[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21359-21360]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                                 ENERGY

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to address the problems we are 
having getting energy legislation to the Senate floor.
  I strongly believe we need to have a comprehensive energy package 
brought to the Chamber.
  My colleagues may remember that a short while ago, I offered an 
amendment on the Defense authorization bill that would have included a 
comprehensive energy policy--H.R. 4, the House-passed bill, the bill 
the administration wants, the bill the majority of people in this 
Chamber want to pass--in the legislation. I was criticized for that. 
Yet there is no stronger supporter of the military than I.
  Having been chairman of the defense authorization readiness 
subcommittee for some 5 years, I see energy as a major national 
security issue. Frankly, it was a wrong decision for the 
Parliamentarian to say it was not germane.
  Let's look at where we are today. Today we are 56.6 percent dependent 
upon foreign countries for our oil supply. That means we are 56 percent 
dependent upon foreign countries for our ability to fight a war. What 
is alarming is that 50 percent of what we have to import is coming from 
the Middle East. The fastest growing contributor to that amount upon 
which we are dependent is none other than Iraq. You can say in one-
sentence form: It is ludicrous that we should be considered to be 
dependent upon Iraq for our ability to fight a war against Iraq.
  We have a new figure I would like to share with the Senate. In the 
year 2000 alone, the United States bought $5 billion worth of oil from 
Iraq.
  Let's look at where we are today. For all practical purposes, not 
only are we at war in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq. They have shot 
down three of our Predators. We have no-fly zones. We have our troops 
who should be better trained when they arrive in the Persian Gulf. Yet 
we are dependent upon Iraq and the Middle East for our ability to carry 
out a war. If something should happen, an accident of a tanker coming 
in, any number of things, it would be an absolute disaster.
  I will cite for my colleagues some recent statements that I didn't 
have at the time to share when I brought up my amendment.
  One is from Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense. In response 
to my question, he said:

       [It] is a serious strategic issue. . . . My sense is that 
     [our] dependency is projected to grow, not to decline. . . . 
     I think you're right to point out that it's not only that we 
     would, in a sense, be dependent upon Iraqi oil, but the oil 
     as a weapon. The possibility of taking that oil off the 
     market and doing enormous economic damage with it is a very 
     serious problem.

  Senator Carper, the other day, was in a colloquy and statements were 
going back and forth, and quoting Mr. Greenspan responding to one of 
Senator Carper's questions--this is Greenspan, and we are getting ready 
for an economic stimulus:

       At the moment, the demand for power is pretty soft because 
     the economy is soft. That is going to change. And when it 
     changes, unless we have a long-term focus on how we put our 
     infrastructure together, how we set incentives and rules to, 
     one, maintain energy security while protecting the 
     environment, we are going to run into trouble. And I think 
     unless we give it very considerable thought now--projecting 
     five, six, seven years out in the future--we are going to get 
     sub-optimal solutions.

  This is not a new issue. I started on this issue back in the Reagan 
administration. Nor is this a partisan issue because the Reagan 
administration, while he was President, refused to have a comprehensive 
energy policy. Then along came George ``the first.'' He came out of the 
oil patch, so we thought surely this man would be able to successfully 
have a national energy policy. And he would not do it. This was at a 
time when we were nearing a war. This is a national security issue, not 
an energy issue. During the Clinton administration, he would not do it 
either.
  Now we have an agreement where the leadership on both sides says we 
need a comprehensive energy policy. We need to have a vote this year to 
accomplish two things: One, our national security, to get out of this 
quagmire in the Middle East and to be able to fight a war; two, an 
economic stimulus. I can't think of anything that would be more 
positive to stimulate the economy than a national energy policy. It 
involves some controversial things, yes. ANWR is one small part of 
this. People keep saying this is an ANWR bill. It is not. We are 
talking about H.R. 4 over in the House. It has 300 pages. Only 2 pages 
are ANWR. It includes a comprehensive approach, including nuclear; some 
of our marginal production in this country that is virtually cut off 
because of the unpredictability of prices. If you get a marginal 
operator drilling a well for 15 barrels or less and he is not going to 
be able to know the price of oil 15 months down the road, he is not 
going to do it. Consequently, we are not doing it. If we had all of the 
marginal production that we have ceased to have over the last 10 years 
in production today, it would equal the total amount we are importing 
from Saudi Arabia. Consequently, I see this as a critical issue that 
has to be dealt with this year.
  Just recently, I notice almost on a daily basis President Bush 
expresses the administration's position. This is from the 17th in 
Sacramento:

       I ask Congress to now act on an energy bill that the House 
     of Representatives passed back in August. . . . Too much of 
     our energy comes from the Middle East. The plan I sent up to 
     Congress promotes conservation, expands energy supplies, and 
     improves the efficiency of our energy network. Our country 
     needs greater energy independence. The issue is a matter of 
     national security, and I hope the Senate acts quickly.

  We have many other quotes. I will mention a last one from the 
Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, the other day:

       The President has said very clearly this is a priority. 
     This situation--

  Referring to September 11--

     has made it more urgent, and we need to begin moving the 
     process. We have always said that national security is part 
     of the reason we need to get the energy program in place, and 
     we certainly have not backed away from that position now that 
     September 11 has occurred.

  So I think there is nothing more important to deal with between now 
and the end of the session than a comprehensive energy bill. Let's at 
least bring it up for a vote. That is what this is supposed to be 
about, so we can debate this issue. We can't really debate this issue, 
other than the way I am

[[Page 21360]]

doing it now, in anticipation of a vote, unless we have an opportunity 
to have a vote. So I think you are going to see this offered again as 
an amendment. The logical place should be on the economic stimulus 
package, because this is an economic stimulus issue, as well as a 
national security issue.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________