Press Conference with Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Thomas Daschle

HEADLINE: PRESS CONFERENCE WITH SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY), SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY (D-MA), AND SENATOR THOMAS DASCHLE (D-SD)
 
RE: MIGUEL ESTRADA JUDICIAL NOMINATION, AND CALL FOR THE RELEASE OF SAUDI PETROLEUM RESERVES TO BRING DOWN GAS PRICES
 
LOCATION: SENATE RADIO/TV GALLERY, THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. SCHUMER: Okay, good morning, everybody. And before I begin, I just want to say that not only has Ted Kennedy been a great leader on this, but also Patrick Leahy, who couldn't be here with us, and Tom Daschle. Our caucus has held together on this issue. I think it's gotten stronger on this issue, the issue of judicial nominees, as we have moved on into it. And I think without the leadership of people like Senator Daschle, Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, we wouldn't have gotten there.

Now, let me just say that this is a sad day for Miguel Estrada and the judicial confirmation process. Had Mr. Estrada answered questions and had the administration provided documents, we would have had a real debate about whether Mr. Estrada is qualified for a lifetime appointment to the second-most powerful court in the nation. Unfortunately, the White House thumbed its nose at the constitutionally-prescribed role of the Senate in the nominations process when it admonished Miguel Estrada not to answer the fair, reasonable and relevant questions we put to him.

This issue transcends any one person and goes to the core of the Constitution itself. For the advise and consent process to work, nominees have to be forthright and answer questions when they come before the Senate. To confirm Mr. Estrada when the White House treated the constitutional process with such arrogance would have permanently changed the advise and consent process. Had we let Mr. Estrada go through without answering any questions, we would have virtually given this president and every future president a carte blanche in choosing judges. The founding fathers did not want the Senate to be a rubber stamp. And what we did confirms what the founding fathers wanted.

Miguel Estrada is an unfortunate victim of a White House policy of not cooperating with the Senate and stonewalling in the appointment of judges. As long as the administration continues to do this, we will continue to block the judges they nominate that are far beyond the mainstream or those judges that refuse to answer questions.

Our constitutional duty demands no less.

No American expects to be hired for a job after refusing to answer questions at his interview. That's true for any job, but it's particularly true when you're applying for a lifetime position on the second most powerful court in the nation, a position in which Mr. Estrada would have had a huge say on a wide range of issues affecting every American's life.

And so, in conclusion, our plea to the administration is this:

Nothing would make us happier than if the White House consulted with us, came up with nominees who we might not agree with on every issue but at least who were somewhere within the mainstream. It's not too late. We hope they'll do it. But if we -- if they don't and continue to nominate judges way out of the mainstream, the Senate will remain firm in not rolling over and not confirming them.

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, today's announcement is a victory for the Constitution, for the nation's judicial system and for the American people. And I want to pay a particular tribute to Chuck Schumer, who was the -- chaired the hearings and led the whole Senate debate and discussion on this issue, and to also pay tribute to Pat Leahy and Tom Daschle, our Democratic leader, for their very strong support for the Constitution and for defending the American people in the way that they did over these last weeks.

This decision reflects a clear recognition by Mr. Estrada -- and hopefully this White House -- that under the Constitution, the Senate has shared power over judicial nominees. The White House cannot withhold information on nominees that the Senate needs to exercise its constitutional advice and consent responsibly. This should serve as a wake-up call to the White House that it cannot simply expect the Senate to rubber-stamp judicial nominees.

This withdrawal gives President Bush an opportunity to reconsider his approach to judicial nominations.

Instead of looking for candidates who are extreme ideologues, the president should work with the Senate and nominate individuals who have the highest qualifications, who can command bipartisan support, and who respect the progress this nation has made in protecting individual rights and freedoms.

This is especially important for the D.C. Circuit Court, one of our nation's most important courts. The D.C. Circuit Court has special responsibility in deciding questions of nationwide impact to the workers of this country, to the environment, on immigrants, on the victims of discrimination. Unfortunately, the White House recent nominees to the D.C. Circuit appear to continue a disturbing pattern of nominating judges who are extreme.

