9:51 am 4.Moonage
said …
The courts have fine-tuned the Patriot Act to some degree. If it’s not kosher, it’s been more or less mitigated to uselessness. However, most all of the Patriot Act has stood up in court. That tells me there is not a lot of The Patriot Act that needs fine-tuning. I agree with Cochran in that the debate over NSA and FISA is unrelated. But, the Democrats don’t see it that way. The legislations that changed NSA and FISA were all debated simultaneously with the Patriot Act and that’s how they’re pursuing at this time. They have relied more on PR image than facts. The problem that brings is that it makes for an unsteady “agenda” as various aspects of that approach have failed to get any traction. Today’s debates are a prime example. Drilling in ANWR is not a public debate the Democrats are making it. National security is. To scuttle national security for the sake of ANWR will not appeal to a majority of voters. If they can get it removed and passed, they have won. Anything else will be perceived as more Democrat obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism. And that won’t look good next summer.
on 20 Dec 2005 at 10:11 am 5.StormWarning
said …
If they can get it removed and passed, they have won. Anything else will be perceived as more Democrat obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism. And that won’t look good next summer.
My point exactly. Funny thiing is that when I spoke with “G” I got from his the Democratic take on this thing. My feeling is that wedging ANWR into the Conference Report and force the Senate to pass/fail the Defense budget with it included, wasn’t unexpected, but also wasn’t quite the right thing to do…especially when the House has essentially adjourned and gone home (they might have to come back if the Senate strips the ANWR provision from the DoD spending bill).
I believe that passing the Defense Spending bill is paramount…I can see the point about oil dependency being a National Security issue. We’ve gone through two previous CRAs already and some of our troop support issues hang in the balance. I know this is how Washington “works” but I still don’t particularly like the tactic.
on 20 Dec 2005 at 11:06 am 6.Moonage
said …
Well, you may not like inserting waht some people perceive as a vital security issue into the Defense budget, but what I like even less is a filibuster. I just feel that’s circumventing the intent of the Constitution. ( It wouldn’t matter to me if it was the Republicans doing it, I don’t like it. ) We can pretty much assume that’s what’s happening now. Although I’ve been distracted occasionally, the only person I’ve seen on C-Span 2 is Ted Kennedy. He just now started talking about another graph he’s presented. And, there goes another graph discussing the fact the US has the highest child poverty rate in the industrialized world. Tell me, what does Child Poverty rates have to do with Defense? And, how is that any more or less proper than inserting ANWR into the bill?
( For what it’s worth, Ted apparently gave up speaking for a while. )
on 20 Dec 2005 at 11:08 am 7.Moonage
said …
Nevermind, Ted’s back.
on 20 Dec 2005 at 11:22 am 8.StormWarning
said …
It was my understanding that the Senate wasn’t going to vote on the Defense bill until Thursday…could be wrong, but I thought it was Thursday.
on 20 Dec 2005 at 11:25 am 9.StormWarning
said …
Isn’t the Senate debating the Patriot Act now and not the Defense bill?
It seems that the debate now is at extending the PA for 3 months. This debate seems tame by certain standards.
I think the Defense debate will be alot more “entertaining.”
on 20 Dec 2005 at 12:46 pm 10.Moonage
said …
The tag line on cspan said “appropriations”. I assumed it was the defense bill because of that. I could be wrong as I have the sound off. So, what do child poverty rates have to do with The Patriot Act?
on 20 Dec 2005 at 12:49 pm 11.Moonage
said …
They are definitely discussing Defense appropriations at this time. Senator Murkowski of Alaska is discussing it now.
on 20 Dec 2005 at 1:16 pm 12.StormWarning
said …
I’ve just gotten back to the place here. I’m seeing Harkin and it seems they are talking about the bill to reduce spending. If that is what they are talking about, and not the Defense bill, then child poverty rates and various entitlement programs proposed for cutting become on point to the discussion/debate.
on 20 Dec 2005 at 3:33 pm 13.Moonage
said …
They must be cutting back and forth. Murkowski was clearly talking about ANWR and the Defense bill.
on 20 Dec 2005 at 3:36 pm 14.StormWarning
said …
According to a crawl that I saw on my CSPAN2 they are due to debate the Defense Approprations tomorrow (”G” had to ld me Thursday). I just fell asleep listening to Robt. Byrd and he was ranting about protection of the American worker.
I think what is actually happening here is that they are debating (or speaking about) the Budget Reconciliation Act that didn’t pass the other day (the subject of your other post), and since it relates to spending, alot of collateral issues are being raised.
on 20 Dec 2005 at 3:39 pm 15.Moonage
said …
Sounds logical. Sounds more logical than the snippets I’ve caught on Cspan for sure.