WASHINGTON, March 11 (UPI) -- For all the disagreement between congressional Democrats and the Bush administration over environmental and energy matters, the largest potential overhaul of the nation's energy policy in a decade appears to be shaping up as a fight over two issues: drilling for oil in an Arctic wildlife refuge and imposing tougher fuel standards for automobiles.
As the Senate moves into its second week of debate with the Democrats' control of the floor continuing to hold, it seems as though only the former is still in doubt.
Even ardent supporters of the Arctic exploration proposal admit foes almost certainly can prevent a vote on the Senate floor, leaving them hoping for a House-Senate conference committee -- which would reconcile the House and Senate versions of the legislation -- will add the language.
The House version already contains language to allow for the oil exploration of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"We're had to make the decision to go to conference," said a top GOP strategist. "(Senate Majority Leader Tom) Daschle, D-S.D., has the votes to stop ANWR. We have the votes on the House side. So we have the best chance to just let the Senate pass anything we can go to conference with and then let the administration get involved at that point."
While the Bush administration strongly supports the development of ANWR and has used the issue against some Democrats in attacks ads, the White House generally has been reluctant to lobby very hard on any single issue until after bills go to conference, an approach that leaves congressional Republicans to fend for themselves, according to several GOP aides and lobbyists.
The Senate is debating a wide-ranging national energy policy, which includes tax incentives for new source development and efficiency, low-income energy assistance, and other regulatory and legislative changes to a host of energy programs. But with strong Republican support for exploration in ANWR -- where few seem able to agree on the estimated size of the oil reserves -- colliding with Senate Democrats eager to make the environment a campaign issue, the issue appears to be the most controversial on deck, until a bipartisan team of Senators unveiled a plan to tighten the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for passenger cares and light trucks to make the m more fuel efficient.
The proposal by Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry and Arizona Republican John McCain that could require cars and light trucks to get 36 mpg by 2015 has made many Republicans forget about drilling for oil in Alaska.
Republican aides and lobbyists have joined with automakers and even the automotive worker unions to lobby against the new standards -- which would be tightened from the current 27 mpg for cars and 20.7 mpg for light trucks. Many GOP members have taken to the floor of the Senate in the past week to claim the end of the sport utility vehicle should the Kerry-McCain amendment passes.
Assistant Republican Leader Don Nickles, R-Okla., even took to the Senate floor to warn about a huge surge in traffic-related deaths should the standards be implemented because cars and trucks would have to made lighter.
Democratic aides said that the CAFE standards vote could depend on the support of members from rural states -- if farm equipment is exempted -- and on Northeastern Republicans concerned about air pollution. The alternative proposal -- also bipartisan -- proffered by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Christopher Bond, R-Mo., would put the standards in the control of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is considered more industry friendly than the 36 mpg standard.
What initially had been seen as a bipartisan agreement Friday to increase the use of ethanol in gasoline also could brew into a fight this week as some Senators question the effect of increasing the use of the additive might be on their states. Despite an agreement by Senate leadership and automobile industry to mandate an increase in the amount of ethanol used to reduce pollution in gasoline, some Democrats -- led by the California delegation of Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein -- are considering a move to reconsider the amendment, according to aides, because of concerns it could lead to gas shortages in their state, which has tougher emissions standards than most.
The deal had set the chemical additive MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl either) -- which is used in gasoline to reduce smog-forming pollutants -- for phase out over the next four years in light of concerns that it itself is a dangerous water pollutant. Ethanol -- derived from corn -- is an alternative to MTBE and offers fewer pollution dangers.
