Posted on 03/12/2005 5:55:47 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
WASHINGTON--Sen. Ted Stevens said the gridlock over oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has depressed him, a feeling magnified by the growing guilt he feels for accepting the legislation 25 years ago that led to the current stalemate.
Stevens, speaking with national reporters at the U.S. Senate's television gallery Friday morning, said the whole situation has him "clinically depressed."
Shortly afterward, he told Alaska reporters that he shouldn't have used that term. He has not been diagnosed by a psychiatrist and is not taking any medication. But he said he has been feeling low enough that he asked his physician about it. He said the doctor told him take some time off.
Stevens also said he has been pondering whether he should run for another term if he loses next week's vote on ANWR language in the budget resolution.
"I'm reviewing that, I really am," Stevens said.
He was appointed in 1968 and has served since. The 81-year-old is the most senior Republican in the Senate.
Stevens' public comments on his personal emotional state come at a time when many observers think ANWR drilling is closer to reality than ever before.
Republicans, the majority of whom traditionally support ANWR drilling, control both houses of Congress and the presidency. The Senate Budget Committee this week approved language that would set up a legislative detour around the threat of filibusters and Republicans need only 50 votes next week to make it stick on the Senate floor. The House, while not including the ANWR language in its budget resolution, is expected to pass standard legislation to allow drilling.
Stevens recognizes those advantages. But "if we can't get it through, in my lifetime I don't think we'll see it again," he said.
Nevertheless, Stevens said, a number of factors contribute to his severe sense of discouragement. They range from changing standards of procedural decorum in the Senate, the loss of support from some longtime colleagues, a sense that he can't trust the word of others and his own regrets about not fighting Congress' 1980 decision to put ANWR's coastal plain in legislative limbo.
Stevens said he finds it offensive that Congress must fiddle with placing ANWR revenue expectations in the annual budget resolution as a way around filibusters.
Filibusters, he said, were traditionally used not as a political tool to stop legislation cold but rather to slow it down so people had time to understand the details before voting. It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster, as opposed to the traditional 51 to pass legislation.
Filibusters also never were used on matters of national security, he said.
"It is appalling to me ... that people don't realize the real critical nature of oil in terms of security. The Department of Defense is the largest user of oil. We have no alternative supply," he said.
While in theory the budget resolution process looks like a clear path around the filibusters, Stevens said it is by no means certain. The budget resolution is a document that sets out how much Congress plans to spend and where it will get the money. If the resolution calls for ANWR leasing revenue, a subsequent bill could "reconcile" that call with current law, which prohibits drilling, by removing the prohibition. Reconciliation bills are not subject to filibusters either.
Because the resolution deals with the entire federal budget, though, obstacles to its passage could arise.
"The overall budget is in trouble," Stevens said.
James Horney, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, said the fate of this year's resolution is held in the balance by conflicting desires among Republicans, particularly in the Senate.
The more conservative wing is committed to maintaining President Bush's tax cuts and reducing the budget. But the more liberal wing doesn't support extending the tax cuts in the face of the huge deficits and they are concerned about proposed cuts in Medicaid, Horney said.
If enough moderate Republicans join Democrats in opposing the resolution or in amending it in ways that are unacceptable to the House, it could die.
On the other hand, "my sense is there is a very strong feeling among Republicans that they really want to reach a budget resolution this year," Horney said. "On both sides there may be more of a desire to compromise."
The full Senate probably will vote next week on a Democratic amendment to the budget resolution that would strike the ANWR language, which calls for $5 billion in revenue from lease sales through 2010.
Drilling supporters only need 50 votes on the floor to secure the language.
However, Stevens said he worries because some longtime, influential Democratic senators are no longer with him. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., used to support ANWR drilling but no longer does, Stevens said.
Former Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., also switched sides before retiring last year, although his replacement, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint is expected to support drilling.
Stevens' close friend, Hawaii's Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye, has backed ANWR drilling in the past, as has Hawaii's other Democratic member, Sen. Daniel Akaka. But Sen. Barbara Boxer, at an event Thursday in Washington, suggested that people who oppose drilling ought to lobby them to switch.
Asked if he thought they would switch sides, Stevens said he couldn't speak for them.
"They're only human," he said.
Other senators have promised to vote one way and then switched later, which also bothers him.
"I worked hard to get some of these guys elected," he said.
Stevens said a recent letter from former President Jimmy Carter urging defeat of the budget resolution amendment probably wouldn't do anything but anger Republicans. It certainly had that effect on Stevens.
That's because it got him thinking about those days 25 years ago when Carter was in the White House and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act was on the brink of passage in Congress.
Carter accepted the ANWR compromise in Section 1002 of ANILCA, Stevens said. As he sees it, the compromise they all agreed to back then was this: Oil drilling would not be allowed in the area unless an environmental impact statement found that it could be done with no significant effects on the wildlife and environment.
The studies have confirmed that drilling can meet that standard, Stevens believes. So he thinks Carter, and anyone in Congress who opposes the work, is reneging on the original deal.
