Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress [Updated July 15, 2005] [open pdf - 97KB]
"One major element 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 resources, along with its recreational and subsistence values. The Refuge is an area rich in fauna, flora, and commercial oil potential. Sharp increases in gasoline and natural gas prices from late 2000 to early 2001, followed by terrorist attacks, and increases again in 2004-2005, have renewed the ANWR debate; however, its development has been debated for more than 40 years. Few onshore U.S. locations stir as much industry interest as the northern area of ANWR. At the same time, few areas are considered more worthy of protection in the eyes of conservation and some Native groups. Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. On April 20, 2005, the House rejected the Markey/Johnson amendment (H.Amdt. 73) to strike the ANWR title from H.R. 6, the omnibus energy bill, which passed the House passed on April 22. The Senate version of H.R. 6 contained no ANWR title. On March 16, 2005, the Senate rejected the Cantwell amendment (striking language related to ANWR development, S.Amdt. 168, yeas 49, nays 51, Roll Call #52) to S.Con.Res. 18, the Senate budget resolution. The amendment would have struck §102(a)(4) instructing the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. As a result, development proponents may be able to include ANWR development in a reconciliation bill, since reconciliation bills are not subject to filibusters. In the end, the House and Senate approved a requirement that the House Resources and Senate Energy Committees achieve savings targets that would be difficult to meet without passing ANWR legislation."
CRS Issue Brief for Congress, IB10136
U.S. Department of State: http://fpc.state.gov/