Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 105 (Wednesday, July 25, 2001)

[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.

____________________