Senate approves drilling in refuge

WASHINGTON — The Senate insisted Thursday on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling after being blocked by environmentalists for decades, and then voted overwhelmingly to prohibit exporting any of the oil pumped from the region.

An amendment offered by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that would have removed drilling authority for the refuge, or ANWR, was defeated 51-48, freeing the Interior Department to begin selling oil leases for the coastal plain of the Alaska refuge within two years.

The drilling provision was part of a deficit-reduction bill approved Thursday by the Senate that would save roughly $35 billion in the next five years by cutting federal spending on prescription drugs, agriculture supports and student loans, while clamping down on fraud in the Medicaid program. It is the first in nearly a decade to tackle the growth of entitlement spending, the part of the federal budget that rises automatically based on set formulas and population changes.

The Senate approved the bill 52-47.

Repeated attempts to approve drilling in the Arctic refuge had failed in the Senate because drilling supporters were unable to muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster by opponents. This year, drilling supporters attached language ending the ban on drilling in the refuge to the budget measure, which is immune from filibuster.

Opening the refuge, which was set aside for protection 44 years ago, has been one of President Bush's top energy priorities.

Bush, in Argentina for a two-day summit, hailed the vote.

"Increasing our domestic energy supply will help lower gasoline prices and utility bills," he said. "The most promising site for oil in America is a 2,000-acre site in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and thanks to technology, we can reach this energy with little impact on the land or wildlife."

Bush and other drilling advocates say the country needs the estimated 10.5 billion barrels of oil believed to lie beneath the refuge's coastal tundra in northeastern Alaska to slow the growing dependence on oil imports. The United States uses about 7.3 billion barrels of oil a year.

"America needs this American oil," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. He called opposition to pumping the refuge's oil "ostrichlike" and said the reserves are "crucial to the nation's attempt to achieve energy independence."

Cantwell, who led the effort to continue the ban on drilling, called drilling in the refuge a gimmick that would have little impact on oil or gasoline prices, or U.S. energy security: "Using backdoor tactics to destroy America's last great wild frontier will not solve our nation's energy problems and will do nothing to lower skyrocketing gas prices."

The House is considering a measure that includes a provision to open the refuge to oil companies. It cleared the Budget Committee on Thursday but has garnered so much opposition for various reasons that House leaders are thinking about jettisoning the contentious refuge-drilling section.

The Senate's decision to keep the provision "gives us a little more flexibility," said Acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo. A decision on ANWR would then be made when the House and Senate try to mesh their two budgets.

Meanwhile, the Senate in an 86-13 vote required that none of the oil from the refuge be exported. Otherwise "there is no assurance that even one drop of Alaskan oil will get to hurting Americans," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a drilling opponent who nevertheless sponsored the no-export provision. He co-sponsored the amendment with Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., who strongly supports drilling there.

Drilling supporters said ANWR would give the country more domestic-oil production, so fewer barrels would have to be imported. Today, about 60 percent of the oil used in the United States is imported.

But no oil is likely to flow from ANWR for 10 years, and peak production of about 1 million barrels a day isn't expected until about 2025, according to the Energy Department. The United States uses about 20 million barrels of oil a day.

Billions in cuts

Later Thursday, the Senate approved the overall spending bill that is estimated to cut $35 billion over five years, and the House moved closer to a vote — probably next week — on a version of the bill that would cut $54 billion in federal spending in the next five years.

The bill would shave payments to some farmers by 2.5 percent, while eliminating a major cotton-support program and trimming agriculture conservation spending.

The Senate bill also would raise billions by auctioning off parts of the broadcasting spectrum for digital television. It would raise $2.5 billion through leasing parts of the Alaskan refuge to oil and gas interests. Companies with traditional pension plans would be charged higher premiums for insurance coverage under the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. And the profits of student lenders would be squeezed by $9.7 billion over five years.

Some of the savings would be spent on relief for Hurricane Katrina survivors and higher payments to health-care providers helping Medicare patients.

Senate vs. House bills

The differences between the Senate and House bills extend beyond dollars. While the Senate's cuts would target mostly providers of federal benefits, such as pharmacies and drug companies, the House bill would trim the rolls of recipients, notably those receiving Medicaid benefits, food stamps and farm subsidies.

All but two Democrats opposed the Senate bill. Also, five Republicans voted against it. Both of Washington state's senators, Democrats Patty Murray and Cantwell, voted against the bill.

The two Democrats supporting the measure were Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. The five Republicans who opposed it were Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Norm Coleman of Minnesota.

After the vote, Bush issued a statement praising the Senate for taking "an important step forward in cutting the deficit."

But whether Congress can pass a final version remains uncertain.

In the House, a number of moderate Republicans oppose some of the spending cuts their GOP leaders are pushing for, the Arctic drilling provision, and a measure to relax a decades-old federal ban on new offshore oil and gas drilling.

In another sign of the difficulty facing Republican leaders, a group of conservative Democrats known as the "Blue Dogs" — to whom Republicans often turn on budget votes — called the House budget bill a "sham." They expressed skepticism that the GOP is committed to deficit reduction, because the party leaders also want more tax cuts.

"There are a dozen issues, any one of which could break this deal," said Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., a Budget Committee member. "This is going to be a heavy lift."

Material from The Washington Post is included in this report.