[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 30 (Thursday, February 25, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1996-S2000]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAILED POLICY ON IRAQ
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the primary reason I came to the floor
this afternoon is to speak about the administration's failed policy on
Iraq. I say it is a failed policy. I wish that weren't the case, but it
is. It is a failed policy.
The administration, this administration, President Clinton, inherited
a situation where President Bush and the Secretary of State had won the
war with Iraq. We achieved our military objective, which was to get
Iraq out of Kuwait. We stated that was our objective. We accomplished
that objective. We came home. We implemented sanctions against Iraq for
its invasion of Kuwait in the summer of 1990. We had a total embargo on
Iraqi products, including oil. Oil was the No. 1 product, or commodity,
that Iraq exported. It provided 95 percent, I believe, of its foreign
currencies.
We put that embargo on because they invaded a neighbor. And, frankly,
they probably intended to invade other neighbors--maybe Saudi Arabia--
and really became the dominating power in the Persian Gulf. We didn't
think that was right. We sent 550,000 troops. We stopped them. We
kicked them out of Kuwait, and we imposed sanctions to make sure that
we would get rid of their weapons of mass destruction, because we knew
they were building chemical and biological weapons and possibly nuclear
weapons.
And so we set up an international regime called UNSCOM to inspect to
make sure they wouldn't be doing this again, that they wouldn't be
building these weapons of mass destruction to cause more problems for
their neighbors and surrounding countries in the foreseeable future.
The entire world community supported us, applauded us in that effort. I
think we had 30 countries that were involved in the coalition aligned
against Iraq in 1990, 1991, 1992. That is what President Clinton
inherited.
Well, what has happened since? Let me walk you through what has
happened since.
Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis and the Iraqi Government have really
baffled the Clinton administration and, in my opinion, they have beaten
the Clinton administration if you look at their objectives.
I will show you. The war was in 1991. They were producing over 2
million barrels of oil per day in 1990. After the embargo, they
averaged--in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, about 4- or 500,000-
barrels per day. We really curtailed their production. Basically, we
had the implied reward that said, if you will allow arms control
inspectors--if we know that you are not building weapons of mass
destruction, we will allow you to produce more oil, there won't be an
embargo, but we have to know that you are not building weapons to
export throughout the world.
What did this administration do? Well, we had a conflict. Actually it
happened in 1994 and 1995; Iraq amassed about 80,000 troops near the
Kuwaiti border. We started activating troops. We said, well, we
wouldn't let this stand; we will respond militarily, if necessary, and
then the problem went away. How did they go away? In April of 1995, the
United Nations approved Resolution 986, and this resolution allowed
Iraq to sell $2 billion worth of oil every 6 months, $4 billion of oil
per year.
Well, you might notice, all right, this happened in April of 1995.
Their oil infrastructure took awhile to be rebuilt, but, as a result of
the U.N. resolution, a couple of years later they doubled their oil
production. And this was supposedly to get their cooperation. We didn't
have to go to war at the time. We were able to, supposedly, have arms
control inspectors, and so they had a little cooperation.
In March of 1996, Iraq blocked inspections. In June of 1996, we
passed U.N. Resolution 1060 that deplores the refusal of Iraqi
authorities to allow access to sites designated by UNSCOM. In August,
Iraq launched a campaign against the Kurds. The United States launched
a few cruise missiles. The crisis continues. Our arms control
inspectors are continually denied access.
In June of 1997, Iraq demands that UNSCOM finish their business. In
June, the United Nations passed a resolution that demands--demands--
Iraq comply fully with UNSCOM. In October of 1997, Iraq bars American
inspectors totally. In October, the United Nations passed Resolution
1134 which condemned Iraq's refusal to allow UNSCOM access to certain
sites. Boy, the United Nations is standing tough.
In November of 1997, we passed another resolution, Resolution 1137.
We, again, condemned Iraq because they wouldn't allow these arms
control inspectors to have access. We are getting close to finding
their weapons of mass destruction.
Now, this is only a year ago. A year ago in January this
administration was sending 35,000 troops to the Persian Gulf. We are
getting ready to go to war again. We are going to have a significant
strike. We had significant debate in this body: Is this the right thing
to do? Will this bring about compliance? The administration is getting
close to going to war. And then what happened? The standoff continues.
The inspectors are not allowed access to any of these
[[Page S1997]]
sites. And then you might remember, the Secretary General of the United
Nations, Kofi Annan, well, he flies to Baghdad and they come to an
agreement. Peace is at hand. Arms control inspectors will be allowed
back in.
