Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/1/2001 10:36:52 PM EDT
YESSSSSSS!!!!!! All you guys with Democratic senators, please email them in support of drilling the ANWR tundra. Nothing pisses Alaskans off more than New York and Californians telling them how to run their state.
Link Posted: 8/1/2001 10:40:12 PM EDT
Can you give more info please?? sgtar15
Link Posted: 8/1/2001 11:13:49 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After hours of spirited debate, House lawmakers early Thursday approved a broad energy bill which would allow some oil drilling in an Alaskan refuge. The energy package, a hefty, 510-page bill, passed 240-189 after 12 hours of debate. The vote marks a victory for President Bush, who had campaigned on the philosophy that exploration of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is key to the nation's energy needs. Democrats sought to rally support from enough moderate Republicans with environmental leanings for an amendment to block the plan to allow drilling in the reserve, but that was defeated in a 223-206 vote. Supporters said opening the Arctic refuge for oil exploration was needed to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil. "You might not like oil companies at home, but it's a lot better if we have it instead of getting it from Saddam Hussein," said Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-Louisiana. Critics claimed the measure would damage one of the last great wilderness areas on the continent, while providing only six months' supply of oil -- and that would not be available for nearly 10 years. The White House praised the vote, with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham calling it a "tremendous victory for America ... an important step toward meeting our long-term energy needs and reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy." 'Yes to the oil and gas industry' Earlier Wednesday, the House voted 269-160 against raising fuel mileage standards for sport-utility vehicles to 27.5 miles per gallon, from the current fleet average of 20.7. Rep. Christopher Shays, one of the moderate Republicans who has bucked the White House on other issues, said Congress should not approve drilling in the Alaskan refuge without raising fuel economy standards for automobiles. "We're not resolving our energy needs because we're not conserving," said Shays, a Connecticut Republican. Added Rep. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts: "They say yes to the oil and gas industry and no to renewable energy and conservation and efficiency." Lawmakers kicked off debate on the House floor Wednesday morning, but sharp political rhetoric was also heard outside the Capitol as Democrats held a news conference to blast the wide-ranging measure. "This is a bad bill. It is not worthy of passing," declared House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri. "It is all focused on production ... and it's not paid for -- and that, in and of itself, is enough reason to vote against this bill." Members of the House majority highlighted what they considered environmentally friendly provisions, including incentives for cleaner energy sources and alternative fuels, the promotion of clean-coal technologies and stricter standards for energy use in federal buildings. Reserve not 'wonderland' but a 'desert' The measure, an amalgam of four bills produced by eight separate House committees, will: -- Provide about $27 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for development of energy sources, to be allotted to the coal, gas, oil and nuclear industries. -- Provide about $6 billion in incentives for industrial and individual conservation efforts, including financial breaks for buying solar panels, gas-electric hybrid cars, and energy-efficient appliances. -- Boost federal research into clean coal technologies.
Link Posted: 8/1/2001 11:14:41 PM EDT
The most controversial provision, however, would allow drilling in the Arctic reserve, a proposal that has drawn the ire of many environmental groups. Speaking on the House floor, Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Florida, said the threat to the environment has been overstated, noting that the drilling would take place on only a fraction of the refuge, which is the size of South Carolina. The area in question, he said, is not an "ecological wonderland," but a "frozen desert with few signs of life." Democrats argued that Bush's broad energy plan would force the government to dip into the federal budget surplus, or the Medicare and Social Security trust funds, which, they predict, will be strained enough by increased numbers of beneficiaries in the next few years. "We're talking about a budgetary train wreck," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York. "They're about to build their oil rigs on top of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds," Markey said. The bill is the product of a three-month Cabinet-level study to determine a national energy strategy. The study was led by Vice President Dick Cheney in consultation with various interest groups, which the White House will not name. The Cheney group said it aimed its recommendations at increasing the nation's energy supplies through expanded nuclear power, increased domestic oil drilling and more efficient movement of energy, including electricity, natural gas and petroleum. Tuesday, House Republicans hosted a news conference with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in support of the energy bill. Labor leaders said oil exploration in the refuge, known as ANWR, would lead to thousands of jobs. Environmental groups held rival media events in opposition to the measure. [url]http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/02/energy.bill/index.html[/url]
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 12:17:55 AM EDT
Whooohoooo!!! That'll give that watermelon's heart attacks!! And this is very small compared to what I'd do. Man, I CANNOT stand those liberals whine and moan and spread fear about the environment, and then lie to boot. But, as long as they are doing in response to a measure passed, it is as sweet as silence[;)]
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 1:13:55 AM EDT
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with taking care to minimize damage to the environment during resource extraction. It's just ANWR opponents absolutely refuse to listen to facts and weigh the minimal environmental costs of extraction to the enormous economics benefits. Mainly because they're commies [;D]
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 1:39:22 AM EDT
Well I agree 100%. After all, isn't that what we baught the damn place for[:D]. Oh, that and hunting of coarse! sgtar15
Top Top