(no subject)

[javasaurus]

Ted Stevens (Senator, R-Alaska) has been fighting since 1980 to open up Alaska's protected lands for oil development. He recently attached a measure to the effect to a "must-pass" defense and Katrina relief bill. Dems fillibustered, and showed that no bill is must-pass, and the measure will be removed before the bill goes forward (and before the Senate gets to see their families for the holidays).

Article here (hmmm...original link broken -- Google "ted stevens oil defense" and you'll find a bit, but I can't find the article to which I originally linked), and I'll point out that Stevens claimed it was not an unrelated measure: "He called the development of ANWR’s oil a matter of national security because the country needs all the domestic oil it can get, said it was a fitting subject for defense legislation and dismissed environmentalists’ arguments that drilling would jeopardize the refuge’s wildlife."

This is why you cannot restrict riders to "related matters." -- it just makes the politians creative.

Comments

3 comments

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

1. For some reason, the link "here" takes me to my own LJ page. ??WTF??

2. Something that rarely gets noted in the discuusion about the oil drilling in ANWR is that the original law creating ANWR set aside the area being discussed specifically for oil drilling. Environmentalists have managed to use the courts, lobbying, and PR/media to prevent that from happening ever since. So that part of the original intent of ANWR has been thwarted for over -- what is it, 20, 25 years? I'm glad it's been held up for so long because the current technology for drilling and development is far less intrusive and destructive than 25 years ago. However, if the ideal is to not develop that section at all, then do it honestly by amending the law that created ANWR, not perpetually delaying the legal development. (aside: the section for development, according to drilling proponents, has undergone *2* environmental impact studies and numerous challenges and has been consistently shown to be able to be developed without "significant" harm to the environment (whatever that means; I'm guessing meaning "the harm to the environment is within the bounds permitted by law"). The carabou/elk herds migration path, although technically within the section set aside for oil development, was shown to be hundreds of miles away from any actual proposed developmnet sites. If you look at pictures of the area, it's tundra -- hundreds of square miles of tundra -- with little wildlife.

3. The Katrina relief funding is *also* an unrelated rider. It was added the same way the oil drilling proposal was added. If they were completely honest and unhypocritical (hahahahahaaaa, a politician being ..., that's rich) then the Katrina relief funds and the many other riders would also be stripped out and sent through on a separate bill. How is helping Katrina victims related to funding the soldiers in Iraq, which is the main funding proposed in the bill? It's not, any more than oil drilling is.

BTW, I'm just pointing these things out. I have my own opinions on these issues and don't necessarily agree with either side. I'm just being an anal-retentive Libra and presenting the other side so that there is a "fair and balanced" discussion.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

1. thanks for pointing out the link error. It's taking me to my own lj page as well. I'll look at it.

2. According to this article what you're referring to was an agreement between Stevens and two others (both now dead), not a passed law. Should the current Senate be held responsible for the deals of two former Senators? Anyway, the specific case wasn't really my point. A couple of days ago, there was a discussion about how politicians were always sticking unrelated sometimes controversial riders on must-pass bills. I was pointing out this example as one that backfired, proving that there is no true "must pass" bill.

3. I also stated a couple of days ago that restricting riders to "related" wouldn't work, nor is it necessarily desired. Adding the Katrina funding to the defense bill is efficient rather than underhanded -- Dems will fight for more Katrina relief, while Reps will fight for more defense spending, they'll come to a common compromise and everybody will like the bill. In fact, that's mostly what happened until Stevens stepped in. The abuse of the system comes when politicians try to add unpopular and unwanted riders, hoping no politician will want the stigma of having voted against our troops, for example.

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

Should the current Senate be held responsible for the deals of two former Senators?

If those deals became law, yes. Otherwise the Constitution and a bunch of other rather nice things would be thrown out along with the dirty bathwater.