[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 31, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11252-S11253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           NATIONAL SECURITY

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to floor this morning to talk 
about the priority of national security issues. Since the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, debate in the country has changed. We now 
focus on issues we used to take for granted. We must look at those 
issues from the perspective of national security.
  Senator Fred Thompson has repeatedly called for a review of our 
export control laws for dual-use technologies. In the past year, as 
chairman and now as ranking member of the Senate Government Affairs 
Committee, Senator Thompson has repeatedly called for increasing our 
defenses against cyberterrorism. He has also sought to halt 
proliferation of nuclear weapons. For all of these issues, export 
controls, cyberterrorism and nuclear proliferation, he has cited 
national security concerns--real national security issues. He is right. 
They are national security issues.
  The week before the September 11 attacks, the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee heard testimony about terrorism. At that hearing, 
the committee heard from former Senator Sam Nunn and the ex-CIA 
Director James Woolsey. They described in detail the threats of 
biological and chemical weapons as tools of terrorists. They described 
the need for more vaccines, stockpiles of drugs and antibiotics, and 
the new technologies for delivering these medicines. Senator Nunn 
stated it best when he said: ``Public health has become a national 
security issue.''
  Sam was right.
  The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a 
hearing to discuss the FAA's response during and after the terrorist 
attacks. At that hearing, Chairman Hollings properly noted: ``Airport 
and aircraft security are national security issues.'' He, too, was 
right.
  The Bismarck Tribune in North Dakota reported on September 20 that 
Robert Carlson, president of the North Dakota Farmers, said food 
security is an issue that should ``become important in the mind of 
Congress.'' As head of a farm group from a farm State, this position is 
understandable. And Senator Dorgan repeated that position here: food 
security is a national security issue.
  On October 11, Representative Henry Waxman called for the regulation 
of sniper rifles under the National Firearms Act. In his statement, he 
cited a national security need for such legislation. He was right. 
Self-defense is a national security issue.

  On October 11, Newsday reported that several television networks had 
discussed screening video footage of Osama bin Laden before airing that 
footage publicly. Such screening is necessary--it is a national 
security issue.
  In July, the Senate Appropriations, Intelligence, and Armed Services 
Committees held hearings on terrorism. On October 12, the House 
Committee on Government Reform held a hearing to assess the threat of 
bioterrorism in America. Clearly, these are all national security 
issues.
  Just a few days ago, the junior Senator from Washington, Ms. 
Cantwell, said the northern border is a national security issue because 
it controls the flow of people and goods between our country and 
Canada. Representative Marge Roukema voiced similar concerns about the 
northern border and the need to triple the number of border agents 
patrolling the area. These are national security issues.
  Congress is considering a seaport security bill, an economic stimulus 
package with infrastructure security measures, increased funding for 
the intelligence communities, and better preparedness within the health 
community. All of these specific items have been tied to national 
security.
  But none of these national security issues faces the threat of a 
filibuster. To filibuster any of these actions that involve national 
security would be wrong for the country. Amazingly, some Members of 
this body have now threatened to filibuster specific portions of the 
comprehensive energy bill.
  Tuesday's Baton Rouge Advocate reported the President may direct an 
additional 70 million barrels of oil be put into the National Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. The President realizes that energy is a national 
security issue.
  My colleague, Senator Murkowski of Alaska, the ranking member on the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has been calling for a 
comprehensive energy package for over 2 years. He has been joined by 
Senators Breaux, Landrieu, Thomas, Craig, and others. Most recently, 
Senator Inhofe took to the floor to make the point that energy should 
be at the top of the list of national security issues. I agree with my 
colleagues and countless others who have called energy a national 
security issue.
  Yesterday, several veterans groups called on the Senate to consider 
an energy bill. In early October, the Printing Industries of America 
called for an energy plan in response to last year's domestic energy 
shortages and high fuel costs. Charles Jarvis, chairman and CEO of the 
United Seniors Association, called on the Senate to consider 
legislation that would lower our dependence on foreign oil. His members 
do not want to be held hostage by countries that do not share our 
interests.
  If any issue should be debated along with an economic stimulus 
package, health preparedness, and airline security, it must be energy. 
Planes cannot fly without jet fuel. Americans cannot drive without 
gasoline. Roads cannot be made without crude oil, and many medicines 
cannot be made without the chemicals that come from crude oil. Many of 
our everyday products are in fact made from crude oil. Economic 
stimulus, health care, and transportation are all tied to energy and 
oil.
  In 1973, the Senate debated the amendment to create a right-of-way 
from Alaska's North Slope to Valdez, which I offered with my then 
colleague from Alaska. The amendment allowed the transport of 2 million 
barrels of oil a day, which that pipeline is capable of carrying. At 
the time there was a tacit understanding in this body that any item 
dealing with national security would not be filibustered. Perhaps 
Senator Moss of Utah put it best when he said:

       I cannot get overly upset about the ritual mating season 
     for Alaskan caribou when in the city of Denver last weekend 
     it was almost impossible to find gas. How long do you suppose 
     the people of this country will tolerate an empty gas tank 
     while we debate the merit of a pipeline to bring 2 million 
     barrels of oil a day over a right-of-way traversing lands 
     that belong to the people of the United States?