Hopefully, today the president will get the message that his current approach to nominations is not working. The American people deserve better from its leaders, particularly when it comes to appointing the individuals who will protect their rights and freedoms for generations to come.

Q Senator Kennedy, Tom DeLay put out a statement saying that Miguel Estrada is the victim of a "political hate crime." I just wonder if you'd respond to that?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, the record is extremely clear about what took place in the Judiciary Committee and also on the floor of the United States Senate over a series of days and weeks of debate on the qualifications of Miguel Estrada. And any fair reading of both the hearings themselves, the considerations in the Judiciary Committee, and the series of votes, and debates before those votes that we'd had, would show a very clear pattern on the behalf of Mr. Estrada that was actually -- and the administration and the White House, which is contemptuous of the whole judicial process.

Any fair reading of the debates on the Constitution would show that the Founding Fathers intended that this was to be a balanced consideration with the president making the nominations, and for the Senate of the United States to exercise an independent judgment as to the qualifications for nominations for the federal judiciary. For the Senate of the United States, in behalf of the American people, to make an informed and balanced judgment, it needed the information to determine the qualification of this nominee. It was really the arrogancy of the White House and the Justice Department, that refused to make that information available to the Senate Judiciary Committee, that resulted in the fact that the decision was ultimately made that Mr. Estrada couldn't gain the fair debate and a decision.

It's troubling to me that in the final hours, the judgment was made by -- the call was made (either ?) by the White House that rather than give Mr. Estrada the opportunity to go forward with a fair and reasoned debate in the United States Senate, that they decided that they would refuse to give the information to the coequal branch of the -- of government, and that's the Senate of the United States.

Finally, the Republicans control the House of Representatives, the Senate of the United States and the executive, but the judiciary is an independent body. And we are firmly committed not to be rubber stamps and let this president and this administration co-opt the judiciary and make it an extension of the administration. The Founding Fathers wanted an independent judiciary. The American people are entitled to it. And we're going to do everything that we have in our power to make sure that it retains its independence. And we welcome the opportunity to work with the administration, but this is a very clear indication that we have no intention of rolling over.

SEN. SCHUMER: I'll just make one other point. Whenever we choose to block a nominee, and we've chosen to block very few, instead of debating the issue on the merits, they seem to want to make cheap- shot arguments of one type or another. It's not going to intimidate us.

Q Senator Schumer or Kennedy, can you describe how close were the negotiations at various points to try to move this? I mean, there were rumblings that there were talks at the White House on access to documents. Was it ever close to being worked out?

SEN. SCHUMER: No, it was never very close, and that is because they would not give up the documents. Miguel Estrada said publicly that he'd be willing to let the documents go. This has all been done by those in charge of judicial selection in the White House and the Justice Department. And had they acceded to Miguel Estrada's wish and let those documents go, maybe the outcome could have been different.

SEN. KENNEDY: I think there's some evidence as well that even Republicans had indicated to the White House that they would welcome the opportunity to have that information released as well. So here you had the Republicans requesting it -- the information be released, you had Miguel Estrada requesting that the information be released, and the White House making its judgment that it would refuse to do it, which led the Senate to no other decision than to make sure that we were not going to have the vote until we got the information.

Q Senator, how successful do you think Republicans will be, looking forward to the next election, in using this as perhaps a wedge issue, concern with Hispanic voters -- (off mike)?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, I would say this. When I first urged, along with others -- when I first got up in our Democratic Caucus and urged people to take this tack, I said to my colleagues, "Don't do it for political reasons. Do it because that's why we're senators." We believed that we were upholding the Constitution and not allowing just one branch of government, the presidency, choose all the judges.

But I think what's happened is, people have looked at the issue of judicial nominees, and they've become more and more to the fore. It's sort of begun to roll in our direction, because they're seeing, first, that we have approved the overwhelming majority of the president's nominees, that it's only a few. I'd go to parades and they'd say, "Let go of the president's judges." And I'd say, "Well, I voted for 120 out of 129." And they go, "Oh. Okay."

And second, because it's clear that the American people are moderate, and the nominees -- this president has nominated more judges through an ideological prism than any president in history.

