Could a plumb-bob be dropped from the truth about Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, it would never touch the statements made recently on national television by Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle.

With his best impression of South Dakotan sincerity, he looked straight
into the camera and said that we should not destroy our last pristine
wilderness for six months of oil. This statement arises not from truth
or fact, but from the propaganda mills of environmental extremist
organizations.

Two issues: 1) Will drilling for oil in ANWR really destroy ANWR, and
2) is there only a six-month supply of oil there? The answer to both
questions is a resounding no!

ANWR is 19 million acres. The Coastal Plain, where the oil is, consists
of 1.5 million acres. The area affected by proposed drilling is about
1,500 acres. If Mr. Daschle had a trust fund of $19 million dollars, I
doubt that he would consider it destroyed if he chose to spend $1,500 on a water well on his own property in order to reduce his dependence on
water from sworn enemies.

Daschle’s “six-months supply” is based on the low end of the range
estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey of 5.7 billion barrels to a high
of 16 billion barrels. Were the actual amount of oil in ANWR to be no
more than 5.7 billion barrels, the most we could extract would be two
million barrels per day because of the pipeline capacity. At that rate,
the minimum estimated reserves would last 25 years.

The most probable quantity of ANWR oil is over 10 billion barrels, using
today’s extraction technology. Now we’re talking about a 50-year
supply, pumping at maximum capacity.

How can the Senate Majority Leader make such a misleading statement?
Environmental organizations have twisted logic to divide the total daily
U.S. oil consumption by the minimum estimated ANWR reserves, and
concluded the supply would last only six months, totally disregarding
the reality that there is no way to extract and distribute a supply to
equal the total U.S. demand from any single source.

The fact is that we are now using only about half the capacity of the
Alaskan pipeline, due to a diminishing supply of oil from Prudhoe Bay.
We are also importing a million barrels per day from Iraq, and more than
56 percent of our total oil requirement from other foreign sources. The ANWR
reserves would allow us to replace the oil we now buy from Iraq, and
reduce our dependence on foreign sources. This should be done now, as a
first step.

In view of the Sept. 11 attack, the “environmental” arguments
offered to block ANWR drilling in order to protect 0.00007-percent of a
19-million-acre wilderness, ring hollow indeed. Moreover, opening ANWR
would provide up to 750,000 jobs at a time when our economy needs them.
Most important, it would help reduce our reliance on countries that are
infested with followers of Osama bin Laden.

America’s priorities changed on Sept. 11. While our military
pursues its top priority, we at home must pursue ours: improving our
domestic security. Energy self-sufficiency is essential to domestic
security. Utilization of ANWR, and other oil and coal reserves, should
no longer be a matter of debate. We can do what we need to do with
minimum environmental impact, and we will. To refuse to use our own
resources in order to protect a bug, beetle, or open space, is just
plain misguided.

Several national organizations, working through the “Freedom 21 Campaign” have called on the
president to “take responsible action to utilize our domestic sources of
coal, oil and nuclear energy,” as the first step to achieving domestic
security.

Sen. Daschle and Rep. Dick Gephardt continue to wave the banner
of their special-interest contributors, i.e., environmental extremist
organizations. Their alternative is to force Americans into a different
lifestyle. Gephardt wants to use tax incentives and disincentives, to
force people to buy higher mileage automobiles, which have proven to be
more deadly than larger, less mileage-efficient vehicles.

Environmental extremists want to force an end to the use of fossil fuels
and nuclear energy altogether. They are quite willing to force taxpayers to subsidize exotic wind and solar energy sources and penalize
taxpayers for using the vehicles and other products of their choice.

Alternative energy sources should, and are being developed as rapidly as
possible. They should be developed, however, by a free marketplace.
Government does not know best; markets do. Government has no business
trying to shape the behavior of its citizens or the marketplace.
Neither Daschle nor Gephardt agrees with this statement. They
apparently believe that it is their duty to dictate how everyone else
should live.

They, and those who share their view, continue to block passage of
legislation that will allow us to get on with the task of improving our
domestic security by reducing our dependence upon foreign oil. They are
willing to distort the facts and misrepresent the truth. We no longer
have time for this foolishness. We must take care of America first.