Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Washington -- The Bush administration, fearing its best chance in decades of
allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is fading away, is
waging a last-minute campaign to change the minds of moderate House
Republicans who oppose opening the oil-rich area to development.

But two dozen House GOP moderates who pledged last month to vote against any
budget bill that approved drilling in the Alaskan refuge insist they won't
bow to pressure from the White House or offers of money for pet projects.

"They have all said they won't change their minds," said Ron Talley, a
spokesman for the Republican Main Street Partnership, the group of moderates
who led the opposition to drilling in the refuge. "It's a matter of survival
for our folks. They have to vote their constituency. If they go back to
their districts next year and they are not re-elected, that means (House
Speaker) Dennis Hastert comes back to Washington as a ranking member only."

The fate of the Alaskan refuge -- which has been fought over by
environmentalists and drilling supporters for more than 30 years -- is
expected to be decided this week as Congress finishes its work before the
holiday recess.

A measure to drill in the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the refuge is
included in the Senate budget reconciliation bill, but not the House's $50
billion budget-cutting package. GOP leaders are struggling to merge the two
versions, which include deep cuts in programs such as Medicaid and food
stamps, into a final bill.

The White House on Monday stepped up the pressure on House Republicans by
staging a press conference with Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Labor
Secretary Elaine Chao, who argued the president's case for drilling in the
refuge.

"We are very concerned about the job creation that is being denied through
the non-movement or non-progress on this particular piece of legislation,"
Chao told reporters at the National Press Club.

Norton, the administration's leading proponent of drilling, said she hopes
to convince lawmakers by reminding them that rising gas prices and home
heating costs are taking a toll on their constituents.

"For many of those who have voted against (Arctic drilling) in the past who
are in the New England region or the Great Lakes region, they are seeing
more dramatic evidence today about the effects of high heating oil prices on
the ability of people to heat their family's home -- or in the Great Lakes
region the effects of energy prices on manufacturing," Norton said. "The
hope is that as people better understand that information, they take a
second look."

Norton noted that GOP leaders in Congress also are offering sweeteners to
lawmakers who are willing to switch their position -- such as more money for
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, a favorite program of
lawmakers in the Northeast. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, also has talked
about enticing Gulf Coast lawmakers to vote for the drilling with offers of
more hurricane relief aid.

But moderate Republicans including Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., Rep.
Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., said at a
press event last week they would not cut a deal involving the refuge, which
is home to caribou, polar bears and other species.

House Republican leaders are also trying to save a controversial mining
provision sponsored by House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, and
Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. Critics claim the measure would allow mining
companies and developers to buy large stretches of public lands in the West
and use them for either mining or to build homes, malls and resorts.

Gibbons told reporters Monday he planned to drop one element of the plan --
the "direct sale" provision -- which would have allowed sales of public land
next to existing mining claims for "sustainable economic development" even
if the lands did not contain enough minerals to justify a mining operation.

"I hope to put to rest the hysteria regarding this new provision," Gibbons
said.

But some critics say they still have concerns about the legislation. Legal
experts say the bill appears to allow anyone who pays a mining claim
maintenance fee and shows some interest in mining to "patent" or purchase
federal land, which they could later develop as homes or for other purposes.

"The problem is that this proposal has not gone through the normal vetting
process," said Mark Squillace, director of the Natural Resources Law Center
at the University of Colorado. "Because of that nobody has really massaged
the language so that the intent is clear. One of the big concerns I have is
that we don't ultimately know what it means."

E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com