ANWR drilling passes the Senate

BUDGET BILL: Effort to open the refuge succeeded, but House hasn't voted yet.

By LIZ RUSKIN
Anchorage Daily News
(Published: November 4, 2005)

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted 52-47 Thursday evening for a budget bill that includes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"I think today's accomplishment is a big one for Alaskans, but it's a huge one for the country," Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said Thursday after a midday vote on an amendment to delete ANWR from the bill. The Senate defeated the amendment by an even closer margin, 51-48.

Both of Thursday's votes split largely along party lines.

"Today the Senate caved in to oil and gas companies that are rolling in record profits," said Karen Wayland, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the environmental groups fighting the drilling measure.

Murkowski recited the arguments in favor of ANWR drilling: more American jobs, less dependence on foreign oil and a commitment to protect the Arctic environment.

Sen. Ted Stevens noted that the bill still has hurdles to clear. The House has to pass its version of the bill, and then a conference committee must resolve the differences between the two. Both chambers must then vote on the final bill before it goes to the president for his signature.

The House could pass its version of the legislation next week. That bill, which also has a section that would allow drilling in ANWR, cleared the House Budget Committee Thursday.

Brian Moore, legislative director of the Alaska Wilderness League, said the ANWR vote did not surprise or worry him. ANWR will sink the budget reconciliation bill in the House, he predicted.

"I'm confident, 100 percent, that in the end we're going to prevail," he said. The House has repeatedly passed bills in recent years that would open the refuge to drilling, but they were energy bills.

"It's a different vote on the budget," said Moore.

When you count the Republican moderates who oppose drilling in ANWR and add all the other Republicans who oppose various cuts, you get enough House votes to stop the bill, Moore said. The Republicans can afford to lose only 13 of their House members and still pass their budget bill, assuming the Democrats unite against it.

This summer, two dozen Republican House members sent their leaders a letter saying they didn't think it was appropriate to decide an important environmental issue in a budget bill. But Alaska senators needed ANWR to pass on this special type of legislation. Unlike a regular bill, a budget reconciliation bill can't be filibustered, so supporters need only 51 votes to get it through the Senate, rather than 60.

ANWR aside, there are big differences between the House and Senate bills, mostly over what to programs to cut and how deeply.

The Senate bill would make about $36 billion in cuts over five years. They include cuts to student loan programs, to Medicare and to Medicaid, the insurance program for the poor.

The House bill makes deeper cuts in the growth of federal programs -- $54 billion over five years. It spares Medicare, the insurance program for the elderly, but would slice more from Medicaid and cut $844 million from food stamps by tightening eligibility rules.

Critics say it leans too heavily on the poor, while a companion bill to cut $70 billion in taxes will help the rich.

Republican leaders say the budget package is important to reduce deficits. The tax cuts, which have yet to pass, will help the economy, they say.

Illustrating the dilemma that House and Senate negotiators may face later, Sen. Pete Domenici said Senate proponents of drilling will accept elements from the House bill -- to a point.

"We want to do whatever we can to accommodate everything the House wants, but we can't jeopardize passage of this (bill) when it comes back here," he told reporters outside the Senate chamber.

Most of the Senate's Republicans voted for the budget measure Thursday, but five voted against it: Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Mike DeWine of Ohio. Those five also voted to strike the ANWR amendment, as did Republicans John McCain of Arizona and Gordon Smith of Oregon.

The Senate also passed an amendment 83-16 that bans the export of ANWR oil. Stevens said he doesn't believe it's right to have an export ban that applies to just one state, but he said it helps overcome some of the opposition in the House.

As a practical matter, it may not matter much. Alaskan oil can be exported now, but instead it goes to Lower 48 refineries.

Jerry Hood, a lobbyist for the pro-drilling group Arctic Power, said Thursday's vote was important but just one more step in the process. He was hunkered down in Arctic Power's Capitol Hill office Thursday afternoon, concentrating on the projected vote count in the House.

Daily News reporter Liz Ruskin can be reached at Liz Ruskin

How they voted

Ayes (52)

Alexander, R-Tenn.; Allard, R-Colo.; Allen, R-Va.; Bennett, R-Utah; Bond, R-Mo.; Brownback, R-Kan.; Bunning, R-Ky.; Burns, R-Mont.; Burr, R-N.C.; Chambliss, R-Ga.; Coburn, R-Okla.; Cochran, R-Miss.; Cornyn, R-Texas; Craig, R-Idaho; Crapo, R-Idaho; DeMint, R-S.C.; Dole, R-N.C.; Domenici, R-N.M.; Ensign, R-Nev.; Enzi, R-Wyo.; Frist, R-Tenn.; Graham, R-S.C.; Grassley, R-Iowa.; Gregg, R-N.H.; Hagel, R-Neb.; Hatch, R-Utah; Hutchison, R-Texas; Inhofe, R-Okla.; Isakson, R-Ga.; Kyl, R-Ariz.; Landrieu, D-La.; Lott, R-Miss.; Lugar, R-Ind.; Martinez, R-Fla.; McCain, R-Ariz.; McConnell, R-Ky.; Murkowski, R-Alaska; Nelson, D-Neb.; Roberts, R-Kan.; Santorum, R-Penn.; Sessions, R-Ala.; Shelby, R-Ala.; Smith, R-Ore.; Specter, R-Penn.; Stevens, R-Alaska; Sununu, R-N.H.; Talent, R-Mo.; Thomas, R-Wyo.; Thune, R-S.D.; Vitter, R-La.; Voinovich, R-Ohio; and Warner, R-Va.

