On May 25, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5429 to open ANWR to development(yeas 225, nays 201, Roll Call #209). On March 16, 2006, the Senate passed the FY2007 budgetresolution ( S.Con.Res. 83 ; yeas 51, nays 49, Roll Call #74; no written report). Its solereconciliation instruction (Â§201) directed the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to reducebudget authority by an amount equal to predicted revenues from ANWR development. The Housebudget resolution, as passed ( H.Con.Res. 376 , H.Rept. 109-402 ), did not have anyANWR language, nor direction for the House Resources Committee. If the Senate version isretained in the conference report, the language would facilitate inclusion of ANWR development ina reconciliation bill; reconciliation bills are not subject to Senate filibusters. However, it is unclearwhether agreement will be reached, and the House is proceeding on appropriations bills in theabsence of a final agreement. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) consists of 19 million acres in northeastAlaska. It is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Department of the Interior(DOI). Its 1.5-million-acre coastal plain is viewed as one of the most promising U.S. onshore oil andgas prospects. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil on the federally-owned land in the Refuge is 7.7 billion barrels (billion bbl), and thereis a small chance that over 11.8 billion bbl could be recovered on the federal lands. The meanestimate of economically recoverable oil (at $55/bbl in 2003 dollars) on the federal lands id 7.14billion bbl and there is a small chance that the federal lands could have over 10.7 billion bbl of economically recoverable oil. That amount would be nearly as much as the single giant field atPrudhoe Bay, found in 1967 on the state-owned portion of the coastal plain west of ANWR, nowestimated to have held almost 14 billion bbl of economically recoverable oil. Moreover, if Congress opens federal lands in ANWR to development, current law would alsoopen Native lands. In addition, nearby onshore development would also make state lands (alreadylegally open to development) along the coast more economically attractive, and as a result, thesestate lands might also become more attractive to industry. While only the federal lands wouldproduce income from bonus bids, rents, and royalties, USGS figures show that when state and Nativelands are considered, the mean estimates of economically recoverable oil rises to 9.7 billion bbl, andthere is a small chance that economically recoverable oil in the three ownerships might total over14.6 billion bbl. (See "Oil," below, for further discussion.) The Refuge, especially the nearly undisturbed coastal plain, also is home to a wide varietyof plants and animals. The presence of caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, migratory birds,and other species in this wild area has led some to call the area "America's Serengeti." Someadvocates have proposed that the Refuge and two neighboring parks in Canada become aninternational park, and several species found in the area (including polar bears, caribou, migratorybirds, and whales) are protected by international treaties or agreements. The analysis below covers,first, the economic and geological factors that have triggered interest in development, then thephilosophical, biological, and environmental quality factors that have generated opposition to it. 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? What factors should determinewhether, or when, to open the area? If the area is opened, to what extent can damages be avoided,minimized, or mitigated? To what extent should Congress legislate special management to guidethe manner of development, and to what extent should federal agencies be allowed to manage thearea under existing law? Basic information on the Refuge can be found in CRS Report RL31278 , Arctic NationalWildlife Refuge: Background and Issues , by [author name scrubbed], coordinator, (hereafter cited as CRS Report RL31278 ). For legal background, see CRS Report RL31115 , Legal Issues Related toProposed Drilling for Oil and Gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) , by PamelaBaldwin (hereafter cited as CRS Report RL31115 ). State lands on the coastal plain are shown at http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/maps/maps.htm . An extensive presentation ofdevelopment arguments can be found at http://www.anwr.org , sponsored by a consortium ofgroups. Opponents' arguments can be found variously at http://www.alaskawild.org/ , http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/washington/shared_env/default-en.asp , http://www.protectthearctic.com/ , or http://www.tws.org/OurIssues/Arctic/index.cfm?TopLevel=Home . The energy and biological resources of northern Alaska have been controversial for decades,from legislation in the 1970s, to a 1989 oil spill, to more recent efforts to use ANWR resources toaddress energy needs or to help balance the federal budget. In November 1957, an application wasfiled to the withdraw lands in northeastern Alaska to create an "Arctic National Wildlife Range " wasfiled. On December 6, 1960, after statehood, the Secretary of the Interior issued Public Land Order2214 reserving the area as the Arctic National Wildlife Range . The potential for oil and gas leasingwas expressly preserved at that time. In 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA, P.L. 92-203)to resolve all Native aboriginal land claims against the United States. ANCSA provided formonetary payments and created Village Corporations that received the surface estate to roughly 22million acres of lands in Alaska, including some in the National Wildlife Refuge System. UnderÂ§22(g) of ANCSA, these lands in Refuges were to remain subject to the laws and regulationsgoverning use and development of the particular Refuge. Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC, theNative corporation in the ANWR area) received rights to three townships in the geographic coastalplain of ANWR (and a fourth was added later). ANCSA also created Regional Corporations whichcould select subsurface rights to some lands and full title to others. Subsurface rights in Refugeswere not available. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA, P.L. 96-487 , 94Stat. 2371) renamed the Range as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and expanded the Refuge,mostly south and west, to include another 9.2 million acres. Section 702(3) designated much of theoriginal Refuge as a wilderness area, but not the coastal plain, nor the newer portions of the Refuge. Instead, Congress postponed decisions on the development or further protection of the coastal plain. Section 1002 directed a study of ANWR's "coastal plain" (therefore often referred to as the 1002area ) and its resources. The resulting 1987 report (by FWS, USGS, and the Bureau of LandManagement (BLM)) was called the 1002 report or the Final Legislative Environmental ImpactStatement (FLEIS). ANILCA defined the "coastal plain" as the lands specified on an August 1980map -- language that was later administratively interpreted as excluding many Native lands, eventhough these lands are geographically part of the coastal plain. (1) Section 1003 of ANILCA prohibited oil and gas development in the entire Refuge, or "leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the range" unless authorizedby an act of Congress. (For more history of legislation on ANWR and related developments, see CRS Report RL31278 ; for legal issues, see CRS Report RL31115 . For specific actions, includingkey votes, see CRS Report RL32838 , Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Legislative Actions Throughthe 109th Congress, First Session , by Anne Gillis, [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and PamelaBaldwin.) 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. 4241 ) under the budget process,which cannot be filibustered; and (b) other bills ( H.R. 6 , an energy bill; H.R. 2863 , Defense appropriations; and H.R. 5429 , a bill in the secondsession to open the Refuge to development) which can be. (2) (See "Omnibus Energy Legislation," below.) The FY2006 Senatebudget resolution ( S.Con.Res. 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."