The U.S. House of Representatives Friday passed a broad energy bill that includes a provision to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The controversial provision had been hotly debated in the past because of its environmental implications, and many lawmakers don’t want to see the virtually untouched lands drilled for oil.

The legislation has been supported primarily by Republicans and opposed by Democrats who saw the bill as designed to benefit the U.S. oil industry at the cost of environmental preservation. Republicans argued allowing drilling companies to access the refuge’s crude oil deposits — estimated at 16 billion barrels — would reduce the U.S. dependency on foreign nations for oil. Currently, 60 percent of the US’s oil consumption is imported.

“This bill is a major step forward in the effort to secure our Nation’s energy future, in keeping with my National Energy Policy,” President Bush said in a statement Friday. “I look forward to prompt Senate action and to working to ensure that fiscally responsible legislation to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy can be brought to my desk.”

The Bureau of Land Management estimates that approximately 40 percent of all coal remaining in the United States is included in the refuge.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, has been opposed to drilling in the refuge.

“We are subsidizing oil companies to produce oil when we could be subsidizing consumers to reduce energy consumption,” said Jonathan Beeton, Baldwin’s press secretary.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, said he voted in favor of the energy bill because of an amendment he added to prevent gasoline price spikes in Wisconsin.

“Once this policy is fully implemented, this will help combat gas price spikes in southern Wisconsin and around the country, as more areas use the same fuel blends,” Ryan said in a statement.

Sources in Ryan’s office also said the refuge is a tundra requiring government protection, and an important number of measures have been made to address both the conservation and exploration of the area. These sources also said that the congressman’s vote is consistent with what they say is his conservation views of the refuge.

Democrats opposed to the plan outlined their arguments for why the oil drilled may not be worth the environmental disaster sure to accompany it.

“I think overall, Representative Baldwin thinks instead of just trying to find more oil which will increase demand, we should try to do something to decrease demand and still be able to live the lifestyle we’re used to,” Beeton said.

Beeton said a more effective bill could integrate energy conservation without drilling in the refuge, such as making currently produced cars more fuel-efficient or focusing on making hybrid gas-electric cars more affordable.

In addition to the controversial Alaskan drilling portion of the energy bill, the measure allots $18.7 billion as incentives to oil companies, encouraging exploration of the area.

These subsidies are also under dispute because some lawmakers believe tax breaks should be given to consumers rather than oil companies.

“Why not give tax breaks to companies who produce hybrid cars and people who purchase them?” Beeton said.