[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8172-S8182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ILSA EXTENSION ACT OF 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the bill, S. 1218, by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1218) to extend the authorities of the Iran and 
     Libya Sanctions Act 1996 until 2006.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

[[Page S8173]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is beginning consideration of S. 
1218. The Senator from Maryland controls 30 minutes; the Senator from 
Texas controls another 30 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thought I would make a very short 
opening statement. Senator Murkowski is here and wants to launch into 
the debate of his amendment. We want to move along, and I am hopeful we 
will be able to yield back a considerable amount of time on the bill 
itself and time with respect to the Murkowski amendment. Altogether, 
there is 2\1/2\ hours allotted for all of that: 1 hour on the bill and 
1\1/2\ hours on the Murkowski amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask that after the Senator speaks, I be 
recognized for a short period of time before we begin the discussion of 
Senator Murkowski's amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES. Fine. I will hold my time down because I do want to get 
to the Murkowski amendment and the Senator from Alaska is in the 
vicinity.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1218, the renewal 
authorization legislation for the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, commonly 
known as ILSA. This legislation was reported favorably out of the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs by a vote of 19-2. We 
made some modifications. Therefore, a committee print served as the 
vehicle for the committee markup, but this committee print paralleled 
closely with the renewal legislation introduced by Senator Schumer of 
New York and Senator Smith of Oregon which garnered 79 cosponsors.
  I am including in the Record the full list of the 79 cosponsors. I 
ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I especially thank Senators Schumer and 
Smith for their leadership on this issue. We are very appreciative of 
the very vigorous effort they mounted with respect to this issue. The 
existing ILSA legislation expires on August 5 of this year. Therefore, 
we need to move quickly to approve this legislation. This will extend 
ILSA for another 5 years. It will lower the threshold for foreign 
investment in the Libyan energy sector from $40 million to $20 million 
to trigger sanctions. That puts Libya on a par with Iran at the 
existing requirement, and it closes a loophole in the existing 
legislation making it clear that modification or addition to an 
existing contract would be treated as a new contract for purposes of 
evaluating whether such amendment or modification would invoke the 
sanctions. There has been a loophole with respect to companies 
operating in Libya, and we need to address that.
  With respect to the Iran portion of ILSA I wish I could come to the 
Chamber and report there has been a significant change in Iranian 
conduct that warrants a response from the Congress in terms of when we 
consider whether to extend these sanctions forward. Unfortunately, 
Iran's support for terrorism continues unabated. The latest State 
Department Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000 states:

       Iran remains the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 
     2000. Its revolutionary guard corps, the IRGC, and the 
     Ministry of Intelligence and Security, MOIS, continue to 
     be involved in the planning and execution of terrorist 
     acts and continue to support a variety of groups that use 
     terrorism to pursue their goals.

  Iran is also stepping up efforts to acquire weapons of mass 
destruction. The latest unclassified CIA report to Congress on 
worldwide weapons of mass destruction acquisition notes:

       Iran remains one of the most active countries seeking to 
     acquire weapons of mass destruction and advanced chemical 
     weapons technology from abroad. In doing so, Iran is 
     attempting to develop an indigenous capability to produce 
     various types of weapons--chemical, biological, and nuclear--
     and their delivery systems.

  In June of this year, when the Justice Department handed down 
indictments in the Khobar Towers bombing case, a case in which 19 of 
our airmen in Saudi Arabia were killed in 1996, the Attorney General 
stated publicly that Iranian officials ``inspired, supported, and 
supervised members of Saudi Hezbollah,'' which is the group that 
carried out the attack.
  As for Libya, very briefly, it has fulfilled only one aspect of the 
U.N. Security Council resolutions relating to the Pan Am 103 bombing; 
namely, the handing over of the suspects for trial. Libya has not 
fulfilled the requirement to pay compensation to the families of the 
victims, to accept responsibility for the actions of its intelligence 
officers, and to renounce fully international terrorism.
  In fact, President Bush on April 19 of this year stated:

       We have made it clear to the Libyans that sanctions will 
     remain until such time as they not only compensate for the 
     bombing of the aircraft, but also admit their guilt and 
     express remorse.

  Because Iran and Libya have not clearly fulfilled the requirements of 
ILSA, I believe that not to extend ILSA for a full 5 years would send 
the wrong signal. Failure to do so would be seen as a sign of lack of 
resolve on the part of the United States.
  I also believe that placing Libya on a par with Iran with regard to 
ILSA's conditions sends a strong signal to Libyan leader Qadhafi that 
the pressure will be kept on until he fulfills all relevant U.N. 
Security Council resolutions concerning the bombing of Pan Am flight 
103, which I remind my colleagues killed 270 people, including 189 
Americans.
  This legislation had overwhelming support in the committee in being 
brought before the Senate. It has been endorsed by a clear majority--a 
very substantial majority--of Members of this body, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the legislation.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                            ILSA Cosponsors

       Senators Schumer, Smith (OR), Hollings, Rockefeller, Reed, 
     Levin, Durbin, Carnahan, Johnson, Gregg, Cleland, Campbell, 
     Murray, Allard, Mikulski, Ensign, Collins, Bob Smith, 
     Lieberman, Harry Reid.
       Senators Corzine, Sessions, Kyl, McConnell, Boxer, 
     Santorum, Shelby, Voinovich, Breaux, Torricelli, Clinton, 
     Stabenow, Harkin, Kohl, Daschle, Bob Graham, Inouye, Thomas, 
     Helms, Brownback.
       Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Grassley, Craig, Warner, 
     Biden, Bingaman, McCain, Sarbanes, Bennett, Wyden, 
     Hutchinson, Bunning, Dorgan, Crapo, Bill Nelson, Edwards, 
     Kerry, Hatch, Lott.
       Senators Cochran, Frist, Akaka, Conrad, Bayh, Dayton, 
     Allen, Snowe, Miller, Wellstone, Landrieu, Dodd, Cantwell, 
     Ben Nelson, Leahy, Bond, Lincoln, DeWine, and Murkowski.

  Mr. SARBANES. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New York, after 
which it is the intention we go to the amendment of the Senator from 
Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman of our 
Banking Committee, the Senator from Maryland, for bringing this matter 
to the Chamber with such alacrity. I thank him on behalf of Senator 
Smith and myself who have been the lead sponsors of this legislation, 
as well as the 78, now 79, cosponsors.
  As has been said, time is of the essence. With the original ILSA law 
set to expire on August 5, the Senate needs to swiftly pass this bill 
to get our version approved by the House and then over to the President 
for his signature within the next 10 days. I again thank Senator Smith 
for working so hard with me on bringing this bill forward so quickly. 
It is a bipartisan bill. We have garnered 79 cosponsors and the support 
of both the chairman of the Banking Committee, as you just heard, and 
most of the membership of the Banking Committee as well.
  Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Iran 
and Libya Sanctions Extension Act of 2001, a bill originally introduced 
by Senator Gordon Smith and me, currently supported by 79 cosponsors.
  Time is of the essence. With the original ILSA law set to expire on 
August 5, the Senate needs to swiftly pass this bill, get our version 
approved by the House, and then over to President Bush for his 
signature within the next 10 days.
  I know time for debate is limited, but I just want to say a few words 
in support of this important bill which extends U.S. sanctions against 
foreign companies which invest in Iran and Libya's oil sector for five 
more years.
  First, I would like to thank Senator Smith for his invaluable 
leadership on

