Congratulations, Arctic Activists!

     As of 8pm last night, the Iowa Arctic campaign is
a victory!  The budget bill that Jim Nussle's
committee sent to the floor of the House does *not*
include for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.

     You shoud all feel very proud of yourselves.  The
press conference this morning made note of yesterday's
events, as well as the 100th Anniversary of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.

     You can find an update on the overall Arctic
situation below... that first paragraph is our work
here in Iowa, and it was crucial.   The threat now
moves to the Resource committee... to whom Nussle
essentially punted the ball.  He could have done
better, but he also could have done much worse.  The
last minute action to remove drilling provisions is
likely more than anything a sign of your effective
work in his home district.  

Congratulations! 

Best Regards,

Jay Heeter

The budget resolution passed by the House Budget
Committee Wednesday night did not include language
endorsing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.  Committee Chairman Nussle, for the third year
in a row, declined to include assumptions of drilling
revenue in the resolution, which provides establishes
the broad  framework for the annual spending and tax
bills. 

Nevertheless, the threat to the Refuge looms large in
the House of Representatives. The budget resolution
includes across the board spending cuts, and the House
Resources Committee has broad latitude to meet this
target. Resources Chairman Richard Pombo has made no
secret of his intention to pursue Arctic drilling, and
today presided over a hearing on separate legislation
to open the Arctic Refuge. 

The conservation community, with the strong backing of
the American people, will continue to fight to protect
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge every step of the
way.   Any attempt to sneak Arctic Refuge drilling
into the budget process is a backdoor maneuver that
has nothing to do with the federal budget, and
everything to do with the influence of the oil lobby
in Washington, DC. 

A bipartisan majority in the Senate rejected Arctic
drilling last year, and a growing and increasingly
vocal chorus of voices from both sides of the aisle in
both houses of Congress is standing up to protect the
Refuge. It makes no sense to destroy one of our last,
pristine wild places for what the USGS says would be
less than six months' worth of oil that even the oil
industry admits wouldn't reach consumers for ten
years. 

This bipartisan consensus in Congress is reflecting
the will of the vast majority of the American people.
A new bipartisan poll has found that by an
overwhelming majority -- 62% versus 30% -- of the
American public remains opposed to oil drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and rejects the idea
that impending war with Iraq justifies opening this
rare treasure to oil drilling. 

Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will
do almost nothing to address our reliance on imported
oil. We simply can’t drill our way to energy
independence. The U.S. uses 25 percent of all the oil
consumed in the world each year, but we have a scant
three percent of the world’s oil reserves within our
borders.

The Department of Energy has estimated that without
drilling in the Arctic Refuge, we’ll import 62 percent
of our oil in the year 2020.  And if we do drill?  The
Department of Energy says we’ll still be importing 60
percent of our oil in 2020.

In good times and in bad, in war and in peace,
Americans have steadfastly protected the unequaled
places that make this country special. America will be
a poorer nation if we fail to permanently protect a
place as magnificent as the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.  

Article Published: Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 3:06:19
AM AKST 



ANWR divides Congress
By SAM BISHOP News-Miner Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON--U.S. House and Senate budget writers
revealed opposing decisions Wednesday on whether to
count on revenues from selling oil leases in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in future years.

The House committee writing the annual budget
resolution said "no" to the idea, while the Senate
committee said "yes."

If the Senate's approach wins, it could ease the way
to oil drilling in the refuge's coastal plain by
reducing the vote threshold necessary for eventual
Senate passage. If the House approach sticks,
promoters of drilling would need at least 60 votes,
rather than 51, to stop the filibusters threatened by
several senators.

The House Budget Committee's chairman, Rep. Jim
Nussle, R-Iowa, unveiled his preference in the
proposed budget resolution released Wednesday. The
committee began considering amendments Wednesday and
was expected to work late into the night, but no
proposals to add ANWR revenue language had been seen
as of early evening. 



OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS SECTION

3/13/2003
- Sorlie wins Iditarod 
- Board OKs predator control 
- Native leaders question Leman on state's priorities 
- Board grants early school start 
- Young open to ideas for transit funding
- Intense search turns up no track of missing brothers

- Midwest Magic
- Audience gets into cyber theater 
- Healy dance troupe gains Fairbanks choreographer 
- Watercolorists cover a wide field in 'Past and
Pasture' 
- McGilvray to lead singing workshops of Winter
Edition 
- District to mull potential program cuts 
- Father charged in sex abuse of girl 
- Borough Assembly to discuss funding junkyard cleanup

- Police Report 
- Correction 
- Business license hike challenged 
- House OKs driving regulations 
- Teachers housing proposal advances 
- U.S. attorney reopens investigation into Alaska
Airlines crash 
- Longevity bonus cut likely to face stiff opposition 
- More Alpine oil fields may be on the horizon 
- Interior shivers beneath wintry blast 



Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., and a House Budget
Committee member, said last week that he asked Nussle
to keep the ANWR language out of the committee's
version. Shays opposes ANWR drilling. 

