A long time ago in a place far, far away, in the land of pacifism, welfare reform, and the Oral Office, President Clinton had a choice to make: sign a budget reconciliation bill that included a provision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for exploratory oil drilling; or veto the bill, thereby furthering our oil-dependence problem and leaving precious fossil fuel under the paws of a few polar bears. He chose the latter.

Now, with a solid majority in Washington, the Republicans and all internal-combustion loving Congressmen have vowed to include a provision in the next budget for opening ANWR to drilling.

Because budgets cannot be filibustered, it will make it to President Bush’s desk and will be signed. But wait, my activist friend. Before you go running off to join the Campus Greens, let me explain to you why this isn’t such a bad thing.

According to www.anwr.org, there is a 95 percent chance that an oil field yielding 500 million barrels exists. The only way to find out for sure, however, is with exploratory drilling that the budget-bill provision would permit.

When vetoing the bill in 1995, Clinton said, “This budget would give oil companies the right to drill in the last unspoiled Arctic wilderness in Alaska. And it is loaded with special interest provisions that squander our natural resources.” However, ANWR is roughly the size of South Carolina (19 million acres) and the only section of ANWR worth developing is 2,000 to 5,000 acres – about the size of an average farm in central Illinois. Much like Green Bay, this area receives only a few hundred tourists each year because it is a barren, inhospitable tundra with an average temperature of about 0 degrees Fahrenheit. Even so, 92 percent of the refuge will remain undisturbed if ANWR is opened for drilling. Packers suck.

If Clinton’s idea of “squandering natural resources” was allowing U.S. oil producers to drill, refine and sell it, then I’m wondering what he thought of Saudi Arabia’s oil prowess. The bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes that will come from opening the refuge will yield billions of dollars in revenue – not only for Alaska, but for our nation as a whole, too. It’s important for the United States to pursue advancements in alternatives to oil. However, while we’re doing that, an extra trump card in the OPEC pricing game wouldn’t hurt.

Currently, the United States imports about 65 percent of our petroleum from Persian Gulf producers. The National Defense Council Foundation claims that ANWR drilling could eliminate about 70 percent of this dependence. In addition, the new influx of domestic oil would create a new demand for oil processing jobs in the United States. It is estimated that ANWR drilling could create up to 20,000 jobs in our state alone, according to a National Defense Council Foundation study conducted in 2003.

Yes, there are caribou and other hearty creatures that call ANWR their home; and yes, they have feelings too. However, history has proven that wildlife continues to thrive in areas where development has taken place. After 40 years of oil exploration in Alaska’s North Slope, the caribou population has grown from 3,000 to 23,400. These facilities are specifically designed to protect their natural habitat.

I trust Alaskans to know if opening ANWR would be good for their state and our nation. With the re-election of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, they have told us that this is a worthy and necessary endeavor to explore – one that will yield great benefits with no environmental cost.

Chuck Prochaska is a sophomore in LAS. His forum runs Thursdays. He can be reached at [email protected].