[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 44 (Thursday, April 18, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2911-S2916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued


                Amendment No. 3159 To Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3159 to amendment No. 2917.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (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:

                   TITLE--IRAQ OIL IMPORT RESTRICTION

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND FINDINGS.

       (a) This Title 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 686 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,

[[Page S2912]]

     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 
     661 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.
       (F) pays bounties to the families of suicide bombers in 
     order to encourage the murder of Israeli civilians.
       (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, 
     notwithstanding 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 Title will remain in effect until such time as the 
     President, after consultation with the relevant committees in 
     Congress, certifies to the Congress that:
       (a) (1) Iraq is in substantial compliance with the terms of
       (A) UNSC Resolution 687 and
       (B) UNSC Resolution 986 prohibiting smuggling of oil in 
     circumvention of the ``Oil-for-Food'' program; and
       (2) ceases the practice of compensating the families of 
     suicide bombers in order to encourage the murder of Israeli 
     citizens; or that
       (b) 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 687.'' The term UNSC Resolution 986 
     means United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, adopted 
     April 3, 1991.
       (d) ``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.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, earlier this month Saddam Hussein 
indicated that he was terminating oil production for 30 days. That 
would terminate oil from Iraq to the United States.
  I have a chart in the Chamber that shows currently the oil that we 
are receiving from Iraq. This chart shows the historic trend of crude 
oil imports from Iraq to the United States. In January, it was about 
294,000 barrels. In June, it went up to 973,000 barrels.
  One of the extraordinary things occurred in September. In September, 
it was at a high of almost 1.2 million barrels. Lest we forget, during 
September we had a terrorist attack in New York, in Washington, DC, and 
the downing of the aircraft in Pennsylvania.
  What does this have to do with Iraq? Well, we have known for some 
time that Saddam Hussein has been fostering and supporting terrorist 
activities. And to give you some idea, let me show you this little 
replica of an acknowledged statement from his Government relative to 
providing funding to the Palestinian suicide bombers. There is a check 
for $25,000. Previous to this, he was providing payments of up to 
$10,000. With an incentive of $25,000, God only knows to what extent 
terrorist activities will continue.
  Yet as we look at the United States and the trends we have seen in 
oil imports, as the Mideast crisis worsens, we see the price of oil 
rise.
  We also have another chart. We have seen this oil come into the 
United States. People probably don't really know from where their oil 
comes. Probably most of them don't care. It comes in to identified 
areas of New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, 
Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, California, and Washington.
  The irony here is obvious, if we go back to 1992 and look at the 
desolation associated with the burning of the oilfields in Kuwait. 
Recognize that we are now importing or have been importing about 1 
million barrels of oil a day from Iraq. Then with the notice by the 
Government of Iraq that they are going to terminate production, clearly 
one has to wonder if it is in the principal interest of the United 
States to rely on this source.
  Earlier in the day, we voted on the issue of ANWR. It was a cloture 
motion. We did not obtain 60 votes. So far on the energy bill, it is 
fair to say that the only increase in domestic production identified 
was associated with ANWR. Perhaps it is ironic that Saddam Hussein 
should terminate production. But I think it is appropriate, from a 
principle point of view, that the United States, by formal action, end 
our imports from Iraq until a couple of things happen.
  One is that the United Nations certifies that Iraq has complied with 
the Security Council resolution No. 687 and has dismantled their 
programs to develop and construct weapons of mass destruction; and that 
Iraq cease to smuggle oil in contravention of Security Council 
resolution No. 986; and finally, Iraq no longer pays bounties to the 
families of suicide bombers wreaking havoc in Israel.
  I recognize the Iraqi oil program is intended to be used for the 
benefit of the Iraqi people. But that is not the case. My amendment 
also seeks to ensure that the President use every means available to 
support humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, notwithstanding the ban 
on oil imports.
  Most Members consider themselves internationalists. I believe firmly 
in the importance of engagement with other countries, particularly 
economic engagement. I am a strong believer in free trade and have 
worked with many of my colleagues to reform economic sanctions and 
policies. However, it is time to draw the line on economic engagement 
when national security is compromised.
  Our increasing dependence on unstable overseas sources of oil is 
compromising our national security. We have seen Saddam Hussein last 
week urge fellow Arab OPEC members to use oil as a weapon. We have seen 
what an aircraft can do as a weapon. Saddam Hussein did that by 
imposing this 30-day embargo of oil exports to the United States until 
the United States forced Israel to cave in to the demands of the 
Palestinian extremists.
  In 1973, the Arab League used oil as a weapon during a time of 
similar crisis in the Mideast. At that time, the United States was 37-
percent dependent on imported oil. Still the Arab oil embargo 
demonstrates how powerful a weapon oil can be. And the United States 
was brought to its knees. Several of us remember during that time of 
the Yom Kippur War, there were gas lines around the block. The public 
was