Q Isn't this sort of a draw --

SEN. KENNEDY: Let me just say that with regards to the reaction on the next election, I think, first of all, you have a policy in Iraq that's adrift, an economy that's sputtering; you have an (electric ?) system which is crashing, and you have a judicial nomination system which is failing. I think the administration's going to have a lot to account for besides this particular process.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you, everybody.

We just -- we are --

Q (Off mike) -- nominees, Pryor, Owen, Pickering -- (off mike) --

SEN. SCHUMER: I don't see any -- in the nominees that we've already blocked, I think it'll be the same as Miguel Estrada. They could bring them up for votes two more times, three more times, five more times; they won't succeed.

Q Is this a victory for Democrats, Senator Schumer?

SEN. SCHUMER: It's a victory for the Constitution and the country. This -- we do not want this to be a partisan issue. This deals with the proper role of the Senate, whichever party is in it.

SEN. DASCHLE: We're here to talk about gasoline -- (off mike).

SEN. SCHUMER: Gasoline. Yeah. (Cross talk, soft laughter.)

SEN. KENNEDY: In South Dakota, too, huh?

SEN. DASCHLE: In South Dakota. That's right.

SEN. KENNEDY: Thank you. Good.

SEN. DASCHLE: Yeah. Sure.

I know that there are a number of issues that Senator Schumer and others are going to be discussing this morning, but for the next couple of minutes, I wanted to join with him to talk about an issue that is of great concern to the whole country. And I know from personal experience, having been driving around South Dakota for the last month, I can tell you gasoline prices are hitting the roof.

We have not seen gasoline prices like the ones we are seeing now in South Dakota, perhaps, in history. $1.75 is not uncommon. In some parts of the country, it's now reached $2.00 a gallon.

There are a lot of reasons expressed as to the motivation or the cause of this: ruptured pipelines, unexpected refiner shutdowns, the blackout. But I think Senator Schumer has put his finger on one of the key issues, one of the key reasons why these prices are as high as they are: the Saudis have reduced their exports to the United States substantially. And I know he and others -- other colleagues that will be discussing the specifics of that reduction in exports.

But our purpose in talking to you this morning is to say two things. This has got to end. We've got to find a way with which to convince the Saudis that for the sake of the relationship they have with this country, they need to resume the export level at that level that it was prior to the time they reduced their exports to this country.

And if they don't, we're calling on the administration to do two things: First of all, to put the pressure upon the Saudis to do all that they can to resume that level, but secondly, to use at least 15 million barrels of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so that we can do what has been done on other occasions when this situation has arisen, and that is bring back the supply to a point where we can count on the prices coming down.

So, I want to just compliment the distinguished senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, and my colleagues for putting the emphasis where it belongs. We need to send this message as clearly as we can. We will not accept this reduction in exports to the United States, and we want to do something about it. It has to be done now.

I thank you all.

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, thank you, Tom, and again, I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue and on so many others here. And I'm glad to be here with my colleagues to talk about the number one issue that is on people's minds right now. Here in Washington, we're talking about lots of legislation, and it's all important and people care about it. But when you go around your state, the number one question I got, from Long Island to Buffalo, from the North Country to Brooklyn, was, "What are you doing about these gas prices?"

The bottom line is simple. Gas prices went up more in the last month than they have in decades. For prices to go up 20 or 25 cents in one month is incredible. And we are paying through the nose. It's hurting average families, it's hurting the economy. It could prevent any forward motion in the economy that might occur, because most Americans who drive will pay about $400 more in gasoline, if the price stays where it is, over the next year.

And that's about the same as they got back with the check in August. So, it's not going to do any good to do a tax cut and let these prices stay high.

Now, why did they go up so high? Well, it's very simple. You know, there was talk that, oh, a pipeline was ruptured in Tucson, or there were a couple of refineries out in the Middle West and in California. None of that explains such a dramatic leap so quickly. That would have raised the price a nickel or so.

And so, when my constituents started asking me, I asked my staff, and they called the Department of Energy. And the department -- we pried out of the Department of Energy the figure that the Saudis, up until August, had -- producing 2 million barrels of oil a day, and now they were producing 1.5 million. They let it drop in August.

