Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, as the Senator knows, our State has over 150 small airports, and people go distances of 100 or 200 miles and return, or maybe stop in several places along the line. If these planes do not interline with intrastate air carriers and are strictly local carriers, are they affected by this act?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I would like to address a couple of questions to the Senator from South Carolina, if he will yield to me for that purpose. I would like to ask the Senator from South Carolina: I note on page 52 that there is a provision regarding screening of small aircraft. It says that within 1 year after date of enactment of this act, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the House on screening requirements of passengers boarding and baggage carried aboard aircraft with 60 seats or fewer used in scheduled passenger service, and recommendations for any changes to meet these requirements. As the Senator from South Carolina knows, my State uses an extensive number of small planes. Many of them have nine seats or fewer. Can the Senator from South Carolina tell me what provision of this bill affects general aviation that is totally intrastate and that seats 19 or fewer? In the interim of 1 year, what applies to the small planes that board passengers only for small distances within a State?

Mr. STEVENS. Are the hubs covered named in the bill?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I cannot find any exception here for those flying between villages and not a hub. They are going to have to pay.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask my friend: They are required to buy a ticket to get on those commuters, and they pay the $2.50.

Mr. STEVENS. They are named in the Federal Register.

Mr. STEVENS. The current designation is not changed by this bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, action is required now to protect our national security. The advice of these veterans groups representing the voices of all men and women who have fought for our freedom should be followed. Their advice to increase our economic security by opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR needs to be adhered to. The advice of organized labor, which wants to see us create hundreds of thousands of jobs by opening this Coastal Plain of ANWR, is also compelling. Israel needs even greater assurance that we can fulfil our obligations to meet her energy needs. In short, responding to these requests and to the President of the United States to promote our national security by passing the comprehensive energy bill, H.R. 4, containing authorization to proceed to use 2,000 of the 1.5 million acres of ANWR, should be our No. 1 goal before we leave for the holiday. Passing a comprehensive energy bill that contains environmentally sound provisions by producing the largest single potential oilfield on the North American Continent is a goal of most Americans. If we act now, our men and women serving overseas will know that we stand behind them. Passing this bill before we go home for the holiday will tell families from New England to Minnesota that the fuel oil they burn in the future, after our Arctic Plain begins to produce, is American oil, not oil from Saddam Hussein, from Iraq, or from any of these unstable sources. In short, I believe we must act before we go home for this holiday so we will know we have acted to protect the security of our Nation, our total national security. A filibuster against a national security issue involving energy has never taken place in this Chamber. It did not take place when the oil pipeline was built, and there was severe, even worse, opposition at that time than there is now. That pipeline passed by one vote, the vote of the Vice President of the United States. The opponents at that time knew they could filibuster, but they did not because it was a matter of national security. I call upon the Senate to recognize the tradition of this body and not filibuster a national security issue as we raise H.R. 4 next week. I ask unanimous consent that an article by the eminent Charles Krauthammer from today's Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have applauded the actions of my colleague, Senator Murkowski, as our senior Republican on the Energy Committee. Because of my involvement in other matters, particularly appropriations, it has not been possible for me to be here to join him as much as I would like to do so. I consider the opening of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge area for environmentally sound oil and gas development to be the issue of highest national security we will vote on this year. The President of the United States shares that view. I believe many in this body do. Last week President Bush said: It is in ``our national interest to get [an energy bill] to [his] desk.'' I am paraphrasing that. I believe the vast majority of Americans share the President's view. Just last night while speaking in Atlanta, President Bush called upon Congress to send an energy bill to his desk again ``to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.'' When the President said that, there was such a unanimous outpouring of support from the people in the audience. It was probably the loudest reaction to his whole speech. I believe that is correct. It is a national concept and there is national support for that goal. Today we still do not have a commitment to bring up and