Veto Threatened if Congress OKs Arctic Drilling : Environment: Clinton has drawn ‘a line in the tundra.’ White House says he’ll kill massive budget bill if it contains gas, oil plan for Alaskan refuge.

President Clinton will veto the massive budget bill nearing completion in Congress if it includes a plan to allow oil and gas drilling in a biologically rich Alaskan wilderness, the White House said Thursday.

With the threat, Clinton--who has been building his campaign pitch around the theme of finding “common ground” on social and economic differences with the Republicans--has drawn what one environmentalist happily called “a line in the tundra” on the question of preserving the nation’s natural resources.

The veto threat was made in a letter from Alice Rivlin, director of the Office of Management and Budget, to Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. She said a veto was certain if the budget bill opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which she described as “these pristine lands,” to oil and gas drilling.

The Senate committee completed work on the legislation Thursday, approving it by a vote of 13 to 7 and, despite the veto threat, adding it to the budget measure funding government operations in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. Similar legislation was approved Tuesday by the House Committee on Public Lands and Resources.

*

Taking issue with the President’s opposition, Murkowski said in a statement: “In addition to helping balance the budget and lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources, there is a strong likelihood limited oil and gas development on Alaska’s coastal plain will produce additional revenue to help maintain national parks and wildlife refuges across the nation.”

Under the committee’s plan, the state of Alaska and the U.S. Treasury would divide equally half of any government revenue the drilling produces up to the $2.6 billion currently anticipated. Half of any revenue beyond that amount would be turned over to a fund to improve the national parks.

Murkowski said Clinton was ignoring the ability of “American ingenuity” to overcome any environmental threats associated with the drilling, as well as the nation’s dependence on foreign oil to meet 50% of its petroleum needs.

The Arctic drilling issue spearheads a number of potentially acrimonious debates between the Admininistration and Congress over environmental concerns and sharply focuses the clash between economic interests and pressure on Clinton to adhere to his 1992 campaign commitments to preserve the environment.

At the same time, it reflects advice he is said to be getting from political consultant Dick Morris, suggesting that protecting wildlife and fighting pollution are issues that put the President in good standing with voters, particularly suburban women.

Clinton had been under pressure from environmentalists to declare the refuge a national monument--a step senior Interior Department officials expected him to take and one that would have drawn heightened attention to the issue.

The question of drilling in Alaska has long prompted a contentious debate. Oil from the North Slope, west of the refuge, fattened the state’s treasury and reduced U.S. dependence on foreign oil. But the oil began flowing in significant quantities only after many years of arguments over whether the trans-Alaska pipeline would damage the permafrost, the sheet of frozen ground underlying about 85% of the state.

Oil companies say the success of the pipeline demonstrates that their operations on Alaskan soil can be carried out with little or no harm to the environment.

The debate over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge centers on its role as calving ground to 152,000 porcupine caribou that make up one of the largest herds of migrating hoofed animals, the denning ground given over to polar bears in the winter and the home it offers migrating waterfowl, wolves and foxes.

The oil and gas drilling operation would require construction of roads, airfields, drilling pads, housing for workers, a deep-water port and a desalination plant to provide drinking water, environmentalists have complained.