That's really strange for two reasons. First, because August is driving time, it's holiday time, it's summertime, and gasoline is 70 percent of our oil. Usually, they should be producing more, if they wanted to keep the price stable. But secondly, other OPEC countries, because of internal difficulties -- Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela -- were producing less. And what the Saudis have usually done in that situation, again, to keep oil at the intended range, is pump more. And now they've put back -- they cut it back.

That's the reason prices went up so dramatically. And they went up in Chicago, and they went up in California, and they went up in New York, and they went up in Michigan, and they went up in South Dakota. This was not a local problem caused by a couple of refineries having problems. And so, we are -- we think something should be done about it. And the letter that we are submitting to the president, signed by -- I believe it is now 33 Democrats, including Senator Daschle and Senator Reid -- asks the following.

First, that the president get Secretary Abraham to call up the Saudi oil minister and say pump more oil and pump it now. And, if they say no, to use the one ace in the hole we have, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and put out 15 million barrels this month, and 15 million barrels next month, and bring the price right back down. The law allows us to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

In fact, we amended it a couple of years ago to make that a hundred percent clear.

And it works. You may remember when gas prices were high in the year 2000, a number of us asked President Clinton to do it. And it took us a little while to convince him, but he did. The price dropped and stayed stable at the lower rate for a whole year. So this works. There's virtually no argument against it. None.

And so my view is that the coddling of the Saudis has got to stop. They hurt us when we fly because they're not really cooperating with the war on terror, and they hurt us when we drive because their actions are raising the price of gasoline. And this has got to change. And that's what we're urging be done today.

And I'd just like to comment, before I call on my colleagues, on just one other thing that was -- well, maybe I'll wait till my colleague speaks. But one other thing in the newspaper today, which is that on September 12th and 13th, hundreds of Saudis were able to take flights home back to Saudi Arabia when no one else could fly. I couldn't fly. Senator Boxer couldn't fly. Senator Durbin couldn't fly. But relatives of the royal family, including two members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to get on airplanes and go back to Saudi Arabia.

Now, Dick Clarke, at our Judiciary hearing yesterday, said that the FBI approved each person and said they would be okay to go. How the heck did the FBI know on September 13th that none of these people were either involved in terrorism or, at the very least, be needed for questioning? And we all know, once they're in Saudi Arabia we can never question them. And so I have sent a letter to Andrew Card, the chief of staff, asking how this happened, what was the justification, what safeguards were taken, and what are we doing to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Senator Boxer?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA): Thank you, Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin. I'm proud to be with my colleagues on this issue. This is one that I've been working on for far too long.

And I want to show you what's happening in California. This is a sample from across my state. San Francisco, $2.19 for the cheapest gas, $2.39; $2.14 to $2.34 at another San Francisco; Los Angeles, it goes from $2.09 to $2.19; and here we are at $2.27. There are places where it's even higher. this is kind of the average that we're looking at.

And so, I think what Senator Schumer is discussing today, and I'm so proud to be on this letter, is really key. We've got to do something about the supply of gasoline. And the fact is, since the Saudis are cutting back, we've got to make up the difference. That's the way it is.

And in my state, people are hurting; they're hurting badly. In March, I introduced a bill that called on the FTC to investigate as soon as gas prices went up 20 percent in a three-month period, and then to find out if there's manipulation. And if there's manipulation, they've got to get to the bottom of it; collusion, they've got to get to the bottom of it. And if there wasn't, then the bill calls for release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So, what Senator Schumer is doing today is exactly the right path to take.

What we found out in March, Senator Schumer, is that right here in our own country, somehow, refineries were being taken off line for extra maintenance. It just sounded exactly like what was happening during our electricity crisis, when all of the sudden, plants were being taken off line for no reason except extra maintenance.

So, I have a lot of suspicions about what's going on here, and I think that the fact that I believe there is manipulation of supply domestically, plus what Senator Schumer's investigation turned up, that there's a lower supply from Saudi Arabia, is leading us into this crisis. And we do have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve for just this type of a reason. And it is in our national security to allow our people to go to work, to not be pinched the way they are, or our economy is just going to keep taking hit after hit after hit.

So, I'm very, very glad to be here with you and my colleagues.