Nays (47)

Akaka, D-Hawaii; Baucus, D-Mont.; Bayh, D-Ind.; Biden, D-Del.; Bingaman, D-N.M.; Boxer, D-Calif.; Byrd, D-W.V.; Cantwell, D-Wash.; Carper, D-Del.; Chafee, R-R.I.; Clinton, D-N.Y.; Coleman, R-Minn.; Collins, R-Maine; Conrad, D-N.D.; Dayton, D-Minn.; DeWine, R-Ohio; Dodd, D-Conn.; Dorgan, D-N.D.; Durbin, D-Ill.; Feingold, D-Wis.; Feinstein, D-Calif.; Harkin, D-Iowa; Inouye, D-Hawaii; Jeffords, I-Vt.; Johnson, D-S.D.; Kennedy, D-Mass.; Kerry, D-Mass.; Kohl, D-Wis.; Lautenberg, D-N.J.; Leahy, D-Vt.; Levin, D-Mich.; Lieberman, D-Conn.; Lincoln, D-Ark.; Mikulski, D-Md.; Murray, D-Wash.; Nelson, D-Fla.; Obama, D-Ill.; Pryor, D-Ark.; Reed, D-R.I.; Reid, D-Nev.; Rockefeller, D-W.V.; Salazar, D-Colo.; Sarbanes, D-Md.; Schumer, D-N.Y.; Snowe, R-Maine; Stabenow, D-Mich.; and Wyden, D-Ore.

Not voting (1)

Corzine, D-N.J.

Link to Report

EARLIER REPORT

Report: Laws bar drilling

ANWR: Opponents say oil exploration would violate rights of Gwich'in Indians.

By LIZ RUSKIN
Anchorage Daily News
(Published: October 26, 2005)

WASHINGTON -- As Congress treads ever closer to opening the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, opponents are claiming that the development would violate the international human rights laws protecting the Gwich'in Indians.

Gwich'in leader Luci Beach told reporters Tuesday that her people, who live in Alaska villages just south of the refuge and on the Canadian side of border, depend on the Porcupine caribou herd, and the herd depends on the coastal plain for its birthing ground.

"The herd has taken care of us since time immemorial and we have a reciprocal relationship to take care of the herd," she said.

A new report -- sponsored by the Gwich'in Steering Committee, the environmental law firm Trustees for Alaska, the Episcopal Church and an American University law professor -- lays out the Gwich'in case. It says what environmentalists have been arguing for years: that the coastal plain in Alaska's far northeast is sacred ground to the Gwich'in and that oil development would damage the plain, the herd and the Gwich'in.

It also says the drilling would violate U.S. obligations under international laws guaranteeing the rights of indigenous people to health, subsistence, religion and culture.

The United States has ratified a number of treaties guaranteeing these rights, said American University law professor Richard Wilson, an expert in international human rights law.

"Those treaties are, under our Constitution, like federal law, and therefore are the law of land," Wilson said.

A series of international tribunals going back 20 years have ruled that indigenous peoples in the Americas have the right to live their traditional way of life, he said.

The idea of turning to international law sounded like desperation to Jerry Hood. He is the lobbyist for Arctic Power, an Alaska state-funded group working to open the refuge to oil drilling.

"It's the last flailing of the environmental community to stop what in all likelihood will occur," Hood said.

Pro-drilling Republicans are moving an ANWR measure through Congress as part of a budget package. The House Resources Committee is expected to approve the drilling measure today. The budget reconciliation bill must then be passed by the full House and Senate.

Unlike regular bills, a budget reconciliation bill can't be subjected to a filibuster. Sixty votes are needed to stop a filibuster, the procedural hurdle that has prevented the Senate from passing ANWR legislation in recent years.

The bill could reach the Senate by next week.

International law tribunals may not be able to serve as a barricade to drilling rigs, either. Wilson lamented that while the United Nations panels and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights consider their conclusions binding, the United States doesn't seem to.

The only precedent involving a U.S. indigenous group, he said, arose in 1993 when two Western Shoshone women brought their land dispute with the federal government to the Inter-American Commission, part of the Organization of American States.

"They came away with a favorable decision that the United States has chosen to reject," Wilson said.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management said the Organization of American States didn't have jurisdiction, according to news reports from 2002, when the commission issued its report.

International human rights cases are worth pursuing, Wilson said, even if they make no difference on the ground.

"I think there are moral principles involved. I think it's a good way to build a body of principles, a body of precedent that is out there to speak to the rights of indigenous people," he said. "It isn't always about being able to take a court order down and stop the construction."

Hood, the Arctic Power lobbyist, said he didn't know much about international human rights law, but he said its application to ANWR raised more questions for him.

The Inupiaq Eskimos, who live closer to where the drilling would take place, own more than 90,000 acres of land that they can't develop until Congress lifts the ban on drilling in the refuge, he noted.

"What about the human rights of the Inupiaq, whose land we're talking about?" Hood asked.

"What about the human rights of all Americans who have a desperate need of increased domestic energy supply?"

Arctic Power and other supporters of drilling have argued that the environmental restrictions allow oil development and caribou to coexist.

Beach, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, said her group is focusing on stopping the drilling measure in Congress and haven't decided whether to file a human rights case.

Reporter Liz Ruskin can be reached at Liz Ruskin

Contents

Last updated on November 04, 2005