complete action on this energy bill. This morning I rise to again highlight some of the implications of failure to act now. The stability of some of the nations principally responsible for supplying oil to the United States can no longer be taken for granted. In 1979, when the instability of the Middle East was of paramount concern, we took action to protect Israel. As our major ally in the Middle East, we should proceed with energy legislation not only to protect our own interests but to ensure that we can continue to support Israel as we have agreed to do. In 1979, our Government entered into a bilateral agreement with Israel to ensure that Israel would have access to the oil it needs to meet its daily requirements. Everyone in the Senate should be familiar with that agreement. We understood then that some Middle Eastern countries had the power to hold Israel hostage by denying access to oil. Let me read from a relevant portion of the agreement we signed with Israel to protect its supply of oil: If the oil Israel needs to meet all its normal requirements for domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase . . . the United States Government will promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel to meet all of the aforementioned normal requirements of Israel. Our Government renewed that agreement in 1994 to ensure that Israel is protected through 2004. When we finally take up the comprehensive energy bill, we should include an amendment to extend that agreement with our Middle Eastern ally, Israel. The point is, Israel produces less than 500 barrels of oil per day. It consumes nearly 300,000 barrels of oil a day. Regardless of what happens in the Middle East, Israel needs guaranteed access to oil just to maintain its economy. And regardless of what happens in the Middle East, we have to be able to produce and provide to Israel at those 300,000 barrels of oil per day in accordance with that agreement. My understanding is that Alaska's oil is the oil that would fulfill that agreement because it is the same quality of oil that Israel's refineries run and could be run in those refineries without change. Given our current dependence on foreign oil, and 57 percent of our oil is imported, Middle Eastern supplies of oil are unstable as far as we are concerned. We have to have a way to fulfill the commitment we have made to Israel, our primary ally in that part of the world. Our own vulnerability to protect unstable oil supplies is a national security issue for us. Think what it is for Israel. I am deeply disturbed about our continued reliance upon Saddam Hussein's oil. We are using more than 700,000 barrels of oil per day in this country imported from Iraq. From press reports, we know that one of Osama bin Laden's goals is to overthrow the House of Saud and to gain access to the vast oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. How secure would those supplies be if that unfortunate event should take place? Today Saudi Arabia is the largest single supplier of oil to the United States. We import over 1.8 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. At the height of the Persian Gulf War, 2.1 million barrels a day were sent through the Alaska oil pipeline. In the time of need, then we had oil to produce. Today, we send just over 1 million barrels a day through that pipeline because we don't have the production necessary to fill the pipeline. Today, our pipeline is half full as the production at Prudhoe Bay declines. As it declines, we send more American money to Saddam Hussein to buy his oil. We must consider the implications of our Government having just recalled our Ambassador to Venezuela as we consider the stability of our oil supplies. For those who missed it, let me quote from a November 6 story in the Wall Street Journal discussing Venezuela: Relations have deteriorated steadily since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. President Chavez and his ministers have made what U.S. officials have described as ``contradictory'' and ambiguous statements. In the most recent incident, Mr. Chavez last week criticized U.S. bombing raids in Afghanistan during a televised speech. . . . Venezuela is especially important because it is one of the top three suppliers of oil to the United States market. . . Madam President, this is the same President Chavez who was the first head of state to break the multilateral sanctions on Iraq by visiting Saddam Hussein after the gulf war. No wonder President Bush has recalled our Ambassador for consultations. Keep in mind that nearly 1.6 million barrels of oil per day come to the United States from Venezuela, and they are subject to the control of President Chavez. When we talk of potentially unstable sources of crude oil, we cannot ignore Iraq. My colleague, Senator Murkowski, has continued to remind the Senate that the United States now imports 700,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Saddam Hussein. As I said last week, by the end of the year, we will have imported 230 million barrels of oil from Iraq. Over 40 million barrels of that oil went to California to replace oil that California used to get from Alaska. At $20 per barrel, Americans will send over $5 billion to Saddam Hussein's terrorism machine by this Christmas--$5 billion, and hundreds of thousands of jobs that we don't have now because we don't have permission to increase production to continue filling the Alaska pipeline daily. This year, we have thousands of American