Reply #47: Last thing I want is to give the impression that I am defending him

[Sydnie]

but he is NOT trying to take money away from Katrina victims. He piggybacked his legislation/amendment to the defense bill and ADDED the Katrina portion to it too to make ANWR more acceptable. Katrina victims will be no worse off than they were yesterday if this does not pass because he broke the rules adding it in the first place. See, he tied the two together to make it appear that if you voted against one you were voting against the other, which is just true but only to the extent that one can not exist without the other.

He made the promise that 20% of the profits from the oil from ANWR would be earmarked for Katrina relief. See how much easier it might make the medicine go down? He could give a shit about Katrina (as evidenced by his insistance on his bridge to nowhere), but if it makes the Senate look bad NOT to support it (even though it was added against the rules), and it gives him more mud to sling by saying "We COULD have had this for the Katrina victims, but they refused to support it."

The proposal is bogus! It was not part of this bill until Stevens MADE it part of this bill. It was NOT included in conference. The Senators don't want Katrina relief tied to Stevens pet projects.