Wyden Says Reducing Oil Consumption is in America's Economic, National Security Interests"

Urges Senate to Reject Energy Bill Conference Report if it Fails to Reduce Oil Demand

October 4, 2002

"I note that the New York Times this morning points out that on the homeland security bill -- and I am going to quote from an editorial in the New York Times: '...the Democrats have made key concessions on personnel management for the department in recent weeks that give the administration almost everything it wants.'

"It is clear Senators on this side are very anxious to attack the serious questions that are before this country. This editorial really sums it up. They point out literally that Democrats have practically done somersaults to address these important questions that colleagues on the other side and the administration have with respect to homeland security, and this morning in one editorial in the New York Times, they say on the other side of the aisle there is an inexcusable filibuster taking place on a measure that is of great importance to this country as we struggle to win this war against terrorism.

"Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that editorial be printed in the Record."

Mr. WYDEN.

"Madam President, as our country faces the possibility of war with Iraq, one of the most patriotic steps our Nation can take is to change our energy policy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

"Today, more than half of our Nation's oil is imported from overseas. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil would reduce threats to our Nation's economy and security, whether from enemies who would do us harm, like Saddam Hussein, or simply the greed of the OPEC cartel.

"If Congress passes an energy bill that truly reduces our dependence on imported oil, that would be important. It would be a strategic security action. Reducing our dependence on oil imports would clearly strengthen our energy and our national security. It would provide an additional measure of economic security.

"Reducing oil imports also strengthens our economy by reducing our vulnerability to shortages and price spikes. And it would be patriotic. As our Nation does face the possibility of war, this would reduce our vulnerability to one of the enemy's most powerful weapons. So far this year, the United States has been importing more than 600,000 barrels of oil per day from Iraq.

"How does the energy bill currently in the House-Senate conference reduce our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our Nation's security? The short answer is it does not do enough. The best way to reduce our dependence on imported oil is, in fact, to take specific steps that do that. That is the critical yardstick -- my guess is a lot of Americans might call it a dipstick -- that could be used for measuring the importance of any energy bill that Congress passes.

"I happen to think the best place to look for those energy savings is in the transportation sector. All the evidence shows the best place to look is in the transportation sector with the cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles all of us drive each day. By that measure, the conference has basically left us stalled by the side of the road.

"At a time when the fuel economy has sunk to the lowest point in 21 years, the conference agreed on provisions that amount to savings of less than 1 mile per gallon. Think about that: At a time when fuel economy has sunk to the lowest point in 21 years, the conference agreed on provisions that amount to savings of less than 1 mile per gallon. That is doing virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

"The bottom line, when one looks at all of the fuel economy provisions together, as far as I can tell by the energy conference at this point, this country would actually be increasing consumption of gasoline by billions of gallons.

"Where is that oil going to come from to meet the increased demand for gasoline that I think will be required by the conference as the bill is written now? It is not going to come from the United States. Our Nation has only 3 percent of the known oil reserves in the world. Almost two-thirds of the reserves come, in fact, from the Middle East. Instead of reducing dependence on foreign oil, the energy conference has adopted provisions that would increase consumption and, my guess is, increase imports from the Middle East.

"Better fuel economy could have saved millions of barrels of oil a day, almost as much as U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf. The energy conference not only has missed the boat as far as reducing oil imports, it missed the supertanker when it failed to adopt an increased fuel economy standard.

"Passing the right kind of energy bill, in fact, would advance our Nation's energy security, our economic vitality, and our strategic interests. I fear Congress may pass legislation that has the word "energy " in the title but does little or nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That will not strengthen our national security. That will not strengthen our economic security, and it is going to send the wrong message around the world to all of those who would use oil as a weapon against the United States of America.

"There are those who are going to try to claim the energy bill could meet all the goals if only the Congress opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. But even if Congress authorized drilling today, the oil produced would be too little too late to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Even the rosiest scenarios show if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is open to drilling, it would provide only a 6-month supply of oil, and it would take about 10 years to even do that.

"Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is certainly a risky proposition. The U.S. Geological Survey, in their most likely scenario, estimates a profitable yield of just 2 billion barrels. If that is the case, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling, at peak production, would supply no more than 1 percent of America's projected daily petroleum needs.

"By comparison, the National Academy of Sciences says the fuel economy savings needed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be achieved using existing technologies.

"That is the choice, use existing technologies, technologies today that are available in Arkansas, Oregon, Montana, and around this country, something we can look to now to stop those who are using oil as a weapon against us, or look at risky scenarios that do not produce a whole lot and take a long time to do it like drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "Our country urgently needs an energy policy that meets our national security needs and our economic needs, especially as the prospect of war with Iraq looms on the horizon. If the energy conference can produce a bill that actually does it, I think one of the most patriotic steps the Congress can take now is to pass that legislation. If Congress cannot come up with an energy bill that actually meets those challenges, maybe there should not be an energy bill at all.

"That is not what I want. I want a bill that takes away the weapons of those around the world who are using oil against this country. That is one of the key challenges we face.

"As I go home to Oregon -- I am sure this is true in Arkansas, Montana, and all of our States -- I see such extraordinary patriotism at this time. The people of our country understand we face extraordinary threats around the world, and I want us to come together to show that we understand how strongly we feel about the concerns of our citizens and that we identify with the patriotism that we see in our communities every day. One of the most patriotic steps that can be taken now is to change our energy policy, stop those who are using oil as a weapon against us, and to actually pass energy legislation that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

"I yield the floor."

###