Has the GOP leadership overreached in its latest ploy to get federal authorization to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by super-gluing it to a defense spending bill — to, in essence, blackmail members of Congress to choose between voting to oppose it and denying funding to the troops or passing the big bill and letting it go through?
Perhaps, even if it succeeds, because now you have a broad-range array of Democrats (who will most assuredly be joined by some Republicans) vowing to find a way to battle the bill passed in the House. They are condemning an attempt to get ANWR drilling by hook or by crook (the latter seems the most likely possibility) on the books. The degree of backlash over this this can be seen by Senator Joe Lieberman’s throw-down-the-gauntlet comments:
“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.”
Because the “F” word (not the same F word used by Vice President Dick Cheney last year in his instructions to a Democratic Senator on an interesting experiment he suggested he try on himself) is being used, as the ABC News report linked above notes:
Senate debate on the measure began on Monday morning, a few hours after the U.S. House of Representatives approved a $453.3 billion defense budget bill in a pre-dawn vote with the controversial ANWR drilling provision attached to it.
Furious Democrats said including ANWR in funding for U.S. soldiers and Pentagon weapons programs violated Senate rules that require a spending bill to include only germane items.
“These tactics reflect poorly on this body and this leadership,” said Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, “Funding for our brave men and women in uniform should not be jeopardized by opening ANWR to drilling.”
Democrats first planned a parliamentary procedure to challenge the ANWR language in the bill, saying it was added by negotiators and did not appear in the original versions of the House and Senate defense spending bills.
If Republicans override the chamber’s parliamentary ruling with a simple majority of 51 votes, Democrats said they would launch a filibuster to talk the bill to death.
And it just isn’t fury aimed at the GOP leadership, notes the Chicago Tribune:
Those opponents were particularly incensed that Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, insisted on tacking on the drilling issue to a defense bill during a back-room deal-making session with the House.
“I’ve done nothing illegal. I’ve done nothing immoral. I’ve done nothing wrong,” said Stevens, visibly irritated by accusations that he had violated Senate rules.
Democrats came in for harsh criticism themselves for holding up the defense spending bill, which includes equipment for the troops as well as $29 billion for Hurricane Katrina relief, $3.8 billion to prepare for an avian flu pandemic and $2 billion to help low-income people pay their heating bills.
And why not? That’s the POINT of all of this: to stage-manage a political set-up to force the drilling through and make Democrats and Republicans who seek to protect ANWR the bad guys (they’re opposing funding for the troops; they’re holding up funding for Katrina). THIS quote wins the Political Transparency Quote Of 2005 Award:
“This is a filibuster on national security, a filibuster on the well-being of American families and a filibuster on the safety of our troops,” said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. “This is unacceptable for the American people, and I call on obstructionist Democrats to put politics aside and put the safety and security of all Americans first.”
There could be political danger for the GOP here. This could be shoved through, but if this becomes the new modus operandi, perhaps in the future, when the GOP isn’t in control of Congress (history shows no party rules forever), Democrats could then justifiably use the same tactic. Why not put increased funding for Headstart or abortion clinics into a defense spending bill, too, if you’re in control of Congress?
The move is likely to please GOP partisans but it will enrage Democrats and we predict will cost the GOP dearly at the polls in the loss of support from some independent voters. And, apparently, there are other risks for the GOP:
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who is leading the opposition to Arctic drilling, threatened to embarrass other lawmakers with a full discussion of the legislation.
“We have lots of time to examine what else is in this bill,” warned Cantwell.
Meanwhile, CPC notes that Canada opposes the drilling as well:
Canada is vehemently opposed, saying it will disrupt a migrating caribou herd that crosses the Alaska-Yukon border and sustains Gwich’in communities on both sides.
The 7.7-million hectare park contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of crude that drilling proponents say is critical to U.S. supply.
But critics argue there’s only enough oil and gas in the refuge to supply the country for about 16 months, it won’t be available for a decade and the reserves would only save pennies at the gas pumps.
Meanwhile, Media Matters reports some inaccurate characterization of ANWR opposition…by the New York Times:
Summary: The New York Times falsely suggested that only Senate Democrats have “assailed” Sen. Ted Stevens’s (R-AK) proposed move to ensure passage of a provision to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) by attaching it to the 2006 Senate defense bill. In fact, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a Republican and one of the conferees on the defense bill, is strongly opposed to the plan.
Indeed, opposition to the proposal has not only come from Democrats…which is why the politicos in the House tacked it onto a defense spending bill, since the measure has repeatedly failed. What better way to shove it through than lump it in with funding needed for troops? The choice becomes: vote for ANWR drilling or you hate America and New Orleans.
UPDATE: Bogus Gold’s Doug Williams puts the controversy into perspective with this must-read.