{
  "id": "RL33523",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33523",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 316587,
      "date": "2006-07-07",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T18:57:56.356029",
      "title": "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress",
      "summary": "One part of the energy debate is whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National\nWildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska, and if so, under what conditions, or whether to\ncontinue to prohibit development to protect the area's biological, recreational, and subsistence values. \nANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and oil potential. Its development has been debated for over 40 years,\nbut sharp increases in energy prices from late 2000 to early 2001, terrorist attacks, more price\nincreases in 2004-2006, and energy infrastructure damage from hurricanes have intensified debate. \nFew onshore U.S. areas stir as much industry interest as ANWR. At the same time, few areas are\nconsidered more worthy of protection in the eyes of conservation and some Native groups. Current\nlaw prohibits oil and gas leasing in the Refuge.\n In the first session of the 109th Congress, development advocates added ANWR development\nto the conference report for the Defense appropriations bill ( H.R. 2863 ). The House\npassed the conference report with the ANWR provision, but the ANWR title was removed from the\nbill ( P.L. 109-148 ) after failure of a cloture motion in the Senate.\n In the second session, on March 16, 2006, the Senate passed  S.Con.Res. 83 , the\nFY2007 budget resolution. Its sole reconciliation instruction was to the Senate Committee on\nEnergy and Natural Resources, and it assumed revenues from leasing in ANWR. On May 25, 2006,\nthe House passed the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act ( H.R. 5429 ), which\nwould open ANWR to development. \n Development advocates argue that ANWR oil would reduce U.S. energy markets' exposure to\nMiddle East crises; lower oil prices; extend the economic life of the Trans Alaska Pipeline; and\ncreate jobs in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States. They maintain that ANWR oil could be\ndeveloped with minimal environmental harm, and that the footprint of development could be limited\nto a total of 2,000 acres. Opponents argue that intrusion on such a remarkable ecosystem cannot be\njustified on any terms; that economically recoverable oil found (if any) would provide little energy\nsecurity and could be replaced by cost-effective alternatives, including conservation; and that job\nclaims are exaggerated. They maintain that development's footprints would have a greater impact\nthan is implied by a limit on total acreage. They also argue that limits on footprints have not been\nworded to apply to extensive Native lands in the Refuge, which could be developed if the Refuge\nwere opened. \n This report will be updated as events warrant.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33523",
          "sha1": "a7c5e8d065a0f24cc6ad2a0e7e602f8f6f7d34cb",
          "filename": "files/20060707_RL33523_a7c5e8d065a0f24cc6ad2a0e7e602f8f6f7d34cb.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33523",
          "sha1": "894e60916ed0944db6b94ea6f4f77b0efd8a2069",
          "filename": "files/20060707_RL33523_894e60916ed0944db6b94ea6f4f77b0efd8a2069.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations",
    "Economic Policy",
    "Energy Policy",
    "Environmental Policy"
  ]
}