troops stationed in the Middle East and around Afghanistan. They risk their lives to protect our interests and our security. I believe we must do something about our growing dependence on these potentially unreliable supplies of oil. We must begin to explore for oil in our own country, and we know where the largest potential supply of oil is. It is in the Coastal Plain of Alaska. We just need the opportunity to go get it. The Energy Information Agency released a new report last week detailing all of the proven reserves in the United States. That report says in the entire State of Texas there are now 5.27 billion barrels of proven reserves. Texans don't like me to remind them, but that State is less than half the size of Alaska. The House-passed energy bill, H.R. 4, contains authorization for oil production in the Coastal Plain of ANWR. That Coastal Plain, as designated by the Jackson amendment in the 1980 act, is 1.5 million acres, and it is estimated to contain a minimum of 5.7 billion barrels of oil, with a very good possibility, I am told, of recovering up to 16 billion barrels of oil--enough to fill the Alaska pipeline for another three decades and beyond. Madam President, people forget when I stood here on the floor and urged approval of the Alaska oil pipeline, the estimate for production from Prudhoe Bay was 1 billion barrels. This year, we have produced the thirteen-billionth barrel of oil from Prudhoe Bay. These estimates are always on the very conservative side. The House energy bill limits oil production to just 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million-acre area. Remember, the million and a half acres was set aside for oil and gas exploration. Now, if the oil in ANWR could replace our imports from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela--and that is possible--it could produce enough oil to replace at least one of our three largest suppliers. Can anyone really doubt that this is an issue involving our national security? Madam President, as we approach Veterans Day, I am proud to stand here as a World War II veteran and applaud the veterans groups of our country. They understand the vulnerabilities of our country. They understand the importance of reducing our reliance on the Middle East and increasing our domestic production. I want to quote from two recent letters. This is an October 26 letter from the National Commander of AMVETS: Our current reliance on foreign oil leaves the United States vulnerable to the whim of individual oil-exporting countries, many existing in the unpredictable and highly dangerous Persian Gulf. . . .Passage of H.R. 4 would greatly assist in our ability to secure a more dependable and diversified domestic supply of energy. And I would note that since the Persian Gulf war our security has become more threatened with our dependence on foreign sources of oil growing from 35 percent of domestic supply to nearly 60 percent. AMVETS firmly believes we cannot wait for the next crisis before we act. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. STEVENS. In an October 25 letter, the National Commander of the American Legion said: War and international terrorism have again brought into sharp focus the heavy reliance of the U.S. on imported oil. During times of crisis, such reliance threatens our national security and economic well-being. It is important that we develop domestic sources of oil, contained within our public lands--such as the supplies within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I ask unanimous consent that letter and additional letters be printed in the Record after these remarks.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the conference report includes funding for water projects in the Ketchikan Borough. While the project will be located in the borough, technically the funds would be administered by the city of Ketchikan. Does the distinguished ranking member share my view that EPA should issue the grant to the city of Ketchikan which has agreed to administer the funds?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Right.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this bill, in my judgment, is as important in this period of time with the war on terrorism as the Defense Department bill. It is a bill that must be finished as rapidly as possible. It contains money to assist all of the agencies dealing with the problems of chemical and biological warfare, as well as all of the items Senator Byrd has mentioned. I am told we are very near an agreement. That may mean we can finish this bill tonight. I encourage all parties to join in that effort because this bill is going to take a long time in conference. If I count correctly, we have but 8 days in which we can conference this bill within the timeframe of the next continuing resolution. We have a holiday on the 12th. I think it is imperative we get this bill to the President as rapidly as possible. I also want to state to the Senate that I have agreed to join Senator Byrd on any effort to table an amendment that would violate the agreement we have with the House and with the President with regard to the limitation on expenditures and the allocations within that limitation of $686 billion. It is an agreement we made, and we hope the Senate will enable us to keep that agreement. Madam President, I do not know where the people are who are going to enter into this agreement or take the steps that will be necessary to ensure we finish this bill today, but I very much hope the Senate will agree and follow the suggestion of the chairman of the committee and get the bill done as rapidly as possible.