ANWR vote uncertain

Or not.

Democratic senators, mustering forces against ANWR development, said Monday that the vote was too close to call.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has said he thinks he has the 60 votes he needs. He succeeded over the weekend in adding ANWR drilling to the final version of the $453 billion military spending bill. The House passed the bill 308-106 in the wee hours of Monday, tossing the controversy to the Senate.

The bill funds the Defense Department and has $29 billion for the states damaged by Hurricane Katrina.

"Failure to vote on this bill, really, is the failure to respond to the needs of this country," Stevens said Monday on the Senate floor.

Unlike past ANWR fights, this one has been less about caribou and crude and more centered on Stevens' tactic of combining the drilling measure with defense spending.

His critics say Stevens is burdening a crucial military spending bill with one of the nation's fiercest environmental disputes.

"They expect, because they've had the gall to put this on the bill that funds our men and women in uniform, that we will not have the nerve to fight something we think is wrong," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. "Well, they're wrong."

The specter of soldiers running out of food and ammunition floats around the edges of the debate. But Lieberman said lawmakers will figure out how to keep the money flowing to the military even if this bill is rejected.

"Does anyone really think this Congress and this administration will allow funding for our military to stop? That's ridiculous," Lieberman said.

Stevens has said that if the bill doesn't pass with ANWR drilling in it, negotiators can write another one. He has, though, suggested that hurricane-damaged areas will lose money if the bill fails.

Democrats complain bitterly that Stevens' maneuver is a violation of the Senate's Rule 28, which says an item can't be added to the final version of a bill -- called a conference report -- if it wasn't part of the bill when it passed the House or Senate.

"Understand that sticking this in this bill has nothing to do with the national defense of this country," Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, argued. "It has everything to do with breaking the rules for the convenience of the powerful."

Stevens has said that he expects the Senate parliamentarian will decide the ANWR measure does violate Rule 28. Then he'll try to get 51 votes to appeal and overturn the ruling.

The bigger hurdle for him may be an expected Democratic filibuster. He'll need 60 votes to break the talkathon and proceed to a vote.

Stevens insists he is not breaking any rules.

"We have full right to appeal the ruling of the chair, should it take place," he said. "We disagree with the basic assumption that oil is not needed in the interest of national security."

Unrelated items are often tucked into spending bills, he noted. He also cited an example from 1996 where the Senate overturned a Rule 28 decision.

The bill says ANWR revenues would be split 50-50 between the state and the federal government. Stevens dedicated 80 percent of the federal share of the initial lease sales to a hurricane relief fund.

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said he thinks the chances are "very good" that Stevens will be successful. He also said the bill's passage in the House made Monday a good day for Alaska. As for the revenue split, Young said he thinks the governor could sue to get the 90-10 split promised by the Alaska Statehood Act.

"I have to say the 50-50 is something I don't relish," he said. "I think it's totally illegal. I believe we can win it in court."

Daily News reporter Liz Ruskin can be reached at lruskin@adn.com.