[[Page S2913]]

blaming everybody for the inconvenience, including Government.

  During that particular timeframe, however, the TransAlaska Pipeline 
was completed. Oil began to flow. And within a few years, 25 percent of 
our domestic oil production came from Prudhoe Bay. As a consequence, 
imports dropped dramatically. But that was then and this is now. Times 
change. On the other hand, how much they stay the same.
  Nearly 30 years after the Arab oil embargo, we are faced with a 
similar threat that we faced in 1973, but there is a difference. The 
difference is now we are 58-percent dependent on imported oil. Back in 
1973, we were 37 percent. The stakes are higher. The national security 
implications are more evident. One wonders what we have learned. From 
the vote earlier today, I wonder that, too.
  Before us is the reality that Saddam Hussein has called on his Arab 
neighbors to use oil as a weapon and begin a 30-day moratorium on 
exports. The United States was importing over 1 million barrels of oil 
from Iraq.
  As we look at the situation in the Mideast today, our Secretary of 
State, having made every effort to bring the parties together, 
understanding withdrawal, whatever it took, and the appearance at least 
that Egypt has refused to meet with our Secretary of State, Mubarak, 
what that means, I guess one could look between the pages of history 
and come up with some kind of an evaluation. Things certainly are 
better but they might get worse.
  Reality dictates if you filled up your tank, chances are at least a 
half a gallon of the gasoline in your tank originally came from Iraq. 
Think about that. This is the same guy who pays bounties on suicide 
bombers of $25,000, who fires at our sons and daughters flying missions 
in the no-fly zones in Iraq, who has used chemical weapons on his own 
people, who has boasted that he has the weapons to scorch half of 
Israel.
  But when you innocently filled up your tank, you paid Saddam Hussein 
perhaps a nickel of every dollar you spent at the pump that day. You 
contributed to some extent to the suicide bombings. You bought shells 
targeted at American forces. You paid for chemical and biological 
weapons being developed in Iraq which are targeted at Israel and those 
Iraqis who would challenge Saddam Hussein.
  Haven't we learned our lesson before? I was looking around the house 
the other night. I ran across a Life magazine from March 1991. In a 
profile of the gulf war, they wrote of Saddam:

       When he finally fought his way to power in 1979, after an 
     apprenticeship of a few years as a torturer, his first order 
     was the execution of some 20 of his highest-ranking 
     government officials, including one of his best friends. He 
     likes to say ``He who is closest to me is farthest from when 
     he does wrong.'' He grew up in dirt to live in splendor. . . 
     . He is cheerless. And he currently possesses Kuwait.

  This article can be used as a reminder of the costly mistakes of not 
dealing with him. It is more or less a play-by-play review of the gulf 
war that we are in now but new names and a new era from 2002 could just 
as easily be inserted into the article. These lessons must not be lost. 
We recognize he is our enemy. The world must isolate him, cut him off 
and coax his regime to an early death.

