[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.
____________________