PDF _ RL33523 - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress
7-Jul-2006; M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin; 21 p.

Update: July 30, 2006

Previous Releases:
/NLE/CRSreports/06jun/RL33523.pdf MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
On May 25, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5429 to open ANWR to development (yeas 225, nays 201, Roll Call #209). On March 16, 2006, the Senate passed the FY2007 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 83; yeas 51, nays 49, Roll Call #74; no written report). Its sole reconciliation instruction (§201) directed the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to reduce budget authority by an amount equal to predicted revenues from ANWR development. The House budget resolution, as passed (H.Con.Res. 376, H.Rept. 109-402), did not have any ANWR language, nor direction for the House Resources Committee. If the Senate version is retained in the conference report, the language would facilitate inclusion of ANWR development in a reconciliation bill; reconciliation bills are not subject to Senate filibusters. However, it is unclear whether agreement will be reached, and the House is proceeding on appropriations bills in the absence of a final agreement.

Abstract: One part of the energy debate is whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska, and if so, under what conditions, or whether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area’s biological, recreational, and subsistence values. ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and oil potential. Its development has been debated for over 40 years, but sharp increases in energy prices from late 2000 to early 2001, terrorist attacks, more price increases in 2004-2006, and energy infrastructure damage from hurricanes have intensified debate. Few onshore U.S. areas stir as much industry interest as ANWR. At the same time, few areas are considered more worthy of protection in the eyes of conservation and some Native groups. Current law prohibits oil and gas leasing in the Refuge.

In the first session of the 109th Congress, development advocates added ANWR development to the conference report for the Defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2863). The House passed the conference report with the ANWR provision, but the ANWR title was removed from the bill (P.L. 109-148) after failure of a cloture motion in the Senate.

In the second session, on March 16, 2006, the Senate passed S.Con.Res. 83, the FY2007 budget resolution. Its sole reconciliation instruction was to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and it assumed revenues from leasing in ANWR. On May 25, 2006, the House passed the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act (H.R. 5429), which would open ANWR to development.

Development advocates argue that ANWR oil would reduce U.S. energy markets’ exposure to Middle East crises; lower oil prices; extend the economic life of the Trans Alaska Pipeline; and create jobs in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States. They maintain that ANWR oil could be developed with minimal environmental harm, and that the footprint of development could be limited to a total of 2,000 acres. Opponents argue that intrusion on such a remarkable ecosystem cannot be justified on any terms; that economically recoverable oil found (if any) would provide little energy security and could be replaced by cost-effective alternatives, including conservation; and that job claims are exaggerated. They maintain that development’s footprints would have a greater impact than is implied by a limit on total acreage. They also argue that limits on footprints have not been worded to apply to extensive Native lands in the Refuge, which could be developed if the Refuge were opened.

This report replaces CRS Issue Brief IB10136, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin. It will be updated as events warrant.

 [read report]

Topics: Natural Resources, Public Lands, Legislative

1650 
Start Over