Posted on 03/19/2003 6:35:14 PM PST by webber
MSNBC STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS
By a 52-to-48 vote, the Senate on Wednesday defeated an attempt to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. With war looming in Iraq, proponents of drilling, most of them Republicans, had focused on energy security as they tried to lift a congressional ban on drilling in the refuge.
IN THE END, lobbying by White House officials was unable to persuade two key Republicans, Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, to support drilling on in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Seven Republicans and independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont voted with 43 Democrats for an amendment by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., to block drilling on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois and John McCain of Arizona joined Coleman and Smith in voting for the Boxer amendment. Five Democrats -- John Breaux and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, and Zell Miller of Georgia -- voted against the Boxer amendment, as did 43 Republicans.
"We have defeated similar proposals in the past, and I am pleased that as a bipartisan group we have stood firm in our resolve to protect the refuge," said Boxer, D-Calif. "Americans must continue to be vigilant because proponents of drilling in this Wildlife Refuge have vowed they will not give up."
Moments before the vote, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the chief proponent of drilling told his colleagues that some of them had confidentially promised to him that they would vote to allow drilling, if their votes were needed. "People who vote against this today are voting against me and
I'll not forget it," Stevens warned. Stevens, the senior Republican in the Senate, is the chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, which controls federal spending.
Drilling advocates contend oil can be pumped without disturbing the environment in the refuge and harming the wildlife.
"We're not using a lot of land," said Stevens, arguing that the "footprint" that oil companies would leave would cover no more than 2,000 acres of the 19 million-acre reserve in the northeastern corner of Alaska.
But environmentalists said those acres would be scattered across the reserve's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, disturbing polar bears in their dens, affecting calving grounds for caribou and interfering with millions of migratory birds that swoop down on the plain each summer. "This is a national treasure," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., one of the Democrats who successfully blocked attempts to lift the drilling ban last year.
NO FILIBUSTER THIS TIME
Last year, Senate Democrats staged a filibuster, meaning drilling proponents needed 60 votes to get the measure through.
But Senate rules bar such delaying tactics on the budget resolution and the issue was decided by a simple majority vote.
Stevens earlier this week acknowledged privately that he probably would not have enough votes.
"This is a sound proposition for America," argued Stevens, insisting that his state should be allowed to have the oil developed. Alaska would get a share of the proceeds from oil taken from the refuge, as it does from oil pumped now on the North Slope.
President Bush has cited the refuge's oil as essential to reducing America's reliance on oil imports, which in a few years will account for about 60 percent of U.S. oil consumption.
Kerry, who hopes to challenge Bush for president in 2004, scoffed at the argument, saying the refuge's oil would reduce oil imports by only 2 percent.
"God only gave us 3 percent of the world's oil. The Middle East has about 65 percent ... and a 2 percent difference for the destruction of the wilderness does not solve America's problem," said Kerry.
THREE SENATORS TARGETED
Both sides had said the outcome could hinge on a single vote. In an e-mail attributed to drilling supporters and forwarded to MSNBC.com and other news services by drilling opponents last week, three senators were targeted to provide that final, crucial vote.
The e-mail, circulated among Republican offices, urged an all-out push to try to find one more senator that might be persuaded to shift allegiance.
"DC (Vice President Dick Cheney) has been working madly to secure the 50th (vote), concentrating on Senators Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D) and Mark Pryor (D) from Arkansas, and Senator Norm Coleman (R) from Minnesota," it read.
All three senators ended up voted against drilling. A Cheney aide denied he was lobbying for Senate votes on ANWR, saying: "The vice president has not been contacting members on this issue."
In the event of a tie vote in the Senate, Cheney would have cast the deciding vote. He and President Bush have led the push to open part of the refuge, located in northeastern Alaska next to the oil-producing Prudhoe Bay area.
BUDGET STRATEGY
Backers claim the provision is appropriate for a budget bill because it would raise $2.4 billion in drilling fees from oil firms.
Bush has argued that oil in the refuge's coastal area should be tapped to reduce America's dependence on foreign crude, although the refuge oil wouldn't be available for nearly a decade.
How much oil is beneath the refuge's coastal plain is uncertain because only one exploratory well has been drilled and its results have not been made public.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates a 95 percent chance of 4.3 billion barrels and a five percent chance of 11.8 billion. It further estimated that it would not be feasible economically to drill there if prices dropped below $15 a barrel.
The United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Half of that is imported.
Two Dems from Hawaii voted with the GOP for drilling in Alaska?!?
The only thing I can think of is they know how important cheap airtravel is to Hawaii and more oil = more tourists for Hawaii.
Does anyone else have any idea? This is more perplexing than Coleman burning a bridge to the Whitehouse frankly.
What good is the RINO Coleman, the so-called "Republican" who beat Fritz Mondale??
The GOP, through osmosis by RINOs like Coleman, NYC Mayor Blomberg, McCain, Snowe, etal., are slowly devolving and diluting the party so to eventually render it totally ineffective very soon.
I think the honorable Senator from Alaska is taking this a bit too personally.
Actually, I think he owes it to the people of Minnesota who elected him governor and then senator, and rejected the last-minute liberal retread Wally Mondale. It also shows that Coleman is his own man, and that he respects the views of Minnesotans, who probably have the most environmental consciousness of any state that's not in the Northeast. Which they should: Minnesota is a beautiful state with plenty of protected wilderness of its own. For Coleman to take this stand is unsurprising except that as a freshman senator he had the courage to defy the leadership of his party. I applaud his independence. Too bad we can't find someone in Maryland like him to give Bad Barbie Mikulski a run for her money next time.
Getting the oil out of ANWR is a symbolic gesture. In fact, even if the estimated maximum oil content of the deposits in ANWR is fully extractable, it wouldn't do much to influence how much oil we import. The only thing that would actually influence how much oil we import is a significant change in consumption patterns.
Being a Republican in Maryland, I think it's crazy when people forget that regional politicians have to respect the views of their constituents. Minnesota elected Wellstone, forgoshsake, and Jessie Ventura governor! It's the most liberal Midwest state by a mile, the people have a fierce independent streak: in politics its called the "Minnesota enigma", because they defy their traditional demographics. We should be glad that Coleman had enough appeal to manage to keep the local hero, favorite son, avowed liberal from taking another turn licking Teddy Kennedy's shoe polish, and that we have a Republican majority in the Senate that can (most of the time) get what the President wants done. But if Senator Stevens keeps backbiting people that don't agree with him, he'll lose a lot of the influence he needs. Same goes with the GOP: we have to accept the fact that regional politics breeds differences within the party, and accomplish what needs to be accomplished.
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.