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I understand the negotiations are underway to try to pursue the concept that we previously discussed. That would be a means of trying to report the bill from committee with an amendment. That has not been agreed to yet, but I hope it will be soon. I personally will support that concept. It would be a matter of putting one amendment on the bill as it comes out of committee; and that amendment would be in conference. It is not an amendment that is in the House bill. So I would hope we would have an opportunity to take that path.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a question for the manager of the Energy and Water appropriations bill. We will soon need to reprogram funds within the Corps of Engineers to bring the Hopper Dredge ESSAYONS to Cook Inlet to remove sediments from the recently completed channel. We performed a similar reprogramming 2 years ago because we did not know how the sedimentation pattern would develop in the area. The channel was completed during the summer of 2000. At that time the corps estimated maintenance dredging would have to be performed every 5 to 6 years. Recent surveys show that Knik Arm and the North Point Shoals have shifted and a large deposit has settled into the southern approach to the Cook Inlet Navigation Channel. However, the corps believes that vast majority of the material is located``outside the project limits.'' It starts just inside the western limit then continues for approximately 1000 meters beyond the limit. The authorized limit for the channel is 310 meters wide at a depth of minus 11 meters for approximately 2000 meters. The shippers in our area have expressed concern about the condition of the navigation channel. I am told the corps will require a post authorization change evaluation report before they can proceed to address this problem. My question to the Senator is, when Congress first authorized this project, was the area I just described supposed to be within the scope of the original project, thus allowing the corps to proceed with the required dredging and maintenance?

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the senator.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a short colloquy with the distinguished manager of the Energy and Water conference report. My question is raised to assure that the managers have provided adequate funding and authority for the Department of Energy to provide grants for research on tidal power as an alternative energy source. As the managers know, this country needs viable alternative power sources. One of these could be tidal power. In Alaska, nearly 65 percent of our population resides on the shores of Cook Inlet which also has the second highest tides in the world. These tides rise as high as 46 feet, second only to the Bay of Fundy off of Nova Scotia. I have been contacted by Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, the municipally owned electric utility of the Municipality of Anchorage. The utility believe that it can effectively harness the power of the tides at Cook Inlet to supply clean, renewable power to its customers. However, it needs a grant for research to adapt current technology in use in other parts of the world to Cook Inlet. That grant would probably require between $200,000 and $300,000. Let me ask the managers if they agree that there is both sufficient funding and authority under the existing statutes to permit such a renewable research grant to be funded under the Renewable Energy accounts in this bill. I also want to clarify that this grant can be awarded to an applicant such as Anchorage Municipal Light & Power even though past DOE grants have been unsuccessful and DOE has been concentrating more recently on other renewable concepts. Do the managers agree with me on this?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. If I may add to the remarks of my colleague from Hawaii, the Alaska Native organizations in my State have been disproportionately affected by the unilateral actions recently taken by HHS in releasing NEW and TANF funds outside the established Public Law 102-477 process. Alaska Native groups have made important strides in improving and streamlining their employment and related services through the Public Law 102-477 demonstration. These organizations face the suspension of services to thousands of Alaska Native people because of the actions taken by HHS, placing NEW and TANF money outside the standard 477 process. To avoid any further damage to the services to Native people, particularly those most vulnerable who are in the public assistance system, HHS must immediately comply with the requirements in Public Law 102-477 and inform the tribes that these requirements, including the single reporting requirement, will be honored by the Department.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. STEVENS. Is it still the understanding that there would be an amendment first on the majority side and then back and forth?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS

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 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.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from New Mexico if this has been scored by the Office of Management and Budget?

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.