ANWR Amendment Introduced, then Killed in Resources Committee
Washington D.C. – Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) of the Committee on Natural Resources introduced an ANWR related amendment today to HR 3058 Public Land Communities Transition Act. The Bill was under discussion in the full committee. Minority Chairman Don Young (R-AK) was in attendance to support the Bishop amendment. The amendment would allow use of timber logging and ANWR royalties for assistance in funding the PILT or Payment in Lieu of Taxes program creating “transitional payments” to counties located on National forest lands. The amendment was rejected by 17 votes to 10 with 20 members not voting. In rejecting the amendment majority Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) stated that it “involved matters outside the jurisdiction of the committee”, offered “controversial measures”, and was “unclear if revenues could cover the cost of the bill”. The Bill description is listed as follows and was released out of committee this afternoon:
H.R. 3058 (DeFazio): To amend chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code, to provide full payments under such chapter to units of general local government in which entitlement land is located, to provide transitional payments during fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to those States and counties previously entitled to payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and for other purposes. (Public Land Communities Transition Assistance Act of 2007
The 10-02 Area of ANWR includes 92,000 acres of rural private land owned by the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Money from Arctic Slope oil development has long been the major source of revenue for the Alaskan Arctic community, providing jobs, schools, clinics, and public works such as sewer systems and water systems that never existed before. The residents of Kaktovik Alaska overwhelmingly support opening the 10-02 area knowing the economic benefit it will bring to their area for decades to come. They also argue the right self-determination to use their private lands as they please and not be put under the restrictions imposed by inclusion within the ANWR borders.
The defeat of this amendment is a good illustration of the difficulty in passing ANWR legislation in a Congress under Democrat control. The Democratic party has most often been in favor of blocking ANWR legislation despite that not all Democrats are against the cause.
A press release from the Majority Offices of the Committee is listed as follows:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=292&Itemid=1
The Votes on Accepting the ANWR inclusive Bishop Amendment are as follows:
Yay
Tancredo (CO)
McMorris Rodgers (WA)
Gohmert (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Heller (NV)
Sali (ID)
McCarthy (CA)
Pearce (NM)
Young (AK)
Cannon (UT)
Nay
Napolitano (CA)
Grijalva (AZ)
Bordallo (GU)
Boren (OK)
Sarbanes (MD)
Kennedy (RI)
Capps (CA)
Baca (CA)
Solis (CA)
Sandlin (SD)
Shuler (NC)
Markey (MA)
Costa (CA)
Abercrombie (HI)
Christensen (USVI)
DeFazio (OR)
Rahall (WV)
Not Voting
Miller (CA)
Saxton (NJ)
Kildee (MI)
Duncan (TN)
Gilchrest (MD)
Faleomavaega (ASM)
Ortiz (TX)
Flake (AZ)
Pallone (NJ)
Brown (SC)
Fortuño (PR)
Holt (NJ)
Jindal (LA)
Cole (OK)
Shuster (PA)
Hinchey (NY)
Kind (WI)
Lamborn (CO)
Fallin (OK)
Inslee (WA)
Udall (CO)
Gallegly (CA)