Alaska drilling not put in Senate defense bill
Date: 03-Oct-01
Country: USA
Author: Julie Vorman
Senate Republicans and Democrats are split over drilling in the Alaskan refuge, a measure that proponents now say is more important as the United States prepares for military action linked to the deadly Sept. 11 attacks.
Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, had threatened to add the drilling language to bill if the Democratic-controlled Senate did not agree to debate a broad U.S. energy package before lawmakers adjourn later this month.
But Inhofe joined his Senate colleagues in voting 100-0 to limit debate on the Defense bill to issues related to military spending.
The defense bill has taken on added urgency since the suicide airliner attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, which left about 6000 people dead or missing.
LAWMAKER WILL TRY OTHER LEGISLATION
Inhofe separately urged the Senate to adopt a non-binding resolution promising to take action this month on a broad U.S. energy bill to ensure adequate supplies of oil for the U.S. military.
But Democratic leaders ruled the resolution out of order.
Inhofe said he would find other Senate bills to use as a vehicle for attaching the energy legislation.
The United States imports more than half of its daily oil needs, with most supplies coming from the Middle East. Iraq, which the United States has accused of sponsoring terrorism, has steadily boosted exports to the United States and now provides more than 600,000 barrels per day.
"I can't imagine that someone would not want to support this," Inhofe said. "What we're saying it, we're dependent upon our ability to import oil from Iraq to fight a war against Iraq. That's insane."
Supporters of opening the Arctic refuge contend U.S. oil supplies from the Mideast are at risk and the Alaska wilderness may hold enough crude to replace the amount of oil imported from Iraq at current rates for the next 70 years.
The drilling proposal, backed by President George W. Bush, has also been endorsed by the Teamsters union as a way to create new jobs.
Environmental groups oppose opening the refuge, arguing drilling would jeopardize a wilderness area that is home to polar bears, caribou and other wildlife. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service describes the refuge as "one of the finest examples of wildernesses left on the planet" and one of the places least affected by modern man.
Green groups contend stricter fuel efficiency standards on sport utility vehicles, pick-ups and cars would offset any need for more Alaska oil.
SENATE ENERGY BILL STILL POSSIBLE
Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid said Senate leaders would try to move an energy bill ahead "hopefully this year."
"There is no question that we need to do something about energy policy in this country," said Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber.
Although Republicans and Democrats are split over Alaska drilling, Reid said there was about, "75 to 80 percent that both parties want and that we can all agree on."
Oil industry experts have said it would take about five years for any significant oil production to start flowing from the refuge, if Congress approved drilling there.
In early August, the U.S. House passed an energy bill that would allow drilling in the Arctic refuge, as well as provide $33 billion in tax breaks to the energy industry over 10 years.
The Senate has yet to finish writing a broad energy bill, which is not expected to include Alaska drilling.
