[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 138 (Monday, October 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10674-S10676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOMELAND ENERGY SECURITY
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will be speaking each day this week
on the issue of homeland energy security. I have come before the Senate
on many occasions to discuss our needs for national energy in this
country, some form of a national energy policy. I think my colleagues'
focus for the most part is on the issue of opening and exploring that
small sliver of the 19 million acres known as ANWR, an area the size of
the State of South Carolina. This is a sliver because it represents
roughly 1.5 million acres open for exploration that only Congress can
allow, and the realization in the House-passed bill that there was only
an authorization of 2000 acres, not much bigger than a small farm. This
is the issue of opening up ANWR in my State of Alaska.
Last spring, for example, Senator Breaux and I proposed a
comprehensive bipartisan energy policy with some 300 pages. All that
most people focused on was the two pages remitted to opening ANWR. I am
a man of few words. It is fair to say some of the radical environmental
groups have used ANWR as a cash cow in that they have milked it for all
it is worth from the standpoint of membership and dollars. It is a
great issue because it is far away--the American people cannot see for
themselves and understand and appreciate the dimension, size, and
magnitude nor the response we had in producing Prudhoe Bay, which could
be transferred to the ANWR area.
ANWR will be opened. The radical environmental groups will move on to
another issue in the course of future action. Nevertheless, this
discussion is not just about ANWR. I am not in favor of opening ANWR
simply because it is the right thing to do for my State or it is the
right thing to do for the Nation. My concern with our increasing
dependence on unstable sources of energy is not a smokescreen for
narrow political gain. I am in fear of opening ANWR simply as an
integral part of our overall energy strategy, a policy balance between
production and conservation.
I was pleased to note the President's remarks a few days ago when he
commented: There are two other aspects of a good, strong, economic
stimulus package, one of which is trade promotion authority, and the
other is an energy bill. Now there was a good energy bill passed out of
the House of Representatives, and the reason it passed is because
Members of both parties understood an energy bill was not only good for
jobs or stimulus, it is important for our national security to have a
good energy policy.
I urge the Senate to listen to the will of the Senators and move a
bill that will help Americans find work and also make it easier for all
of us around this table to protect the security of the country. The
less dependent we are on foreign sources of crude oil, the more secure
we are at home. We have spent a lot of time talking about homeland
security. An integral piece of homeland security is energy
independence, and I will ask the Senate to respond to the call to get
an energy bill moving.
The facts speak for themselves. In 1973, we were 37 percent dependent
on foreign oil and the Arab oil embargo brought us to our knees. How
quickly we forget about gas lines around the block. In 1991, we fought
a war with Iraq largely over oil. We spent billions and billions of
dollars to keep Saddam Hussein in check largely in order to keep a
stable source of supply coming from the Persian Gulf.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial
from October 11 in the Washington Post by Robert Samuelson.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2001]
Now Do We Get Serious on Oil?
(By Robert J. Samuelson)
If politics is the art of the possible, then things ought
to be possible now that weren't before Sept. 11. Or perhaps
not. For three decades, Americans have only haphazardly tried
to fortify themselves against a catastrophic cutoff of oil
from the Middle East, which accounts for about a third of
world production and two-thirds of known reserves. Little
seems to have changed in the past month, although the
terrorism highlighted our vulnerability. Oil is barely part
of the discussion.
Over the past 30 years, we have suffered Middle East supply
disruptions caused by the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the fall of
the shah of Iran in 1979 and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in
1990. We have fought one war for access to oil--the Persian
Gulf War. How many times do we have to be hit before we pay
attention? No one can foresee what might lead to a huge
supply shutdown or whether the present attack on Afghanistan
might trigger disastrous changes. A collapse of the Saudi
regime? A change in its policy? Massive sabotage of
pipelines? Another Arab-Israeli war? Take your pick.
Even if we avoid trouble now, the threat will remain. In
2000 the United States imported 53 percent of its oil; almost
a quarter of that came from the Persian Gulf. Weaning
ourselves from Middle Eastern oil would still leave us
vulnerable, because much of the rest of the industrial
world--Europe, Japan, Asia--needs it. Without it, the world
economy would collapse. Of course, countries that have oil
can't benefit from it unless they sell it. The trouble is
they can sell it on their terms, which might include a large
measure of political or economic blackmail.
They, too, run a risk. Oil extortion might provoke a
massive military response. It is precisely because the
hazards are so acute and unpredictable for both sides that
Persian Gulf suppliers have recently tried to separate
politics from oil decisions. (Indeed, prices have dropped
since the terrorist attacks.) But in the Middle East, logic
is no defense against instability. We need to make it harder
for them to use the oil weapon and take steps to protect
ourselves if it is used.