[[Page S8174]]

this bill. I would also like to thank Senator Sarbanes for giving this 
bill his utmost consideration and following through with a hearings and 
markup schedule which got the bill reported out of the Banking 
Committee last week on a 19-2 vote.
  Everyone in Congress is well acquainted with ILSA; it passed 
unanimously in both Houses in 1996.
  And today it is vitally important for Congress to once again speak 
out loudly and strongly in support of maintaining a hard line on two of 
the world's most dangerous outlaw states.
  In fact, the argument in support of reauthorizing ILSA for another 
five years is a very simple one: over the past five years, Iran and 
Libya have done nothing to show they should be welcomed into the 
community of nations and benefit from better relationships with the 
United States and our allies.
  Quite the contrary.
  Despite the election of so-called ``moderate'' President Mohammad 
Khatami in 1997, Iran remains the world's most active state sponsor of 
terrorism, and has been feverishly seeking to develop weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Just last month, a U.S. Federal grand jury found that Iranian 
government officials ``supported and directed'' the Hezbollah 
terrorists who blew up Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, an act 
which killed 19 brave American servicemen.
  And Iran proudly supports the Hamas terrorist group, whose most 
recent claim to fame was sending a suicide bomber into a crowded disco 
in Tel Aviv killing 21 Israeli teenagers.
  As far as Libya is concerned, we recently learned beyond a doubt that 
the Libyan government was directly involved in the bombing of Pan Am 
103--one of the most heinous acts of terrorism in history.
  Yet Libya still refuses to abide by U.N. resolutions requiring it to 
renounce terrorism, accept responsibility for the Libyan officials 
convicted of masterminding the bombing, and compensate the victims' 
families.
  These actions by Iran and Libya are not actions worthy of American 
concessions. They are actions worthy of America's most supreme outrage, 
and worthy of U.S. policy that does everything possible to isolate 
these nations in hopes of preventing them from doing further harm to 
America and our allies.
  Some in the Administration argue that the United States should lift 
or ease sanctions on rogue states like Iran and Libya first, and 
decent, moral, internationally-acceptable behavior will follow.
  I say that is twisted logic.
  If these states are serious about entering the community of nations, 
and seeing their economies benefit from global integration, they must 
change their behavior first.
  They must adapt to the world community, the world community should 
not adapt to them.
  I have spoken to people on all sides of the issue of sanctions, 
particularly with respect to sanctions on Iran. And even those most 
opposed to sanctions on Iran cannot tell me any viable alternative to 
ILSA.
  The idea that United States concessions to Iran through ending or 
watering down ILSA would bring about change for the better in Iran, and 
moderation in its foreign policies, is not simply misplaced 
speculation, it would be prohibitively dangerous policy.
  An Iran emboldened and enabled by billions more in foreign investment 
leading to hundreds of millions more in oil profits would simply mean a 
more potent threat to America and our allies. Plain and simple.
  The truth is ILSA has been very harmful to Iran--over the past five 
years, the threat of sanctions has successfully dissuaded billions in 
foreign investment, causing the Iranian government to invest in its own 
oil fields rather than in terrorism and weapons programs.
  In fact, since ILSA was enacted, Iran has promoted more than 55 
foreign investment opportunities in its energy sector and landed only 
eight contracts worth a total of roughly $2.5 billion--earning Iran 
barely half of what its tiny Persian Gulf neighbor, Qatar, netted in 
foreign investment during the same period.
  With ILSA firmly in place, Iran cannot hope to fulfill its goal of 
attaining $60 billion in foreign investment over the next decade which 
it needs to rehabilitate and modernize its oil sector.
  But ILSA is not simply about harming Iran and Libya's ability to do 
business and accrue greater oil revenues. It is about American 
leadership in the world in doing what's right.
  Mr. President, the United Sates stands in the international community 
as a beacon of freedom--a beacon of what's right. Our great nation is 
about much more than economic might. It is about moral leadership, and 
combating those who wish to vanquish the principles of liberty and 
freedom which Americans have fought and died over the centuries to 
uphold.
  An overwhelming vote today in support of ILSA reauthorization will 
send a strong signal that the United States is not prepared to 
relinquish the moral high ground when it comes to dealing with the 
worst renegade states--those who wish to disrupt our way of life.
  Although some of the administration would like to water down ILSA, a 
veto-proof vote here in the Senate today would say to the 
Administration and the world that sanctions against the world's worst 
rogue states will remain firmly in place.
  After all, the alternative is unthinkable: What would the 
international community think should the world's greatest power relax 
sanctions on two rogue states that have shown themselves to be so 
outside the family of nations, and engaged in some of the most 
dastardly acts the world has ever seen?
  Mr. President, don't get me wrong, I fully support the Bush 
administration's desire to review U.S. sanctions policies to make sure 
they are working effectively.
  But ILSA is as close as we have come to a perfect sanctions regime. 
First, it is highly flexible: It grants the President full waiver 
authority on a case-by-case basis, and it contains a menu of sanctions 
options ranging form a slap on the wrist, to more serious economic 
retaliation.
  Second, its sunset provisions are profoundly reasonable: Libya needs 
to simply own up to its responsibility for Pan Am 103; Iran simply 
needs to stop its support for international terrorism and end its 
obsessive quest for weapons of mass destruction.
  So for those who argue for eliminating or weakening ILSA, I say this: 
Only two states can eliminate the need for ILSA, Iran and Libya.
  For Iran that means an unconditional end to its support of 
international terrorism, and its dangerous quest for catastrophic 
weapons. Let Iran prove it is moderate before America rewards it.
  For Libya, it means full acceptance of responsibility for the Pan Am 
103 bombing, and full compensation for the families of the victims.
  If the day arrives that Iran and Libya fulfill these reasonable 
international obligations, ILSA will no longer be needed and it will be 
terminated.
  Unfortunately, that day is not yet in sight.
  I urge my colleagues, in the strongest possible terms, to vote yes 
for ILSA reauthorization.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator 
from Massachusetts. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his courtesy. I 
say to other colleagues who want to speak on the bill itself, we will 
still reserve some time and they can speak later, but Senator Murkowski 
has been waiting for quite a while to bring up his amendment. I yield 5 
minutes to Senator Kennedy, and then I assure the Senator from Alaska, 
we will go to his amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to accommodate Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his 
courtesy. I will take just a moment. I know I speak for the 13 families 
from Massachusetts who lost loved ones; and they continue to be 
strongly supportive of this legislation. I thank the Senator from 
Maryland for all of his work and for his timeless energetic leadership 
on this extremely important issue.
  We are reminded every day that we live in a dangerous world. As a 
member of the Committee on Armed Services, we have been listening to 
the proposal of the administration about antiballistic missile systems. 
We have been

[[Page S8175]]

watching the leaders of the great industrial nations meeting in Europe. 
We have seen President Bush and President Putin meeting to talk about 
nuclear weapons.
  As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, all of us are 
convinced the great threat to the United States is in the form of 
terrorism: nuclear proliferation, bioterrorism, computer terrorism, but 
it is terrorism. That is the principal threat to the safety and 
security of the people of the United States and our allies.
  We are relentless in dealing with the state of terrorism around the 
world. We spend a great deal of money doing that. The best way we can 
deal with the issue of terrorism is to show persistence, consistency, 
and as much tough-mindedness as the terrorists. The way to do that is 
to not forget and not forgive the brutal attacks and killings and 
assassinations of the Americans and citizens of 22 other countries in 
the Pan Am 103 disaster.
  Members of Congress, and those who talk about wanting to deal with 
terrorism, ought to be here every single day. Unless we are going to be 
persistent and unless we are going to be tough-minded and unless we are 
going to deal with this and demonstrate to the world we are serious 
about dealing with the problems of state-sponsored terrorism, no matter 
how much we are going to spend on ballistic systems, no matter how much 
we will spend on the nonproliferation of weapons, how much we spend on 
intelligence, it will undermine our effectiveness.
  The matter before the Senate sends a clear message, that we have not 
forgotten about state-sponsored terrorism in Libya. It is as clear as 
that.
  According to the State Department, Iran continues to be ``the most 
active state sponsor of terrorism.'' Sanctions should continue on that 
nation.
  There is also a compelling foreign policy rationale for extending 
sanctions on Libya. Easing sanctions on Libya by allowing the law to 
expire would have a far-reaching negative effect on the battle against 
international terrorism and the 12-year pursuit of justice for the 270 
victims of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.
  Current law requires the President to impose at least two out of six 
sanctions on foreign companies that invest more than $40 million in one 
year in Libya's energy sector. The President may waive the sanctions on 
the ground that doing so is important to the U.S. national interest. 
For Libya, the law terminates if the President determines that Libya 
has fulfilled the requirements of all U.N. resolutions relating to the 
1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103. Those conditions, which were imposed 
by the international community, require the Government of Libya to 
accept responsibility for the actions of its intelligence officer, 
disclose information about its involvement in the bombing, provide 
appropriate compensation for the families of the victims of Pan Am 
flight 103, and fully renounce international terrorism.
  President Bush has emphasized his support for these conditions. As he 
stated on April 19, ``We've made it clear to the Libyans that sanctions 
will remain until such time as they not only compensate for the bombing 
of the aircraft, but also admit their guilt and express remorse.'' Yet 
the Government of Libya continues to refuse to meet the conditions of 
the international community. Until it does, both the United States and 
the international community should continue to impose sanctions on the 
regime.
  Despite the conventional wisdom that economic sanctions do not work, 
they have been effective in the case of Libya. As a result of the 
United Nations sanctions, the U.S. sanctions, and diplomatic pressure, 
the Libyan Government finally agreed in 1999 to a trial by a Scottish 
court sitting in the Netherlands of two Libyans indicted for the 
bombing. Last January 31, one of the defendants, a Libyan intelligence 
agent, was convicted of murder for that atrocity.
  The court's decision clearly implicated the Libyan Government. The 
conviction was a significant diplomatic and legal victory for the world 
community, for our nation, which was the real target of the terrorist 
attack, and for the families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103.
  The Iran Libya Sanctions Act is also intended to help level the 
playing field for American companies, which have been prohibited from 
investing in Libya by a Presidential order issued by President Reagan 
in 1986. The statute enacted in 1996 imposed sanctions on foreign 
companies that invest more than $40 million in any year in the Libyan 
energy sector. The objective of the 1996 law is to create a 
disincentive for foreign companies to invest in Libya and help ensure 
that Amercian firms are not disadvantaged by the U.S. sanctions. Since 
the sanctions on U.S. firms will continue, it is essential to extend 
the sanctions on foreign firms as well.