  But we haven't learned our lesson, have we? He is still there because 
we are still buying his oil. Sure, these purchases are masked in the 
Oil for Food Program, but is it really working? He is still there.
  I know the Oil for Food Program isn't supposed to work this way. 
Saddam is supposed to use the money from Oil for Food to feed the Iraqi 
people and buy medicine. But we know he cheats on the program, buying 
all kinds of questionable materials, and that he smuggles billions of 
dollars of oil out of Iraq, which directly funds his armies, his 
weapons programs, and his palaces.
  I had an opportunity to be in Baghdad several years ago with a number 
of Senators. We met with Saddam Hussein. This was just before the gulf 
war. Regarding the circumstances of that meeting, I won't go into any 
detail, but they are very interesting. He invited us to lunch and never 
brought lunch. What we got out of the meeting was the recognition that 
this was a force to be dealt with.
  No matter how you look at it, Mr. President, our purchase of Iraqi 
oil is absolutely contrary to our national security interests. It is 
indefensible and must end.
  My amendment would do just that; it would end new imports of Iraqi 
oil until Iraq is proven a responsible member of the international 
community and complies with the relevant Security Council resolutions.
  I began the statement by affirming my support for economic 
engagement. I believe deeply in the principle of free trade. I do not, 
however, believe in economic disarmament. When, as is the case with 
oil, a commodity is not only important to our own economic health but 
also important to our military's ability to defend the Nation, self-
sufficiency is a crucial matter. No country or group of countries 
should have the ability to ground our aircraft, shut down our tanks, or 
keep our ships from leaving port. Yet allowing ourselves to become 
dependent on imports of this nature threatens to do just that.
  In the case of Saddam Hussein, we are dependent for some 5 percent of 
our imports from a sworn and defiant enemy. There he is on that chart. 
But our reliance on other foreign sources of oil is not risk-free. We 
have a very uneasy relationship with our friends in the gulf. September 
11 clearly demonstrated that our enemies in such staunch allies as 
Saudi Arabia may outnumber our friends.
  We already have some form of economic sanction on every single member 
of OPEC--a reflection of the uneasy relationship that we have with 
these nations. So this is risky business relying on countries such as 
these for our national security.
  Some Members have long recognized the folly of importing oil from our 
enemies--some more than others. But on July 25, we extended sanctions 
on importing oil from Iran and Libya. We have not imported any oil from 
those countries for some time because the sanctions were in existence. 
We didn't initiate sanctions against Iraq. Well, it is time we did.
  Does relying on Iraq make more sense than relying on Iran and Libya? 
I don't think so. I know that many of my colleagues advocate production 
in less risky parts of the globe, including here in the United States. 
The trouble is, we have to drill for oil where we are likely to find 
it. The fact is, the ground under which most of the oil is buried is 
controlled by unstable, unfriendly, or at-risk governments.

  Look at Colombia and the oilfields being developed in the pristine 
rain forests down there. We get some 350,000 barrels a day from 
Colombia.
  The 408-mile-long Cano Limo pipeline is at the heart of the Colombian 
oil trade, and it frequently is attacked by FARC rebels. They have 
declared the pipeline to be a ``military target.'' They are 
anticapitalist, anti-United States, anti-Colombian Government rebels.
  The trouble is, the half of the country these rebels control has the 
Cano Limo pipeline running through it--a convenient target to cripple 
the economy, get America's attention, and rally their troops for their 
cause. Countless attacks have cost some 24 barrels in lost crude 
production last year and untold environmental damage to the rain forest 
ecosystem.
  Last year, rebels bombed the Cano Limo 170 times, putting it out of 
commission for 266 days, costing Colombia roughly $500 million in lost 
revenue.
  Our administration wants to spend $98 million to train a brigade of 
2,000 Colombian soldiers to protect the pipeline. Now, last week, 
another rebel faction called American oil companies running the 
pipeline ``military targets.''
  I wonder if we are truly unfazed about the close connection between 
oil, money, and national security. Are we willing to turn our heads on 
the Mideast crisis to finance the schemes of Saddam Hussein? Are we 
willing to allow our policy choices in the Middle East to be dictated 
by our thirst for imported oil from this particular source? Are we 
willing to let our oil be used as a weapon against us?
  We should not allow our national security to be compromised. I know 
some today have dismissed ANWR as a solution. But the relevance here is 
principle. Our military cannot conduct a campaign associated with 
dependence on such unreliable sources.
  I sympathize with the desire to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. I 
believe we

