Alaska Oil Still Stuck on Hill

Charging that Republicans are slowing the work of the Senate, Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) on Friday offered a “compromise proposal” to allow a vote on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The catch, however, was that the vote would succeed only if 60 of the 100 members join to support it.

The proposal came a day after President Bush added his voice to those calling for an energy bill this year--for the sake of national security.

“The less dependent we are on foreign sources of crude oil, the more secure we are at home,” Bush said at a Cabinet meeting Thursday.

Suggesting that the war on terrorism helps make their point, the Bush administration and GOP supporters of drilling argue that producing oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will lessen the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.

“Our current need to ensure energy independence has made this really come into focus,” Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton said in an interview.

Environmentalists countered that supporters of drilling in the refuge are abusing the situation in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Everybody is behind the president in dealing with these terrorist attacks, but it’s really unfortunate that some folks are trying to take advantage of the emergency situation we now find ourselves in to push a parochial legislative effort,” said David Albersworth of the Wilderness Society.

The Coastal Plain region of northeastern Alaska is the largest unexplored, potentially productive onshore oil basin in the United States, according to the Energy Information Agency of the Energy Department. The agency projected peak daily production would range from 650,000 to 1.9 million barrels, but that it would take seven to 12 years to start producing oil.

Daschle’s compromise proposal Friday fell far short of appeasing Republicans.

Norton took issue with his clear message that it would take 60 votes to start drilling.

“When people think about having a vote, they think about a majority vote,” Norton said.

Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska) blasted Daschle for setting the bar so high and suggested that the Democratic leader was using parliamentary tactics because he has lost support.

“What’s he afraid of?” Murkowski asked.

Murkowski complained that, earlier this week, Daschle short-circuited the normal Senate legislative process by removing the energy bill from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The committee has 12 Democrats and 11 Republicans; two of the Democrats support drilling in the refuge--Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

“It was pulled for one reason--we had the votes,” said Murkowski, ranking Republican on the committee.

As part of his proposal, Daschle would include in his legislation support for a natural gas pipeline from Alaska, which he said would create 400,000 jobs and utilize an energy source that is now being pumped back into the ground.

“I’m even willing to give them a vote on . . . the whole question of drilling in this most sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” Daschle told reporters.

Murkowski pointed out that Daschle made no commitment to bring up the bill this year, and warned that he plans to force a vote on the issue.

Already, Republican senators have tied up the Senate twice in recent weeks by offering energy packages, which would authorize drilling in the refuge, as amendments to unrelated bills.

“We’ve got other alternatives to try to bring it up for vote,” Murkowski said.

This summer, the House approved a scaled-back measure to allow drilling in the refuge. But environmentalists have counted on the Senate to block the measure from a final bill.

However, the national security arguments add a new twist to the energy debate, bringing industry lobbyists new hopes and environmentalists new fears.

“It’s just rhetoric,” said Phillip Clapp, president of National Environmental Trust. “The president was talking about energy independence, which is a ridiculous fantasy.”

Department of Energy projections show the nation’s reliance on foreign oil increasing in coming years, even if reserves are tapped in the Arctic refuge, because of the swelling U.S. demand for gasoline.

The only way to achieve greater energy independence, Clapp stressed, is to encourage the production and use of fuel-efficient cars and small trucks.

“If there is any argument for national security, it’s that this is the time for major investments in energy efficiency,” Clapp added.