Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
One of the reasons why we can't get all of the oil up in Alaska is because of the enviromentalists who don't want the habitat destroyed. Bush already signed document a few years ago allowing the authorization of drilling in those regions of Alaska.
Peace I believe that it did not pass the Senate, - last week </font>[/QUOTE]Senate Rejects Drilling in Alaska Refuge
By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 19, 2003; 3:56 PM
The Republican-controlled Senate narrowly rejected President Bush's proposal to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling today as his GOP allies scrambled to fend off a bipartisan challenge to his proposal for another round of big tax cuts.
The 52-48 vote against a key element of Bush's energy program came despite GOP hopes that the likely onset of war with Iraq over the next few days would reinforce arguments for domestic energy production to help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
But eight Republicans joined all but five Democrats in opposing inclusion of a go-ahead for the long-controversial Alaska drilling project in the congressional budget for next year under parliamentary rules that bar filibusters.
As part of the budget, it would take only a simple majority, or 51 votes, to approve drilling. But, without the protection of budget rules, foes could block action on the proposal by a filibuster, which would take 60 votes to break -- a near impossibility in light of the Senate's close division on the issue.
A proposal to allow drilling in the refuge was defeated last year by a filibuster. Republicans picked up a few votes for ANWR drilling in last November's elections, enough to narrow the margin but not to change the outcome.
Still pending was a proposal by moderates of both parties to cut Bush's proposed "economic growth" tax cut of $726 billion by half. Senators said they expected the vote to be close on the proposal, which would limit the tax cut to $350 billion. But it was not clear whether any of the tax-cut alternatives had a majority at this point.
The fight over drilling in the wildlife refuge has been raging for years, with proponents arguing it has up to 16 billion barrels of oil ready to be drilled for U.S. consumption while opponents say it would likely produce far less oil at an incalculable cost to a pristine area filled with caribou, polar bears and a wide array of other wildlife.
The Senate Budget Committee's GOP majority attempted to make ANWR a budget matter -- and thereby filibuster-proof -- by including roughly $2 billion in anticipated revenues from bidding on leases for drilling rights in its version of Congress' budget resolution for fiscal 2004.
Democrats contended this was nothing more than "parliamentary sleight-of-hand," as Daschle put it, to give Republicans a better chance of passing a proposal that could not pass on its own.
But the real debate was, as it has been all along, over two national priorities that are often at odds: energy production and environmental protection.
By banning drilling in the refuge, the U.S. is denying "our own resources . . . for our own security," said Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.). Like other drilling advocates, he contended that the refuge would not be damaged by oil and gas production. "It's land we can take care of and still use the resources," Burns said.
But Democrats argued that any benefits were far outweighed by the costs. "We cannot sit silently by while the administration promoted a short-sighted strategy that mortgages one of our most previous and irreplaceable wild spaces for several months supply of oil," said Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.)
It was unclear whether drilling advocates may attempt to revive the proposal in a conference with the House, whose budget resolution has no specific reference to the Alaska refuge. But Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the leading drilling proponent in the Senate, said he will never give up. "It's never decided until we win," Stevens said shortly before the vote.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company