Here we go again. The U.S. Senate voted 51-49 to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of the 2007 federal budget. Both the mechanism and policy are deeply flawed.

If you feel like you have read this before, you have. This is one of the most repetitive grudge matches in politics. Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, a Republican fervently committed to drilling, has tried every imaginable maneuver, including wrapping drilling into the budget, to reach his goal. Jamming controversial public-policy decisions into budget deliberations has been done before on other issues, but that doesn't make it any less cynical. It is a backhanded way to compel lawmakers to vote for policy they oppose.

Three Republican senators who have opposed drilling in the past were caught again and voted for the budget with the drilling provision.

Washington's junior senator, Democrat Maria Cantwell, continued her good fight to protect the refuge.

Onward to the House, which last year put a foot on this ill-considered policy. At least 22 Republicans announced they would not vote for the budget bill unless the drilling provision was removed. It was.

President Bush and many Republicans wrongly believe they can make a dent in America's oil dependency by authorizing drilling in the refuge. There is not enough oil to do that. Latest estimates show drilling in ANWR might save a penny a gallon at the pump.

The policy is terribly shortsighted. Many House Republicans facing re-election have not wanted to be connected to this kind of decision-making. Whether the same group will re-emerge and remove the drilling provision this year is unknown.

But Cantwell is correct when she says America cannot drill its way to energy independence. We have to use innovation in alternative energy to get there.

Stevens' victory pressures Washington House members, including Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn, and Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Lake Stevens, who oppose drilling but voted last year to allow it in a defense spending bill because they favored the military spending.

The fight to save the spectacular natural environment of the refuge is long and arduous but, ultimately, worth it.

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company