Well, guess what. There was a little deal made that not too many
people were aware of. I venture to say there weren't two colleagues in
the Senate who were aware the administration already cut a deal with
Iraq and on U.N. Resolution 1153, they allowed Iraq to sell $5.2
billion worth of oil every 6 months; in other words, allowed Iraq to
more than double its oil sales.
This is in February of last year. One year ago, February of 1998, the
administration signed a deal. We are getting ready to go to war with
Iraq because they wouldn't let us have our arms control inspectors in,
and all of a sudden we delegate the authority to the Secretary General.
He runs to Baghdad. They signed a deal. Everybody is shaking hands. War
is avoided. Everybody can be at ease--no real problems now. We have an
agreement. We have Kofi Annan's signature. We have the Iraqis saying
they are going to comply; they are going to let in arms control people.
And, yes, there was a little deal that they could double oil sales, the
Iraqis could double their oil exports to as much as $5.2 billion of oil
every 6 months. That was February, a year ago, 12 months from this
time.
What happened last August? Let's see. Last August, the Iraqis stopped
inspectors again. Now, they have done this repeatedly.
What happened in September and October? They announced they would no
longer cooperate. We withdrew the inspectors because they weren't doing
anything. They were sitting in hotel rooms. They weren't allowed to
have any inspections. And so we started saying this is not
satisfactory.
President Clinton, again, he is talking tough--we are going to go to
war. We are going to bomb them. We have the international community on
our side now because they kicked the arms control inspectors out. We
have the international community on our side. We are ready to go.
Well, the administration wasn't ready to go to war so we will give
peace a little more of a chance. And we gave peace a little more of a
chance, but they still didn't cooperate. We negotiated more. And so in
September the United Nations passed another resolution demanding Iraq
cooperate. That was in September.
In November, we passed another resolution, U.N. Resolution 1205. We
demanded that Iraq cooperate. And then in December we had 3 days of
bombing, December 17, 18, and 19. Iraq didn't cooperate. We had 3 days
of bombing. Some people called them the impeachment bombings. They
happened to be on the day of impeachment. Maybe that is coincidence;
maybe it isn't. I don't know.
So we had 3 days of bombing. Boy, that taught them a lesson because
they weren't complying, and we are going to make sure they are going to
comply. So we bombed them for 3 days. And then what happened? And I
don't know if anybody can read this or not, but then on December 23
``U.S. Offers To Raise Crude Sales Cap.'' Just days after the bombing,
Clinton administration officials are negotiating to lift the oil sales
cap.
My point is that we have rewarded Iraq three times in the past for
noncompliance with arms control inspectors by raising the oil sales
cap. In April of 1995, we allowed them to go from a total embargo to
where they could sell $2 billion of oil every 6 months.
That was in April of 1995. Why? Because they weren't allowing the
inspectors. Then in February of 1998--again, we are ready to go to war,
Kofi Annan, negotiates this deal that will allow them to double it
again. So, yes, we had a promise that the inspectors would be allowed
to have access. Maybe they had access for a few months. The inspectors
start getting close to finding something and Saddam Hussein kicks them
out again. We threatened to go to war again. This time we actually did
bomb them for 3 days and then, guess what. Days later, we can't wait;
we run back and say, hey, we are going to reward you for your
noncompliance. That has been the administration's policy dealing with
Iraq. Let's reward their noncompliance with arms control inspectors.
Let's reward them; we will let them sell more oil. And that is exactly
what has happened.
This was the administration's statement days after the bombing. But
it is interesting. And this was made by Tom Pickering.
Incidentally, I might mention, Mr. President, we are trying to get
the administration to testify at a hearing, and they have been very
reluctant to do so. But I think we have a commitment from Secretary of
Energy Richardson, and I hope we will have Secretary Albright, or at
least Under Secretary Pickering to testify, to explain this position.
His statement is interesting. It says:
Outlining U.S. policy in the wake of last week's airstrikes
against Iraq, Undersecretary of State Thomas R. Pickering
said the United States would be prepared to review the
economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after the 1991 Persian
Gulf War if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein gives guaranteed
cooperation to U.N. weapons inspectors. If not, the sanctions
will remain in place in perpetuity and the United States will
use force as needed to block weapons development.
