Arctic Refuge

Sen. Ted Stevens: Crybaby

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) has spent the last week or so -- nay, the last 25 years -- attempting to circumvent the clearly and repeatedly expressed preferences of a majority of U.S. citizens by allowing oil drilling to take place in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The latest attempt involved attaching drilling to the defense appropriations bill, in effect holding military funding hostage in the middle of an armed conflict.

We have perhaps become numbed by the sheer repetition and persistence of these efforts, but it's worth pausing, stepping back, and noting just how utterly venal and anti-democratic they are. The country would not benefit from Refuge oil. It would be sold on the world market just like any other oil. Oil companies and the state of Alaska would benefit. For that, Stevens is willing to make a mockery of legislative procedure and tradition.

Stevens' latest defeat produced a self-pitying, thumb-sucking tantrum on the floor of the Senate. He said it was the "saddest day of his life." He also threatened his fellow Senators, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) in particular:

"I'm going to go to every one of your states, and I'm going to tell them what you've done," he told colleagues who voted against the measure. "You've taken away from homeland security the one source of revenue that was new ... I'm sure that the senator from Washington [Cantwell] will enjoy my visits to Washington."

He also, in effect, threatened to quit, saying "It's a day I don't want to remember. I say goodbye to the Senate tonight. Thank you very much." You can watch a little bit of the pathetic performance here (via Atrios).

(It's worth noting that when Refuge drilling came out of the defense bill, so did assistance for low-income people to heat their houses. The LIHEAP program will receive less funding this year than last year, despite record high heating prices. Maybe Stevens should shed a tear over that.)

Stevens and the defense bill

Update [2005-12-19 14:47:12 by David Roberts]: Oops, I forgot the obvious: To try to stop this thing, please write your Senators.

As forecast last week, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) managed to get Arctic Refuge drilling attached to the defense spending bill. He couldn't wrangle it into the budget reconciliation bill, so this is his last-ditch effort. He has said:

Katrina will be on this [defense] bill. That's what makes the defense bill a little bit attractive because Katrina will be there. It is going to be awful hard to vote against Katrina.

The levees will be paid for when we drill in ANWR.

The House passed the bill in a "bleary, pre-dawn vote" this morning (they must be so proud of themselves).

Now everything comes down to the vote in the Senate. Democrats have promised to filibuster the bill.

"I don't have any hesitation to be a part of a filibuster," said Democrat Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. "This is a fight worth waging."

This is really end-game time, folks.

Below the fold, I've put some quotes from people reacting to Stevens' bid, culled from various sources (Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, news reports, etc.).

Arctic Refuge drilling to be attached to defense appropriations bill

Oh crap.

From Congressional Quarterly:

Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ted Stevens said Thursday that House and Senate appropriators have agreed to attach drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to the Defense bill in conference, though it is unclear if he can muster the 60 votes needed to end a filbuster on the legislation that the move would provoke.

"We've agreed to put ANWR on it so we'll just have to wait and see what's going to happen," said Stevens, R-Alaska. "The leaders of the subcommittee on both sides have agreed. They will support it so I think it will pass."

...

Stevens, a staunch supporter of energy exploration in ANWR, had outlined a gambit Wednesday to link drilling in the region to hurricane relief aid that also will likely be attached to the Defense spending measure (HR 2863) in the hope that Gulf Coast lawmakers would vote with him. Tying the measure to support for the troops makes voting to sustain a filibuster doubly hard.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., made it clear to Senate leaders earlier this week that ANWR drilling cannot pass in the House on the budget savings package, and suggested using the Defense Appropriations conference report as the alternate vehicle, according to a Senate GOP aide.

...

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., who voted against the Senate budget savings package largely because of his opposition to ANWR drilling, said it would put him in a difficult position if ANWR were attached to the final Defense spending bill.

"I have a clear position on ANWR. I have a clear position on supporting our troops," Coleman said.

...

Some Democrats attacked Stevens' plan Thursday.

"Like Ahab, certain Republicans are so dedicated to a lost cause that they have lost their reason in the process," said Rep. Ed J. Markey, D-Mass., in a statement. Markey said adding ANWR to the Defense appropriations bill would slow down the approval of funding for the troops.

"Let us hope that those who captain the Senate will turn this ship around before it founders on a filibuster," Markey said.

Oil drills getting closer than ever to the Arctic Refuge

The future of the Arctic Refuge? “The threat to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has never been greater than it is today,” according to Brian Moore, legislative director for the Alaska Wilderness League. And, though the battle over the refuge has a Groundhog Day quality to it — haven’t we heard this same alarm sounding […]

What’s the Arctic Refuge worth to you?

In my experience, environmentalists are ... uh, how to put this delicately ... not very politically pragmatic. So, here's a thought experiment.

Imagine that, for whatever reason, the Republicans' current effort to drill in the Arctic Refuge was defeated, and the Refuge was taken off the table.

Now imagine, further, that Bush and the Republicans approached the major environmental organizations and their backers in Congress and offered a deal. They said, for instance, "if you let us get drills into ANWR, we'll sign onto Kyoto."

Would you do it?

What would you take in exchange for drilling in the Refuge? Click "read more" and vote in the poll.

Because it’s there

It’s difficult to work up outrage these days, I know. But still. Republicans have long had a >hard on for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It’s never made any sense — the amount of oil we could get is a tiny fraction of what we need, and it’s 10 years out in the […]