Posted on 03/16/2005 2:23:21 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, March 16 - The Senate endorsed oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge today, giving President Bush and others who favor exploration of the Alaska wilderness a major victory.
The 51-to-49 vote was in favor of a budget resolution that assumes revenues of some $5 billion from drilling fees over the next decade, with the federal government and the state of Alaska to split the money.
While this afternoon's vote is not the final word on the issue, it nevertheless made drilling in the wilds of Alaska - an idea favored by the oil industry for decades and fiercely opposed by environmental groups - far more likely than before.
For drilling to take place, the Senate will later have to pass a measure explicitly authorizing the opening of the wildlife refuge to drilling, something that until now has been prohibited. Then the House of Representatives would have to explicitly authorize drilling as well.
Since the House has endorsed Arctic drilling several times over the years, this afternoon's vote in the Senate was seen by vote-watchers on both sides as perhaps pivotal. In the Senate, opponents of drilling have used the chamber's parliamentary devices - notably, the threat of a filibuster, a stalling tactic that requires 60 of the Senate's 100 votes to overcome - to frustrate supporters.
This afternoon's vote came on an amendment sponsored by Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington and several other Democrats. It would have removed language in the budget resolution for 2006 that assumes that drilling will take place.
"We won't see this oil for 10 years," Senator Cantwell said. "It will have minimal impact."
But Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who supports drilling, said opening up the refuge would be sensible policy. "The price of oil just jumped up to 56 bucks a barrel this morning," she noted minutes before the vote.
The closeness of this afternoon's vote could be a prelude to bitter debate ahead. President Bush and many Republicans say drilling in the refuge would help make the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil.
Opponents, who include most Democrats and some Republican moderates, contend that drilling in the refuge would endanger one of the last unspoiled regions of wilderness in North America, and that in the long run it would not be the answer to America's energy problems.
The debate focuses on about 1.5 million acres of coastal plain within the 19-million acre refuge. Oil industry representatives have said that drilling would be confined to only about 2,000 acres within the 1.5 million acres, and that it can be done with a minimum of environmental damage.
Among those voting against the drilling proposal today was Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, whom President Bush defeated in November. He called the vote "a Republican sneak attack on one of our most treasured natural wonders" and said he would continue to fight against the proposal.
"This is more than a battle over the wildlife refuge," Mr. Kerry said in a statement. "It's a battle over two very different visions of our energy future. The president has a plan to sell off our public lands to the special interests that his own scientists and economists admit will not make us less dependent on foreign oil and will not lower prices at the pump."
A decade ago, President Bill Clinton vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have opened the wildlife refuge to exploration for oil. And two years ago, the Senate rejected a budget provision to authorize drilling in the refuge by a vote of 52 to 48.
But Republicans picked up four seats in last November's elections, bringing their total in the Senate to 55 and giving drilling advocates hope that they might finally prevail.
Three Democratic senators, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye, both of Hawaii, joined 48 Republicans in endorsing drilling today. Seven Republicans joined 41 Democrats and Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, in opposing it. Those seven were John S. McCain of Arizona, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both of Maine.
RINO'S ALL! VOTE 'em OUT!
...wishing for a policy which states "if your state does not support independent energy exploration, then your state gets NO external energy sources".
Anybody have any idea how long before they put forth the bill to actually open the ANWAR for drilling? What is the next step?
Actually, drilling that area will make it off-limits to any other development, thereby protecting it.
Nothing has been lost from the Alaska pipieline coming out of Prudhoe and Barrow. Only gained. These people who oppose it are
Your post left me hanging.
"For drilling to take place, the Senate will later have to pass a measure explicitly authorizing the opening of the wildlife refuge to drilling, something that until now has been prohibited. Then the House of Representatives would have to explicitly authorize drilling as well."
The authorization could be filibustered.
In NYT parlance, a RINO is "moderate," but a moderate Liberal is "Conservative."
Oh my, and I had such high hopes for Coleman. I am so disillusioned.
I heard that the area in question was always designated for reserves. Wish I knew the truth. But, as a geologist, DRILL. It won't hurt even if there were a spill. I love the arrogance of enviros who think that our very existence is a blight on the planet. FEH!
No, unless the dims want to filibuster the budget. Even they are not THAT dumb.
IIRC, they can't filibuster budget bills. That's why this was added to the budget bill. The way that the story is written, I have the impression that the vote for authorization will come later.
Basically a $5 billion tax before they add the local/state/federal per gallon tax after production. Next time anyone gets upset about the price of gas, don't point fingers at Exxon or Chevron, look at government greed.
I'm not defending the seven RINOs. But ordinarily RINOs can make a deal with the majority leader to vote against a bill (and please their constituents) just as long as the bill passes. Their votes are only needed at critical moments.
Voting down a bill is another matter, of course. Unfortunately, only the senate leadership knows whether a particular RINO was authorized to vote against a bill.
While it's annoying, it makes a certain sense. You can give a RINO some lattitude as long as they vote the right way on critical issues. Of course that's talking about states where only RINOs can get elected.
It's a fill-in-the-blank sentence.
It's not an extra tax. It's an assumption that existing taxes will add up to $5 billion by the time the reserves are used up. They put that in as an excuse for including it in the budget bill, where it couldn't be filibustered.
OK, thanks for the correction. It makes me feel much better that we will only be giving the government a mere 5 billion.
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.