	Most Recent Developments

On May 25, 2006, the House passed H.R. On March 16, 2006, the Senate passed the FY2007 budgetresolution ( S.Con.Res. Moreover, if Congress opens federal lands in ANWR to development, current law would alsoopen Native lands. The conflict between high oil potential and nearly pristine nature in the Refuge creates adilemma: should Congress open the area for energy development or should the area's ecosystemcontinue to be protected from development, perhaps permanently? Actions in the 109th Congress, First Session. Asexplained below, the ANWR debate has taken two basic routes in the 109th Congress: (a)reconciliation bills ( S. 1932 and H.R. 18 ) passed by the Senate Budget Committee includedinstructions to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to "report changes in lawswithin its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce outlays by $33,000,000 in FY2006, and $2,658,000,000for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010." This resolution assumed that the committee wouldreport legislation to open ANWR to development, and that leasing would generate $2.5 billion inrevenues for the federal government over five years. In the end, the conference report ( H.Rept. ANWR in the Defense Appropriations Bill. The Senate' bill contained no ANWR provisions. The ANWR title was omittedin the final measure ( P.L. Actions in the 109th Congress, Second Session. Oil. But the amount that would be economically recoverable depends on the price of oil, andcrude oil prices have increased substantially in the last two years, bringing about $70/bbl in thefutures market in late June 2006. Reducing the footprints of development has been a major goal of development. A follow-up memo (10) on caribou by one of the assessment's authors to the Director ofUSGS clarified that if development were restricted to the western portion of the refuge (an optionthat was being considered by the Administration), the Porcupine Caribou Herd (PCH) would not beaffected during the early calving period, since the herd is not normally found in the area at that time. Revenue Disposition. A court in Alaska v. United States (35Fed. The Trans Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act ( P.L. )specified that oil shipped through it could be exported, but only under restrictive conditions. 5429 (Â§8(a)(3))would also limit the scope of review by stating that review of a secretarial decision, includingenvironmental analyses, would be limited to whether the Secretary complied with the terms of theANWR subtitle, that it would be based on the administrative record, and that the Secretary's analysisof environmental effects is "presumed to be correct unless shown otherwise by clear and convincingevidence to the contrary." Under ANILCA and the 1983 Agreement, development of the surface and subsurfaceholdings of Native corporations in the Refuge is precluded as long as oil and gas development is notallowed on the federal lands in the Refuge. 109-148 ( H.R. 2863 ) 
Provides for Defense appropriations. House approved conference report ( H.Rept. Overview of the 1991 ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge Recoverable Petroleum Resource Update . U.S. General Accounting Office. U.S. National Energy Policy Development Group. May,2001.
One part of the energy debate is whether to approve energy development in the ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska, and if so, under what conditions, orwhether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area's biological, recreational, andsubsistence values. ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and oil potential. Its development has beendebated for over 40 years, but sharp increases in energy prices from late 2000 to early 2001, terroristattacks, more price increases in 2004-2006, and energy infrastructure damage from hurricanes haveintensified debate. Few onshore U.S. areas stir as much industry interest as ANWR. At the sametime, few areas are considered more worthy of protection in the eyes of conservation and someNative groups. Current law prohibits oil and gas leasing in the Refuge.
In the first session of the 109th Congress, development advocates added ANWR developmentto the conference report for the Defense appropriations bill ( H.R. 2863 ). The Housepassed the conference report with the ANWR provision, but the ANWR title was removed from thebill ( P.L. 109-148 ) after failure of a cloture motion in the Senate.
In the second session, on March 16, 2006, the Senate passed S.Con.Res. 83 , theFY2007 budget resolution. Its sole reconciliation instruction was to the Senate Committee onEnergy and Natural Resources, and it assumed revenues from leasing in ANWR. On May 25, 2006,the House passed the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act ( H.R. 5429 ), whichwould open ANWR to development.
Development advocates argue that ANWR oil would reduce U.S. energy markets' exposureto Middle East crises; lower oil prices; extend the economic life of the Trans Alaska Pipeline; andcreate jobs in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States. They maintain that ANWR oil could bedeveloped with minimal environmental harm, and that the footprint of development could be limitedto a total of 2,000 acres. Opponents argue that intrusion on such a remarkable ecosystem cannot bejustified on any terms; that economically recoverable oil found (if any) would provide little energysecurity and could be replaced by cost-effective alternatives, including conservation; and that jobclaims are exaggerated. They maintain that development's footprints would have a greater impactthan is implied by a limit on total acreage. They also argue that limits on footprints have not beenworded to apply to extensive Native lands in the Refuge, which could be developed if the Refugewere opened.
This report will be updated as events warrant.