  The administration has indicated that it has no evidence of 
violations of the law by foreign companies. But some foreign companies 
are clearly poised to invest substantially in the Libyan petroleum 
sector, in violation of the law. A German company, Wintershall, is 
reportedly considering investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the 
Libyan oil industry in violation of the law.
  Allowing current law to lapse before the conditions specified by the 
international community are met would give a green light to foreign 
companies to invest in Libya, putting American companies at a clear 
disadvantage. It would reward the leader of Libya, Colonel Qadhafi, for 
his continuing refusal to comply with the U.N. resolutions. It would 
set an unwise precedent of disregard for U.N. Security Council 
Resolutions. It would undermine our ongoing diplomatic efforts in the 
Security Council to prevent the international sanctions from being 
permanently lifted until Libya complies with the U.N. conditions. And 
it would prematurely signal a warming in U.S.-Libyan relations.
  Our European allies would undoubtedly welcome the expiration of the 
U.S. sanctions. European companies are eager to increase their 
investments in Libya, but they do not want to be sanctioned by the 
United States. They are ready to close the book on the bombing of Pan 
Am flight 103, and open a new chapter in relations with Libya.
  But the pursuit of justice is not only for American citizens. 
Citizens of 22 countries were murdered on Pan Am flight 103, including 
citizens of many of our allies. The current sanctions were enacted on 
behalf of these citizens as well. Our government should be actively 
working to persuade European countries that it is premature to 
rehabilitate Libya.
  I am especially pleased that two modifications to the Libya section 
make by the House International Relations Committee are included in 
this legislation. I commend Chairman Sarbanes for his leadership by 
including these provisions in his mark.
  The first modification reduces the threshold for a violation in Libya 
from $40 million to $20 million. Under current law, a foreign company 
can invest $40 million in Libya before sanctions kick in, but it can 
only invest $20 million in Iran. When the law was originally drafted, 
the threshold for both Iran and Libya was $40 million. When it was 
reduced for Iran, it was not reduced for Libya. It should have been. 
The threshold for a violation should be $20 million for both Iran and 
Libya.
  The other modification closes a loophole in the law that allows oil 
companies to expand upon contracts that were signed before the current 
law was enacted. A number of companies which signed contracts before 
ILSA became law are expanding their operations, such as by developing 
fields adjacent to those in which they made their original investment, 
and calling this expansion a part of the original contract.
  The law should cover modifications to existing contracts and 
agreements. Even if the original contract pre-dates ILSA, subsequent 
investments that expand operations should be treated as a new contract. 
This point should be clarified in the law, and the administration 
should aggressively seek the information necessary to enforce it.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter written by the President of the 
Victims of Pan Am flight 103, Inc. asking the Congress to make these 
modifications to existing law be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page S8176]]




                           Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc.,

                                    Cherry Hill, NJ, 23 May, 2001.
     Subject: Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.

     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The members of our organization, the 
     Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc. urge you to vote to extend 
     the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act
       The Scottish court in the Netherlands convicted a Libyan 
     intelligence agent, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, of the murder of 
     270 innocents on Pan Am flight 103. The judges also found 
     that Megrahi was acting ``in furtherance of the purposes of 
     Libyan Intelligence''. Within a few hours, President Bush 
     declared on CNN, to the world, that the Scottish Court's 
     decision proved the Libyan government was responsible for the 
     murders of our loved ones.
       U.N. Security Council resolutions 731 and 748 require that 
     Libya turn over the suspects for trial, cooperate in the 
     international investigation, pay appropriate compensation to 
     the families and end support of international terrorism. The 
     Libyan Regime must be made to comply fully with the UN 
     Resolutions.
       Allowing ILSA to lapse would undermine President Bush's 
     statements the day of the verdict, the intent of the UN. 
     Security Council's resolutions and give tacit approval to 
     Quadhafi's flagrant disregard for international law and human 
     life. It would, in effect, reward Libya's murderous actions 
     and stonewalling. It would declare open season on Americans.
       We ask that you support two changes to the law. The first 
     would reduce the threshold for a violation from $40 million 
     to $20 million. The threshold for a violation for investment 
     in Iran is $20 million. There is no compelling reason why the 
     threshold for investment in Libya should not be the same.
       The second change would close a loophole in the law that 
     enables oil companies to expand existing contracts and avoid 
     being examined for violations. We understand that a number of 
     European companies which signed pre-ILSA contracts are 
     expanding operations by, for example, developing fields 
     adjacent to the fields in which they had their original 
     investment and portraying this expansion as part of the 
     original contract. Our organization believes such investment 
     should always be investigated for ILSA violations. Even if 
     the original contract pre-dates ILSA, any post-ILSA 
     investment, no matter how large or remote form the original 
     contract, should be treated as the entry of a new contract 
     and investigated for an ILSA violation.
       We respectfully suggest that if ILSA is not renewed, the 
     United States will have failed in one of the most important 
     challenges it faced in the 2nd half of the twentieth century.
       Our organization strongly supports an extension of ILSA, 
     which has worked well to deter significant new investment in 
     the Libyan oil sector and look forward to working with you 
     toward that extension.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert G. Monetti,
                                                        President.

  Mr. KENNEDY. These families, as all families, are enormously 
important. Many have been out there at Arlington and had Presidents of 
the United States meet with them. Many have followed closely the 
developments that have taken place regarding the trial. Many of us have 
spent a good deal of time with these families. If we are going to keep 
faith with these families, if we are going to be serious about dealing 
with State-sponsored terrorism, if we are going to at least be able to 
have some impact on countries that may be thinking a little bit about 
sponsoring some terrorism around--if they know the United States is 
going to continue to lead the world in not forgetting and not forgiving 
State-sponsored terrorism, it may make some difference and it may 
result in the saving of American lives. It certainly can help move us 
so hopefully someday we get a sense of justice out of the loss of lives 
as we know them in the Pan Am 103 tragedy.
  Extending the law that requires sanctions on foreign companies that 
invest in Libya for another five years is in both the security interest 
of the United States and the security interest of the international 
community. Profits in Libya should not come at the expense of progress 
against international terrorism and justice for the families of the 
victims of Pan Am flight 103.
  Seventy-eight Members of the Senate have cosponsored legislation to 
extend the Iran Libya Sanctions Act for five years, and S. 1218 was 
approved by a vote of 19-2 by the Senate Banking Committee.
  I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation without delay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the floor manager, my good friend, Senator 
Sarbanes, and Senator Kennedy.
  First, let me speak to the underlying bill. I very much appreciate 
the leadership bringing it up at this time. The bill before the Senate, 
as I understand it, has only one cosponsor, Senator Sarbanes, the 
chairman of the Banking Committee, which reported this as an original 
bill. However, there are 79 cosponsors of the underlying bill sponsored 
by Senators Smith and Schumer. I want the record to note I am on that 
bill.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is of no consequence to me, but I think it is----
  Mr. SARBANES. It is important. The list of cosponsors was sent to the 
desk and the Senator is included in the list. The reason the bill came 
out of the committee this way, when you do a committee print, is that 
is how it had to be presented. We did a committee print instead of the 
original bill that was introduced because there were some relatively 
minor changes that were made, and we laid down a committee bill, as it 
were, for markup purposes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I certainly understand and appreciate that. I just 
wanted the record to note why I was not seen as a cosponsor on it. 
Obviously, not being a member of the committee, and understanding the 
intention of the chairman--as former chairman, I understand the 
procedure and I do not take issue with it. But I wanted the record to 
note, as the floor manager indicated, my support of the bill.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 1154