I'd make the last point. This is really a coast-to-coast and middle-of-the-country problem. Sometimes, we stand here and we've got a Western problem, we've got an East Coast problem, we've got a Midwest problem. Here we are together. So, this is a call to this administration to understand that this is about all your constituents, Mr. Bush. And President Bush, please act in the good of the whole country and release 15 million barrels. I think this makes a lot of sense.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): Thank you to Senator Boxer, Senator Stabenow; of course, to Senator Schumer for calling this press conference.

Today in Chicago, the regular gasoline costs are $1.83 a gallon. The price is 30 cents more than it was just a year ago, at $1.54 a gallon. The current price is also higher than the already-high price of a month ago of $1.62 a gallon. It is the largest recorded increase in gasoline prices since they started keeping records.

As Senator Schumer said, you can travel about your state, as I did in Illinois, people would like to talk about a lot of things, but the first thing they ask you is, what about these gasoline prices? In the Midwest, we know full-well what this is all about. We've stood and talked like this before. Usually, it's the oil companies that run up the prices right before the Easter holiday. They did that several years. And it wasn't until everyone screamed bloody murder -- families, businesses, elected officials -- that they brought them down. Oh, they usually had some reason for it but, frankly, the reason didn't justify the increase or the duration of the increase.

Now we have a new challenge. We have the oil companies increasing the cost of gasoline at a time when American consumers and families were facing a Labor Day weekend, and we also have clear evidence that the Saudi royal family is not treating its oil subjects in America very well. Once again, the Saudis have decided that they want to manipulate market prices in our country. And because we are enslaved to the Saudi oil we, frankly, are expected just to take it.

Well, the message to President Bush and others in the administration is we're fed up with this. If we're going to come out of this recession, if we're going to be sensitive to workers and families and rebuilding this economy, then we need to say to the Saudis: We're not going to take this. We're going to release our petroleum reserve in a fashion to bring down the price of gasoline. And let the Saudis know when they engage in market manipulation, that we're not going to take it lying down.

I don't know why we're in such thrall to the Saudi royal family. I don't know why this administration, and so many others on Capitol Hill, can't wait to do their bidding. It's about time we stood up for our own families in America, the ones that are struggling through this recession, the ones that have to pay these high gasoline prices, and the ones that find more and more of their disposable income going into their cars in the gasoline tanks.

This can come to an end, but it will take real leadership. I'm happy to be part of this letter and this effort to move the administration.

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): Well, thank you. And I'm also very pleased to be a part of this effort, and to thank Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer and all those who have signed this.

It seems that often on this issue, and many others, in Michigan, when everyone gets a cold, we get pneumonia. And that's what's happened again on gas prices. Once again, we are seeing prices that are on average 36.7 percent higher than last year, and creeping up to $1.90 a gallon. We see even more manipulation right before Labor Day. We're a wonderful tourism state. And we see every Thursday that those prices go up in the summer, come back down after the weekend. Labor Day, it was much, much higher. The reality is that, as my colleague have said, we can see manipulation going on. And, to add insult to injury, we now have the Saudis withholding supply and creating an even worse situation.

I think that Senator Schumer's approach is one that we need to move on quickly, and I would urge the president to do that. I have been a part of urging the former president to do that, who moved forward and did it in a way that immediately caused the Saudis to come forward with more supply. We would expect the same thing to happen here.

So there is a reason for a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It's for these kinds of situations, where we want to act on behalf of American consumers, and that's what we're asking the president to do.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thanks, Deb.

Questions?

Q Does this strengthen the case at all, though, for opening ANWR or other --

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, you know, we can debate how we can in the long term deal with high costs of gasoline and high costs of oil. But even if were to open ANWR tomorrow, you wouldn't get oil for eight to 10 years. This is an immediate short-term solution, and so I think the two are in different ballparks.

Yes, sir?

Q First of all, these IAEA figures are preliminary, I assume.

SEN. SCHUMER: Correct. They are.

Q And they'll be final in a couple of months, I believe.

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, you know, sometimes they're within a few weeks. But --

Q The IAEA reports that for the second quarter Saudi imports were at record levels, the highest ever in May, about 2 million barrels --

SEN. SCHUMER: Right.