The outlines of a program are clear:
Raise CAFE (``corporate average fuel economy'') standards.
America's cars and light
[[Page S10675]]
trucks--pickups, minivans and sport-utility vehicles--consume
a tenth of annual global oil production, about 8 million
barrels a day out of 77 million. Tempering oil demand
requires lowering the thirst of U.S. cars. The current CAFE
standards are 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 20.7 mpg for
light trucks. With existing technologies, fuel economy could
be raised by 17 percent to 36 percent for cars and by 27
percent to 47 percent for light trucks without harming safety
and performance, according to the National Research Council.
Changes would have to occur over a decade to give
manufacturers time to convert.
Impose a gasoline or energy tax. People won't buy fuel-
efficient vehicles unless it pays to do so. Cheap gasoline
prices also cause people to drive more. An effective tax
would be at least 35 cents to 50 cents a gallon. It ought to
be introduced over two or three years beginning in 2003. (To
impose the tax would worsen the recession.) A 50-cent-a-
gallon tax might raise about $60 billion a year. Some of this
might be returned in other tax cuts; some might be needed to
cover higher defense and ``homeland security'' costs.
Relax restrictions against domestic drilling. The other way
to dampen import dependence is to raise domestic production.
It peaked in 1970 and since then has dropped about 28
percent. The easiest way to cushion the decline is to open up
areas where drilling is now prohibited, including the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and areas off both the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts. This would aid both oil and
natural gas production.
Expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Tapping the SPR is
the only way to offset a huge oil loss until a military or
diplomatic solution is reached. Created in 1975, the SPR was
envisioned to reach 1 billion barrels. At the end of 2000, it
had 541 million barrels, roughly where it was in 1992. The
failure to increase the SPR in the Clinton years was
astonishingly shortsighted. When oil prices are low--as now--
the SPR should be slowly expanded to at least 2 billion
barrels. Other industrial countries should also raise their
oil stocks.
What prevents a program such as this is a failure of
political imagination. There ought to be a natural coalition
between environmentalists and defense groups.
Environmentalists want to reduce air pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions. Defense groups want to limit our vulnerability
to oil cutoffs or blackmail. A common denominator is the need
to control cars' gasoline use. But these groups aren't
allies, because their dogmas discourage compromise.
Environmentalists don't like more drilling in places such as
ANWR, despite modest environmental hazards; and defense types
(read: the Bush administration) want to expand production and
dislike CAFE, because it compromises the freedom they seek to
defend. Both shun unpopular energy taxes.
The American way of life doesn't depend on $1 or $1.50
gasoline. It does depend on reliable sources of energy.
Unless vast reserves are discovered outside the Middle East--
or new technologies eliminate the need for oil--the world's
dependence on fuel from the Persian Gulf seems destined to
grow. The dangers have been obvious for years, and our
failure to react ought to be a source of deep national
embarrassment. This is a long-term problem; anything we do
now won't have significant effects for years. But if we fail
to heed the latest warning, the neglect would be almost
criminal.
Mr. Murkowski. In this article he rightly points out:
Even if we avoid trouble now, the threat will remain. In
2000 the United States imported 53 percent of its oil.
I pointed out that factually, it was 56 percent and will be closer to
62 percent in the next few years, according to the Department of
Energy, with the biggest increase coming from the Persian Gulf. Mr.
Samuelson points out the terrible threat to our economic stability
created by this state of affairs.
I don't necessarily draw the same conclusions, but I agree we need a
comprehensive program to address the situation. There are those who
tried to shut down the discussion on energy that are so bound to narrow
parochial interests of one group that they refuse to address the clear
and evident need for energy now. What we need is a balanced policy
based on conservation and increasing our own domestic production. These
are solutions that are available and as a consequence we must look to
develop these solutions--not a moratorium on discussion of what that
balance will mean. I fear we will not address this situation until it
is too late. That seems to be the case.
I fear the United States is in denial about the reality of the
situation. What is it going to take to wake up? Is it going to take
another crisis, the overthrow of our friends in the gulf? We know that
Saudi Arabia, one of our staunchest allies in the gulf, has told the
United States that it is unable to cooperate in freezing the assets of
bin Laden and his associates. What kind of signal does that send us?
The money supply is his lifeline. Evidently, bin Laden is still intact.