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I rise on an issue of grave concern. Clearly, I stand 
with my colleagues and those who have spoken on the justification of 
extending the sanctions timeframe for another 5 years on both Iran and 
Libya.
  I hope the Chair will notice that there is another country that is 
excluded from this list, and that is Iraq. The presumption is that it 
is taken care of under the U.N. sanctions.
  I have come to this floor to speak of inconsistencies before in our 
foreign and energy policy. I come today to address an inconsistency in 
relationship to what this particular bill addresses. It addresses the 
attitude prevailing in the Senate that we are going to stand against 
terrorism.
  Clearly and appropriately that attitude should be directed to Iran 
and Libya. But the same moral question is applicable to our 
relationship with Iraq. I am not going to go into great detail on the 
prevailing attitude in Iraq with regard to terrorists, but I think the 
prevailing attitude of Saddam Hussein is known to all Members--his 
continued criticism of Israel. I think it is fair to say he concludes 
almost every address with the words ``death to Israel,'' or quotes to 
that effect.
  I am not going to stand here and take a contrary position on the 
issue of condemning those that foster terrorism, Iran and Libya, which 
this amendment addresses, and an extension of the sanctions for another 
five years. But I do want to raise awareness of an inconsistency here. 
I am referring, of course, to our growing dependence on imported 
petroleum from Iraq.
  Let me show the reality of what is happening in this country. I know 
many Members have, since the price of gasoline has gone down, an 
indifferent attitude that the question of our national security has had 
little impact on this debate. But I think it has every relevance to 
this debate because our national security is threatened by our 
escalating dependence on foreign imports. You have to separate energy 
sources. You have to separate the energy that comes from our 
conventional sources, whether they be nuclear, hydro, natural gas, wind 
alternative--from oil because oil moves America. Oil moves the world. 
You do not generate much electricity with oil, but you move everything 
and everybody. We are becoming more dependent on imported oil, 
particularly from disturbing sources.

  Many in this body will remember in 1973 we had the Yom Kippur war. We 
had gas lines around the block in this country. We were 37-percent 
dependent on imported oil.
  The public was outraged. How could this happen? We created a 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We said this country will never ever 
approach or exceed 50-percent dependence on imported oil.

[[Page S8177]]

 We are 56-percent dependent now. The Department of Energy has 
indicated we are going to be 66-percent dependent by the year 2010, 
approximately 65-percent dependent in the year 2008.
  This dependence is very real and there is no relief in sight. I want 
to make it again clear I support this underlying bill. There is no 
justification in my mind for allowing the Iran-Libya Sanction Act to 
lapse. I have talked to many people, many interest groups on this 
subject. But I want to go on record to recognize that we have not 
imported more than a drop of oil from Iran in 20 years or, for that 
matter, Libya.
  On the other hand, do you have any idea what we are importing from 
Iraq today? You should, because it is a million barrels a day. Yet Iraq 
is not included in these sanctions.
  I am not going to go into the reason, but I am going to point out the 
obvious. This chart was made not so very long ago, when we were 
importing 750,000 barrels a day. Now this figure should read 1 million 
barrels a day; the Persian Gulf, 2.3 million; OPEC, 5 million barrels a 
day.
  Make no mistake about it, OPEC is a cartel. Cartels are illegal in 
the United States. They are antitrust violations. But we have become 
addicted to oil. We don't produce enough in this country. We are 
increasing our dependence and also, if you will, compromising our 
national security. What did we see as late as 3\1/2\ weeks ago? Our 
friend Saddam Hussein, in a beef with the United Nations, decided to 
curtail his production. He took 2\1/2\ million barrels a day off the 
world market. We were led to believe OPEC would increase production 
2\1/2\ million barrels a day and there would be no shortage. That 
didn't happen. Saddam Hussein curtailed for a month 2\1/2\ million 
barrels a day. A little over 60 million barrels didn't get to the 
market. OPEC didn't increase the production. The price stabilized. It 
went up a little bit.

  Make no mistake about it, blood is thicker than water, if I can use 
that expression, in the sense of OPEC making a determination that while 
the United States is one of their largest customers, they also had an 
obligation to respond to what Saddam Hussein was attempting to do; that 
was to get more flexibility from the U.N.
  I go into this in some detail because I don't think my colleagues or 
the American public really understand the significance of what this 
means to the national security of this country.
  When we take his oil, he takes our money. We gave Saddam Hussein $6 
billion last year alone for the purchase of oil. What does he do with 
that money? He pays his Republican Guard to take care of his safety and 
other personal needs. He develops a missile capability, a delivery 
capability, and a biological capability. At whom does he aim it? He 
aims it at our ally, Israel.
  I don't know about you, Mr. President, but that bothers me. It shows 
a grave inconsistency in our foreign policy.
  Mr. President, my amendment attempts to address that by requiring 
that we terminate our purchase of oil from Iraq.
  What does that mean? If I were to spill this water on this desk, it 
would spill to all four corners of the desk. That is the way the oil 
market works. There is so much oil out in the world, and there is so 
much consumption. If we choose not to buy --when I say ``we,'' I am 
talking about America's oil companies--from Iraq, that will relieve 
Iraq of oil to be purchased by somebody else, and that somebody else 
can relieve their purchaser. So we can basically purchase the oil from 
someone other than Iraq. But obviously Iraq has it for sale. The terms 
are probably favorable in the competitive market.
  I am not going to go too far down that pipeline other than to suggest 
that we don't necessarily short ourselves a million barrels a day if we 
don't buy our oil from Iraq. There are other places to buy that oil.
  But I want to remind the American people that since the end of the 
Gulf War in 1991 we have enforced a no-fly zone, flying over 250,000 
sorties. Those sorties have specifically been initiated to prevent 
Saddam Hussein from threatening our allies in the region. Every time we 
fly a sortie, we are putting American men and women in harm's way, 
because he attempts to take down our aircraft.
  It is pretty hard to get an estimate of how much we have expended to 
keep Saddam Hussein in his box since the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It 
has been estimated, as near as we can determine, that it is some $50 
billion.
  That war was in early 1991. Saddam invaded Kuwait in the summer of 
1990. What was his objective? We know the war was, at least in part, 
over oil. His objective was to go through Kuwait, and then on into 
Saudi Arabia, and control the world's supply of oil--the life's-blood 
of the world.

