Saddam Hussein has found our

Achilles' heel our national dependence on foreign oil. Recently the Iraqi

dictator made an appeal to all of the Arab nations when he said, "Arabs

should express their solidarity with their brothers' security and safety,

and [with regard to] oil exports including Iraq, immediately decrease

the production of their oil for exportation by 50 percent and directly

deprive the U.S. and Zionist entity from the other exported half, and

to threaten any country or company with the same measure if they export

the oil they import from Arab countries."

Recently, Crown Prince Abdullah

of Saudi Arabia threatened to tighten oil exports to the United States

in retaliation to Israel's occupation of the West Bank. While a face-to-face

meeting with President Bush convinced Abdullah to withdraw the threat,

the possibility of future sanctions by the region is still very real.

As a nation, we consume 20

million barrels of crude oil every day. Our national Strategic Oil Reserve

currently contains 565.4 million barrels of crude oil, enough for less

than one month of domestic consumption. More than 55 percent of our nation's

oil is imported from Arab nations. If those nations were to heed Hussein's

call, our nation's economy would quickly grind to a halt.

Further harm would come in

our inability to respond to a concerted Arab nation oil embargo and a

military threat on our homeland. Oil is the lifeblood of our military

response. While many of our naval vessels are nuclear powered, the planes,

tanks, transports, and other tools of our defense are powered by oil-based

fuels. Since we no longer maintain the Naval Petroleum Reserves, our ability

to mount a sustained military action without sufficient incoming supplies

of oil would be impossible.

This means, that faced by an

oil embargo and an attack on the United States, our trillions of dollars

of advanced weaponry would be worthless for the defense of the nation.

Furthermore, if the Arab states turn off the oil spigot, or even lessen

its flow, they could severely injure our national economy. By deploying

this "oil weapon" Middle Eastern leaders could do economically

what they have no hope of achieving militarily the crippling of America

as a world leader.

So what can we do to reduce

the significant risk posed to our country by this very real threat? We

can use clean and environmentally safe oil collection technology to harvest

the vast supply of crude oil buried beneath a small portion of barren

land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. Consisting

of less than 2,000 acres of a 19.6 million acre refuge, the area in question

could yield enough oil to significantly lessen our dependence on foreign

oil. It is estimated that drilling in the ANWR would produce 1.5 million

barrels of oil each day for the next 25 years.

Some environmental groups rightly

argue that drilling in the ANWR will not solve all of our dependence on

foreign sources of oil. The debate over ANWR is about lessening that dependence.

I agree that other sources of energy need to be examined and developed,

but common sense tells us our national security today will not wait for

energy solutions of tomorrow. We must use the resources we have to their

fullest extent, while we look for better and more plentiful energy sources

for the future.

Placed in the precarious position

of an oil embargo by the Middle East, we would be faced with the choice

of using military force to restore the flow of oil to the United States.

In August, the House of Representatives passed energy legislation that

would open a small portion of the ANWR for exploration.

The Senate defeated a measure

to allow such exploration, further sealing our fate to continue in dependence

to foreign oil.

Our dependence on Middle East

oil gives the Arab states an alarming degree of control over the U.S.

economy. By voting down ANWR oil exploration, the Senate has said we will

pay their price, whatever it may be. But, more than that, by refusing

the self-reliance that ANWR offers, those in the Senate who have opposed

drilling risk our national security, economic security, and the lives

of the men and women who wear the uniforms of our nation's armed forces

who will continue to be placed in harm's way for the ideals of personal

and economic freedom.

In 1991, our forces were deployed

to Kuwait to drive out a ruthless dictator who threatened not only the

sovereignty of a nation, but the strategic interests of the United States.

Saddam was lured to Kuwait by its rich oil fields. Saddam chose to conquer

and capture; we chose to liberate and trade. Saddam is still a very real

threat in the region. He is still active and has been rebuilding his military

and hoarding weapons of mass destruction. Should he attempt another attack

on his neighbors, our dependence on the region's oil would ensure we would

once again be dragged into a military confrontation.

Last September, I and some

other Congressional colleagues visited the ANWR. The area Congress is

considering for exploration is barren land. While much of the ANWR is

verdant and lush in vegetation, the area under consideration for oil exploration

is anything but.

Those who oppose drilling the

ANWR argue the land should not be developed in any way, and should remain

a pristine environment for wildlife and the native inhabitants. But even

the indigenous people of the area favor drilling. Mayor George Ahmaogak

of Alaska's North Slope Borough, a native Inupiat Eskimo, favors drilling

in the small portion of land in question because of the advances in clean

oil collection technologies and the economic benefit it would provide

to the inhabitants of the area.

"We know that development

of energy in ANWR is a responsible use of the land. Our people have been

respectfully using the land long before Columbus discovered America. People

who have never been to Alaska but are opposing ANWR oil development need

to visit and speak to us," says Ahmaogak.