[[Page S2914]]

will get there with continued research and new technologies. I 
understand the urge to deny the importance of oil in the national 
security equation. But all of my colleagues will eventually have to 
look in the mirror after this debate and ask themselves, again, to what 
extent we are willing to sacrifice our national security in order to 
appeal to the fantasies associated with the desires of Saddam Hussein.
  One of the things I think is testimony to the severity of how we deal 
with Iraq is the responsibility of the President and Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, his Cabinet, and others, as we have observed the reality that he 
is developing weapons of mass destruction. He has a delivery system 
capable of sending a missile to Israel. But he has been working on a 
nuclear capability. When is the world going to deal with that? Had we 
known what was about to occur relative to the tragic events associated 
with September 11, we would have taken action against Osama bin Laden. 
Had we only known.
  In the case of Saddam Hussein, the exposure is there. The question 
is, When and how? Buying oil and increasing our dependence on that 
country is certainly not the answer because we are funding whatever 
mischief Saddam Hussein is up to. So that is the purpose of this 
amendment, Mr. President.
  I urge my colleagues to think a little bit about the principle 
involved and join me in support of the amendment. Again, the irony is 
that he has cut us off for 30 days. The ramifications of that, the 
future will tell. Will the OPEC nations increase production and make up 
for the shortfall? They have indicated they might. Will the price of 
oil likely go up because of the shortage of supply? It is already going 
up.
  Clearly, by an action taken by the Senate to formally terminate 
imports from that country, we will send him a message, but will 
somebody else simply take our place and buy Saddam Hussein's oil?
  In any event, I think it is appropriate, from a principle point of 
view, for the United States to terminate its relationship with Iraq, as 
the amendment proposes, until such time as he commits to abide by the 
U.N. agreement, which requires that we have inspectors in Iraq to 
ensure that he is not a threat to the world; further, that he commits 
to halt any further funding of suicide bombers associated with the 
terrible activities occurring in Israel and Palestine.
  I have no further comments. Seeing no other Senator seeking the 
floor, I yield back the remaining time on this side, and defer to 
Senator Bingaman.
  I believe the yeas and nays have been ordered, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, they have.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me make a few comments with regard 
to the amendment, and I do not know that I will be in opposition, but I 
have some concerns I wish to express--and perhaps ask a few questions--
I have the amendment in front of me--my understanding of what the 
amendment is that first of all, it does not in any way prohibit Iraq 
from exporting oil. I think that is clear. Iraq has made a decision 
just recently to suspend its exports of oil for 30 days. So that is in 
place, as I understand it. But this amendment does not prohibit Iraq 
from exporting oil or does not commit us to any action which would in 
any way prohibit Iraq from exporting oil.
  Second, it does not prohibit us from importing oil from other 
sources. What it basically says is, we can continue to import whatever 
the percentage is--50 percent, 56 percent--of our oil needs from the 
world market. We just cannot import from this source.
  Also, it does not really by its language impose a legal prohibition 
against importing from Iraq. What it says is, as I read it and this is 
on page 3 of the amendment. It says:

       This Act prohibits imports until such time as the 
     President, after consultation with the relevant committees in 
     Congress, certifies to the Congress that 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.

  Basically, it takes the decision, which has been our national policy, 
that we would import legally exported Iraqi oil, just as we would 
import other oil. It says that in order for us to continue with that 
activity, the President has to give us a certification that it is not 
inconsistent with our national security or foreign policy interests to 
do so.
  Obviously, our relations with Iraq are a very serious foreign policy 
issue for our country at this time, and I am persuaded that most 
Members of the Senate would be very anxious to work in cooperation with 
the administration and with the President in formulating our policy 
toward Iraq.
  I do not know where the administration stands on this amendment. I do 
not know if there has been any request for their views on it. I would 
be anxious to hear from the sponsor of the amendment if he has had a 
reaction from the administration. We have made some informal inquiries, 
and we have been unable to get a response from the administration.
  I, frankly, think the responsible course would be for us to give the 
administration a chance to tell us its views. If the President wants 
this legislation enacted, then obviously that would carry great weight 
with many Senators. If the President believes this puts him in an 
awkward position, in that it requires him to issue a certificate to 
permit continued imports of Iraqi oil, then I think we should know. 
Obviously, there are many Members of this body who do not want to put 
the President in an awkward position relative to our relations with 
Iraq.
  I also have concerns about how an amendment such as this could be 
interpreted in world oil markets. We are very concerned that the price 
of gasoline has been going up in recent weeks, and we heard a lot about 
that during the ANWR debate that just concluded. Of course, that is a 
reflection, to some extent at least, of the rising price of oil on 
world markets. The price is up around $26 a barrel today, which is 
substantially higher than it was a few months ago. People are concerned 
about that.