In other words, if Iraq doesn't give cooperation, we are going to
guarantee that those sanctions will remain in place forever. That was
our administration's policy on December 23, just days after the
bombing.
Well, guess what. I am critical of this administration. Their policy
here, 3 weeks later, on January 14--again in the Washington Post, it
says, ``Gore Signals Flexibility on Iraq Sanctions; France Proposes
Ending Oil Embargo, Changing Weapons Inspections.''
But guess what. Vice President Gore proposed eliminating weapons
sanctions. That is our own Vice President who said that. Three weeks
after we said we would never lift sanctions unless we had total
cooperation, we had the Vice President of the United States talking
about--I will just quote part of the article:
A ceiling on how much oil Iraq can sell to provide
humanitarian aid to its people should be lifted and the
approval process streamlined, Vice President Gore said
tonight. . . .
``The ceiling should be lifted.'' He didn't say in exchange for
cooperation. He didn't say in exchange for having arms control
inspectors in. He just said we should lift it. That is very
inconsistent, totally overriding what the Under Secretary said 3 weeks
before, but totally consistent with what this administration has done.
What this administration has done--Saddam Hussein has tested them. He
has pushed them up to the edge of going to war, defied arms control,
defied the international community and the arms control community--by
kicking the inspectors out. We would talk tough, and then at the last
second we would say, ``Well, wait a minute, just give us a little
inspection, let us have some inspections, let us do it, and you can
sell more oil.''
So what has happened? The Iraqis have done just that. Their oil sales
have gone way up. Guess what. They have no inspections--none--zero.
They are selling as much oil today as they were prior to the war. That
is 95 percent of their currency that they earn for all sorts of things.
The administration will say this is only used for food or
humanitarian reasons. Hogwash. Money is fungible. If they are ready to
take care of humanitarian needs with this money, that means with the
other money they have, they can use that to buy arms and weapons and
anything else they desire--maybe more castles that they happen to have.
So the administration's policy has been a total disaster. Here is
just the oil production charts. It shows for years, 1996 and so on,
they were only producing 550,000 barrels a day. Then the administration
policy where they allow more and more changes--and you notice now we
are up to over 2\1/2\ million barrels per day, exactly 2 million
barrels a day more than it was in 1996. That has also had the
consequence of glutting an already flooded market and is driving a lot
of producers totally out of business--totally out of business.
We have a depression going on right now in the oil industry. You have
111 oil rigs running today. Last year we had 372. You go from 370 rigs
to 111 in 12 months, and part of the reason happens to be this
administration's policy dealing with Iraq.
So I have some concern on what is happening with the domestic oil
industry. But my biggest concern is that the administration has had a
habit of rewarding Iraqi noncompliance with
[[Page S1998]]
more oil sales. Now the administration's policy, as stated by the Vice
President of the United States, is we should not have a cap on oil
sales.
Incidentally, we do not need--or, they don't say this, but we do not
have arms control inspectors in; so there is no connection. We are not
saying, ``Hey, you can sell all the oil you want to; all you have to do
is make sure we have access, have arms control inspection; then we'll
take all the embargo off.'' That should be our policy. But until they
do that, we should keep the embargo on. Let's put a little squeeze on.
I said, ``What are we doing today?'' We are flying daily flights over
the no-fly zones. They are shooting at our pilots. Thank goodness they
haven't been successful yet. But how successful is our policy? We have
already proven to Saddam Hussein, if he denies us, we will reward him.
That is what we have done. This is what this administration has done
throughout their policy.
Our administration policy has been pretty poor in dealing with Iraq.
We have continued to reward their noncompliance, going all the way back
to April 1995, and I think it has made the world a lot more dangerous
as a result. Saddam Hussein is able to produce all the oil he wants. He
is able to generate the moneys he needs, able to build the weapons of
mass destruction without anybody checking him whatsoever--not the
United States, not the United Nations. As a result, the world is a much
more dangerous place.
The administration should be held accountable for their failed
policies in Iraq. I also think it is important that we speak up now so
we don't have failed policies in Kosovo.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the newspaper articles
and tables to which I referred printed in the Record, and I yield the
floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Dec. 23, 1998]
U.S. Offers to Raise Iraqi Crude Sales Cap
(By Thomas W. Lippman)
The Clinton administration offered yesterday to allow Iraq
to export more crude oil to raise money for food and
medicine, but held out little prospect that Iraq can escape
from other U.N. economic sanctions any time soon.
