House Drops Arctic Drilling From Bill

coolkatz321

Senior member
Jul 10, 2005
447
0
0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/arctic_refug...0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--


By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - House leaders late Wednesday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling, fearing it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT

They also dropped from the budget document plans to allow states to authorize oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts ? regions currently under a drilling moratorium.

The actions were a stunning setback for those who have tried for years to open a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, to oil development, and a victory for environmentalists, who have lobbied hard against the drilling provisions.
President Bush has made drilling in the Alaska refuge his top energy priority.

The House Rules Committee formalized the change late Wednesday by issuing the terms of the debate when the House takes up the budget package on Thursday.

The decision to drop the ANWR drilling language came after GOP moderates said they would oppose the budget if it was kept in the bill. The offshore drilling provision was also viewed as too contentious and a threat to the bill, especially in the Senate.

Last week, the Senate included ANWR drilling in its version of the budget, so the matter will have to be thrashed out in negotiations between the Senate and House if the budget is approved by the House.

Protection of the Alaska refuge from oil companies has been championed by environmentalists for years. The House repeatedly has approved drilling in the refuge as part of broad energy legislation, only to see their effort blocked each time by the threat of a filibuster in the Senate.

The budget bill is immune from filibuster, but drilling proponents suddenly found it hard to get the measure accepted by a majority of the House. That's because Democrats oppose the overall budget bill, giving House GOP opponents of drilling in the Arctic enough leverage to have the matter killed.

The move in the House was yet another setback for Bush, whose
Social Security overhaul also has stalled in Congress. At the same time, his presidency has been troubled by mounting U.S. casualties in
Iraq, the withdrawal of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers and the investigation over the leak of a
CIA operative's identity.

Twenty-five Republicans, led by Rep. Charles Bass (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire, signed a letter asking GOP leaders to strike the Alaskan drilling provision from the broader $54 billion budget cut bill.

"Rather then reversing decades of protection for this publicly held land, focusing greater attention on renewable energy sources, alternate fuels, and more efficient systems and appliances would yield more net energy savings than could come from ANWR and would have a higher benefit on the nation's long-term economic leadership and security," they said.

The moderates knew they had leverage, given the narrow margin of GOP control of the House. It only takes 14 Republican defections to scuttle a bill, assuming every Democrat opposes it.

Still, removing the Arctic oil drilling provision could incite a backlash from lawmakers who strongly favor it, which is a big majority of Republicans. House and Senate GOP leaders are likely to push hard to get the ANWR proposal back into the bill in negotiations on a final document.

Marnie Funk, a spokeswoman for Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., said that Domenici considers the ANWR provision, which the Senate approved, "one of the most critical components" in the budget package. "He is committed to coming back to the Senate from the conference with ANWR intact," she said.

GOP leaders, led by House Speaker
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., also agreed to drop a plan to allow states to waive a 24-year ban on drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and open a contested tract off the Florida Gulf coast to oil drilling. Several Florida Republicans opposed the plan.

The overall bill is a Republican priority. The Senate passed a milder version of the bill last week that would curb the automatic growth of federal spending by $35 billion through the end of the decade. The House plan cuts more deeply across a broader range of social programs.

In a concession to lawmakers upset with a spate of cuts to social programs, GOP leaders bowed to pressure from Cuban-American lawmakers from the Miami area to loosen new restrictions on food stamps benefits for legal immigrants.

Immigrants who are disabled, over the age of 60 or applying for citizenship would be exempt from proposed rules extending the waiting period for food stamp eligibility from five to seven years.
 

Pepsei

Lifer
Dec 14, 2001
12,895
1
0
good, we should save it for later. the shortage is caused by lack of refineries and not oil.
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Though it is sweet to shove the gloating of the Right wingers who want to destroy that area for a tiny amount of oil back in their faces, the risk is not over yet.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
71,636
31,534
136
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Though it is sweet to shove the gloating of the Right wingers who want to destroy that area for a tiny amount of oil back in their faces, the risk is not over yet.

True. The right has adopted the rape of wilderness as some sort of idealological goal. The economics of drilling are not particularly important anymore. They just want to destroy nature because they can. Disgusting.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
woot woot!!!

Absolutely pointless to drill there. They wouldn't even increase the supply by 5%, which even at an unrelistic 1 to 1 correspondence to prices would drop the price 10 cents.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Though it is sweet to shove the gloating of the Right wingers who want to destroy that area for a tiny amount of oil back in their faces, the risk is not over yet.

True. The right has adopted the rape of wilderness as some sort of idealological goal. The economics of drilling are not particularly important anymore. They just want to destroy nature because they can. Disgusting.

I wish I could figure out why though. I can understand Dubya, since he is the corporate welfare king, but overall, why do the Republicans insist on trashing the environment? It's not like it is a left/right issue - only how you go about protecting it is - but not the issue at the center of it.
 

Legend

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2005
2,254
1
0
Can an environmentalist explain something to me. Would oil drilling really affect more than 5% of the Alaskan wilderness?

I'm for alternate energy research, but I'm trying to understand why not to drill oil in the meantime.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Legend
Can an environmentalist explain something to me. Would oil drilling really affect more than 5% of the Alaskan wilderness?

I'm for alternate energy research, but I'm trying to understand why not to drill oil in the meantime.

It would affect about 2000 acres out of millions. These same people who cheer for this will be back here in 10 years complaining about oil prices.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
It still has to get through conference with the Senate . . . which managed to pass ANWR drilling.

