Crude oil is selling for $40 per barrel, and the average price of regular gasoline in the United States now exceeds $2.00 per gallon.
As our economy grows, and as our foreign competitors (such as Red China) consume more of the oil available on the international market, the U.S. will need a growing energy supply to keep prices down and the economy vibrant.
But in Congress, environmentalist ideologues in both parties, have prevented common-sense measures to increase domestic energy supply. One such measure would be allowing oil exploration and drilling in a minuscule patch of the massive, remote, frozen and desolate Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). ANWR, where drilling is now banned, contains an estimated 10.3 billion barrels of oil, making it one of the largest known untapped reserves in the Western Hemisphere.
HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso asked senators who have voted against oil exploration in ANWR whether high gas prices would change their minds.
Oil is up to $40 a barrel. Given the high price, would you reconsider your opposition to exploring for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
SEN. NORM COLEMAN (R.-MINN.): I think that the most immediate thing we can do is to pass an energy bill. There are some long-term policy things that we have to look at, but if you want to deal with it now, pass an energy bill. The energy bill should have passed three years ago. So I don't think that this is an ANWR issue. I do think if we had an energy bill, at least we'd have something to work off of, and then folks can look at it. But I think the most immediate thing we can do is pass an energy bill. That's not happening right now.
With respect to ANWR, will you still oppose drilling?
COLEMAN: Yeah, I haven't changed my position.
No matter how high the price will go? Say, if it were $60 a barrel?
COLEMAN: I don't think that's going to affect the price of oil. I do think having an energy bill-having an energy policy-was to look at that. Look, ANWR's not a religion to me. I opposed it. I thought what we should be doing is putting more money into renewables and things that lessen dependence on foreign oil. Those are in the energy bill. So let's pass the energy bill. I think that's a separate debate. I think it's a good debate. I'm willing to look at it [ANWR]. Again, this is not a religion for me. But I don't think that's going to affect the American price of oil. Getting an energy bill will. Expanding the opportunities for renewables, and things that lessen dependence on foreign oil, which are in the energy bill, would. Let's get that done first and look at the other things later.
Out in California, they're paying $3 a gallon at the pump, and oil is up to $40 a barrel. Would you reconsider your opposition to exploring for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a way to counter these very, very high prices?
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D.-CALIF.): Well, first of all, it wouldn't counter these prices. By the time you've got it all in place-it's five, four years, whatever it is-so that's not the issue. I think there are things we need to do, yes. One of them is to stop the incredible dependence on petroleum products. And of course, the largest culprit is the automobile, and the answer is a simple one, which is the hybrid. So the answer is-and also, I think, easing some of the permit process for refineries, so that they can expand and refine more fuel.
Some people will say, four of five years down the line, we're going to have the same issues because we continue to use more and more gasoline-as far as starting something like ANWR now.
FEINSTEIN: I'm not for opening up ANWR. I've never been. I'm not for opening ANWR, period.
The price of oil is up to $40 a barrel, and I had to pay $2 a gallon for regular over the weekend. Given the high price, would you consider voting in support of oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D.-FLA.): No. I think any question about oil policy has to be followed with this prepositional phrase: "For whom?" If you're thinking about an oil policy for the next five years, then you would say, we have to go after every available source. If you think about oil policy for the next 50 years, then you say how do we husband what we've got left domestically in the United States, so that it can be stretched as far as possible. . . .
So you would want to leave ANWR alone so that it can be exploited later on?
GRAHAM: Yeah. If we had to exploit it. If the other things that would kick in over the next two generations have not been successful, then as the last place-not the next place-that would still be available.
What's your position on drilling off the coast of Florida?
GRAHAM: Oh, very much opposed, for a similar set of reasons.
Oil has reached $40 a barrel. Over the weekend I had to pay $2 a gallon to fill a tank with regular. Would the high price of oil lead you to reconsider your position on drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
SEN. JIM JEFFORDS (I.-VT.): Well, I think that should be under consideration and should be ready to be utilized. I'm not sure it's the crisis proportion yet to make that, but it should be available for that.
Is there a certain level-if it got up to $50 or $60 a barrel, you'd-
JEFFORDS: Well, it's close to that already.
So you'd seriously consider supporting that? Because you've always opposed it in the past.
JEFFORDS: Yes. But this is the worst situation we've been in.
Oil has reached $40 a barrel. Given the high price, would you reconsider your opposition to exploring for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
SEN. MARK PRYOR (D.-ARK.): Not really. Not yet. That's a long-term proposition. Most experts say it will take at least what, ten years to get oil out of there? I do think we need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I also think we need to-through strategies to develop alternative sources of fuel and-I'm not quite there yet on the Alaska wildlife refuge.
When you say you're not quite there yet, do you mean that you'd be open to it once oil reaches $50 a barrel, or $60 a barrel. Is there a certain price where you'd support drilling?
PRYOR: There's no magic number. I personally think that ANWR does not solve all of our problems. . . . I think it's a fantasy if we think we allow drilling in ANWR and then the prices go down.
Oil is up to $40 a barrel. Given the high price, is there anything that would make you reconsider your opposition to exploring for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
SEN. RON WYDEN (D.-ORE.): Republican senators asked whether that energy bill would do anything to lower gasoline prices. And the response was no. And clearly, on ANWR specifically, you're not going to get any oil out of there any time soon. People are getting clobbered now. What I think we need to do is address issues that would provide some relief to the consumer now. Push on OPEC to increase production. As you know, I've introduced a resolution modeled after the one written in 2000 by Spence Abraham and John Ashcroft to do that. Second, holding back on filling the Strategic Petroleum reserve. . . . The third was the issue I addressed on the floor this morning, which are the policies of the FTC. . . . I'm not against drilling for oil. Certainly the Gulf of Mexico strikes me as a constructive area. . . .
