NPR's Montagne reported that Democrats objected to ANWR provision, omitted Republican objections
SUMMARY: On NPR's Morning Edition, host Renée Montagne reported that "Democrats" criticized Sen. Ted Stevens's (R-AK) effort to attach a provision allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to a defense appropriations bill. In fact, Stevens's tactic received bipartisan criticism, including from at least five GOP senators and two House Republicans.
On the December 22 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, host Renée Montagne reported that "Democrats say" that Sen. Ted Stevens's (R-AK) effort to attach a provision allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to a defense appropriations bill "was a particularly brazen example of using one piece of legislation to carry another." In fact, Stevens's tactic received bipartisan criticism, including from Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and Mike DeWine (R-OH) and at least two House Republicans.
On Morning Edition, NPR congressional correspondent David Welna reported that on December 21, the Republican Senate leadership was unable to garner the 60 votes necessary to end a bipartisan filibuster of the defense bill. Following the failed cloture motion, the Senate voted 48-45 to strip out the ANWR provision before passing the bill unanimously. Welna reported that Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) "said Stevens was breaking the rules by putting the ANWR provisions on the defense spending bill."
Following Welna's report, Montagne introduced an analysis segment with NPR senior correspondent Juan Williams:
MONTAGNE: Let us start with the defense bill and ANWR, that would be, of course, Alaska drilling. Democrats say this was a particularly brazen example of using one piece of legislation to carry another, as we've just heard. Is this tactic so unusual?
But Democrats were not the only members of Congress to criticize Stevens's use of the defense appropriations bill as a vehicle for ANWR drilling. Two Republicans, Chafee and DeWine, participated in the filibuster, voting against cloture. As Media Matters for America has noted, a December 20 Washington Post article documented Chafee's objections: " 'It doesn't belong on a defense bill,' Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) said of the drilling provision. The moderate Republican said Stevens is misusing his authority as the sponsor of the defense spending bill, granting drilling 'a significance that is out of proportion. It's just not fair.' " A December 21 Associated Press (AP) report noted that DeWine said the defense bill should be "a clean bill."
Several Republicans who voted for cloture but then voted to remove the ANWR provision from the defense bill also criticized Stevens's tactics. As The Washington Post reported on December 16, McCain "sharply criticized Stevens's effort as 'disgusting.' But asked how he would vote on such a bill, McCain said: 'That's the dilemma. I'd have to look at the whole bill. I think it's disgraceful that I have to be put in that position.' "
A December 22 article in Portland, Maine's Portland Press Herald, noted that Snowe and Collins "harshly criticized the way legislative leaders incorporated drilling in the unrelated military measure" and that Collins referred to Stevens's move as an "abuse of the legislative process."
In addition, the AP noted on December 19 that Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) said of the ANWR issue: "I'm angry at the way this has been handled, that we're forced to revisit this issue again and again."
At least two House Republicans also criticized the inclusion of the ANWR provision in the defense bill. House Science Committee chairman Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-NY) stated that the ANWR provision "never, never, never should have been added on as an extraneous matter to a bill to fund and pay and equip our troops." And in a December 16 statement, Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-MI) said of the defense bill: "It is utterly despicable to be put in a position of choosing between funding our troops and opposing bad public policy. ... [T]he American people expect Congress to take a hard look at legislation before it and to reject proposals added at the last possible minute and which have absolutely no relation to the true purpose of this legislation."
I am just glad to see Stevens and his Hulk tie done beat back to the "bridge to nowhere". "Hulk and Stevens smash."
With regards to the Minority in the Senate voting against closing debate (cloture) during their consideration of any matter before them, and the characterization of such a vote:
My news source, The New York Times, consistently referred to the Minority as having 'blocked' the ANWR amendment, in addition to frequently using the esoteric term 'filibuster'; neither of which is as much a mischaracterization as the term favored by the Majority leadership and the President himself: 'obstruction'.
But none of these characterizations truly describes what it is that happens when the Senate Minority votes against the cloture of debate; and the few extra words it takes to accurately describe a vote against cloture, are easily worth the labor to write them (or speak them), if the wages are an understanding of such a vote.
While a simple majority (one more than half) of Senators voting is required to pass a bill, a super-majority of three-fifths of those voting, is required to close debate on that same bill; and seeing as debate must be brought to a close before a bill may be voted on, a failure to close debate is a failure to bring the bill to a vote. This is widely known, and well understood; this is Senate Rule 22.
But as for the mischaracterizations of such an action on the part of the Minority being a 'blocking' or 'obstructing' of legislation, this is too widely written (or spoken), too common a misunderstanding, and not at all true.
When the Minority in the Senate constitute enough members to defeat a cloture motion, they do nothing more than require that their voices be heard; they require that their concerns be considered; they require the Majority to continue debating the matter. And for good reason...
...for when 44 U.S. Senators (who make a Minority in that body) have found fault with a bill (as they did with the ANWR amendment), at the very least their voices are to be heard, their concerns considered, and the debate shall continue; at the very least. And at most, the voices and concerns of 44 U.S. Senators, brings the attention and consideration of...
The People of the United States of America
...as it should; as it does; and as it did; this past week. Should a simple majority of Senators be so unable (or so unwilling) to see such an obvious fault with such an important bill, as was the faulty ANWR amendment to the important Defense Appropriations bill, then the People's last defense, and last hope, is that of an alert (and alerting) Minority; and for that Minority to sound the alarm, to close ranks, to refuse to close debate, and to stand firm on Senate Rules; to stand firm on Senate Rule 22; and to stand up for the People;
The People of the United States of America
...and it's not 'blocking' or 'obstructing' to be heard and considered on such important matters; it's only the obligation of the Senate's Minority, and it's duty to the People.
(OK, maybe that was too many words for The New York Times; certainly too many for the President; but it seemed like just a few to me, and I don't know about you. Oh, as for that esoteric term 'filibuster': I guess it's the briefest characterization of all that I just described, even though it's not found anywhere whatsoever in the Standing Rules of the Senate; not in Senate Rule 22, or anywhere else.)
(And oh yeah, as for that senseless and insulting mischaracterization known as 'cut-n-run': while we're here, I may as well give you the true definition of that otherwise senseless term. What 'cut-n-run' is, is what Senator Rick Santorum has done, by withdrawing his affiliation with the Thomas More Law Center, which had defended the Dover Area School District's policy mandating the teaching of intelligent design in science classes dealing with evolution; and he did it the day after a federal judge ruled the district's policy on intelligent design unconstitutional. That's what 'cut-n-run' is.)
In your definition of "cut and run", you give an example.
I would further refine "cut and run" to a poker analogy. If you bluff, and your bluff is called, and then you FOLD, this is a "cut and run".
Bush is constantly STANDING TOUGH, and warning that, IF Congress doesn't give in to his demands, he will VETO any resulting legislation.
More frequently, Congress is defying Bush, and Bush just "claims" a victory and goes along. There is no veto, even though Bush did not get his way.
This demonstrates a man who will "cut and run" easily. He will bluff, and when his bluff is called, he folds (and calls it "a win").
This is the cuttingest and runningest chief executive this nation has ever had. It's his historic behavior.