Across the Capitol grounds Wednesday afternoon, the
Senate Budget Committee's chairman, Sen. Don Nickles,
R-Okla., opened his committee hearing on the budget
resolution. His version contains a proposal to count
on $2.15 billion in revenue from ANWR between 2004 and
2013. No amendments were expected until today.

Nickles' proposal, known as the "chairman's mark,"
would order the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee to create legislation that would produce the
$2.15 billion. The money would "decrease outlays,"
i.e., reduce federal spending from general funds.

"The reconciled savings are consistent with opening up
the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
for oil exploration and production in order to
decrease our dependence on foreign oil," according to
a summary of Nickles' proposal.

The legislation ordered up from the Energy committee
would be considered a "reconciliation" bill because it
would eliminate an existing federal law (prohibiting
oil leasing on ANWR's coastal plain) in order to
"reconcile" statutes with the budget resolution. 

Reconciliation bills are not subject to a filibuster
and thus can be passed with 51 votes in the
Republican-controlled but still closely divided
Senate.

The House, which is under more firm Republican
control, approved drilling in ANWR in 2001 and
supporters expect it to do the same this year.
Filibusters are not permitted under the House rules,
so a reconciliation bill would face a simple majority
vote in the House as well.

The question of the moment, though, is whether the
stage will be set for that reconciliation bill.

Presumably, a senator on Nickles' Budget committee
today could propose an amendment to strike the ANWR
language. However, the Republicans on the committee
are all firm supporters of ANWR drilling, and they
have a majority. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and an
ANWR drilling opponent, served on the committee in
recent years but moved off at the start of this
session.

Nickles said Wednesday he hopes to have his proposal
on the Senate floor by next week.

So if the ANWR language sticks in Nickles' bill while
the House bill remains clear of it through final
passage, the difference will be resolved in a
conference committee. Members there are chosen by the
House and Senate leadership, both of which support
ANWR drilling. 

The conference committee will work out a final
version, which must be accepted by both houses.
Nickles said Wednesday he hopes to meet the April 15
deadline Congress has set for itself for completion of
that work.

President Bush also backs ANWR drilling.

Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton delivered that
message to the House Resources Committee Wednesday
morning. The committee is considering separate
legislation to open ANWR, similar to that passed by
the House in 2001.

"It is an area of flat, white nothingness," Norton
said while vowing to counter advertising from
environmental groups.

Alaska already has 140 million acres--an area the size
of California and New York together--set aside for
conservation, she said. The 1.5-million-acre coastal
plain contains more oil alone than most of the western
United States, she said. It would be developed with
the best modern technology--movable pads and ice
roads--under the most strict rules in the world.

"You look at the standards in other countries ... they
are far less stringent that what America would impose
in ANWR," she said.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., took issue with Norton's
characterization of ANWR's wilderness value.

"It may not have the 300-foot sequoias, it may not
have the deep canyons of the Grand Canyon, but it does
have values that the American people have come to
prize," Miller said.

Americans will not support compromising those values
when the government is doing so little to reduce
demand for petroleum, Miller said. 

"You want to put it in a car that gets 12 miles per
gallon," he said. "It doesn't make any sense."

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said Congress intended that
the area be developed when it exempted the coastal
plain from the wilderness designation it applied to 8
million other acres in ANWR in 1980. 

"Scoop Jackson did this, Mo Udall did this, and they
agreed to this," Young said, referring to the former
senator from Washington and representative from
Arizona, both Democrats.

He also said Congress should at least let Native
corporations drill. The Arctic Slope Regional Corp.
obtained mineral rights on 90,000 acres inside the
refuge boundary in a mid-'80s land swap, but the deal
prohibits them from drilling unless Congress opens the
entire area.

"The forked tongue of the white man is at work again,"
Young said. "To do this to the Native people up there
is just wrong."

Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., and the Resources
committee chairman, said he wants to hold a field
hearing on the issue in Kaktovik, the village on
Barter Island just north of the refuge. The village
corporation owns the surface overlying the acreage on
which ASRC holds mineral rights and also has advocated
drilling.

Pombo said he would hold the hearing to consider not
just the development bill but also a rival proposal
from Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., that would make the
coastal plain an official wilderness area and thus
off-limits to drilling.

"I thank you for the hearing," Markey responded. "I
just wish it would be held before we have a markup of
the bill here in the committee. I know that that isn't
going to happen because there has already been a
decision by the majority that they want to drill in
the refuge."

Washington, D.C., reporter Sam Bishop can be reached
at [log in to unmask] or (202) 662-8721.



=====

Jay Heeter
Alaska Coalition of Iowa
2010 E. 38th Street, Suite 204
Davenport, IA 52807-1133
(563) 359-6395 office
(919) 641-6903 cell
www.alaskacoalition.org