Outlining U.S. policy in the wake of last week's airstrikes
against Iraq, Undersecretary of State Thomas R. Pickering
said the United States would be prepared to review the
economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after the 1991 Persian
Gulf War if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein gives guaranteed
cooperation to U.N. weapons inspectors. If not; the sanctions
will remain in place ``in perpetuity'' and the United States
will use force as needed to block weapons development, he
said.
Given the administration's conviction that Saddam Hussein
will never give the inspection force known as UNSCOM the
unfettered access that the United States and Britain demand--
a view supported by official Iraqi pronouncements this week--
Pickering's statement amounted to a declaration that Russia,
France and other advocates of modifying the inspection system
and the economic sanctions will confront strong U.S. and
British opposition.
Senior U.S. officials have made clear that they will not
return to the previous situation in which Iraq promised to
cooperate with inspectors and then obstructed their work,
controlling the agenda and forcing Washington to choose
between military force or breaking its word to defend the
inspections.
Pickering's tone, however, was conciliatory toward the
Security Council. He welcomed Russia's announcement that its
ambassador to Washington, recalled last week for
``consultations,'' will return this week.
He also raised the possibility of U.S. assent to an
increase in the amount of crude oil Iraq is allowed to sell
through U.N.-supervised channels to buy food and medicine.
Now Iraq is permitted to sell $5.2 billion of oil every six
months.
Administration officials described Pickering's remarks as
part of an effort to assuage anger in the Security Council
about the four days of U.S. and British airstrikes.
Russia in particular has complained that the strikes
circumvented the will of the Security Council and violated
international law. Foreign ministry spokesman Vladimir
Rakhmanin said in Moscow yesterday that ``there is now a
chance to reaffirm the leading role of the Security
Council,'' an important objective for Russia because its veto
in the council is one of its few sources of diplomatic
leverage over Washington.
France, which also opposed the strikes, has proposed a
modification of the inspection system to make it more
palatable to Iraq. Both countries have called for the
replacement of UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler, who is
anathema to the Iraqis.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-
Va.) said the president should ``seize the initiative'' to
make a deal with the Russians, French and other nations to
restructure UNSCOM.
But Pickering said UNSCOM was created to be a technically
competent weapons inspection force and should not be replaced
by an alternate mechanism developed for political reasons.
____
[From the Washington Post, January 14, 1999]
Gore Signals Flexibility on Iraq Sanctions--France Proposes Ending Oil
Embargo, Changing Weapons Inspections
(By John M. Goshko)
United Nations, Jan. 13--A ceiling on how much oil Iraq can
sell to provide humanitarian aid to its people should be
lifted and the approval process streamlined, Vice President
Gore said tonight as Security Council members searched for
agreement on how to deal with Iraq in the aftermath of a
U.S.-led bombing campaign.
France proposed ending the embargo on Iraqi oil sales and
replacing intrusive weapons searches by the United Nations
with a plan that would ensure that Iraq does not acquire more
of the weapons of mass destruction forbidden by the council
following Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Until
now, the focus of U.N. efforts has been on locating and
destroying any prohibited weapons in Iraq's existing arsenal.
Iraqi resentment of that policy caused President Saddam
Hussein's government to defy the inspectors from the U.N.
Special Commission (UNSCOM) and led to American and British
air and missile strikes against Iraq from Dec. 16 to 19.
Since then, the defiant Iraq government has refused to permit
UNSCOM to return, and the U.N. council has been divided about
how to coax or force Iraq to resume cooperation.
The division has been especially deep among the Security
Council's five permanent members, each with the power to veto
any decision. Gore's speech tonight to the Israel Policy
Forum in New York was designed to show U.S. openness to the
flexibility France, Russia and China have sought as a way to
ease the crippling economic sanctions.
``The United States is looking at ways to improve the
effectiveness of humanitarian programs in Iraq, including
lifting the current ceiling on funds which can be used to
purchase food and medicine,'' Gore said of the oil-for-food
program, now capped at slightly more than $5 billion a year.
The goal is twofold: to keep the permanent Security Council
members, which also include Britain, united, and to
demonstrate that the fight is with President Saddam Hussein,
whom Gore called ``a ruthless dictator ruling unjustly,'' and
not with the Iraqi people themselves.
``It was Saddam's regime that for four long years, at great
cost and human suffering, refused to allow his people the
benefits of this program,'' Gore said. ``Saddam has
consistently shown he has cared more about developing weapons
of mass destruction than developing the welfare of his
people.''
