[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 1, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6260-S6261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am quite troubled by what we 
have seen happen over the course of the weekend with the storming of 
the residential complex in or near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, the eastern 
portion of Saudi Arabia, the oil-producing portion of Saudi Arabia. The 
storming of this residential complex and the taking of hostages at a 
residential complex that held people from many nations portends of what 
is to come. That is very troubling to the United States and the world 
community.
  In today's paper, I see headlines such as ``Saudis storm complex to 
free hostages.'' It says, ``Saudi leaders say the recent attacks won't 
affect the oil supplies.'' Then in another piece in the same newspaper, 
it says, ``Latest terror attack increases the doubts about the ability 
of Saudi Arabia to pump more oil.''
  Is it not interesting that we as a world community, and especially as 
the United States, have to be concerned about the pumping of that Saudi 
oil in order to feed the voracious appetite we have for energy. Is it 
not interesting the United States had some painful lessons we learned 
in the early '70s, and again in the late '70s, when the oil cartel 
locked down limited production and almost brought the industrialized 
world to its knees, and we became so much more dependent, realizing we 
needed that foreign oil to feed our appetite; that as a Nation, we said 
we are not going through this anymore; we are going to head on a path 
for energy independence. Then we lulled ourselves back into the 
seductive price of cheap oil and continued allowing our voracious 
appetite to go unabated, with the result that even though we have tried 
all kinds of alternative measures, the fact is we are importing more 
than half of our daily oil consumption, and that figure is moving 
upward to 60 percent of our daily oil consumption.
  Right off the bat, that tells you that is not a good position to be 
in when it comes to the defensive interests of this country. Think how 
much of a freer hand we would have, as we conceive and develop our 
defense plans for this country, if we and the free industrialized world 
didn't have to depend on that oil coming out of that gulf region. But 
we are dependent. So when we see an attack by al-Qaida directly on 
those oil interests, we better start examining further the need for us 
to set energy independence as a major policy of the U.S. Government.
  We know that the United States is, in fact, al-Qaida's target, but 
there should be no doubt now that Saudi Arabia is also the target of 
al-Qaida. It is a target where al-Qaida has a better chance of success 
because it has the desired goal of overthrowing the Royal Family of 
Saudi Arabia.
  Saudi society presented them with many opportunities: weak 
institutions, an alienated population, and nearby terrorist operating 
bases. Al-Qaida's strategy is becoming increasingly clear. What they 
are doing is stoking the dissatisfaction of Saudi citizens with their 
government and the Royal Family by demonstrating the Royal Family's 
weakness by conducting their al-Qaida attacks in Saudi Arabia.
  The attacks this past weekend indicate where they are now headed: to 
cut off Saudi Arabia's lifeline by destroying their oil facilities and 
diminishing their oil-producing capability. It is a strategy that has 
some chance of success. If the attack that happened this past weekend 
had interrupted the flow of Saudi oil, then the Saudi Royal Family 
would, indeed, have some cause for concern that they could stay in 
power because overnight they would lose the one tool they have to keep 
some of the popular discontent in their country under wraps, and that 
is oil money.
  The Saudi rulers have not helped matters over the years by ignoring 
the obvious, which is the threat to their own self-interest posed by 
Islamic extremists. Why? Because the Saudi Royal Family has played 
footsy for far too long with the radicals, thinking they could buy them 
off and paying money to the extremist religious schools, called 
madrasas, hoping that Saudi money, spread around the Muslim world where 
the most extreme ideology and hatred is taught, was going to buy them 
peace. But I think the Saudi Royal Family is beginning to wake up.
  The United States has tried to be Saudi Arabia's defender. We had 
thousands of troops based over there in the 1990s. Clearly, when Saddam 
Hussein in the early nineties moved on Kuwait and it was very clear 
that he was intent on moving into Saudi Arabia, the United States 
responded. But Saudi Arabia did not like us having troops on their 
land. We did not particularly want to be there because we were the 
constant source of attack, such as the Khobar Towers bombing which took 
19 American lives.
  The United States could not build a defensive wall around Saudi 
Arabia to protect them--now especially that is so--even if we wanted 
to, which we don't, but that is especially so because many of the 
threats now come right from within Saudi Arabia itself. So all we can 
do is impress upon Saudi Arabia the need for reform in their society as 
quickly as they can to isolate the extremists, to institute democratic 
institutions, and to diversify their economy. But those prospects are 
not good because if the Saudi Royal Family were to fall and if it is 
succeeded by an Islamic radical regime, then I fear for the rest of the 
Middle East and the gulf region that we would see a risk of those 
regimes falling like dominos. With a radical Saudi successor regime in 
control of all that oil, one can imagine the damage it could do by 
holding the West hostage economically.
  That is what we are facing. Sometimes we get lost in seeing the 
entire forest for the particular trees, but I think we need to pull 
back and see that this threat of radical terrorists is now being 
directed not only at us in the homeland, but it is being directed at a 
source of energy upon which the western industrialized world has become 
dependent. If the attacks we have seen just a few days ago do not 
convince us to curtail our addiction to oil, then I do not know what 
will.

  Why don't we do some reasonable things? I remember the junior Senator 
from Massachusetts offering an amendment to do something real simple, 
such as lower the miles per gallon for SUVs,

[[Page S6261]]

and we got beat and beat badly. That is an easy one to do, not even to 
speak of shifting to alternative sources of energy, not even to speak 
of additional conservation efforts, not even to speak of production 
efforts where it is not going to harm the fragile environment where, 
indeed, there are the reserves, not even to speak of using our 
technology in a crash course such as we did when we went to the Moon in 
the Apollo project. We set a goal and we said we were going to achieve 
it. We marshaled the resources, we marshaled the will, we got the 
support of the American people, and within 9 years we were able to go 
to the Moon and return safely. And so, too, we need an Apollo-type 
project for energy independence to wean ourselves from that dependence 
on foreign oil.
  We need to invest massive manpower and effort into developing 
alternative energy sources so that the possible collapse of unstable 
oil regimes in the Middle East will not hold us hostage. Lord knows, 
let's hope that does not happen, but we need to wake up and see the 
insatiable appetite we have for that foreign oil.
  I believe energy independence is one of the top priorities for 
protecting U.S. national security. There are a lot of Senators who 
support that goal and yet we allow ourselves to be beat time and time 
again by certain special interests and lobbies that have their own 
interests at the forefront instead of the national interest.
  The events of this past weekend make the need for energy independence 
a national priority. These events make it clearer than ever.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________