Keep ANWR out of budget, 24 in GOP say

WASHINGTON — Two dozen House Republicans, including freshman Washington state Rep. Dave Reichert and three committee chairmen, have asked Speaker Dennis Hastert not to use a budget procedure to clear the way for oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The letter to Hastert, R-Ill., dated Aug. 4 and made public yesterday, states that the budget process "is an inappropriate venue to be debating this important environmental issue" and warned that it would further complicate already-difficult budget issues.

"We believe the debate on opening this unique land to oil and gas exploration should be done outside the budget process," said the group, led by Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H.

Most Democrats oppose drilling in the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain because they contend wildlife would be harmed. If a significant number of Republicans join the opposition, it could dash what advocates believe is their best opportunity in years to authorize drilling. Tapping what is believed to be as much as 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR has been the centerpiece of President Bush's energy agenda since before he entered the White House, but a coalition of Senate Democrats and moderate Republicans has derailed the issue many times through the threat of filibuster. Congress last month pushed through a long-delayed energy bill, in part by not addressing ANWR. Instead, drilling supporters were assured the issue would be taken up separately next month.

House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., strongly supports opening ANWR to oil development. A spokeswoman said Pombo had not decided whether to include a provision authorizing oil-lease sales in the Alaska refuge in a so-called budget "reconciliation" document. Under congressional rules, drilling could be authorized if the panel decides to rely on an expected $2.4 billion from potential refuge oil-lease sales to meet budget targets.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., has said he will include such a provision as part of that chamber's budget legislation, not subject to filibuster. As a result, the Senate would need only 51 votes for approval, instead of the 60 necessary to stop a filibuster. Such a tactic was successful a decade ago, but President Clinton vetoed the measure.