Gore's remarks reflected a position stated by other
administration officials soon after the bombings began last
month: The United States would agree to lift the ceiling on
oil exports for humanitarian needs but will not go as far as
lifting the sanction entirely. Gore added that U.N. approval
of what Iraq can purchase with its modest oil profits, which
can take weeks or months, should be revised to speed the
approvals.
Earlier today, State Department spokesman James P. Rubin
said the French proposal contains ``some positive elements
that deal with the essential task of ensuring that Iraq does
not rearm and is disarmed.''
The French plan calls for:
Long-term weapons monitoring under a ``renewed control
commission'' that would either replace or substantially
modify UNSCOM ``so that its independence will be ensured and
its professionalism strengthened.'' Monitoring ``would no
longer be retrospective but would become preventive,''
relying on sensors and television cameras to keep track of
what Iraq does in the future.
Ending the embargo on Iraq's sales and exports of oil, its
principal commodity. Under present council resolutions, the
sanctions are supposed to remain in place until the council
determines that Iraq no longer has prohibited weapons.
A program of strict economic and financial controls
allowing the United Nations to monitor Iraqi oil sales and
ensure that export revenue is not used to acquire new
military equipment or dual-use items. However, this
monitoring would not interfere with the purchase of
legitimate civilian goods and services.
____
[From the Washington Post, January 15, 1999]
U.S. Seeks to Alter Iraq ``Oil for Food'' Program
(By John M. Goshko)
United Nations, Jan. 14--The United States tried today to
defuse growing international criticism of American-backed
sanctions on Iraq by proposing eliminating the ceiling for
how much oil Iraq can sell abroad as long as the proceeds are
used to buy food and medicine.
The proposal was presented by acting U.S. Ambassador A.
Peter Burleigh as the Security Council renewed its search for
agreement on how the United Nations should deal
[[Page S1999]]
with Iraq in the aftermath of last month's U.S.-led bombing
campaign. The U.S. plan followed a more far-reaching proposal
by France that would end the embargo on Iraq oil sales and
replace intrusive U.N. weapons searches with a program to
monitor any future attempts by Iraq to obtain weapons of mass
destruction.
The 15-nation council's consensus on Iraq, intact through
most of the decade since Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of
Kuwait was repelled by U.S.-led forces in the Persian Gulf
War, has crumbled in recent months because of differences
among the five permanent members with the power to veto any
decision. The divergences have pitted the United States and
Britain, both insistent on maintaining a hard line, against
Russia, France and China, which advocate a more flexible and
tolerant approach.
Burleigh told reporters that Washington does not regard its
proposals as ``an alternative to the French plan'' because
the U.S. ideas deal only with humanitarian issues and do not
address the question of how best to pursue Iraqi disarmament.
He said the United States disagrees with France's approach to
arms inspections, which would shift the focus of U.N. efforts
away from locating and destroying prohibited weapons in
Iraq's existing arsenal.
``The U.S. government does not believe that it is
documented that the disarmament process for Iraq has been
completed,'' he said. ``It appears that the French proposal
makes that assumption--either that Iraq is disarmed or that
there is nothing further to be known.''
The United States, he added, believes that overseeing
Iraqi disarmament should continue to be the responsibility
of the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the two
organizations originally assigned that job by the Security
Council. The UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors left Iraq before
last month's bombing, and Iraq has vowed that those from
UNSCOM, which it charges are American spies, will not be
allowed to return.
The U.S. proposals would overhaul aspects of the ``oil for
food'' program designed to allow Iraq to reduce suffering
caused by the broad U.N. sanctions on the economy. In
addition to liberalizing Iraq's opportunities for oil sales,
the U.S. proposals call for streamlining procedures for
approving Iraqi contracts to buy food and medicine, and
allowing Iraq to borrow money from an escrow account held by
the United Nations to finance such purchases on condition the
funds are repaid when Iraqi oil sales reach a higher level.
The plan also would expand U.N. programs for the health and
welfare of Iraqi children and make it easier for Iraqi
Muslims to make the pilgrimage to Mecca.
But the most important U.S. proposal was to end
restrictions on how much oil Iraq can sell under the oil-for-
food exemption. At present, Iraq may sell $5.25 billion worth
of oil every six months under tight U.N. controls. As a
practical matter, its oil industry, which is badly in need of
repair and modernization, has been barely able to produce and
sell about $3 billion worth of oil each six months.