Q -- and in June, I think -- (off mike) --

SEN. SCHUMER: Two million.

Q Do they get credit -- (chuckles) -- for doing --

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, you know, the reason that they were so high was not because they were bringing the price down, but because of all the problems in so many of the other OPEC nations, internal problems; that they were doing what they usually do, which is pump a little more oil to keep the price level. And they should continue to do that, as long as there are problems in Iraq and Venezuela and Nigeria. So bringing it down now is the wrong. It's not, oh, they're just going back to what they used to do when, you know, Venezuela was pumping considerably more oil, and Nigeria, et cetera.

Q Even allowing for those half million -- no -- yeah --

SEN. SCHUMER: For half a million.

Q -- (off mike) -- do you know if overall imports to the U.S. are significantly lower -- (off mike) --

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, we'll have to see the numbers in August, but obviously -- you know, the experts I have talked have all said the decrease in Saudi supply has increased the -- it's the only real explanation for such a dramatic jump, just defies explanation.

And one interesting thing:

The Energy Department didn't put out these numbers. I mean, the president, if he were showing leadership, would be out there talking about this himself. But we had to call the Energy Department and sort of pry it out of them.

Q Senator, on a broader question, since we're nearing the two-year anniversary of 9/11 --

SEN. SCHUMER: Yes.

Q -- how would you rate Saudi cooperation over these two years in the war on terrorism?

SEN. SCHUMER: I'd say that the Saudi cooperation has been at the very bottom of the list. And I am sort of on a general crusade to make the Saudis come clean. There'd be nothing better than that they be our real friends, which means they'd cooperate on energy issues, and they'd cooperate on terrorism issues. But wherever you look, they are not cooperating.

Yesterday, I asked a high-level person who had lots of high-level experience in the government, if we wanted to question the 140 Saudis who were put on the plane, could we? He said absolutely not. Because they don't cooperate in any way. We still have the Saudi propaganda, information, interior minister -- rather the Interior minister is saying all sorts of things about how bad it is to cooperate, and sort of saying that 9/11 wasn't a terrible thing. It's just everywhere you look, there's a Saudi root here.

And let me just say one other thing. More than just about anything else, in my judgment, that is the root cause of terrorism is the Saudi propagation of what's called Wahhabism. You know, my family and I visited Spain and we visited some of the old Spanish Moorish -- which is Muslim -- mosques and things like that. And, you know, just the way they explain the architecture, Muslim is a very contemplative and peaceful religion. In a sense, it has some more Eastern elements than maybe the Judeo-Christian tradition in which we live. And it's sort of been hijacked by a sect that believes that violence is good, that infidels are bad, and, as we just saw in Iraq, even moderate Muslim is bad and you can use violence to get rid of it.

The Saudis are still funding, they're still -- the Saudi royal family and Wahhabi are still tight as a drum. As we speak, the Saudis are funding these madrassas schools, which have effect not just in Saudi Arabia, but in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia.

And, you know, years ago the Saudis, I think, made a deal with the devil. Realizing that they were a monarchy, realizing, too, that a lot of the Saudi leadership likes the Western way, they made a deal with these extremists and they said, "You leave us alone in Saudi Arabia and we'll help you; we'll aid you and abet you and let you do whatever you want overseas."

And a lot of New Yorkers paid the price for that. I truly believe if the Saudis didn't have a Wahhabi center and they weren't funding the madrassas, and weren't doing everything they're doing, maybe, maybe, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't see all this terrorism.

So, they have been just awful. And the amazing thing is, while the Saudis play footsie with the terrorists, we put our arm around them and say what great people -- this administration puts its arm around them and says what great people they are and -- or great leaders they are.

That's got to stop.

Q Just one quick question. I'm just wondering what you think the motivation of the Saudis might be for cutting back --

SEN. SCHUMER: Good question. It could be economic in terms of just either raising the price so they get more income or dominance in OPEC, and it could be political. You know, there's been a lot of muscle one way now, telling the Saudis, "Come clean on terrorism," and they may be muscling us back, and saying, "Hey, we've got a weapon here. Don't mess with us."

Thank you, everybody.