The Saudi regime is providing little help to Federal investigators with
background checks on suspected terrorists. The Saudi Government, as we
have learned, has also asked Britain's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to
stay away for the time being and not visit the Kingdom as part of its
efforts to build support for the international coalition against
terrorism. What kind of a signal is that? I understand why the Saudi
regime is uncomfortable with being helpful in our efforts to track down
bin Laden, and I can understand why the Saudis are uncomfortable,
seemingly overfriendly to the United States at this time. There is a
sizable constituency in Saudi Arabia that supports bin Laden, and we
know that.
By overtly choosing sides against him, the regime would endanger its
own rule. But by siding with the United States, the Saudis risk an
uprising which could make the ones going on in Pakistan, Israel, and
Indonesia right now look very tame.
The Saudis are rightly worried about their political future, and I
can understand that. But I also suggest if the Saudis are worried about
the stability of their regime, then we should be worried, too. If the
Saudis, from whom we get 16 percent of our oil, view our close
relationship as destabilizing, we should, too.
It is interesting to look at where we get our oil. Let me show you
this chart. This is pretty much where the inputs into the United States
come from. There are about 6 million barrels a day coming into the
United States. Saudi Arabia is the largest contributor at about 1.7
million barrels, then Libya, Nigeria, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain,
Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and so forth.
The interesting thing is the significance of the oil that we seem to
be getting from Iraq. It is a little over 1 million barrels a day. It
was 862,00O. Lest we forget, we are enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq.
From our friend Saddam Hussein, who since the Persian Gulf war has been
a thorn in our side, we are importing nearly 1 million barrels a day.
We are taking his oil, putting it in our aircraft and enforcing a no-
fly zone in the air, which is very similar to a blockade, in theory.
What is he doing with our money? We know he takes the money for the
oil and obviously pays his Republican Guard that contribute to his
livelihood, or he develops a missile capability with biological warfare
capability and for all practical purposes may aim it at Israel. So here
we are taking the oil, fueling his aircraft, we bomb some of his sites.
Aspects of that are associated, realistically, with where we have
vulnerability. The vulnerability of our country speaks for itself.
Before I go to a couple more charts, I wish to identify our reliance
on the Persian Gulf in the sense we rely on the Persian Gulf to get our
children to school in the morning, inasmuch as our fuel comes from
there; we get the food from the farms, inasmuch as the oil fuels our
tractors; and to heat our homes in the winter.
There are some in this body who believe the urgency behind the
development of energy policy faded on that disastrous day of September
11. There are those who would put aside the energy issue and move to
more pressing affairs. I cannot disagree more. Mark my words, energy is
front and center on the war on terrorism. If you go back and find out
where terrorism is being funded, it is being funded indirectly through
Mideast oil.
Bin Laden refers to oil as Islamic wealth. He believes the United
States owes Muslims $36 trillion because we paid artificially low
prices for energy.
I think we are becoming more and more aware of bin Laden's writings.
I ask unanimous consent to print an article bylined Donna Abu-Nasr,
under the headline, ``Bin Laden's Past Words Revisited.''
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Associated Press, Sept. 28, 2001]
Bin Laden's Past Words Revisited
(By Donna Abu-Nasr)
All American men are the enemy, Osama bin Laden says. And
the United States owes Muslims $36 trillion, payback for
``the biggest theft'' in history--the purchase of cheap oil
from the Persian Gulf.
A book with that and more of bin Laden in his own words has
been snapped up by Arabic
[[Page S10676]]
readers in the weeks since he was named the No. 1 suspect in
the Sept. 11 suicide bombings in New York and Washington. The
book, ``Bin Laden, Al-Jazeera--and I'' by Jamal Abdul Latif
Ismail, includes a 54-page transcript of the complete 1998
interview that was broadcast in abbreviated form on Al-
Jazeera, a popular television program. Al-Jazeera has
rebroadcast its version of the interview, conducted by
Ismail, since the attacks. Those hungry for more often found
copies sold out in book stores across the Mideast. Readers
have been borrowing and photocopying the book from friends.
Bin Laden spoke to Ismail in a tent in mountainous southern
Afghanistan four months after the August 1998 bombings of two
U.S. embassies in Africa--attacks in which he's also a
suspect.
Bin Laden began the interview with personal notes, saying
he was born 45 years ago, in the Muslim year of 1377, in the
Saudi capital of Riyadh. The family later moved between the
two holy cities of Mecca and Medina and the port city of
Jiddah.
Bin Laden's father, Muhammad, who was born in the Yemeni
region of Hadramawt, was a prominent construction magnate who
built the major mosques in mecca and Medina and undertook
repairs on Jerusalem's Dome of the Rock. He died when bin
Laden was 10.
After getting a degree in economics at a university in
Jiddah, bin Laden joined his father's company before
beginning his road to jihad.
