The Defense Appropriations bill has morphed into a exceptionally rancid bit of sausage, thanks to Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. As Committee Chairman, he's gotten creative during the Conference Committee. (Nuclear Option could be triggered over P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, too, but there's plenty enough other diaries on that topic already, so I'll confine my discussion to Defense Appriopriations.)
The confrontation will play out on the Senate floor, likely today. The (mostly) Democratic side is planning a filibuster; the (mostly) Republican side is planning to trot out the Nuclear Option. The vote-counts are so close that Dick Cheney's cut his overseas trip short to cast a tie-breaking vote if it comes to that. There's many permutations to the scenario, and no one knows yet how this will play out. It may be worth contacting your Senator(s) about it.
You can live stream the Senate via
C-SPAN. Adjustable to your platform and bandwidth needs.
This diary is adapted from one I posted on
EPluribusMedia last night. (Forgive me if I missed editing any references to "tomorrow".)
Stevens has added ANWR drilling, as well as a couple of other items to "sweeten" the pot. Nevermind that they have nothing to do with Defense Appropriations, and that neither House nor Senate had included such provisions in the versions submitted to Conference. Stevens is willing to do almost anything to move ANWR drilling forward, and has said so in about as many words.
From Petroleum News (week of Dec. 18, 2005), which can probably be presumed to have the inside track on this one:
ANWR or else: Stevens engages in day-to-day battle for ANWR; Christmas recess no certainty
Lawmakers and senior aides said they will tack the drilling proposal onto a Pentagon spending bill that is among those that must pass before Congress heads home for the holidays.
The switch, they said, could clear the way for approval of the spending cuts sought by conservatives and the Arctic drilling plan that is a priority of Republicans and the Bush administration, provided they could defeat any filibuster.
"It's going to be on one bill or the other before I go home," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, a leading proponent of opening the Arctic plain to oil production.
Stevens and other congressional leaders have vowed to fight for the drilling plan, which is as close to approval as it has ever been in a quarter century of debate.
Their story is that ANWR drilling will produce royalties to pay for Katrina relief and for LIHEAP (Low Income Heating Emergency Assistance Program). But it's a bait-and-switch deal. They've got their fingers crossed behind their backs. They don't really mean it.
Here's the real story: When Alaska became a state, part of the deal was that the state gets to keep 90% of royalties collected from oil extraction. (In the other 49 states, the split is 50-50 between states and the federal government.) This bill makes an exception to that: ANWR royalties are to be split 50-50, with proceeds to go to Katrina relief and to LIHEAP. Yeah right, and Stevens is gonna give up the "Bridge to Nowhere" funding to help Katrina victims, too. Dream on!
Buried in the bill is a little-noticed passage which undermines the premise of this funding. The state of Alaska can "object" to this deal, and simply through that means, kill the 50-50 deal. And the state's already indicated it will do exactly so. So most of the talk about monies for Katrina relief and for LIHEAP are nothing more than a fairy tale.
I get why the Stevens, the Alaska folks, and anyone who's eager for drilling would go for this window-dressing sham. But what's the story with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)? Has her staff not read the fine print? Shouldn't she insist on unconditional funding for relief? Even if she does generally fall in line with the oil industry, how can she ignore her state's extraordinary and crucial needs?
I've taken this from a speech on the Senate floor this afternoon by Dick Durbin (D-IL), about which nothing has (yet) appeared on his official website. Most of the press has given this "elephant in the living room" little attention. But consider this from yesterday's Anchorage Daily News:
The bill says ANWR revenues would be split 50-50 between the state and the federal government. Stevens dedicated 80 percent of the federal share of the initial lease sales to a hurricane relief fund.
Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said he thinks the chances are "very good" that Stevens will be successful. He also said the bill's passage in the House made Monday a good day for Alaska. As for the revenue split, Young said he thinks the governor could sue to get the 90-10 split promised by the Alaska Statehood Act.
"I have to say the 50-50 is something I don't relish," he said. "I think it's totally illegal. I believe we can win it in court."
I got this reference from a diary last night from mstarr77, which addresses the question of ANWR royalties in more depth. Worth a look. The same Anchorage Daily News article quotes Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT), the Democrat everyone loves to hate for his hawkishness:
"They expect, because they've had the gall to put this on the bill that funds our men and women in uniform, that we will not have the nerve to fight something we think is wrong," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. "Well, they're wrong."
The specter of soldiers running out of food and ammunition floats around the edges of the debate. But Lieberman said lawmakers will figure out how to keep the money flowing to the military even if this bill is rejected.
"Does anyone really think this Congress and this administration will allow funding for our military to stop? That's ridiculous," Lieberman said.
Lieberman's been good on this issue. Nice to see he doesn't pander to the Bushies 100% of the time. I also like this editorial from yesterday's Minneapolis Star-Tribune:
Editorial: Holding hostages for Arctic oil:
Tying ANWR to troop funding is a deal the Senate must refuse.
Jim Ramstad tends toward moderation in his comments, as well as in his politics, and so it is worth taking note when this Minnesota Republican spotlights "the most outrageous abuse of power I've seen in my 15 years as a member of Congress."
In a spectacular display of reckless, end-of-session thuggery, Ramstad's GOP colleagues have taken language that would allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and handcuffed it to funding for U.S. troops in Iraq.
As usual, the chief perpetrator is Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who has made a minor art of inserting ANWR provisions into critical, high-stakes legislation where they don't belong. Earlier this year, Stevens and his allies thought their best shot was to stick ANWR drilling into a budget bill, which the rules protect from filibuster. When that strategy foundered, they moved it to the defense appropriations bill, which passed the House early Monday and will likely come before the Senate today, with pressure to adjourn for the holidays growing by the hour.
...
Minnesota's Norm Coleman says he'll vote to remove the drilling language; if that fails, he won't support a filibuster and isn't sure about the overall bill. Expressing well-founded pique, he said, "I'm angry at the way this has been handled, that we're forced to revisit this issue again and again."
Some Senators, like Warner (R-VA), object to muddying up Defense Appropriations with extraneous matters. Others come down on it various ways: anything goes so that defense funding can go forward, opposition to ANWR, anything for oil, anything for hurricane relief (Landrieu mainly). I've heard ditzy Kay Bailey Hutchinson speechify twice about how there won't be any environmental problems because there aren't any trees at ANWR, it's grassland. Note to KBH: It's not grassland either, it's Arctic tundra, where lichen (a biological amalgam of algae and fungus) is abundant and trees and grass are not. Lichen serves as the primary food for the caribou. Sorry, I digress, but her thing about trees is so odd...
Like I said, keep your eyes on C-SPAN2 Wednesday, and contact your Senator - especially if they're one of the wavering ones. (Some who have indicated they'll vote against drilling, but not for a filibuster, for example.) Contact information can be found at Project Vote Smart as well as lots of other stuff. Just type in the Senator's name or your zip code, and proceed from there.