[Congressional Record: February 8, 2007 (Senate)]
[Page S1732-S1733]




                   SAUDI ARABIA AND COUNTERTERRORISM

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, I wish to talk a bit this morning about the all-
important war against terrorism and particularly the sources of funding
that allow the terrorists to obtain the resources with which they
conduct this war.
  It is impossible to talk about funding terrorism without mentioning
Saudi Arabia. With its extraordinary oil wealth, the Saudis have a
tremendous economy which is home to many strains of extremist Islamist
thought. Over the years, the combination of wealth and extremism has
proved to be a volatile combination.
  A few years ago, a telethon in Saudi Arabia raised more than $100
million for the families of ``Palestinian martyrs,'' a group which
reportedly included suicide bombers. According to public news reports,
Saudi Arabia's ruler, King Fahd, ordered the fundraising drive as a way
to channel public anger in the kingdom against the United States and
Israel.
  Just because the Saudis are no longer holding telethons for
terrorists does not mean that they aren't providing substantial funding
for terrorism in other ways.
  A number of Government agencies have noted that Saudi Arabia is a
source of funding for hate-filled extremist ideologies, but Saudi-based
support for terrorism does not stop there. In fact, it may be a part, a
small part of what we face in this war against terrorism. According to
the State Department, Saudi donors and unregulated charities have been
a major source of funding and support, not just for groups that preach
radical ideologies but for actual terrorist organizations.
  I wish to cite now some specific examples. An examination of the
public record reveals clear connections with some of the world's most
infamous organizations, such as al-Qaida. The staff of the 9/11
Commission, for example, noted that the intelligence community
identified Saudi Arabia as the ``primary source of money for al-Qaida
both before and after the September 11th attacks.'' They went on to say
``fundraisers and facilitators throughout Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
raised money for al-Qaida from witting and unwitting donors and
divert[ed] funds from Islamic charities and mosques.''
  The Iraq Study Group, to look at another effort to examine these
issues, stated that ``Funding for the Sunni insurgency in Iraq comes
from private donors in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states,'' and Iraqi
officials have reportedly asked the Saudi Government to do more to
limit the support that these donors provide to Iraqi insurgents.
  The State Department has reported that private Saudi donors are a
primary source of funding for Hamas.
  Early last year, Ambassador Crumpton, the State Department's
coordinator for counterterrorism, told a House subcommittee that the
Saudi Government, ``had made a bit of progress in reducing the flow of
funds from Saudi Arabia to Hamas and other Palestinian rejection
groups, but conceded that the money funding these terrorists is still
going on.''
  Other governments have gone even further in their statements with
respect to the funding of terrorism. In the fall of 2005, Israeli
officials announced they arrested an individual, who they claimed was
acting as a courier between Hamas members in the Palestinian
territories and Hamas members in Saudi Arabia. No other governments
have confirmed this, but if it is correct, it certainly raises a host
of troubling questions. Clearly, one can see that the threat posed by
these donors goes beyond the spread of religious intolerance and
extremely dogmatic forms of Islam. Rather, money is flowing from Saudi
Arabia to support insurgent groups in Iraq; money is flowing from Saudi
Arabia to Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas; money is flowing
from Saudi Arabia to al-Qaida.
  Under Secretary of the Treasury Stewart Levey summed up this
situation pretty clearly. He said:

       Is money leaving Saudi Arabia to fund terrorism abroad?
     Yes. Undoubtedly some of that money is going to Iraq, it's
     going to Southeast Asia, and it's going to other places where
     there are terrorists. There is money leaving Saudi Arabia.

  I think it is also appropriate to put this in the context of what it
means to folks this Pennsylvania and Oregon and everywhere else, and in
effect what happens when you pull up at a gas station in Pennsylvania
and Oregon is you are paying a terror tax. A portion of what you pay
for gasoline in Pennsylvania or Oregon or elsewhere, in effect, finds
its way eventually to the Government of Saudi Arabia, and then we see
that the Saudis end up back-dooring it to various kinds of terrorist
organizations.
  The Government Accountability Office describes this problem very
succinctly, stating it this way:

       Saudi Arabia's multibillion-dollar petroleum industry,
     although largely owned by the government, has fostered the
     creation of large private fortunes, enabling many wealthy
     Saudis to sponsor charities and educational foundations whose
     operations extend to many countries. Government and other
     expert reports have linked some Saudi donations to the global
     propagation of religious intolerance, hatred of Western
     values, and support to terrorist activities. So that is what
     we are talking about when we talk about this terror tax
     which literally is paid every time an American pulls up in
     Pennsylvania, Oregon, or anywhere else and fills their
     tank with gasoline.

  The former Director of Central Intelligence, James Woolsey, summed it
up pretty well just recently. He said:

       We live in a world where Saudi Arabia earns about $160
     billion from exporting oil and a big share of that, several
     billion dollars, goes to the Wahabbi sect for their worldwide
     work, which is to set up madrassas in Pakistan and other
     places. And the ideology that is taught in those madrassas is
     for all practical purposes the same as al-Qaida's.

