|
ANWR amendment voted down in U.S. Senate
Steve Sutherlin
An amendment by Sen. Frank Murkowski that would have opened the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development failed April 18 when a cloture vote on the amendment garnered only 46 yea votes. The cloture vote would have ended a filibuster on the bill begun April 17 by drilling opponents. It required 60 votes to pass.
Immediately after the vote Murkowski asked for a quorum call, which stops action on the Senate floor and is sometimes used to give leaders a chance to negotiate. When a cloture vote fails, often the sponsor of the amendment withdraws it. At a press conference following the vote, Murkowski said he would not withdraw the amendment “at this time.” Murkowski might modify amendment Murkowski might modify the amendment to attract more votes, his spokesman told PNA, adding that Murkowski and Sen. Ted Stevens were also considering an amendment that would allow the local Native corporation, Kaktovik Inupiat Corp., to develop oil and gas on 92,000 acres it owns on the coastal plain of the refuge.
Had the cloture vote been successful, the amendment would have allowed the president to mandate the opening of ANWR if deemed necessary for national security or economic reasons. It also specified that lease income would be split evenly between the federal treasury and the state of Alaska. Stevens speaks to Senate Debate on the amendment stretched into the night on April 17. Earlier in the day Stevens took the Senate floor in behalf of amendment, but he wasn’t optimistic.
“It’s apparent now that it will be denied,” he said.
Stevens recapped the history of the 1980 law that left it up to Congress to decide whether to allow oil drilling on ANWR’s coastal plain, questioned the fund-raising techniques of the national environmental groups, and spoke of the many products made from petroleum.
“Toothpaste, deodorant, footballs, life jackets, pantyhose, dentures, bandages, hearing aids, tires and lipstick. All of those come from a barrel of oil,” he said.
“The Inupiat Eskimos who live on the North Slope want this area to be explored,” he said.
Stevens said less weight should be given to development objections of Gwich’in Indians.
They don’t live in ANWR, Stevens said.
“As a matter of fact, we hardly ever heard from the Gwich’ins about this issue until they were hired by one of the environmental organizations, and they have become the spokesman for the environmental organizations as a representative of the Alaska Native people,” he said. “But they’re Canadian Indians who live in Alaska.”
| 