The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to the oil. In 1980, Congress said the oil could be developed, but only if lawmakers specifically authorized the Interior Department to sell oil leases. Repeatedly Congress has failed to do so.

Environmentalists for years have fought such development, contending it would lead to a spider web of drilling platforms, pipelines and roads that would adversely impact the calving grounds of caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the refuge's coastal plain.

"The fact is it's going to be destructive," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said during debate on an amendment that would have stripped the drilling language from the budget measure. Democrats fell two votes short of the 51 needed.

Kerry and other drilling opponents argued that more oil would be saved than ANWR could produce if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation and more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels.

Drilling supporters countered that the refuge's oil can be pumped while still protecting the environment and wildlife.

Modern technology, drilling techniques and environmental restrictions would dramatically limit the industrial footprint that would be left on the tundra and protect wildlife, said Murkowski. "We know we've got to do it right. . . . It's a fragile environment."

One GOP senator after another argued that with foreign imports accounting for more than half of the oil the country uses, every available barrel should be pursued. The Alaska refuge represents the largest potential onshore oil find in the country, they said.

"Some people say we ought to conserve more. They say we ought to conserve instead of producing this oil. But we need to do everything. We have to conserve and produce where we can," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

But drilling opponents rejected the suggestion that ANWR's oil would have much impact on global markets, today's high oil and gasoline prices, or the continued U.S. reliance on foreign producers.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist."

Cantwell and other Democrats accused Republicans of trying "an end run" by attaching the refuge provisions to the budget, saying the question of drilling in an ecologically pristine refuge — a "special place" as many environmentalists called it — should be debated as separate legislation or as part of a broad energy bill.

"It's the only way around the filibuster," countered Stevens, defending the use of the budget process. He said that approach is justified for issues that have special importance such as getting at ANWR's oil, something he characterized as a matter of "national security."

---

Contributing: Deseret Morning News