  Every day we place our service men and women in harm's way. We lost 
147 American lives, we had 450 American wounded and 23 American 
prisoners of war in the 1991 Gulf War.
  I said this before on this floor. I think I have it right. We take 
Iraqi oil, we put it in our airplanes, and send our pilots to go after 
Iraqi artillery and return to fill up with Iraqi oil again.
  Mind you, there is a sanctions bill on the floor against Iran, and 
sanctions against Libya. Where is Iraq? Some say that is covered by the 
U.N. sanctions. Come on, let's not kid each other. We know he is black-
marketing a significant amount of oil outside the sanctions because we 
have no enforcement of the sanctions. The U.N. doesn't have ready 
access to his country, and only limited control over what he does with 
the money. We know he is not taking care of the needs of his people 
with the money he gets from oil sales.
  Again, through this entire presentation, I appeal as we consider the 
bill before us, where is Iraq? Why aren't we initiating meaningful 
sanctions against Iraq at the same time?
  Last week, Iraq fired a surface-to-air missile into Kuwait airspace 
for the first time since the 1991 Gulf War. The missile was aimed at a 
United States unarmed surveillance aircraft on routine patrol several 
miles inside the Kuwait border with Iraq. That is reality. But it is 
hardly makes the newspaper. It is not news anymore. We take it for 
granted.
  Saddam Hussein is heating our homes in the winter, gets our kids to 
school each day, gets our food from the farm to the dinner table, and 
of course we pay him to do that.
  What does he do with the money he gets for the oil? As I indicated, 
he pays his Republican Guard to keep him alive. He also supports 
international terrorist activities. We have heard from our colleagues 
regarding Iran and Libya. I agree with them. This issue on Iran and 
Libya is a moral stance against those countries that foster terrorism. 
But again, where do we stand on Iraq? Saddam funds a military campaign 
against American service men and women and against those of our allies. 
He builds an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The threat is real 
to our men and women and our allies in the Persian Gulf.
  You may recall, as I do, the hundreds of Kuwaitis who remain 
unaccounted for since the Gulf War and who were kidnapped from Kuwait 
on Saddam's retreat in 1991. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives have 
been lost. Countless Iraqis are suffering due to Saddam's continuing 
tyranny.
  I find this extraordinary. I find it outrageous that the Senate has 
been silent. We seem to have our heads buried in the sand. We are all 
for extending unilateral sanctions against Iran and Libya, but where is 
Iraq? What is different here? Is it because of our increased dependence 
on his oil? How did we allow ourselves to get into such a situation?
  For a number of years the United States has worked closely with the 
United Nations on the Oil for Food Program.
  The program allows Iraq to export petroleum in exchange for funds 
which can be used for food, medicine, and other humanitarian products. 
But despite more than $15 billion available for these purposes, Iraq 
has spent only a fraction of that amount for the people's needs. 
Instead, the Iraqi Government spends the money on items of questionable 
and often suspicious purposes. Why?
  Why, when billions are available to care for the Iraqi people, who 
are malnourished--some of them are sick; some of them have inadequate 
health care--would Saddam Hussein withhold the money available and 
choose, instead, to blame the United States for the plight of his 
people? He does.
  Why is Iraq reducing the amount it spends on nutrition and prenatal 
care when millions of dollars are available from the sale of oil?

[[Page S8178]]

  Why does $200 million worth of medicine from the U.N. sit 
undistributed in Iraqi warehouses?
  Why, given the urgent state of humanitarian conditions in Iraq, does 
Saddam Hussein insist that the country's highest priority is the 
development of sophisticated telecommunications and transportation 
infrastructure?
  Why, if there are billions available, and his people are starving, is 
Iraq only buying $8 million worth of food from American farmers each 
year?
  I do not personally have a quarrel with the Oil For Food Program. It 
is well-intentioned. I do, however, have a problem with letting Saddam 
Hussein manipulate our growing dependency on Iraqi oil.
  Where are we on this issue? We are silent. Three times since the 
beginning of the Oil For Food Program, Saddam Hussein has threatened or 
actually halted oil production, disrupting energy markets, and sending 
oil prices skyrocketing. Why?
  Why does he do this? He does it to send a message to the United 
States. Do you know what the message is? The message is: I have 
leverage over you. And by the indication of our increased imports, as I 
indicated, the figure is one million barrels a day now. It seems he is 
pretty much right on target there.
  Every time he has done this, he has had his way. We have proven 
ourselves addicted to Iraqi oil. Saddam has been proven right: He does 
have leverage over us.
  Last month, in a display of displeasure over U.S. attempts to revise 
the sanctions regime, as I indicated, he withdrew 2.5 million barrels a 
day from the market for 30 days. OPEC did not make it up. Now we are 
importing over a million barrels a day. Ten percent of our oil imports 
come directly from Saddam Hussein.
  Am I missing something? Is this really acceptable to this body? We 
have placed our energy security in the hands of this individual.
  The administration has valiantly attempted to reconstruct a sensible, 
multilateral policy towards Iraq. Attempts have, unfortunately, not 
been successful. I think that before we can construct a sensible U.S. 
policy towards Iraq, we need to end the blatant inconsistency between 
our energy policy and our foreign policy. We need to get our heads out 
of the sand. We need to end our addiction to Iraqi oil. We need to 
basically find another alternative.
  To that end, in the amendment that I have at the desk, I am offering 
language to prohibit imports from Iraq, whether or not under the Oil 
For Food Program, until it is no longer inconsistent with our national 
security to resume those imports.
  I have had a colloquy with the leadership and the floor manager, and 
I agreed to submit my amendment to the desk, to speak on it, and 
withdraw it, with the proviso that I would receive an up-or-down vote 
at a later time on my amendment which would prohibit the purchase of 
Iraqi oil into the United States until certain conditions have been 
filled. And that is my intention. But I think it important to point out 
we simply cannot ignore this inconsistency in foreign policy.
  We simply cannot turn our heads and say, on one hand, we stand firm 
against terrorism associated with Iran and Libya and simply not mention 
Iraq, turn a blind eye towards our increased dependence on Iraqi 
sources as a supply of oil, and not make a connection somehow that if 
there is justification for sanctions against Iran and Libya, there 
certainly is justification for equivalent sanctions against Iraq.
  The bill that my good friend, the senior Senator from Maryland, has 
proposed addresses, obviously, the issue of extending the sanctions on 
Iran and Libya. I support that, as I have indicated. I recognize the 
various interests and the number of Members who are already in favor of 
the underlying bill. I respect that. But I would implore our colleagues 
to recognize that we are on a very dangerous, slippery slope with Iraq 
as we simply take for granted their willingness to sell us oil, and we 
take for granted our continuing dependence--an increasing dependence--
on that source and seem to be totally unconcerned about it.
  We are legitimately concerned about Iran and Libya, but Iraq 
sanctions terrorism as well. Is it because we have allowed ourselves to 
become more dependent on Iraq? This is almost like an examination of 
conscience--the conscience of our country, the recognition of our 
national security imperatives.
  My good friend from Maryland may expect me to go into a long-winded 
explanation of other alternatives for our increased dependence on oil. 
I believe that many alternatives can come domestically from the United 
States. However, America's environmental community that suggests we 
cannot do it here at home.
  But that environmental community isn't concerned with the national 
security consequences of our increased dependence on Iraq. I think the 
American people are inclined to take for granted that they can go to 
the gas station and simply pick up the hose and put it in their 
automobiles. We have had occasions where individuals have said: I 
thought that is the way it came. I forgot all about the reality that 
somebody had to find it, recover it, refine it, ship it, and make it 
available. Do we care about the fact that so much of it is coming from 
Iraq--a place with which we are in a virtual state of war?
  We stand against terrorism from Iran and Libya. But where do we stand 
on the imminent threat from Iraq?
  As we again address the reality of whether Americans should care 
where their oil comes from, it is fair to state there seems to be 
little concern about how environmentally compatible the development of 
Saddam Hussein's oil fields are. We do not seem to care about that. It 
is too far away. We want his oil. We will pay for it. End of 
discussion.
  But should we care where it comes from? Yes, we should, just as we 
should care very much about allowing terrorism to flourish in Iran and 
Libya. We should care about how we are contributing through our 
addiction to Iraqi oil to Saddam Hussein's campaign of terror.
  We should stand against the environmental degradation that is 
associated with some of the exploitation of resources in other 
countries that ultimately are bound for the United States.
  What about our economy? The greatest single contributor to the 
deficit balance of payments is the price of imported oil. We send our 
dollars overseas; we send our jobs overseas. We have the resources here 
at home, not to totally relieve but to a degree lessen our dependence. 
Do we have the fortitude to recognize the alternatives are here?
  This is a message that I don't think is very complex. It is a message 
based on simple but indisputable facts. That reality is, we move 
America and we move the world on oil. We are becoming more and more 
committed to that oil coming from Iraq, and Iraq has more and more 
leverage on the United States as a consequence of that. Again, I ask 
myself: Where is Iraq in the bill that is before this body?
  I have agreed to withdraw my amendment with the provision that the 
floor leadership has assured me of an up-or-down vote on my amendment 
at a later time. I want the administration, the State Department, and 
the domestic oil industry in this country that imports this oil from 
Iraq to get the message that I mean business. We are going to have in 
this body an up-or-down vote to either terminate our imports from Iraq 
and find our oil someplace else until such time as the administration 
and the President satisfies us that the inconsistencies associated with 
our relationship with Iraq are adequately addressed.
  Iraq should be part of this bill before us. However, in accordance 
with my agreement with the Leadership, I will withdraw the amendment, 
and unless there are other Members who want to speak on this on my 
time, it would be my intention, if there are no others, with the 
agreement of the floor manager, I would consider yielding back the 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment for the 
information of the Senate.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1154.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S8179]]