  However, the information I have is that one reason why we import oil 
from Iraq is that we are able to do so at a discount. Why is Iraq 
forced to sell its oil at a discount in the world market? Because it is 
considered by the market to be a somewhat unreliable source for oil, so 
they are not able to get the premium price that some other producers 
are able to get. U.S. refiners benefit from that, and U.S. consumers 
benefit from the fact that we are buying that oil at a discount.
  I have an article that I will ask be printed in the Congressional 
Record after my statement, from the April 15 edition of the Dallas 
Morning News. The title of it is: ``In Oil, Profit Often Beats 
Politics.'' I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the 
Record after my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the key part of this is some comment on 
the amendment my colleague, Senator Murkowski, is now offering. It 
says:

       Mr. Murkowski wants to ban Iraqi oil imports. We have done 
     this before. Libyan oil was banned. Iranian oil was banned. 
     But oil is a commodity, and import bans make little 
     difference in the global market. Unless all importers join 
     the boycott, the oil will find a buyer.

  The main point is pretty clear: If Iraq is going to decide at the end 
of this 30 days to commence exports again, it will find a buyer for 
that oil. It will likely continue to sell at a discount in the world 
market. If we prohibit the importation of that oil into the United 
States, that is not going to hurt Saddam Hussein. That is not going to 
hurt Iraq. Iraq will find a buyer for that oil. We will be buying the 
oil we need from another source, but we will be buying on the world 
market just as we are today.
  As I say, I think there is less here than meets the eye as far as 
actually trying to impact or strike a blow against Saddam Hussein. I do 
not see that this amendment does that. I think, if anything, it puts 
our President in the awkward position of having to send a certificate 
to the Congress saying that, in his view, we should go ahead and 
continue to import Iraqi oil.
  Maybe that is what the President would like. Maybe that is what the 
Secretary of State would like. Maybe that is what the Secretary of 
Energy would like. I have not heard that from

[[Page S2915]]

any of them, and I think the appropriate course would be for us to 
solicit their opinion on an important amendment such as this before we 
adopt it.
  My initial reaction to this kind of amendment, and I am sure the 
initial reaction of most Senators, is: Fine, this is an anti-Saddam 
Hussein vote. How do you go wrong, how do you lose support in your home 
State by voting against Saddam Hussein? I would venture to say nobody 
does.
  However, this is a sensitive area of foreign policy and I do not know 
whether the Foreign Relations Committee has considered anything like 
this. It might be something they would be interested in looking at. I 
do not know if Senator Biden, who is chairman of that committee, has 
had a chance to look at this and formulate a position on it.
  I do not know that many Senators would want to vote against an 
amendment of this type, but if it is going to be pushed to a vote, I 
hope before the vote occurs--and I know it is expected to occur very 
soon under the unanimous consent agreement--I hope we can get some 
communication from the White House as to whether or not they support 
the amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

             [From the Dallas Morning News, Apr. 15, 2002]