  As the GAO report notes, this problem appears to go beyond the
funding of an ``al-Qaida ideology''--it appears to be funding terrorist
activities.
  So let me now turn for a few minutes to the question of the Saudi
Government's role in all of this. When you look at all the evidence, it
is pretty clear there is a serious problem, and the question is, What
has the Saudi Arabian Government been doing about all of this? Are they
part of the problem? Are they doing anything to address it?
  Let me review the history. First, there appears to be no question
that in the first couple of years after the 9/11 attacks, Saudi Arabia
was directly involved in supporting terrorism. The telethon that raised
money for families of suicide bombers was sponsored by the Saudi King.
In many ways, the Saudis' position changed when terrorism hit home in
the aftermath of the horrible terrorist bombings that

[[Page S1733]]

hit Riyadh in mid-2003. Since then, there seems to be broad agreement
throughout the U.S. Government that the Saudi Government's
counterterrorism efforts have improved.
  It is not at all clear that the Saudi Government is going far enough
to help in this fight against terrorism. Following the Riyadh bombings,
the Saudi Government instituted a number of new antiterrorism laws and
policies, but all the evidence indicates they have fallen short with
respect to implementation of those laws. Here is an example: The Saudi
Government announced that all charitable donations distributed
internationally must flow through a new national commission that
purportedly would ensure the money did not end up in the hands of
terrorists. It has now been nearly 3 years since this announcement was
made, and the commission is still not yet up and running. Even worse,
our Treasury officials reported last year that the Saudi Government's
brandnew, highly touted finance intelligence unit was not ``fully
functioning.'' Similarly, while the Saudi Government has worked with
the United States to designate particular charities as terrorist
financiers, it is not always possible for our Treasury officials to
independently verify that particular problem charities--the ones we are
most concerned about--have actually been shut down.
  Certainly, there have been some individuals in the Saudi Government
who have attempted to address the terrorism question. At least since
2003, Saudi leaders have made a number of public statements indicating
they wish to address the problem. But these examples make clear that
the reality of what is needed to win this war against terrorism still
is not in line with some of the rhetoric.
  With respect to implementing and enforcing antiterrorism policies,
the actions of the Saudi Arabian Government are questionable at best.
There are two problems. The first is, as I have indicated, not all of
the proposed new laws and policies have been implemented, and the
second is that we have to get the Saudis to make a more aggressive
commitment to enforcement. So you have to get them implemented, and
then you have to get them enforced.
  John Negroponte, of course, the Director of National Intelligence,
has been following this. At one of our open meetings of the
Intelligence Committee, I asked him his assessment of the situation.
Director Negroponte indicated that, in his view, the situation had
improved a bit since 2003, but he made it clear, stating specifically
that more work needs to be done, especially in the area of private
Saudi donors, and that more is needed to crack down on their
activities.
  This sentiment was echoed by the Congressional Research Service,
which reported that no high-profile donors--none--had been subject to
criminal punishment by the Saudi Government. The State Department has
said publicly:

       Saudi Arabia should demonstrate its willingness to hold
     elites accountable.

  But, unfortunately, in Saudi Arabia, the elites hold all the cards,
and the Saudi Arabian Government, as indicated by the Congressional
Research Service, is not willing to go after those who are most
influential--the elites--in their country.
  Now, some have gone even further and suggested that the Saudi
Government might actually be involved in the propagation and financing
of terrorism. The evidence on this point is inconclusive, but this does
not rule out the possibility that lower level officials in the Saudi
Government may, in fact, be involved in funding or facilitating
terrorism. Given the high levels of corruption reported in Saudi
Arabia, this is certainly a possibility.
  Moreover, as the General Accounting Office points out, the
distinction between the Government's support and funding versus that
provided by entities and individuals, especially in the case of Saudi
charities' alleged activities, is not always clear. The Saudi Royal
Family is an excellent example. The Royal Family contains several
thousand family members who collect Government allowances of varying
amounts. If one of these royalties took a portion of their allowance
money and funneled it to al-Qaida or Hamas, Saudi officials might claim
that this did not even constitute Government support for terrorism.
Certainly, I and others would say that the Government still bears
significant responsibility.
  I would also argue that just because Saudi leaders are not personally
involved in financing terrorism, this should not absolve them from
accountability. Most of my constituents would contend that if terrorist
activities are being planned or financed inside Saudi Arabia, then the
Saudi Arabian Government has a responsibility to get off the dime and
stop it. As we say in our State, you are either part of the problem or
you are part of the solution.
  The Congress has a responsibility now to investigate this issue, and
there are a number of key questions that ought to be answered.
  First, how much money is flowing from Saudi Arabia to terrorist
groups? Which groups are the major beneficiaries and to what extent is
official corruption a major factor?
  Second, there needs to be an examination of how far the Saudi Arabian
Government has gone in implementing its new antiterrorist laws.
Implementation and enforcement have clearly fallen short, but where can
we see concrete examples of actual followup? What major gaps still
remain?

  Finally, there needs to be an examination of the internal situation
in Saudi Arabia. Currently, the Saudi Government is run by a small
group of men in their seventies and eighties. What is likely to happen
when they are gone? How secure is the regime now? What sort of
government would be likely to emerge if the Royal Family lost their
power?
  It would be premature to try to offer answers to these and the other
key questions. What is clear is that our Government will need to put
more pressure on Saudi leaders than the current administration has
applied thus far.
  It also seems very likely the answers will have a dramatic effect for
U.S. energy policy which currently perpetuates our dependence on
foreign oil. My guess is that people in Pennsylvania, like Oregonians,
think that just about the most red, white, and blue thing we can do for
our country is to get a new energy policy. Certainly, as we go forward
to look into the activities of the Saudis, a bipartisan effort to get a
new energy policy is a key factor in ensuring our ability to protect
our citizens at a dangerous time.
  In the coming weeks and months, I plan to examine this issue as a
member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I have asked our chairman,
our very able chairman, Senator Rockefeller, to hold a closed hearing
specifically dedicated to this topic, and one has been scheduled for
this afternoon. It is time to bring to light the way in which Saudi oil
money is fueling the fires of terrorism so people can actually see who
is getting burned and what is necessary to protect the security and the
well-being of Americans in a perilous world.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note 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. NELSON of Florida. 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.

                          ____________________