To help alleviate that problem, Burleigh said, the United
States is willing to relax the scrutiny it has applied to
contracts for spare parts and other equipment needed to get
the Iraqi industry working better. But he warned that
Washington opposes any equipment purchases that would
increase Iraq's ability to refine its oil domestically
because the refined product could be smuggled out of the
country, with the proceeds being pocketed by the regime
rather than put to humanitarian purposes.
``Our problem is with the Iraqi government; we have no
quarrel with the Iraqi people,'' Burleigh told reporters. He
repeated the frequent U.S. contention that Saddam Hussein's
government has failed to take advantage for the oil-for-food
program in order to use the propaganda value of the
populace's deprivation to win international support for
ending sanctions.
The growing sense in many countries that the sanctions have
outlived their usefulness seemed a major factor in spurring
the U.S. proposals. It is an open secret that a growing
majority of countries on the Security Council favor or are
leaning toward lifting the sanctions. If the trend continues,
many diplomats here believe the United States soon may be so
isolated that it would be able to maintain the sanctions only
by using its veto. In that case, the same diplomats predict,
it would be only a matter of time before Arab countries and
possibly France and Russia, which are in line to win
concessions in the Iraqi oil industry, start to break the
embargo.
By proposing measures that could relieve substantially the
shortages and hardships affecting the Iraqi people, the
United States hopes to turn aside the mounting pressure for
ending sanctions. And if the Iraqi government, which has
accepted the oil-for-food program with great reluctance,
fails to take advantage of any liberalized opportunities,
Washington, would be able to argue that the continued plight
of the people is the fault of Saddam Hussein.
Whether the U.S. move will succeed was not immediately
clear. Delegates from other council nations said they would
have to study the U.S. proposals more closely and consult
with their governments before making any judgments. Iraq's
ambassador to the United Nations, Nizar Hamdoon, was quoted
by Reuters as saying the U.S. proposal was meaningless. ``It
is a cover up for their entire Iraq policy,'' he said.
Most attention for the moment was on the French plan, whose
elements were made known to council members earlier in the
week and have been the subject of informal discussion among
various delegations. Delegates said privately that given the
strong U.S. opposition to ending sanctions outright and
Washington's continued insistence on tough inspections, there
seems little chance of the French plan being accepted in
anything like its present form.
But as French diplomats said, the potential value of their
plan is as ``a catalyst'' that might stimulate fresh thinking
about Iraq and eventually lead to a narrowing of the
differences that recently have paralyzed the council.
IRAQ TIMELINE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq US response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990:
Aug.--Iraq invades Kuwait............... UN Resolution 661 bars the
export of oil.
1994-1995:
October--Iraq amasses 80,000 troops on April 1995--approved UN
the Iraq/Kuwait border. Resolution 986. This
resolution allows Iraq to
sell $2 billion in oil
every six months.
1996:
March--Iraq blocks inspections.......... June--UN Resolution 1060
deplores the refusal of
Iraqi authorities to allow
access to sites designated
by UNSCOM.
Aug.--Iraq launches a campaign against Sept.--U.S. launches cruise
the Kurds. Missile attacks.
1997:
June--Iraq demands UNSCOM finish........ June--UN Resolution 1115
``Demands that Iraq
cooperate fully with
UNSCOM.''
Oct.--Iraq bars American inspector...... Oct.--UN Resolution 1134
condemned Iraq's refusal to
allow UNSCOM access to
certain sites.
Nov.--UN Resolution 1137,
another condemnation of
Iraq's action.
1998:
Jan.--Iraq continues standoff........... Feb.--UN Resolution 1153
allows Iraq to sell $5.2
billion in oil every six
months.
Aug.--Iraq stops inspections of new Sept.--UN Resolution 1194
facilities. demands Iraq cooperate.
Oct.--Iraq announces it will no longer Nov.--UN Resolution 1205
cooperate with UNSCOM. demands Iraq cooperate.
Dec.--Three day bombing
campaign.
