ANWR drilling slipped into Defense Bill

[Karlin]

The ANWR provision was attached to a major defence bill, forcing many opponents of oil and gas exploration in the barren northern Alaska range to vote for it.

Democrats and moderate Republicans have for years blocked drilling in the Arctic refuge. The Senate must still approve the bill.

Democrats complained that they were being forced to accept Arctic wildlife refuge drilling with their vote on military spending and hurricane relief.

http://tinyurl.com/9h3o8

House of Representatives legislators felt forced to allow the drilling of ANWR because otherwise it would look like they were blocking spending on troops in Iraq.

The ANWR drilling has been rejected several times before in the US House of Representitives.

To do it this way is clearly undemocratic, it is cynical towards the entire legistlative process in America. Perpetrators of this trickery have no qualms about "doing whatever it takes" to get their corporate goals fullfilled. Its not fair, its not right.

Why do we in Canada care about ANWR?
The Caribou herds there cross into Canadian territory, and we want to protect them from the disruption of oil extraction.
The more oil we extract, the more we burn - climate change is a bigger concern than making the change to alternatives to fossil fuels.
ANWR development will require a big pipeline to be constructed, meaning further disruption to nature and the aboriginal peoples there.

Opening the Nature Reserves to corporations is a slippery slope. We must resist all attempts to privatise these sanctuaries, be it for oil drilling or recreational devleopment.

 

[TenPenny]

I love the US system, where totally unrelated provisions are rolled together to try and slip things into being.

 

[no1important]

RE: ANWR drilling slipped

Senate blocks Alaska refuge drilling

A teaser:

WASHINGTON -- A quarter-century long fight over the nation's most divisive environmental issue rages on after the Senate on Wednesday rejected opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling - even though that provision was included in a must-pass bill that funds U.S. troops overseas and hurricane victims.

It was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, one of the Senate's most powerful members, who had hoped to garner more votes by forcing senators to choose between supporting the drilling measure, or risking the political fallout from voting against money for the troops and hurricane victims.

Instead, Stevens found himself a few votes shy of getting his wish. [/teaser]

Click above link for the rest of article.

I am glad they rejected it. We need to find alternative environmentally friendly fuels instead of fossil fuels.

 

[Karlin]

Republican leaders fell three votes short of the 60 votes needed to break the filibuster threat and advance the defense spending bill to a final vote, forcing GOP leaders to temporarily withdraw the bill and take out the drilling provision. The official vote was 56-44, four short, because Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a supporter of drilling, voted with those opposing it so he would have the right to ask the Senate to reconsider the issue in a second vote later.

Hours later, the Senate stripped the Alaska drilling language from the defense legislation, then passed the bill and sent it to the House, which was scheduled to reconvene Thursday afternoon. The House earlier had passed the defense spending bill with the Alaska drilling provision in it.

Ya its a really weird way to run a nation.

The Sen fronm Alaska should be fingered as un-patriotic for including something that would stall funding for troops, but instead he uses Republican tactics of confusion and deception to turn it around and say those who turned it down are un-patrioitic.

Cant they see how silly and childish this game is?

I am just glad it didn't pass into law to drill the ANWR. It would be absolutely un-democratic if it did, with MOST of the voting legistlators in either house or Senate being outspokenly against going ahead with it.

"Un-democratic, and Un-patriotic" but still they dare to claim the high ground and call other those things.

 

[jimmoyer]

I'm a conservative and I found it appalling that
the Republican party has found the new holy Grail
in pork projects for their districts and has spent
more than a Democratic drunken sailor, even House
leader Tom Delay claims to our amazement there
is little waste to cut ---- which is why the conservatives
let him hang out to dry.

In a sense his statement is also true, because entitlement programs and
defense programs are almost untouchable,
leaving less than 20 percent of the budget to dicker
over.

Surprisingly Rumsfeld has been the biggest
killer of wasteful defense weaponry programs
and military bases and better at it than any liberal
could have hoped.

And this is the first reason the military bureaucracy
hated him.

Of course he's spending those
savings on a war. But once that war is over, the
military sans its useless domestic military bases and
boondoggle weapons programs will be leaner.


And now comes the inevitable horse trading
and compromises and Christmas tree bills containing
unrelated budget requests ----- this is the stuff
of all parliaments and legislatures around the world.

Our President only has a veto, but not a line item
veto, which means he can veto ONLY THE WHOLE
BILL, even if he likes parts of it and doesn't like
other parts.

I would favor a line item veto for an executive.
It may be the only way to stop a legislature from
piecing together totally unrelated matters in one bill.

A vote on a bill should be about one thing.

But no, we gotta put things in about Aids, with a
defense bill.

This allows opponents to misleadingly characterize
the other's voting records.


Perhaps this helps answers Karlin's question, "Don't they
see this as childish? "