    (Purpose: To make the United States' energy policy toward Iraq 
  consistent with the national security policies of the United States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act can be cited as the ``Iraq 
     Petroleum Import Restriction Act of 2001''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the government of the Republic of Iraq:
       (A) has failed to comply with the terms of United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 687 regarding unconditional Iraqi 
     acceptance of the destruction, removal, or rendering 
     harmless, under international supervision, of all nuclear, 
     chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and 
     all related subsystems and components and all research, 
     development, support and manufacturing facilities, as well as 
     all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 
     kilometers and related major parts, and repair and production 
     facilities and has failed to allow United Nations inspectors 
     access to sites used for the production or storage of weapons 
     of mass destruction.
       (B) routinely contravenes the terms and conditions of UNSC 
     Resolution 661, authorizing the export of petroleum products 
     from Iraq in exchange for food, medicine and other 
     humanitarian products by conducting a routine and extensive 
     program to sell such products outside of the channels 
     established by UNSC Resolution 661 in exchange for military 
     equipment and materials to be used in pursuit of its program 
     to develop weapons of mass destruction in order to threaten 
     the United States and its allies in the Persian Gulf and 
     surrounding regions.
       (C) has failed to adequately draw down upon the amounts 
     received in the Escrow Account established by UNSC Resolution 
     986 to purchase food, medicine and other humanitarian 
     products required by its citizens, resulting in massive 
     humanitarian suffering by the Iraqi people.
       (D) conducts a periodic and systematic campaign to harass 
     and obstruct the enforcement of the United States and United 
     Kingdom-enforced ``No-Fly Zones'' in effect in the Republic 
     of Iraq.
       (E) routinely manipulates the petroleum export production 
     volumes permitted under UNSC Resolution 661 in order to 
     create uncertainty in global energy markets, and therefore 
     threatens the economic security of the United States.
       (2) Further imports of petroleum products from the Republic 
     of Iraq are inconsistent with the national security and 
     foreign policy interests of the United States and should be 
     eliminated until such time as they are not so inconsistent.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IRAQI-ORIGIN PETROLEUM IMPORTS.

       The direct or indirect import from Iraq of Iraqi-origin 
     petroleum and petroleum products is prohibited, 
     nothwithstanding an authorization by the Committee 
     established by UNSC Resolution 661 or its designee, or any 
     other order to the contrary.

     SEC. 3. TERMINATION/PRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATION.

       This Act will remain in effect until such time as the 
     President, after consultation with the relevant committees in 
     Congress, certifies to the Congress that:
       (1) the United States is not engaged in active military 
     operations in enforcing ``No-Fly-Zones'' in Iraq, supporting 
     United Nations sanctions against Iraq, preventing the 
     smuggling by of Iraqi-origin petroleum and petroleum products 
     in violation of UNSC Resolution 986, complying with United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 687 by eliminating 
     weapons of mass destruction, or otherwise preventing 
     threatening action by Iraq against the United States or its 
     allies; and
       (2) resuming the importation of Iraqi-origin petroleum and 
     petroleum products would not be inconsistent with the 
     national security and foreign policy interests of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 4. HUMANITARIAN INTERESTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the President should 
     make all appropriate efforts to ensure that the humanitarian 
     needs of the Iraqi people are not negatively affected by this 
     Act, and should encourage through public, private, domestic 
     and international means the direct or indirect sale, donation 
     or other transfer to appropriate non-governmental health and 
     humanitarian organizations and individuals within Iraq of 
     food, medicine and other humanitarian products.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) 661 Committee.--The term ``661 Committee'' means the 
     Security Council Committee established by UNSC Resolution 
     661, and persons acting for or on behalf of the Committee 
     under its specific delegation of authority for the relevant 
     matter or category of activity, including the overseers 
     appointed by the UN Secretary-General to examine and approve 
     agreements for purchases of petroleum and petroleum products 
     from the Government of Iraq pursuant to UNSC Resolution 986.
       (b) UNSC Resolution 661.--The term ``UNSC Resolution 661'' 
     means United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 661, 
     adopted August 6, 1990, prohibiting certain transactions with 
     respect to Iraq and Kuwait.
       (c) UNSC Resolution 986.--The term ``UNSC Resolution 986'' 
     means United Nations Security Council Resolution 986, adopted 
     April 14, 1995.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The prohibition on importation of Iraqi origin petroleum 
     and petroleum products shall be effective 30 days after 
     enactment of this Act.


                     Amendment No. 1154, Withdrawn

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes to 
address some of the comments of the Senator from Alaska. We have time 
on the amendment. Then I would be happy to yield back the time. I 
assume the Senator would yield back his time on the amendment. Then we 
would just be left with completing the bill. If I may now be recognized 
to speak on the time allotted with respect to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Alaska, there 
is much in what he said. I certainly agree with his condemnation of 
Saddam Hussein. He asked, why isn't Iraq in this bill?
  I think there are two reasons. One is, the bill was addressed to do a 
very simple, straightforward thing, and that was to extend the Iran-
Libya sanctions. We did not undertake, either with hearings or in any 
other way, to examine the Iraqi situation.
  Secondly, the Senator has given Members of this body a lot of food 
for thought with respect to the Iraq situation. Let me add a couple of 
observations which Members should keep in mind. This goes back to the 
administration's efforts now to tighten sanctions at the United Nations 
with respect to Iraq and the fact that the United States is part of an 
effort, through the U.N., to constrain Saddam Hussein.
  Iraq is able to sell oil to foreign companies, including American 
companies, but legally only under the guidelines of the U.N. Oil For 
Food Program.
  It is true they are bootlegging oil, and they have some middlemen at 
work. Of course, they are trying to tighten the regime in order to 
preclude those two possibilities. But the money that is being paid for 
the oil under the U.N. Oil For Food Program goes into a U.N.-controlled 
escrow account. The expenditures of that money out of the escrow 
account, the disbursement is subject to our review and our veto.
  This is all an effort to try to ensure that the money goes in for 
humanitarian purposes involving the Iraqi people and not for Saddam 
Hussein's purposes.
  The fact that we have been able to work through U.N. Security Council 
resolutions means that there is a program in place barring companies 
from making energy investments in Iraq. That is now being followed by 
the United States and by other countries as well. We are trying to 
monitor this program to alleviate the humanitarian situation and to 
ensure that the moneys do not go into the coffers of Saddam Hussein.

  We are in a sensitive situation at the United Nations because we just 
got the existing sanctions regime extended. We were unable to get the 
sanctions regime altered, as we ran into difficulties in the end from 
Russia. We have to be very careful how we move on this situation so we 
don't risk losing the existing multilateral sanctions regime which, 
although not perfect, is serving a very useful purpose.
  Obviously, if the U.S. companies are barred under the U.N. Oil For 
Food Program, other companies will fill the gap. I am more concerned 
about the fact that if we start playing this unilateral game on Iraq 
where we have multilateral sanctions in place, we may erode and 
undermine the multilateral sanctions.
  As we consider this proposal, and as the Senator from Alaska has 
indicated, he anticipates it will be back before us at some future 
time, we have to keep in mind this very difficult situation we have at 
the U.N.--Secretary Powell's efforts to sharpen the sanctions and to 
focus them in a more direct way. I don't think we want to jeopardize 
that.
  I think Members need to keep that in mind as we consider the Iraqi 
situation.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to the floor manager.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page S8180]]

