In an interview, Norton said she would prefer President George W. Bush veto the energy bill if it kept the Alaskan refuge closed because boosting domestic oil production is the centerpiece of the administration's energy plan.

"From the Department of Interior perspective, if ANWR is not in the legislation, it does almost nothing to enhance (oil) production," she said.

Even if the energy bill contained other minor provisions to increase U.S. oil output and raise other energy supplies, it would be better to scrap the bill altogether than give up on drilling in the refuge, according to Norton.

"At this point, we really don't see a lot that is going to significantly enhance the energy picture unless we take some steps like ANWR (drilling)," she said.

Senate and House negotiators face a deadline at the end of September to reach a compromise energy bill that is expected to include tax incentives for drilling, require more ethanol use to stretch gasoline supplies and tighten energy efficiency standards.

Whether to allow drilling in the Arctic refuge is expected to be the most contentious issue that lawmakers face in hammering out the final energy bill.

Norton said the administration is willing to work with lawmakers on a drilling compromise, and she would not rule out reducing the area in ANWR that could be opened to exploration.

"It's got to be something that maintains the ability to access the (oil) reserves in ANWR," she said.

The refuge sprawls across 19 million acres (7.7 million hectares), but only the area's 1.5 million acre (607,000 hectare) coastal plain would be accessible to energy firms. The Republican-led House has voted to limit drilling activities to just 2,000 acres (809 hectares) at any one time in the 1.5 million acres that would be opened to exploration.

The Democratic-run Senate and many environmental groups oppose opening the refuge, saying the area's caribou, polar bears and other wildlife would be harmed from drilling.

IRAQ FIGURES IN DEBATE

Supporters of ANWR drilling say the issue has taken on more urgency now that the United States may soon be at war with Iraq. Military strikes would cut off Iraq's roughly 2 million barrels a day of oil exports to the world market.

Last year, Iraq was the sixth biggest foreign oil supplier to the United States, although shipments have fallen significantly in recent months.

A disruption in Iraqi oil imports could not immediately be offset by tapping the Arctic refuge. If Congress agreed to open ANWR, it would take several years for oil to start flowing and about eight years to reach peak production of about 1 million barrels a day, according to industry executives.

A quicker, and more likely, response would be for the administration to order a release of oil from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Norton refused to speculate on whether the White House would order a drawdown of the emergency stockpile in advance of a possible U.S. attack on Iraq to counter an expected disruption of oil supplies.

"We want to have that (emergency oil stockpile) available to the country. Whether the situation will arise to use that (reserve) or not, that is something that can be determined as we get closer to those situations," she said.

The reserve, created by Congress in the mid-1970s after the Arab oil embargo, holds 584 million barrels of crude. That is equal to about a 60-day supply of total U.S. oil imports or two years' worth of crude shipments from Iraq.

The administration is currently in the process of filling the reserve to its 700-million-barrel capacity by 2005.