  Mr. President, one of the arguments put forth by opponents to that 
right-of-way was the potential impact of the oil pipeline on caribou. 
Nearly 30 years and over 13 billion barrels of oil later, there are 
more than 4 times the number of caribou in that area of Alaska compared 
to the years before the oil pipeline.
  During the debate on the Alaska oil pipeline amendment, Energy 
Committee Chairman Henry Jackson, my great friend from Washington, said 
the pipeline ``involves a national security issue.'' He said, ``There 
is no serious question today that it is urgently in the national 
interest to start north slope oil flowing to markets.''
  He also said that if he saw any more attempts to delay construction 
of the pipeline, he would push legislation to have the Federal 
Government build the project. The national security concerns were that 
important to Scoop Jackson, and they are important to me.
  Even Senator Walter Mondale supported the construction of the Alaska 
oil pipeline and the transport of oil to the lower 48. He said then, 
``It has always been my position that we need Alaskan oil and that this 
oil should flow to the lower 48 as soon as possible, consistent with 
environmental safeguards and the greatest benefit for the entire 
country.''
  In addition to that, Senator Bartlett of Oklahoma said then, ``We 
need every

[[Page S11253]]

possible drop of crude oil production that can be developed and 
maintained.''
  We debated the construction of this 800-mile pipeline when we 
believed there was a probability we could recover 1 billion barrels of 
oil from the area near Prudhoe Bay. As I said, last year, Alaskans 
produced our 13 billionth barrel of oil from Prudhoe Bay.
  I want to talk about that same pipeline today being used to transport 
oil from the Arctic Coastal Plain--an area predicted to contain a 
minimum estimate of 5 billion barrels of oil, with the possibility of 
up to 30 billion barrels of oil. This is a resource on Federal land; it 
is not a State resource. Not to have it available to produce puts us at 
the mercy of foreign interests who produce the oil we import.
  The Alaska oil pipeline carried 2 billion barrels during the Persian 
Gulf war. It was up as high as 2.1 billion barrels a day. We increased 
it, through special means, to secure the supply for America and to 
assure that we had domestic oil to rely upon then. Now our Alaska 
pipeline is only half filled with oil coming from Prudhoe Bay and other 
north slope wells. If the remainder of the pipeline is to be filled, it 
must come from the coastal zone, from the ANWR area. At the minimum 
estimate of 5 billion barrels, being produced at 1 million barrels per 
day, that oil supply would last for over 14 years. At the medium 
estimate of 10 billion barrels it would last for 27 years.

  As I stand here, I remember the debate on the oil pipeline. I 
remember Alan Bible of Nevada sitting right there across the aisle from 
me. We were in the minority. Senator Bible then was in the majority. He 
said to me that he had not made up his mind about the pipeline. I don't 
think I have seen it since--I had never seen it before. But Senator 
Bible sat there for the whole time of the debate on the floor, and just 
before the end of that debate he came to me and said: I am going to 
vote with you because I know this is a national security issue.
  There is no question today, because of the security crisis we face 
and our dependence upon foreign oil, the oil from Alaska's north slope 
is a national security issue. We now import nearly 60 percent of our 
oil daily. We have over 700,000 barrels of oil a day coming from Iraq--
Iraq, Mr. President. There was not one barrel of oil coming from Iraq 
at the time we debated the concept of what we should do during the 
Persian Gulf war. Obviously, there has been a great change.
  It is estimated that we will import nearly 230 million barrels of 
crude oil from Iraq by the end of this year. Almost 40 million barrels 
of that will be unloaded in California. Why? It is replacing oil that 
used to be delivered to California through the Alaska oil pipeline.
  As I said, we delivered 2.1 billion barrels a day during the Persian 
Gulf war. Today, it is 1.2 billion barrels a day. At a rate of $20 per 
barrel, we send over $5 billion a year to Iraq to buy oil that we could 
produce in our own country.
  During peacetime operations, the Department of Defense uses about 
300,000 barrels of oil a day. Most of it is jet fuel. That has 
increased now by over 200,000 barrels a day, as it did during the gulf 
war. Defense fuel usage is increasing daily because of our activities 
in the global war against terrorism, particularly the events in 
Afghanistan.
  During the Alaska pipeline debate, Senator Paul Fannin of Arizona 
gave two reasons for why the pipeline was a national security issue. 
First, he said it would reduce our dependence on foreign countries. 
Obviously, that was a valid statement.
  Senator Fannin's second point was the construction of the pipeline 
would create tens of thousands of jobs. It did. Economic reports show 
that a small pipeline connecting the Alaska pipeline to transport oil 
out of the Coastal Plain will create several hundred thousand jobs 
nationwide.
  Just yesterday I was given a study completed by the American 
Petroleum Institute. It stated that oil transported from the Coastal 
Plain down the pipeline to the Valdez terminal would require the 
construction of an additional 19 tankers to transport that oil to the 
coastline of the United States, particularly the west coast.
  It will take 19, as I said, new tankers, with 2,000 direct 
construction jobs and 3,000 support jobs for each tanker. That is 5,000 
jobs per tanker resulting in over 90,000 new jobs just in the 
shipbuilding industry by opening the coastal plain of ANWR for 
exploration and production.
  During the debate on the Alaska pipeline issue in this body, I said, 
``We cannot afford to bury our heads in the snow and freeze, nor must 
we allow our economy and the jobs of thousands to be endangered while 
we stand idly by.'' That was true then, and it is even more true now.
  Drilling on the Arctic coast and going forward with production of oil 
in the United States will help stimulate this economy. I intend to 
raise this issue again and again as we talk about stimulus for the 
economy.
  I hope we will not hear the threat of filibuster against this measure 
to bring oil from the Arctic coast to the United States. It is a 
national security issue, and it must not be filibustered. No national 
security issue has ever been filibustered on the floor of the Senate. 
To do so now would be not only a violation of tradition, it would be a 
travesty of justice during a time of war.
  I intend to speak often on this issue in the days to come. We cannot 
end this session of Congress without a national security energy plan 
which includes Alaska's North Slope oil and gas potential, particularly 
the oil and gas from the coastal plain.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in morning business for 
up to 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________