(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

[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.