Steve King's staffer gave high gas prices as reason to drill in Arctic
Refuge--when I countered support alternatives & develop new energy she
said "that would take too long!  So drilling in the Arctic is instant
oil?  These folks are in the pocket of oil companies & the only way to
change the vote is to get them out of office.   In King's district that
will be impossible unless his opponent comes out of the shadows.  Phyllis
Mains

The following is from the Alaska Coalition:
Good quotes from Markey and Boehlert and Capps.
 By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 26 minutes ago 
WASHINGTON - Citing the public outcry over $3-a-gallon gasoline and
America's heavy reliance on foreign oil, the House on Thursday voted to
open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, knowing the prospects for
Senate approval were slim. 
Drilling proponents argued that the refuge on Alaska's North Slope would
provide 1 million barrels a day of additional domestic oil at peak
production and reduce the need for imports.
But opponents to developing what environmentalists argue is a pristine
area where drilling will harm caribou, polar bears and migratory birds,
said Congress should pursue conservation and alternative energy sources
that would save more oil than would be tapped from the refuge.
The House voted 225-201 to direct the Interior Department to open oil
leases on the coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — an
area of 1.5 million acres that is thought likely to hold about 11 billion
barrels of recoverable oil.
But the action may be little more than symbolic. Arctic refuge
development, while approved by the House five times, repeatedly has been
blocked in the Senate where drilling proponents have been unable to
muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
"We need to develop energy, here at home. ... We can't say no to
everything," declared Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., who pressed for a
House vote on opening the refuge that lies east of the declining Prudhoe
Bay oil fields 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle.
Access to ANWR's oil has been a key part of 

President Bush's energy agenda, although over the last five years he's
been unable to convince Congress of its merits. Energy Secretary 

Samuel Bodman on Thursday urged the Senate to pass a drilling measure "so
we can strengthen our nation's energy security."
The refuge was set aside for protection in 1960 and expanded by Congress
to 19 million acres in 1980 with a stipulation that its oil — limited to
the coastal strip — could be developed, but only if Congress allows it.
The federal government would share revenues equally with the state.
While oil companies have long eyed the area where federal geologists
estimate anywhere from 5.4 billion to as much as 16 billion barrels of
oil may be recoverable, environmentalists consider one of its top
priorities for protection.
"There are simply some places that should be off limits to drilling. The
Arctic refuge should be one of them," said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif.
The coastal strip is a calving area for caribou, home to polar bears and
musk oxen, and a seasonal destination for millions of migratory birds.
Drilling opponents cited an Energy Department analysis that ANWR's oil
would have little impact on gasoline prices and reduce imports by only a
few percentage points. Currently 60 percent of the 21 million barrels of
oil used daily in the United States comes from imports.
Advocates for opening the refuge to energy development said the tundra
and its wildlife can be protected using modern drilling techniques and
environmental restrictions. They argued the additional domestic oil would
help move the country toward more energy independence.
Congress approved drilling in the refuge in 1995, but 

President Clinton vetoed the bill.
Had Clinton not issued his veto "we would have had a million barrels of
oil today," said Rep. Don Young , R-Alaska. "We should be drilling off
shore, we should be drilling in the Rockies and most of all we should be
drilling in the Arctic refuge."
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., countered that had Congress passed
improved auto fuel economy measures 11 years ago when they were
considered, today "we would save far more oil than ANWR would produce."
"This Congress hasn't voted on a single conservation measure since
gasoline hit $3 a gallon," said Boehlert. 
"Rather than debating how we could increase the fuel efficiency standards
(of cars) over the next few years, we are debating about a bill that
won't produce the first barrel of oil for 10 years and it will come from
a pristine wildlife refuge," complained Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a
leading drilling opponent. 
The vote fell heavily along party lines. Twenty-seven Democrats joined
the Republican majority in support of the legislation. Only 30
Republicans opposed the measure
 
 

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]