Set Arctic refuge aside.

Byline: The Register-Guard

With Democrats in control of both the House and Senate, there's not much chance the Bush administration will realize its cherished goal of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

But it's wise never to underestimate the administration and its soulmates in the oil industry. They've never stopped trying to get Congress to authorize the extraction of oil from America's most pristine wilderness, and the skyrocketing price of oil could embolden Republicans to make yet another run at ANWR.

That realization no doubt motivated Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., to introduce legislation last week to protect the coastal plains region of the Arctic refuge from oil and gas exploration.

Lieberman's bill would accomplish that worthy goal by designating the region as wilderness. The senator cites the original intent of the refuge: To provide habitat for polar bears, caribou, musk oxen, snow geese and other species in Alaska's extraordinary array of wildlife.

Congress should approve this bill and put the refuge beyond the reach of those who stubbornly cling to the myth that America can drill its way to energy security.

Government studies estimate that between 5.6 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil lie beneath the refuge's coastal plain. Under the most optimistic scenarios, production from the refuge would result in a 0.5 percent annual increase in domestic supply, which would barely make a dent in this nation's ever-growing dependence on foreign oil.

At best, the refuge would provide less than a year's supply of oil for the United States. And the resulting drilling rigs, roads, pipelines, machinery and aircraft would exact a terrible toll on the refuge and its wildlife.

Hopefully, there will never come a day when national security requires that America tap the oil in ANWR. But if it ever does, Americans would be grateful that this generation had the foresight to set it off limits by designating it as wilderness.

If Congress is serious about energy security, it should pass a strong energy bill that reduces U.S. oil dependence through conservation, efficiency and the development of alternative energy sources. That goal can be accomplished readily by resolving the major differences between the Senate and House energy bills approved earlier this year.

The Senate's energy legislation raises fuel economy standards to an average of 35 miles per gallon for all cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles by 2020, while the House version has no such hike. By preserving the Senate language, Congress can achieve an inexhaustable annual reduction in oil consumption that's equivalent to what two ANWRs could produce running at full tilt.

The House bill imposes $16 billion in new taxes and royalties on oil companies over 10 years by removing outdated and unnecessary industry tax breaks. A large chunk of that money would go to provide tax incentives for renewable resources and energy efficiency. The Senate bill would retain the industry subsidies and should be rejected in favor of the House language.

Senate-House conferees also should agree on rules that steeply cut energy consumption in new commercial buildings and set higher performance standards for light bulbs.

By designating the coastal plains region of the Arctic refuge as wilderness and approving a comprehensive energy bill, Congress can do more to reduce this nation's dangerous dependence on foreign oil than drilling in ANWR could ever achieve.