                  In Oil, Profit Often Beats Politics

       Washington.--Gasoline prices climbed 31 cents a gallon in 
     the last eight weeks. Israelis and Palestinians are at war 
     again. Saddam Hussein says Iraq will halt oil production for 
     30 days to protest. None of this is encouraging, but neither 
     is it a description of an oil crisis. When one spigot closes, 
     another opens. There's 7 million barrels a day of spare 
     production capacity available to make up for Iraq's 1.7 
     million barrels a day of exports. The 11 members of the 
     Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries hold 90 
     percent of that spare capacity. OPEC has tried since the 1973 
     Arab oil embargo to convince the world that it is an economic 
     club rather than a political weapon. Saudi Arabia, with 3 
     million barrels a day of spare capacity, is expected to cover 
     any Iraqi-induced shortage, as it has before.
       Gasoline prices have risen rapidly in recent weeks but 
     remain about 10 cents a gallon below last year's levels. 
     Dallas experienced its highest price for unleaded regular on 
     May 12, when the average was $1.66 a gallon. Oil is the most 
     political commodity. It was largely Saudi Arabia's political 
     will to produce more that sent oil prices down after Sept. 
     11, and Saudi curbs on oil that sent them back up again. The 
     oil workers in Venezuela and Nigeria flexed their political 
     muscles last week in showdowns with their governments that 
     coincided with the agonies of the Middle East.
       Nigeria's unrest centered on unpaid oil workers, and 
     quieted quickly.
       Venezuelan oil deliveries were disrupted, and the strikers 
     persuaded the military to join them in an abortive coup 
     Friday against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Mr. Chavez 
     returned to office Sunday, 48 hours after being ousted.
       Iraq and Venezuela supply a major portion of oil refined in 
     the United States. Venezuela sends half its 2.4 million 
     barrels a day of exports to the United States, both as 
     gasoline and crude oil. More than half of Iraq's exports also 
     land in the United States. Given the enmity between our 
     countries, that seems crazy. But economics beats politics 
     with Iraqi oil, whose price discounts seem irresistible to 
     U.S. refiners.
       Republican Sens. Frank Murkowski of Alaska and Larry Craig 
     of Idaho are incensed by Iraq's presence in the market. They 
     say that every time a U.S. motorist fills up, he or she is 
     putting money in the pockets of suicide terrorists. (Iraq has 
     offered $25,000 to their families.)
       Mr. Murkowski wants to ban Iraqi oil imports. We have done 
     this before. Libyan oil was banned. Iranian oil was banned. 
     But oil is a commodity, and import bans make little 
     difference in the global market. Unless all the importers 
     join the boycott, the oil will find a buyer.
       The same logic applies to export bans. Iraq can quit 
     producing, and Saudi Arabia covers the deficit. Iraq and 
     Venezuela can stumble together, and if the Saudis don't cover 
     it all, prices will rise around the world and tempt other 
     nations to increase their production.
       OPEC, in fact, can ill afford to see its oil production 
     used as a political weapon. The U.S. Energy Information 
     Administration expects OPEC production to be down 1.9 million 
     barrels a day this year as the cartel tries to defend a price 
     band. This lures others, particularly the Russians, to fill 
     the gap. Non-OPEC production is expected to increase this 
     year by 1.1 million barrels a day. Because profit has more 
     pull than political kinship, rival producers will rush to 
     capitalize upon a slowdown in Iraqi and Venezuelan oil 
     exports. That logic founders if something happens to disrupt 
     Saudi oil production. No one can take Saudi Arabia's place in 
     the market. Today's regime in Saudi Arabia shows no sign of 
     repeating the 1973 oil embargo. Tomorrow's regime? Who knows?

