[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 36 (Monday, April 8, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2349-S2350]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       A THREAT BY SADDAM HUSSEIN

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Stevens 
from Alaska, for his statement dealing with the threat--and maybe the 
threat implemented today--by Saddam Hussein of Iraq, saying he is going 
to have an oil embargo against the United States.
  I think Senator Stevens mentioned we imported 263 million barrels of 
oil from Iraq last year--maybe 273 million barrels. Right now, it is 
over a million barrels per day. That is a significant amount. I heard 
commentators say today that we don't import that much. I don't know 
whose figures they are looking at, but a million barrels per day is a 
lot. Selectively, right now, we are importing 60 percent of our 
Nation's oil needs.
  You need to compare that to the shortages we had in 1973 and 1979. In 
1973, I believe we were importing about 34 percent. In 1979, it was 
about 44 percent. And we had embargoes because of conflicts in the 
Middle East. As a result, we had significant curtailments in the United 
States. They embargoed exports coming from the Middle East. We had 
shortages in the United States, and we had gas lines.
  I don't quite agree with Senator Stevens that we are going to have 
gas lines this week, but if the embargo were expanded and lasted for a 
significant period of time, we could have significant shortages. I 
think you will see price escalation. How significant it will be depends 
on how many other countries get involved. He mentioned there might be 
strikes in Venezuela. That will compound the problem. If you take away 
a couple million barrels of oil, you are going to see prices go way up, 
and you may see shortages in the not-too-distant future. Gasoline 
prices will be going up in the summertime. You can see demand going up 
and you can see shortages.
  So I think the Senator from Alaska is very timely in saying we need 
to do what we can to help make sure that Saddam Hussein doesn't have 
too big of a grip on the U.S. economy. One of the things we definitely 
can do is increase exploration and production in Alaska. Senator 
Stevens mentioned that in Prudhoe Bay, which used to produce about 2 
million barrels per day, now is producing less than a million. We need 
to supplement that. When it was 2 million barrels per day, it was 25 
percent of our domestic production. Now it is less than an eighth. We 
need to really have that increase, and we can do that in an 
environmentally safe and sound manner by production in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. We are going to have a vote on that this 
week.
  I also agree 100 percent with Senator Stevens when he said that while 
talking about national security, people should not filibuster. Let's 
find out where the votes are. Are we going to vote to increase domestic 
production or are we going to allow Saddam Hussein to be able to 
suffocate the world economy, and certainly the economy of the United 
States? Are we going to give him that kind of leverage and power or 
will we do what we can to minimize it?
  I encourage my colleagues to take a fresh look at ANWR--at this 2,000 
acres from which we are talking about producing. It is an area similar 
in land size to the State of South Carolina. That is a 2,000-acre 
footprint, similar to the size of Dulles Airport or the Oklahoma City 
Airport; it is not that large of an area. If you haven't visited the 
coastal region of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it is not the 
prettiest area, and work can be done in a way that will protect and 
preserve the native wildlife species, including the caribou. If you 
have been to Prudhoe Bay, you found that the caribou love the Alaska 
pipeline; you saw a lot of caribou hanging around the pipeline. So 
certainly it can be done in a way to protect the wildlife and the 
environment, and it will also help alleviate some of the energy 
shortages we may experience in the not-too-distant future. We are very 
vulnerable. We are importing 60 percent of our oil needs today. We need 
to reduce that or it will be 70 percent in another 10 years.
  We need to open exploration in ANWR. I hope my colleagues will not 
filibuster. I hope my colleagues will say: Let's debate it and let's 
vote on it. This is a national security issue. We cannot have national 
security without having energy security, and we do not have energy 
security today.
  My compliments to the administration for giving us a national energy 
plan for the first time in decades. They presented an energy plan, the 
House has passed one, and the Senate has not been able to do one. We 
did not even have a markup on this bill in the Senate Energy Committee.
  I have been on that committee for 22 years. I did not get to offer 
one amendment to this bill. This is the bill. It is 590 pages. It did 
not have ANWR in it. Why? Because we were not able to offer an ANWR 
amendment because we were told not to mark it up.
  This bill came from Senator Daschle and Senator Bingaman, and they 
laid it on our desks. It changed substantially from the previous bill. 
ANWR was not in it. We had the votes in committee, quite frankly, to 
put ANWR in the bill. People would try to take ANWR out, but I do not 
think they have the votes to take it out. I believe that is the reason 
Senator Daschle told Senator Bingaman not to mark up a bill.
  We now have to try to put an ANWR amendment in the bill, and some of 
my colleagues say: We have to filibuster. I think they are wrong to do 
that. Senator Stevens is right, we need national security and we cannot 
have national security unless we have energy security. In light of the 
fact Saddam Hussein is now talking about and may be implementing an oil 
embargo against the United States, I urge my colleagues to do what we 
can to protect our national security with energy security, and that 
includes exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S2350]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are in morning business; is that 
right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________