Even before President Bush mentioned the word ``crusade''
in describing the anti-terror campaign, bin Laden was using
that term to describe alleged U.S. intentions against
Muslims.
``There's a campaign that's part of the ongoing Crusader-
Jewish wars against Islam,'' bin Laden told Ismail.
Asked about his 1998 fatwa, or edict, urging Muslims to
target not only the U.S. military, but also American
civilians, bin Laden said only American men were the target.
``Every American man is an enemy whether he is among the
fighters who fight us directly or among those who pay
taxes,'' bin Laden said.
Bin Laden claimed Western attacks on Arabs, such as the
British-U.S. bombings of Iraq, were directed by Israelis and
Jews who have infiltrated the White House, the Defense
Department, the State Department and the CIA.
His views on other issues:
--On reports he was trying to acquire chemical, biological
and nuclear weapons, bin Laden said:
``At a time when Israel stores hundreds of nuclear warheads
and bombs and the Western crusaders control a large
percentage of these weapons, this should not be considered an
accusation but a right. . . . It's like asking a man, `Why
are you such a courageous fighter?' Only an unbalanced person
would ask such a question.
``It's the duty of Muslims to own (the weapons), and
America knows that, today, Muslims have acquired such a
weapon.''
--On whether he's ready to stand trial in an Islamic court:
``We are ready at any time for a legitimate court . . . If
the plaintiff is the United States of America, we at the same
time will sue it for many things . . . it committed in the
land of Muslims.''
--Bin Laden denied he was behind the 1998 embassy bombings,
but acknowledged he ``has incited (Muslims) to wage jihad.''
--Asked about the freezing of his assets, bin Laden said
even though the United States has pressured several countries
to ``rob us of our rights,'' he and his followers have
survived. ``We feel that the whole universe is with us and
money is like a passing shadow. We urge Muslims to spend
their money on jihad and especially on the movements that
have devoted themselves to the killing of Jews and the
crusaders.''
--On the U.S.-backed fight against the Soviet presence in
Afghanistan: ``Those who waged jihad in Afghanistan . . .
knew they could, with a few RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades),
a few anti-tank mines and a few Kalashnikovs, destroy the
biggest military myth humanity has even known. The biggest
military machines was smashed and with it vanished from our
minds what's called the superpower.''
--Asked about the money the United States put on his head,
bin Laden said: ``Because America worships money, it believes
that people think that way too. By Allah, I haven't changed a
single man (guard) after these reports.''
--Bin Laden claimed the United States has carried out the
``biggest theft in history'' by buying oil from Persian Gulf
countries at low prices. According to bin Laden, a barrel of
oil today should cost $144. Based on that calculation, he
said, the Americans have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims and
they owe each member of the faith $30,000.
``Do you want (Muslims) to remain silent in the face of
such a huge theft?'' bin Laden said.
--His message to the world: ``Regimes and the media want to
strip us of our manhood. We believe we are men, Muslim men.
We should be the ones defending the greatest house in the
world, the blessed Kaaba . . . and not the female, both
Jewish and Christian, American soldiers.'' Bin Laden was
referring to the U.S. troops that have deployed in Saudi
Arabia since 1990 following Iraq's invasion on Kuwait.
``The rulers in the region said the Americans would stay a
few months, but they lied from the start. . . . Months
passed, and the first and second years passed and now we're
in the ninth year and the Americans lie to everyone. . . .
The enemy robs the owner, you tell him you're stealing and he
tells you, `It's in my interest.'
``Our goal is to liberate the land of Islam from the
infidels and establish the law of Allah.''
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will just refer to two very short paragraphs.
All American men are the enemy, Osama bin Laden says. And
the United States owes Muslims $36 trillion, payback for
``the biggest theft'' in history--the purchase of cheap oil
from the Persian Gulf.
It further goes on to say:
Bin Laden claimed the United States has carried out the
``biggest theft in history'' by buying oil from Persian Gulf
countries at low prices. According to bin Laden, a barrel of
oil today should cost $144. Based on that calculation, he
said, the Americans have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims and
they owe each member of the faith $30,000.
If there is any motivation in the connection of oil, I remind you of
that.
Control of Arab oil is the core of bin Laden's philosophy and at the
heart of Saddam Hussein's politics. There is no question about it; oil
is the key, not only to bin Laden but Saddam Hussein. Our Achilles'
heel in this war is our dependence on foreign oil. Bin Laden knows it.
Saddam Hussein knows it. That the Senate does not yet seem to know it
is to our immense discredit. I hope I have helped enlighten us a little
bit today. That we do not recognize it and did not recognize it on
September 11 is to our immense discredit. If we do not recognize it
soon, God help us all.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.
____________________