Politics still keep ANWR off limits

Pressured by constituents whose budgets have been strained by high gas prices, members of Congress have seen movement to explore more domestic sources of energy, particularly offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.

And as gas prices continue to climb, polls have shown that people who once refused to consider drilling offshore or in ANWR have begun to change their minds. For the first time, 50 percent of those polled by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press last month said they supported drilling in ANWR. It's a steep climb from February, when just 42 percent of those surveyed said they could support opening the wildlife refuge to exploration.

Yet politically, ANWR -- considered the nation's best onshore prospect for a major oil discovery -- remains off limits.

"Drilling is a red herring," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said firmly and unequivocally last week. "And that is not where we need to go."

The unmovable opposition has been an exercise in frustration for the Alaskans, who hope ANWR could spark the state's next big oil boom and want to persuade Congress that ANWR can be tapped in a safe, environmentally sound manner.

"They're flipping, whether it's Maine or Oregon or Minnesota," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, citing the polls that show a change in opinion. "States where people traditionally have been opposed are now saying, 'Well, wait a minute? What is going on in ANWR? Why can't we be exploring there?' "

It is an almost palpable shift, said John Katz, who heads Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's Washington, D.C., office.

"What I'm seeing is an increasing awareness by citizens outside the capital Beltway of the current energy situation," Katz said. "In increments, the anger and frustration that Americans are feeling ... about the cost of energy is being communicated to the Congress."

A public mood swing in response to the early 1970s energy crisis helped change enough votes in Congress to bring about construction of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline and development of the North Slope oil fields.

But today's concern about soaring fuel costs so far has not been strong enough to flip the vote on ANWR.

"What I'm not seeing so far is any beneficial impact on the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate," Katz said. "They seem pretty well entrenched on ANWR, at least in this moment in history."

ENVIRONMENTALISTS ALERT

That entrenchment comes from the top. Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, opposes drilling in ANWR, as does Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate.

For Senate Republicans, that means ANWR simply wouldn't be part of their energy proposal between now and the election.

"We took ANWR off the table because we know it's controversial," Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, told reporters last week during a Republican news conference on energy.

"It's a hot button," acknowledged Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. "From a political point of view, we were told categorically that since Obama has taken the stance he's taken, and McCain agrees with him, there's no chance we can get a vote on ANWR."

That doesn't mean that environmentalists who have successfully deflected previous attempts to open ANWR have let down their guard. The recent discussions about offshore drilling and ANWR are enough to put environmentalists in what Athan Manuel of the Sierra Club called "code red, stratospheric code red."

"We're doing the most old-fashioned thing you can do: We're pushing right back with the facts," Manuel said. "Drilling is not the solution to high gas prices."

PLAYING HARDBALL

Democrats in both the House and the Senate have endorsed other options, including a "use it or lose it" approach that pushed for a more aggressive leasing schedule in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve. Both parties are also focusing on legislation to curb speculation in oil futures markets, something both Stevens and Murkowski say they can get behind.

But Stevens plans to play hardball.

He told both Republican and Democratic Senate leaders who seek his support for anti-speculation measures that he supports the idea, but will not vote to allow it to go forward unless he's allowed to bring up ANWR too.

Ideally, he wants it as an amendment to the bill, so his colleagues will have to cast an up-or-down vote on ANWR to at least signal where they stand on the issue. Right now, the Senate does not have the 60 votes needed to pass any ANWR legislation.

"It may be tabled, we may be forced to just put it aside," Stevens said. "But we're going to talk about ANWR; we're going to have a chance to offer our amendment."

Murkowski too said she has no plans to give up on ANWR and plans to talk to McCain about changing his mind.

"Let's just say that our leadership recognizes how important not only ANWR is to Senator Stevens and myself, but they recognize how important it is in terms of meaningful production for this country," Murkowski said. "We have not been shut down; let's put it that way."

Find Erika Bolstad online at adn.com/contact/ebolstad or call her in Washington, D.C., at 1-202-383-6104.