With the reelection of President Bush, the GOP retaining control of the House, and an enlarged Senate Republican majority, many of the legislative proposals defeated in the last few years may rise again.
Among those porposals will surely be a renewed effort to permit drilling for oil in Alaska's Anwar preserve. In an article about President's Bush's second term priorities, the Desert Sun reports:
With an enlarged majority, Bush will again attempt to get his stalled energy bill passed. The centerpiece of that legislation is "drilling in the ANWAR."
I presume that Bush will have no trouble getting the provision passed in the House. It passed the House in both 2002 and 2003 and there is no reason to expect a different result in 2005. If the provision is defeated, it will be in the Senate.
In 2002, the administration included the ANWAR provisions in the energy bill. Senate Democrats successfully filibustered that bill.
Having been burned once, in 2003, the GOP included the ANWAR provisions in a budget bill. Senate rules do not permit the filibuster of budget bills. California Senator Barbara Boxer introduced an amendment to strip the ANWAR provisions from the budget bill. The Boxer amendment passed 52-48, thereby killing the drilling measure for that cycle.
Have the changes in the Senate as a result of the 2004 election changed the calculus? In a word, yes.
There are 45 Democrats in the Senate (including Jeffords who voted against ANWAR drilling). Forty of the returning Democratic Senators voted against Anwar drilling in 2003. Three Demcratic Senators, (Inouye and Akaka of Hawaii and Mary Landrieu of Lousiana) voted in favor of drilling in 2003.
Democrats have two new Senators, Obama of Illinios and Salazar of Colorado. Obama is on record opposing drilling in ANWAR while supporting the encouragment of holders of oil leases in the continental US to develop the properties.
Ken Salazar of Colorado's position is less clear to me. His issues page on the environment makes no mention of ANWAR.
Colorado Luis says:
Ken Salazar is second to no one in his defense of the environment. As AG he has made prosecuting environmental crime a top priority -- a serious change from the policies of his predecessor, current Bush Secretary of Interior Gale Norton. He has also fought for protection of in-stream flows and for "basin of origin protection" -- rather arcane water law issues that are very important to the ecology of the rural West.
Paul Day: Pete it's been reported that you support oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. True?Pete Coors: Yes.
Paul Day: Do you favor drilling on the Roan Plateau?
Pete Coors: I'm in favor of doing whatever we can do in this country, in an environmentally sound way, to produce the gas oil that we need to be less dependent on foreign oil. We have technology now, drilling technology, that we didn't have 10 or 20 years ago. I believe we can do it in an environmentally friendly way without disturbing those very sensitive areas, whether it's ANWAR or the Roan, and not only would it be a good thing to do, I think we have an obligation to the people of this state and the people of the country to produce that oil.
Paul Day: Do you support Amendment 37, requiring power companies to produce more amounts of renewable energy?
Ken Salazar: I do because I think that renewable energy is important to help us get rid of our over-dependence on coal and oil. Also, it's good for our economy. It's also good for our environment.
Colorado is experiencing unprecedented levels of applications by the oil and gas industry to drill in the state. The exploration interest has sparked debates about the appropriate use of land in the White River National Forest and the nearby Roan Plateau, which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management.Salazar said mining and energy development must be “consistent” with local interests. He said a more thorough analysis must be made on the suitability of some public land for exploration and drilling.
If all returning Democrats maintain their respective positions and Obama and Salazar vote against drilling, the Democrats will have 42 votes to strip the measure from the budget bill. They will need 9 GOP Senators to break ranks.
There are fifty-five Republican Senators. Seven returning Republicans voted against ANWAR drilling in 2003. Those seven are Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Mike DeWine of Ohio, John McCain of Arizona, and Norm Coleman of Minnesota.
Coleman was on the fence in 2003 and the administration will apply massive pressure to flip him. DeWine is up for releection in 2006 and will also face massive pressure. Even if they lose all seven, the administration has 51 votes unless a new Republican Senator votes against ANWAR drilling or Landreiu, Inoye, or Akaka change their position.
None of the five newly elected Republican Senators are likely to vote against ANWAR drilling. David Vetter of Louisiana is from a oil producing state and is on record as supporting drilling in ANWAR. Similarly, Tom Colburn of Oklahoma is from the oil patch, is a wingnut, and is on record as supporting "opening up Alaska for oil exploration."
Jim DeMint, South Carolina's new Senator, has an issues page that does not include a section on the environment. His energy reform plan calls for increased domestic production including "exploring for domestic energy." DeMint voted for the administration's energy bill, including ANWAR drilling while in the House.
Johnny Isakson, replacing Zell Miller, also voted to permit drilling in ANWAR as a member of the House as did John Thune of South Dakota.
Finally, Mel Martinez of Florida supports the administration Energy bill including oil exploration in Alaska, far from the Florida beaches.
It appears that there are forty-eight Republican votes and three Democratic votes for drilling in Anwar. That is one more than is necessary to enact the policy as long as the measure is attached to a budget bill that prevents a filibuster.
Even if Democrats could prevail upon Inouye and Akaka to switch (I assume that Landrieu is a lost cause and I do not blame her), I presume that the administration could twist an arm or break a knee cap to scare up an additional vote or two.
Democrats need to decide what they want to do about ANWAR. One option is to stand, fight, and lose on the narrow issue of ANWAR. Another option is to try to add provisions that will make the inevitable drilling more environmentally friendly.
My preferred option is to present a comprehensive energy plan as an alternative to the Republican bill and then allow the Republican majority to pass what it will.
The comprehensive plan should set out a road to energy independence for the United States. It should reject the false choice between economic growth and environmental protection and find ways to do both by creating new industries concerned with environmental protection and clean up.
It should be forward looking by calling for investment in new energy technologies such as hydrogen. It should combine new sources of energy with more efficiency and conservation. It should be practical and easily explained.
If any plan can meet those goals, I, for one, am fully prepared to compromise within the party on any specific item (ANWAR, nuclear power, CAFE standards, Gulf drilling, or whatever) to be able to agree on a comprehensive alternative to the Republican plan.
If we take that route, Democrats will not only win elections when the public tires of ineffective Republican policies, but will also have a mandate to enact a set of policies upon attaining power.
I'm not sure why Akaka supports it, but Inouye and Stevens are buddies, and Inouye needs Stevens' support for defense appropriations to Hawai'i, or so he says. This infuriates some of us out here, who think the odds of getting defense money are pretty good even if Inouye voted against, but that seems to be the way it is.
Posted by: Linkmeister at November 20, 2004 01:05 AM