1999:
No UNSCOM activity...................... Press reports possible
removal of oil sale caps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORLD OIL PRODUCTION: PERSIAN GULF NATIONS, NON-OPEC AND WORLD
[In thousand barrels per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected Non-OPEC Producers
Persian --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Non-
Gulf Former United United OPEC World
Nationsa Canada China Egypt Mexico Norway U.S.S.R. Russia Kingdom States
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1973 average................................................ 20,668 1,798 1,090 165 465 32 8,324 NA 2 9,208 25,050 55,679
1974 average................................................ 21,282 1,551 1,315 150 571 35 8,912 NA 2 8,774 25,366 55,716
1975 average................................................ 18,934 1,430 1,490 235 705 189 9,523 NA 12 8,375 26,058 52,828
1976 average................................................ 21,514 1,314 1,670 330 831 279 10,060 NA 245 8,132 27,018 57,334
1977 average................................................ 21,725 1,321 1,874 415 981 280 10,603 NA 768 8,245 28,814 59,707
1978 average................................................ 20,606 1,316 2,082 485 1,209 356 11,105 NA 1,082 8,707 30,694 60,158
1979 average................................................ 21,066 1,500 2,122 525 1,461 403 11,384 NA 1,568 8,552 32,094 62,674
1980 average................................................ 17,961 1,435 2,114 595 1,936 528 11,706 NA 1,622 8,597 32,994 59,600
1981 average................................................ 15,245 1,285 2,012 598 2,313 501 11,850 NA 1,811 8,572 33,595 56,076
1982 average................................................ 12,156 1,271 2,045 670 2,748 520 11,912 NA 2,065 8,649 34,703 53,481
1983 average................................................ 11,081 1,356 2,120 727 2,689 614 11,972 NA 2,291 8,688 35,759 53,256
1984 average................................................ 10,784 1,438 2,296 822 2,780 697 11,861 NA 2,480 8,879 37,047 54,489
1985 average................................................ 9,630 1,471 2,505 887 2,745 788 11,585 NA 2,530 8,971 37,801 53,982
1986 average................................................ 11,696 1,474 2,620 813 2,435 870 11,895 NA 2,539 8,680 37,952 56,227
1987 average................................................ 12,103 1,535 2,690 898 2,548 1,022 12,050 NA 2,406 8,349 38,149 56,666
1988 average................................................ 13,457 1,616 2,730 848 2,512 1,158 12,053 NA 2,232 8,140 38,413 58,737
1989 average................................................ 14,837 1,560 2,757 865 2,520 1,554 11,715 NA 1,802 7,613 37,792 59,863
1990 average................................................ 15,278 1,553 2,774 873 2,553 1,704 10,975 NA 1,820 7,355 37,371 60,566
1991 average................................................ 14,741 1,548 2,835 874 2,680 1,890 9,992 NA 1,797 7,417 36,932 60,207
1992 average................................................ 15,970 1,605 2,845 881 2,669 2,229 -- 7,632 1,825 7,171 35,814 60,212
1993 average................................................ 16,715 1,679 2,890 890 2,673 2,350 -- 6,730 1,915 6,847 35,119 60,238
1994 average................................................ 16,964 1,746 2,939 896 2,685 2,521 -- 6,135 2,375 6,662 35,482 60,992
1995 average................................................ 17,208 1,805 2,990 920 2,618 2,768 -- 5,995 2,489 6,560 36,327 62,331
[[Page S2000]] ____
1996:
January................................................. 17,265 1,788 3,115 920 2,795 3,085 -- 5,839 2,600 6,495 36,964 63,455
February................................................ 17,340 1,718 3,100 920 2,800 3,165 -- 5,944 2,625 6,577 37,271 63,856
March................................................... 17,390 1,814 3,050 920 2,870 2,990 -- 5,830 2,570 6,571 37,019 63,704
April................................................... 17,180 1,854 3,020 920 2,860 3,160 -- 5,839 2,467 6,444 37,104 63,559
May..................................................... 17,190 1,768 3,195 920 2,875 2,980 -- 5,866 2,512 6,394 37,037 63,558
June.................................................... 17,305 1,829 3,205 920 2,880 3,150 -- 5,839 2,457 6,458 37,225 63,885
July.................................................... 17,395 1,808 3,150 920 2,870 3,201 -- 5,813 2,537 6,338 37,236 63,976
August.................................................. 17,325 1,872 3,130 920 2,830 3,022 -- 5,857 2,385 6,360 36,886 63,646
September............................................... 17,425 1,854 3,140 920 2,860 3,095 -- 5,826 2,517 6,482 37,271 64,111
