Senate votes to open Alaska refuge to drilling

Budget resolution that includes Alaska drilling goes to House.
WASHINGTON POST
WASHINGTON -- A closely divided Senate voted Wednesday in favor of opening Alaska's arctic wildlife refuge to oil drilling, bringing a long-sought goal of the Bush administration within striking distance of being realized.
The action marks the first time the Senate has signaled its support for drilling in the ecologically sensitive area since President Bush took office. And while hurdles remain, drilling advocates said they were close to achieving their decades-long drive to tap billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain.
By 51 to 49, the Senate thwarted an attempt by most Democrats and some moderate Republicans to strip a wildlife refuge drilling provision from the congressional 2006 budget resolution. By giving the drilling proposal the protection of the budget rules, GOP leaders have effectively blocked opponents from using a filibuster to block a final vote on the proposal.
No veto this time
Congress used a similar approach in approving the drilling as part of a budget bill in 1995 over the strong objection of environmentalists, but President Clinton later vetoed the measure. But this time, supporters are bolstered by a Republican president who has made drilling a key platform of his energy policy, a GOP-controlled House that has repeatedly gone on record in favor of drilling, and a Senate whose Republican majority grew by four seats in last November's election.
Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., a leader in the fight to stop drilling, said there would be "a lot more opportunities to make an effort to strike it." But he acknowledged, "The Republicans have the votes in the House and they have the votes in conference."
The Senate and House still must agree on a final version of next year's budget, and already there are signs that the two chambers strongly disagree on the size of proposed Medicaid cuts and other key spending issues.
Disagreement over impact
Drilling proponents said producing more domestic oil would help bring down energy prices, provide jobs and ease the country's growing trade imbalance. They also argued that modern technology would limit the area need to drill.
But opponents disagreed, saying drilling would do little to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and that there would be virtually no impact on prices, which are set as a result of activity on the world market. Using posters showing panoramic views of pristine wilderness, opponents also said that pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory bird in the ecologically sensitive area.