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield myself a minute or so.
  It is not the intention nor the wording of my amendment to in any way 
alter the Oil For Food Program. That stays. My amendment does not 
jeopardize that. Let me make a couple of points in response.
  What I wish to emphasize is our increasing dependence on this source. 
It is now 10 percent of the total oil that we import. The significance 
of that is that, as the Senator from Maryland pointed out, is that the 
Oil-for-food program is kind of like a sieve. There are these 
sanctions, but as the Senator from Maryland noted, the oil seeps out 
through other routes than the U.N. Unfortunately, it doesn't have an 
adequate safeguard.
  So he is able to fund a significant amount of oil outside of the U.N. 
sanctions. And then the last point I want to make is that this is a 
unique situation. We should remind people that we are flying sorties, 
enforcing a no-fly zone over a country that we are allowing ourselves 
to become more dependent upon. I think that is very dangerous from the 
standpoint of national security.
  Obviously, Saddam Hussein himself and his record of terrorism speaks 
for itself. We rightly condemn Iran and Libya for harboring and 
sponsoring terrorists. I think Saddam Hussein fits into that category 
as well. In addition, we should not forget that have a growing 
dependence on an individual who, at virtually every opportunity, 
concludes major speeches with ``death to Israel.''
  Clearly, we are almost at war with this individual. These are the 
inconsistencies that need to be brought out and recognized for what 
they are and addressed in some responsible manner. The efforts by the 
Senator from Alaska to address this--first, to bring it to the body, 
which I have done today, and I have a commitment for an up-or-down vote 
from leadership, and I hope that the conscience of America reflects to 
some degree on each of our colleagues the fact that this is not, by any 
means, the best situation we could have in our foreign policy, nor our 
national security, by increasing dependence on this particular source. 
I would feel much better getting it from the OPEC nations rather than 
Saddam Hussein. That concludes my remarks. I thank my friend for his 
courtesies.
  Mr. SARBANES. Has the amendment been withdrawn?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield back the time we had on the amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield back my time, too.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield 3 minutes?
  Mr. SARBANES. I think the Senator from Texas has time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. GRAMM. I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate Chairman Sarbanes on this 
bill. This is a bipartisan bill. I think it is a good bill. I think it 
is justified. I am not unaware of the fact that things are happening in 
Iran. I continue to hope that a great country with a very proud 
history, with 67 million people, will have an awakening of freedom, and 
that Iran will rejoin the community of nations at some point. But while 
our committee is not unaware of the fact that there are some promising 
signs in Iran, the policy of the Government is still a policy that we 
find objectionable. Therefore, I support this bill.
  If something changes in Iran, if there is a change in policy, 
produced either by a change in the Government or a change in the policy 
of the Government, I think there is strong support in our committee, in 
the Congress, and in the country to change the current policy. But it 
is up to Iran and its people as to what course they are going to 
follow, whether they are going to be one of the responsible nations in 
the world or whether they are going to support terrorism.
  Let me also say that I see no sign that any similar hope is present 
in Libya. The bottom line is that we have to judge nations as we judge 
people, based on how they behave. When they behave irresponsibly, we 
can take note of it if we want to discourage that behavior.
  I hope we will get a strong vote. I have to say that when our 
committee debated this issue, while there was an overwhelming vote of 
support, we had a very good debate. Many important points were raised, 
and I was quite proud of how seriously we took this issue.

  I don't have any intention to use my 30 minutes. I don't know if 
anyone else on my side wishes to speak, so maybe for the time being I 
will reserve my time and see if anybody comes over. Let me conclude my 
remarks and see if there is anyone on the Democrat side who wants to 
speak. I hope my colleagues will vote for the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. 
I believe that, unfortunately, it is needed. I hope things will change 
so that we can lift these sanctions some day, and I hope it is soon. 
But something has to change to make that happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will yield the Senator from Oregon as much time as he 
might require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank Senator Gramm. I will be brief. Mr. 
President, I compliment the ranking member and the chairman of the 
Banking Committee for bringing this legislation to the floor. It has 
been my privilege to introduce it to their committee with Senator 
Schumer, the Senator from New York--a Republican and a Democrat.
  Senator Schumer and I came together on this bill in the belief that, 
as America pursues its national interests abroad, we should not forget 
our national values at home. One of the national values that I believe 
we have is our commitment to the State of Israel to defend it in its 
existence. This is a commitment that continues today in some very 
troubled waters. But the truth is, if you examine the globe and try to 
evaluate where America could be drawn into a conflict, surely the 
Middle East is one of those.
  Some of the actors in the Middle East, it seems to me, have made it 
clear in recent days that their intention is not to make peace with 
Israel but to eliminate Israel from the map. To that end, we see in 
Iran a nation that is pursuing its petroleum business in order to buy 
its munitions, its weapons business, to build weapons of mass 
destruction and the rocketry to deliver them, to engage in this deadly 
trade--all aimed at the State of Israel.
  What can we do about that? Well, one of the things this Congress and 
the American people have done as an expression of our commitment is to 
establish the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. We need to renew that before 
August 5 or it will lapse. It will now be renewed, I believe, for an 
additional 5 years. It is very important that we do this because, 
currently, Iran is giving $100 million a year to finance the activities 
of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. They are supplying them with 
the deadliest of munitions, and we are seeing their work played out on 
the streets of Jerusalem.
  Further, now we know that Iran is proliferating all kinds of weapons 
of the deadliest kind. So the only peaceful means we have to respond is 
with our dollars and with these sanctions, which try to thwart the 
development of petroleum projects in Iran--by the way, they have been 
very effective in that interruption--the profits from which can be 
spent on weapons of mass destruction.
  Where does Libya come in? Libya still refuses to abide by U.N. 
Security Council resolutions regarding Pan Am flight 103, which require 
that Tripoli formally renounce terrorism, accept responsibility for the 
actions of its Government officials convicted of masterminding the 
bombing, provide information about the bombing, and pay appropriate 
compensation to the families of the victims. Further, Libya is a prime 
suspect of many of the past terrorist actions that have rocked the 
Middle East.
  ILSA threatens the imposition of economic sanctions against foreign 
entities investing in Iran and Libya. Again, as we look at how 
effective it has been, of the 55 major petroleum projects in Iran that 
have sought foreign investment, I am only aware of a half dozen or so 
that have received foreign investment. This is the best and most 
peaceful way we have to respond to a buildup of weaponry that could 
threaten Israel's existence and draw the United States into conflict as 
well.
  I believe ILSA has proven it works. I believe it reflects our 
national values,

[[Page S8181]]