October................................................. 17,385 1,936 3,165 920 2,860 3,005 -- 5,813 2,642 6,481 37,528 64,468
November................................................ 17,355 1,889 3,190 930 2,860 3,210 -- 5,909 2,743 6,476 37,966 64,926
December................................................ 17,842 1,905 3,115 930 2,900 3,198 -- 5,830 2,760 6,506 37,989 65,501
Average................................................. 17,367 1,837 3,131 922 2,855 3,104 -- 5,850 2,568 6,465 37,290 64,054
1997:
January................................................. 18,040 1,874 3,210 885 2,940 3,268 -- E 5,789 2,693 6,402 37,941 65,676
February................................................ 18,245 1,920 3,240 885 2,970 3,263 -- E 5,729 2,660 6,514 38,041 65,041
March................................................... 18,460 1,900 3,215 890 2,970 3,063 -- E 5,772 2,638 6,452 37,883 66,018
April................................................... 18,615 1,823 3,230 890 2,945 3,388 -- E 5,893 2,515 6,441 38,171 66,571
May..................................................... 18,385 1,737 3,275 880 2,990 3,194 -- E 5,902 2,315 6,474 37,738 65,908
June.................................................... 17,980 1,835 3,220 870 3,005 3,025 -- E 5,902 2,135 6,442 37,343 65,128
July.................................................... 17,965 1,889 3,190 880 3,035 3,194 -- E 5,923 2,447 6,409 37,786 65,576
August.................................................. 18,975 1,895 3,190 870 3,080 2,890 -- E 5,945 2,407 6,347 37,534 66,474
September............................................... 19,005 1,930 3,195 860 3,105 2,927 -- E 5,958 2,483 6,486 37,907 66,827
October................................................. 19,045 1,956 3,195 860 3,087 3,209 -- E 5,954 2,610 6,467 38,301 67,361
November................................................ 18,810 1,970 3,158 860 3,085 3,192 -- E 5,945 2,602 6,459 38,342 67,207
December................................................ 18,416 1,985 3,090 860 3,056 3,229 -- E 5,893 2,700 6,531 38,536 67,007
Average................................................. 18,496 1,893 3,200 874 3,023 3,153 -- E 5,884 2,517 E 6,452 37,955 66,317
1998:
January................................................. 19,061 1,912 3,240 860 3,085 3,293 -- E 5,979 2,597 E 6,438 38,514 67,458
February................................................ 19,513 1,944 3,155 860 3,140 3,230 -- E 5,997 2,583 E 6,538 38,578 67,989
March................................................... 19,380 1,952 3,170 860 3,160 3,123 -- E 5,962 2,600 E 6,465 38,468 67,863
April................................................... 19,680 1,988 3,140 860 3,140 3,160 -- E 5,876 2,602 E 6,484 38,361 67,674
May..................................................... 19,680 1,943 3,210 870 3,149 2,917 -- E 5,789 2,499 E 6,384 37,923 67,168
June.................................................... 19,225 1,932 3,260 870 3,050 3,140 -- E 5,928 2,495 E 6,290 38,188 66,888
July.................................................... 19,290 2,045 3,200 880 3,120 3,120 -- RE 5,923 2,525 E 6,322 R 38,290 R 66,855
August.................................................. 19,250 R 2,016 R 3,180 R 870 3,055 2,440 -- E 5,910 R 2,536 E 6,276 R 37,487 R 65,772
September............................................... 19,385 2,033 3,160 870 2,906 2,896 -- E 5,902 2,632 E 6,069 37,567 65,932
9-Mo. Avg............................................... 19,383 1,974 3,191 867 3,090 3,033 -- E 5,918 2,563 E 6,362 38,149 67,059
1997 9-Mo. Avg.............................................. 18,408 1,866 3,218 879 3,005 3,133 -- E 5,869 2,476 6,440 37,808 66,022
1996 9-Mo. Avg.............................................. 17,313 1,812 3,123 920 2,849 3,093 -- 5,850 2,519 6,457 37,110 63,748
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The Persian Gulf Nations are Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Production from the Neutral Zone between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is included in
``Persian Gulf Nations.''
R=Revised. NA=Not available.--=Not applicable. E=Estimate.
Notes: (1) Crude oil includes lease condensate but excludes natural gas plant liquids. (2) Monthly data are often preliminary figures and may not average to the annual totals because of
rounding or because updates to the preliminary monthly data are not available. (3) Data for countries may not sum to World totals due to independent rounding. (4) U.S. geographic coverage is
the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Abraham pertaining to the introduction of S. 482
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
____________________