The actual law, however, had nothing that would automatically open the refuge coastal plain to drilling upon a completion of a positive environmental review. And many in Congress disagree with Stevens' view of the deal and with the conclusions in the environmental impact statement, which was first completed during President Reagan's administration.
So the gridlock continues and Stevens wonders more and more why he didn't join his old colleague, Alaska's Democratic Sen. Mike Gravel, in trying to kill ANILCA in the fall of 1980.
"I really am very, very disturbed," he said. "Remember that I'm the one that made that decision. I could have stayed with Gravel and the bill would not have passed. Carter would not have had a chance to sign it."
Washington, D.C., reporter Sam Bishop can be reached at (202) 662-8721 or sbishop@newsminer.com .
Stevens is one of the biggest pork choppers in Congress, he should have (been) retired long ago.
Cheer up, Ted. I think it will pass this time.
If the Republicans don't get this through, they don't deserve to be the majority party.
They better learn to use their power, or they are going to lose it.
"They better learn to use their power, or they are going to lose it."
Amen to that; one hundred times over! Let's get with it! Why does everyone act as if Bush is a Lame Duck President already? He needs to sit down with these dupes and do some Texas boot kickin'!
I think ten years from now we're going to look back on our energy policy and wonder, as we did after Pearl Harbor, how we left this country so unprepared for the future. It's discouraging that our politicians are so short sighted about our energy independence but their primary concern is the next election, not the security of the nation.
Need to run the liberal Republicans out of Congress and replace them with Republicans who
1. Have the nations best interests at heart
2. Have a spine on at least one issue
3. Actually are Republicans.
I hope somebody is twisting the arms of Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins very hard.
The traditional rule for RINOs is they can vote against a bill like this to please their constituents and get re-elected, UNLESS their votes are needed for passage. If they vote it down, they should be severely punished in terms of reduced pork for their states and reduced committee assignments.
Newt Gingrich tried it, and look what happened to him...
I heard the other day that one of the Sentors that is still "on the fence" about the ANWR drilling part of budget is Norm Coleman of Minnesota---boy, I was surprised, because I have really seen him as an asset---
this is the second time in a week that he has surprised me because he also voted in favor of Teddy Kennedy's amendment to the Bankruptcy Bill raising the minimum wage to $7.15 an hour---that truly shocked me---
Like Ted Stevens, I too, wonder why this is so hard to get done---it seems like such a no-brainer to drill in ANWR--jobs, jobs, jobs and oil, oil, oil---just the things the dems have been complaining about---
If I thought I would make any money, I would let them drill in my back yard!!! What is the big deal?
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 25, 2003 - The Honorable Ted Stevens (R- Alaska), today received the 2002 Ralph Lowell Medal, public television’s most prestigious honor, according to Robert T. Coonrod, CPB President and CEO.
CPB presents the award annually to recognize outstanding individual contributions to public television. Stevens, the senior senator from Alaska, was honored for more than three decades of legislative leadership, which has helped make America’s public broadcasting system one of the most successful public-private partnerships in modern history. Katherine Anderson, the CPB Board Chair, presented the award.
During his 35-year senate career, Stevens has relentlessly championed the needs, programs and services of public broadcasting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
~snip....goodbye Stevens and good riddance.
>>I would let them drill in my back yard!!! <<
We had an oil rig about 4 blocks from our last house. It's on a fairly busy street and I must have passed it for a year without even noticing it was there!
Norm Coleman: a New Yawk born RINO.
I heard on the Beltway Boys tonight that when Paul Sarbanes retires, that Michael Steele, the Lt. Governor of Maryland has a good chance to finally get a Republican senator from Maryland---
I hope so, he made a good impression at the Rep. convention---but, it just seems that lately the Republicans are becoming more RINOish and I don't get it---it was the conservative side of Bush that got him re-elected, not the "compassionate" side---
I know one thing, I think the GOP is going to have to go outside the Senate to find a winnable conservative to run in 2008---McCain? heaven forbid!!! But, even he got good numbers on the FReeper poll...sigh
Well, I guess I wasn't paying as close attention as I should have---
Until 2000, I was so busy raising my kids and working that I barely had time to vote in Presidential elections and local Texas elections, let alone pay attention to Minnesota politics....
Now, my kids have their own lives, I am a stay at home grandmother who babysits a lot, and I have become very much concerned about my grandchildren's future...
I promise to pay more attention, but I will admit now, ahead of time, that I will likely ask other "ignorant" questions in the future--
Many people at one time thought all Republicans were part of the right. The Rino thing was a rude awakening for a lot of people.
Although idealistically, I would like to see every representative and every senator vote the way they truly think their constituents want them to vote, I get a lot frustrated when I watch the voting, especially in the Senate, and the dems seem to ALWAYS have their senators vote along party lines, but---
those pesky Repbulicans insist on having a hugh share or Rinos that vote against their party on important amendments and bills, that just make me want to scream---
I am glad to at least see Ted Stevens admit that votes aren't just a chance to be on TV, but have real and lasting ramifications on the future of the country...
Unfortunately, I think THAT point will be lost---the egos of the politicians seem to grow as their allegience to who voted to put them there, shrinks...
Now I am perfectly hedged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.