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from 
Alaska. I do not disagree with most of the findings in his amendment. 
Saddam Hussein is clearly in violation of his obligations under United 
Nations Security Council resolutions. He has repeatedly demonstrated 
his callous disregard for the plight of the Iraqi people. Humanitarian 
aid under the oil for food program has been diverted, languished in 
warehouses, or simply not purchased at all. As much of the Iraqi 
population goes without adequate health care and nutrition, Saddam 
lavishes luxury goods on his cronies and builds palaces.
  While the Senator may be correct in his diagnosis of the illness, it 
is not clear to me that his amendment is the cure.
  I have just spoken to a senior official at the State Department, who 
believes this amendment is a serious mistake. I believe that this 
amendment puts the President in a very difficult position at a 
difficult time.
  I have concluded that we need a regime change in Iraq. In my view, 
that effort will require us to lay the groundwork by making a solid 
case and building as broad a coalition as possible. I am concerned that 
this amendment may make the President's task more difficult. At the 
very least, we should provide him the opportunity to make his views 
known on this amendment.
  While the potential impact of this amendment is great, it has not 
been scrutinized sufficiently. The Foreign Relations Committee has 
certainly discussed the issue of Iraq policy, but we have not examined 
this specific proposal. I also understand that the Energy Committee has 
held no hearings on this proposal.
  As I stated at the outset, I do not see how this amendment will 
address the legitimate issues that the Senator cites. The proceeds for 
the legal purchase of Iraqi oil made by American companies are 
deposited in an escrow account controlled by the United Nations. Money 
in that account is then released for purchases of civilian goods. 
Before any money is spent, the sanctions committee, on which the United 
States sits, must approve every contract. In other words, we have a 
veto on how the money gets spent.
  To be sure, the oil for food program has flaws. Saddam gets illegal 
revenues by selling oil outside the program and by collecting illegal 
surcharges from shady middlemen. It is these revenues that are used by 
Saddam to prop up his regime, pursue weapons of mass destruction, and 
pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The Senator's 
amendment does not address the problem of illegal surcharges or 
smuggling.
  I am also concerned that by effectively pulling the United States out 
of the oil for food program, we may be sending the signal that we are 
not interested in the welfare of the Iraqi people. I know that is not 
the Senator's intention, but it may be an unintended effect of his 
amendment. This could have an impact on the ability to pull together an 
effective coalition to confront Saddam.
  This is just one example of the potential unintended impact of this 
amendment. I think it is important that we understand all of the 
ramifications of this proposal before proceeding.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, recognizing I have yielded back my 
time, I wonder if the majority would allow me to respond for a few 
minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection. Following that, I 
expect to yield back most of my time. I gather we are ready for a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my friend, Senator Bingaman.
  It is the intention of the prohibition on Iraqi-origin petroleum 
imports to terminate the imports, and they could then be addressed by 
the President and the President, after consultation with relative 
committees of Congress, can certify to the Congress that Iraq is 
substantially in compliance with the U.N.S.C. Resolution 687 and 
Resolution 986.
  Resolution 986 prohibits smuggling of oil in circumvention of the Oil 
for Food Program, and 687 mandates inspections by U.N. inspectors. So 
the intent is clear. It is to terminate oil exports in the United 
States.
  The Senator from New Mexico suggested we contemplate and be somewhat 
sensitive to the attitude of the

[[Page S2916]]

White House. I think during our extended debate on ANWR we had an 
extended discussion about the attitude of the White House that did not 
prevail in this body.
  I think what is germane, however, is the attitude of the White House 
with regard to the sanctions on Iran and Libya. They are quite clear, 
and I think there is a notable similarity. Those sanctions were 
initiated in retaliation to terrorist activities associated with Libya. 
What was it? The downing of Pan American flight 103 over Scotland. That 
is why we took that action. It was most appropriate. In Iran, in 1979, 
it was the Embassy takeover and the terrorist activities associated 
with that.
  So we have a parallel. I do not think there is any question about it. 
We terminated a relationship in the sanction action against Libya and 
Iran for fostering terrorism.
  If what is going on with Saddam Hussein is not an act of terrorism, I 
do not know what is. I indicated in my statement pretty much 
throughout, this is a matter of principle for the United States. I do 
not think there is any question about the justification. It is the same 
justification. Saddam Hussein is fostering terrorism, and I think we 
would all acknowledge that. So I think, with all due respect, that is 
the justification for this action.
  Today, who is more of a threat to the world? Is it Iran, is it Libya, 
or is it Iraq? Well, no question in my mind.
  I am happy to respond to any questions.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time 
as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3159. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--10

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Fitzgerald
     Gramm
     Hagel
     Lugar
     Nelson (NE)

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Nickles
       
  The amendment No. 3159 was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table as 
agreed to.


                        Capacity-Based Standards

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have discussed with Senator Bingaman a 
concern with his amendment No. 3016. In particular, I question whether 
we should structure the renewable portfolio standard to refer to the 
``capacity'' of a renewable system or, as done in Senator Bingaman's 
amendment, to the ``energy generated.'' I think we would simplify 
compliance by staying with a ``capacity-based'' standard, but I realize 
that this is a complex issue. I strongly recommend that we return to 
this issue in conference and carefully evaluate the pros and cons of 
these two approaches.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I concur with my colleague that this issue deserves 
more discussion. I look forward to further analysis and discussion of 
this in conference in order to arrive at a final position.

                          ____________________