I still don't understand the logic behind a rush to drill. I think we should explore to get an idea of how much is really up there but why not leave some oil for future Americans? Why not help Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East pump more oil? Hell, let's help Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela!

We are the greediest bastards on the planet. Why not stay true to our nature and use up the rest of the world's oil (which is cheap) and then save our tiny bit of oil for a future when oil is likely to be more scarce (say 50-100 yrs or so)?
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
The OP in his leftist diatribe has forgotten that the Senate has to consider it now, and they have written it in to their budget. So it ain't over just yet :D
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It still has to get through conference with the Senate . . . which managed to pass ANWR drilling.

I still don't understand the logic behind a rush to drill. I think we should explore to get an idea of how much is really up there but why not leave some oil for future Americans? Why not help Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East pump more oil? Hell, let's help Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela!

We are the greediest bastards on the planet. Why not stay true to our nature and use up the rest of the world's oil (which is cheap) and then save our tiny bit of oil for a future when oil is likely to be more scarce (say 50-100 yrs or so)?



because the US has enough oil within its borders for the next 200 years
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Legend
Can an environmentalist explain something to me. Would oil drilling really affect more than 5% of the Alaskan wilderness?

I'm for alternate energy research, but I'm trying to understand why not to drill oil in the meantime.

It would affect about 2000 acres out of millions. These same people who cheer for this will be back here in 10 years complaining about oil prices.

10 years huh? Try like 6 months until we're back at the level we are now if we started drilling today. Drilling in ANWR won't do anything but allow the soccer mom's to keep driving their minivans a little while longer.

What we need is money funnelling into research for alternative sources and NOT into some big oil company's CEO's pocket.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Legend
Can an environmentalist explain something to me. Would oil drilling really affect more than 5% of the Alaskan wilderness?

I'm for alternate energy research, but I'm trying to understand why not to drill oil in the meantime.

It would affect about 2000 acres out of millions. These same people who cheer for this will be back here in 10 years complaining about oil prices.

10 years huh? Try like 6 months until we're back at the level we are now if we started drilling today. Drilling in ANWR won't do anything but allow the soccer mom's to keep driving their minivans a little while longer.

What we need is money funnelling into research for alternative sources and NOT into some big oil company's CEO's pocket.

Completely different subject.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
It would affect about 2000 acres out of millions. These same people who cheer for this will be back here in 10 years complaining about oil prices.
Hey! Let's build some oil refineries in the middle of Yellowstone Park and slap a Wal-Mart and some apartment buildings there too. It's only a few hundred acres out of two million, right?
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
Continual fallout for the Tues elections. Watch for more of this, continual crumbling of Rep solidarity and increasingly independent and vocal moderates challenging party leadership. Robust congressional debate can only be a good thing for the country. At least it may drive some of the spending down.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Genx87
It would affect about 2000 acres out of millions. These same people who cheer for this will be back here in 10 years complaining about oil prices.
Hey! Let's build some oil refineries in the middle of Yellowstone Park and slap a Wal-Mart and some apartment buildings there too. It's only a few hundred acres out of two million, right?

Are you planning on visiting ANWR anytime soon? Or do you want to keep those ~2000 acres pristine just for the sake of doing it?
btw do you even know where it is?
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hey! Let's build some oil refineries in the middle of Yellowstone Park and slap a Wal-Mart and some apartment buildings there too. It's only a few hundred acres out of two million, right?

Are you planning on visiting ANWR anytime soon? Or do you want to keep those ~2000 acres pristine just for the sake of doing it?
I love the people who want to save the ANWR "just because".
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hey! Let's build some oil refineries in the middle of Yellowstone Park and slap a Wal-Mart and some apartment buildings there too. It's only a few hundred acres out of two million, right?

Are you planning on visiting ANWR anytime soon? Or do you want to keep those ~2000 acres pristine just for the sake of doing it?
I love the people who want to save the ANWR "just because".

I know, it is kind of a funny thing to watch. What makes the land in ANWR worth saving but the farm fields being goggled up south of Chicago not? Both are wilderness that will be developed for the use of this nation.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hey! Let's build some oil refineries in the middle of Yellowstone Park and slap a Wal-Mart and some apartment buildings there too. It's only a few hundred acres out of two million, right?

Are you planning on visiting ANWR anytime soon? Or do you want to keep those ~2000 acres pristine just for the sake of doing it?
I love the people who want to save the ANWR "just because".


Or are we drilling "just because?" I guess a large part of that "because" would be to primarily benefit bacon-fat dripping Alaska and Sen. "Pork pie" Stevens as it does next to nothing to benefit the national energy situation.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Hafen
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hey! Let's build some oil refineries in the middle of Yellowstone Park and slap a Wal-Mart and some apartment buildings there too. It's only a few hundred acres out of two million, right?

Are you planning on visiting ANWR anytime soon? Or do you want to keep those ~2000 acres pristine just for the sake of doing it?
I love the people who want to save the ANWR "just because".


Or are we drilling "just because?" I guess a large part of that "because" would be to primarily benefit bacon-fat dripping Alaska and Sen. "Pork pie" Stevens as it does next to nothing to benefit the national energy situation.

I must have missed the record oil prices over the past 6 months, has anybody else? Or was that just my imagination?
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Hell with the drilling - let's go for strip mining, only have to go down a few miles to get the oil, and there's all the other minerals along the way.