WASHINGTON, March 16 - The Senate endorsed oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge today; the 51-to-49 vote was in favor of a budget resolution that assumes revenues of some $5 billion from drilling fees over the next decade, with the federal government and the state of Alaska to split the money.
While this afternoon's vote is not the final word on the issue, it nevertheless made drilling in the wilds of Alaska - an idea favored by the oil industry for decades and fiercely opposed by environmental groups - far more likely than before.
For drilling to take place, the Senate will later have to pass a measure explicitly authorizing the opening of the wildlife refuge to drilling, something that until now has been prohibited. Then the House of Representatives would have to explicitly authorize drilling as well.
This afternoon's vote came on an amendment sponsored by Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington and several other Democrats. It would have removed language in the budget resolution for 2006 that assumes that drilling will take place.
"We won't see this oil for 10 years," Senator Cantwell said. "It will have minimal impact."
But Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who supports drilling, said opening up the refuge would be sensible policy. "The price of oil just jumped up to 56 bucks a barrel this morning," she noted minutes before the vote.
The closeness of this afternoon's vote could be a prelude to bitter debate ahead. President Bush and many Republicans say drilling in the refuge would help make the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil.
Opponents, who include most Democrats and some Republican moderates, contend that drilling in the refuge would endanger one of the last unspoiled regions of wilderness in North America, and that in the long run it would not be the answer to America's energy problems.
The debate focuses on about 1.5 million acres of coastal plain within the 19-million acre refuge. Oil industry representatives have said that drilling would be confined to only about 2,000 acres within the 1.5 million acres, and that it can be done with a minimum of environmental damage. [However, HR39, in front of the Senate, states that the first round of leasing will be for 200,000 acres minimum.]
Among those voting against the drilling proposal today was Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, whom President Bush defeated in November. He called the vote "a Republican sneak attack on one of our most treasured natural wonders" and said he would continue to fight against the proposal.
"This is more than a battle over the wildlife refuge," Mr. Kerry said in a statement. "It's a battle over two very different visions of our energy future. The president has a plan to sell off our public lands to the special interests that his own scientists and economists admit will not make us less dependent on foreign oil and will not lower prices at the pump."
A decade ago, President Bill Clinton vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have opened the wildlife refuge to exploration for oil. And two years ago, the Senate rejected a budget provision to authorize drilling in the refuge by a vote of 52 to 48.
But Republicans picked up four seats in last November's elections, bringing their total in the Senate to 55 and giving drilling advocates hope that they might finally prevail.
Three Democratic senators, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye, both of Hawaii, joined 48 Republicans in endorsing drilling today. Seven Republicans joined 41 Democrats and Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, in opposing it. Those seven were John S. McCain of Arizona, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both of Maine.