and I believe it restates in the clearest of terms our commitment to 
the security of Israel and its place in the world.
  I am pleased over 78 of our colleagues have signed on as original 
cosponsors of this bill.
  I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for 
bringing it to the floor today and to a vote, I assume, very soon.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 10 minutes 
remaining, and the Senator from Texas has 21\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SARBANES. There is a total of 31 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am going to put in a quorum call and 
alert my colleagues if there is anyone else who wishes to speak on this 
bill, they should let us know and come to the floor promptly. 
Otherwise, we will yield back all of our time and schedule this matter 
to go to a vote at 6:30 this evening. I will get further guidance on 
that, but for the moment I will put in a quorum call with the alert to 
other colleagues, if there is anyone else who wishes to speak on this 
bill, they should let us know and come at once. Otherwise, we are going 
to draw this debate to a close.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I join my colleagues in support of 
renewing the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act to protect American interests in 
the Middle East. Despite promising changes within Iranian society, 
Iran's external behavior remains provocative and destabilizing. Iran 
continues to aggressively foment terrorism beyond its borders and 
develop weapons of mass destruction as a matter of national policy. 
Consistent calls from its leaders for Israel's destruction, and the 
Iranian government's bankrolling of murderous behavior by Hezbollah, 
Hamas, and other terrorist groups, should make clear to all friends of 
peace where Iran stands, and what role it has played, in the 
conflagration that threatens to consume an entire region.
  Nor has Iranian-sponsored terrorism targeted only our Israeli ally. 
According to Attorney General Ashcroft, Iranian government officials 
``inspired, supported, and supervised members of Saudi Hezbollah'' 
responsible for the 1996 terrorist attack on Khobar Towers, which took 
the lives of 19 U.S. service men. According to former FBI Director 
Freeh, that chain of responsibility extends to Iran's most senior 
leadership.
  Critics of our Iran sanctions policy make two arguments. The first is 
that these sanctions are ineffective. But according to the Iranian 
government itself, in a 1998 report to the United Nations, ILSA caused 
``the disruption of the country's economic system,'' a ``decline in its 
gross national product,'' and a ``reduction in international 
investment.'' As Lawrence Kaplan points out in this week's edition of 
The New Republic, since ILSA was enacted in 1996, Iran has promoted 
over 50 investment opportunities in its energy sector but has secured 
only eight oil contracts. Sanctions have a deterrent effect on 
international investors, notwithstanding the foreign policies some of 
their national governments pursue.
  The second argument of sanctions critics is that ILSA renewal would 
stifle American-Iranian rapprochement, in which we hold a strategic 
interest. This argument would carry weight had our government not 
repeatedly sought to initiate an official dialogue on normalization 
with Iran. But our highest leaders have extended the olive branch on 
several occasions. Each time, the Iranian government has rejected it. 
In June 1998, then-Secretary of State Albright called for mutual 
confidence-building measures that could lead to a ``road map'' for 
normalization. The Iranian government rejected this unprecedented 
overture. In March 2000, Secretary Albright gave another speech in 
which she expressed regret for American policy towards Iran in the 
past, called for easing sanctions on some Iranian imports, and pledged 
to work to resolve outstanding claims disputes dating to the 
revolution. Iran's government deemed this offer insufficient to form 
the basis for a new dialogue. In September 2000, then-President Clinton 
and Secretary Albright went out of their way to attend President 
Khatami's speech at the United Nations an important diplomatic symbol 
of our interest in a new relationship. But the Iranians again balked. I 
ask: whose policy is static and immovable America's, with our repeated 
diplomatic entreaties for a more normal relationship, or Iran's, which 
rejects all such overtures even as it steps up the very behavior we 
find unacceptable?
  Nor is it time for the United States to lift sanctions on Libya. The 
successful conclusion of the Lockerbie trial, which explicitly 
implicated Libya's intelligence services in the attack, does not 
absolve Libya of its obligations to meet fully the terms of the U.N. 
Security Council resolutions governing the multilateral sanctions 
regime against it. Libya has not done so. Libya's support for state 
terrorism, as certified again this year by our State Department, and 
its aggressive efforts to develop chemical and potentially nuclear 
weapons, exclude Libya from the ranks of law-abiding nations.
  Lifting sanctions now on Iran and Libya would be premature and would 
unjustly reward their continuing hostility to basic international norms 
of behavior. I support extension of ILSA in the knowledge that it is 
not American sanctions policy but unacceptable behavior by these rogue 
regimes that precludes a new policy toward them at this time.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to express my concerns about the 
lack of review and reporting requirements for S.1218, the 
reauthorization of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, known as, ILSA. I 
believe that a renewal of any sanctions law should accompany a full 
review and report to the Congress on the effectiveness of the sanctions 
policy it imposes.
  First, I want to express my support for the goals of ILSA. All of us 
want to prevent terrorist organizations from carrying out their 
terrible activities and we want to stop the dangerous proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction, (WMD), technology. We must work with our 
allies and friends to use multilateral means and pressure these 
entities and countries to depart from these dangerous activities and 
work to encourage them to behave in a manner consistent with 
international norms. In the case of Libya, multilateral agreement on 
the course of action has been largely reached. Libya must take full 
responsibility for the despicable terrorist act resulting in the 
downing of Pan Am flight 103. In the case of Iran, however, the level 
of multilateral agreement is less consistent, in part because Iran has 
made some changes, albeit very small.
  The Banking Committee recently reported, by a 19 to 2 margin, the 
Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. I was one of those who could not support the 
bill at the time because it failed to require a report on the results 
of ILSA. I believe that this Congress has neither taken adequate time 
to examine the effectiveness of ILSA, nor the consequences of renewing 
ILSA for 5 years.
  At the Banking Committee markup, I supported Senator Hagel's 
amendment, which would have reauthorized ILSA for two years, and more 
importantly, required the President to report to the Congress on the 
effectiveness of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. The administration also 
requested a 2-year reauthorization so it could have a better 
opportunity to review its effectiveness. It is reasonable and prudent 
policy to review sanctions laws on a periodic basis. It would help 
ensure that the administration and Congress work together to forge an 
effective, commonsense policy which promotes our national security and 
foreign policy goals. We are living in a complex and more globalized 
world, so periodic review is necessary to keep pace with new 
developments. I also encourage a review of all of our sanctions 
statutes specifically relating to Iran to ensure a simplified approach 
to U.S. sanctions policy toward Iran.
  The current ILSA does not sanction Iran and Libya. Instead, it 
sanctions those who engage in certain levels of investment in Iran's 
and Libya's petroleum sectors. In addition, it does not

[[Page S8182]]

appear to me that the Congress fully considered the few positive 
developments that have occurred in Iran since the 1996 when ILSA was 
first passed. I fully understand that the hard-line clerics still 
control many of Iran's policies. However, we must not turn a blind eye 
toward Iran's election of Khatemi and the desire of young Iranian 
people to liberalize Iran's policies. Instead of showing some 
willingness to work with Iran, we are demonstrating our own 
inflexibility.
  The United States has direct national security interests in 
maintaining the stability of the Middle East. Israel is an island of 
stability within this turbulent region. It deserves the support of the 
United States. In doing so, however, we must do everything possible to 
avoid making enemies for both the United States and Israel in that 
region. The U.S. must remain strong, but willing to revisit issues of 
such importance to the security of both the United States and Israel. 
It is my hope that despite the lack of a reporting requirement in 
S.1218, the Bush administration will conduct a thorough review of the 
effectiveness of ILSA and other sanctions laws.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 
1218, the Iran Libya Sanctions Extension Act of 2001. This legislation 
will extend for another five years the Iran Libya Sanctions Act of 
1996, which would otherwise expire on August 5, 2001.
  In 1996 Congress unanimously enacted ILSA in response to Iran's 
emergence as the leading state sponsor of international terrorism, its 
accelerated campaign to develop weapons of mass destruction, its denial 
of Israel's right to exist, and its efforts to undermine peace and 
stability in the Middle East.
  Five years later, the U.S. State Department's ``Patterns and Global 
Terrorism,'' reported that Iran still remains ``the most active state-
sponsor of terrorism'' in the world, by providing assistance to 
terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Islamic 
Jihad.
  Eleven short days from now, ILSA is set to expire. That is why we 
must act today to renew this important legislation to deter foreign 
investment in Iran's energy sector--its major source of income. By 
doing so we can continue to undermine Iran's ability to fund the 
development of weapons of mass destruction and its support of 
international terrorist groups.
  In February of this year, I met with families of the American victims 
of the bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 in 1988. Brian Flynn, from New York 
City, recalled driving to John F. Kennedy airport to retrieve the body 
of his brother, J.P. Flynn, who had perished in the bombing. Brian 
remembered: ``There was no flag, no ceremony, no recognition that he 
was killed simply for being an American.''
  Earlier this year, once again Brian drove to John F. Kennedy airport, 
this time, to go to the Netherlands to listen to the verdict against 
two Libyan nationals indicted for the bombing. A Libyan intelligence 
officer was found guilty of murder in the bombing, in the words of the 
court, ``in furtherance of the purposes of . . . Libyan Intelligence 
Services.'' Yet Libya continues to refuse to acknowledge its role and 
to compensate the family members of 270 victims of the bombing. The 
State Department reports that Libya also remains the primary suspect in 
several other past terrorist operations. Brian and so many family 
members of the dozens of New Yorkers killed in the bombing, have 
written to me and conveyed how important it is for the United States to 
continue to hold Libya accountable for its support of international 
terrorism.
  By acting now to renew ILSA, the Senate is sending a clear message to 
Iran and Libya that their dangerous support for terrorism and efforts 
to develop weapons of mass destruction are unacceptable and will not be 
tolerated.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
on final passage of S. 1218, the Iran-Libya sanctions bill, occur this 
evening at 6:30.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object other than to indicate to all of the Senators within the 
sound of my voice, we are going to attempt to have two, maybe three, 
votes at 6:30. Senator Wellstone will be here at 4:30 to begin the 
dialogue, the debate on the Horn nomination, and then after that we are 
going to go to the nominee for the Small Business Administration, Mr. 
Barreto. We hope we can have those votes also at 6:30.
  I appreciate the usual good work of my friend from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I want to make it clear to colleagues 
that I am ready to speak on the nomination of Wade Horn to be HHS 
Assistant Secretary for Family Support. We are moving forward and are 
trying to get some work done. I am ready to speak. I think there are 
other Senators who want to speak in favor of the nomination. My guess 
is that it is a relatively noncontroversial nomination and there will 
be strong support. It can be a voice vote. It doesn't matter to me. But 
I want to speak and get this work done now. I am ready to do so.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________