[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 120 (Friday, September 20, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8961-S8964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call attention to an article in the 
Washington Post of September 15, Sunday, the final edition. I shall 
read excerpts therefrom. The headline: ``In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is 
Key Issue; U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool.'' The article is by 
Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, Washington Post staff writers.
  I will proceed now with reading the first three paragraphs:

       A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would 
     open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from 
     Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France 
     and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, 
     according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi 
     opposition.
       Although senior Bush administration officials say they have 
     not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, 
     American and foreign oil companies have already begun 
     maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves 
     of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world 
     outside Saudi Arabia.
       The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of 
     the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations 
     to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western 
     allies for President Bush's call for tough international 
     action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the 
     Security Council--the United States, Britain, France, Russian 
     and China--have international oil companies with major stakes 
     in a change of leadership in Baghdad.
       ``It's pretty straightforward,'' said former CIA director 
     R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates 
     of forcing Hussein from power. ``France and Russia have oil 
     companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if 
     they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent 
     government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new 
     government and American companies work closely with them.'' 
     But he added: ``If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it 
     will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the 
     new Iraqi government to work with them.''
       Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has 
     fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will 
     be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly 
     would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath 
     of Hussein's fall.

  Are you listening? Out there in America, are you listening?
  Let me say that again, with reference to former CIA Director R. James 
Woolsey:

       But he added: ``If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it 
     will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the 
     new Iraqi government to work with them.''
       Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has 
     fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will 
     be excluded by the United States--

  Hear that--

     which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in 
     Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's fall.

  Are we paying attention?

       Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been 
     meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their 
     case for a future stake and to sound them out about their 
     intentions.
       Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more 
     than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, 
     Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to 
     reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, 
     refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. 
     Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. 
     sanctions.
       But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews 
     last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.

  It is a lengthy article, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that 
this article be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BYRD. Now, Mr. President, let me call attention to an editorial 
in today's Charleston, WV, Gazette, titled, ``Bush, Cheney won't 
stop.''
  And I read therefrom:

       Although Iraq agreed to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors, 
     President Bush and Vice President Cheney still are clamoring 
     for U.S. military action to topple dictator Saddam Hussein.
       The White House continues its mantra--

  Now listen. This is the Charleston, WV, Gazette.

       The White House continues its mantra that war is necessary 
     because Saddam is ``evil'' and he's secretly making weapons 
     of mass destruction. But this justification may be a smoke 
     screen.

  Are you listening? Are you listening, the people out there throughout 
this great land? Are you listening?

     . . . this justification may be a smoke screen. Some 
     observers say the administration's hidden motive is to gain 
     control of Iraq's oil.
       In a front-page Sunday report subtitled ``U.S. Drillers Eye 
     Huge Petroleum Pool,'' The Washington Post said America's oil 
     industry--to which Bush and Cheney are closely tied--eagerly 
     wants a ``regime change'' in

[[Page S8962]]

     Iraq so U.S. firms can begin drilling into Iraq's vast, 112-
     billion-barrel reserve.

  So the Charleston Gazette of today calls attention to the Washington 
Post article which I have already read and have included in the Record, 
the Washington Post article of last Sunday.
  Continuing with the Gazette editorial:

       The White House supports the London-based Iraqi National 
     Congress, an umbrella organization of exiled Iraqi groups 
     seeking to remove Saddam. INC [Iraqi National Congress] 
     leader Ahmed Chalabi told the Post [the Washington Post] 
     that, when a new regime is installed in Baghdad, ``American 
     companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.''
       The Washington [Post] quoted former CIA Director James 
     Woolsey:--

  And I have also referred to his remarks. But let me continue with the 
Charleston Gazette editorial:

       Amazing!

  In referring to what Mr. Woolsey was saying, the Gazette said:

       Amazing. This implies that Bush's war urge isn't about 
     ``evil'' or weapons. It's about oil.

  ``It's about oil.''

       Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker said 
     the White House war demands are ``tainted with the sickening 
     smell of gasoline.''

  Now, that was the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. That is a Georgia 
paper that is known and read nationwide and internationally.
  Let me read what that column said again:

       Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker said 
     the White House war demands are ``tainted with the sickening 
     smell of gasoline.''

  Further reading from the Charleston Gazette of today:

       ``If the Bush administration invades Iraq,'' she wrote--

  Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker--

     ``future scholars will look back on this period and name the 
     period for what it was: the Petroleum Wars. . . . What but 
     oil could possibly explain the Bush administration's stubborn 
     insistence on attacking Saddam Hussein, who had no connection 
     to the atrocities of Sept. 11?''
       Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., has taken the lead in 
     questioning President Bush's warplans.
       We hope that he and colleagues in Congress try to learn 
     whether the White House war cry is designed to serve 
     America's oil industry.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Gazette editorial in 
its entirety be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have an 
additional 10 minutes, if needed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before the Nation is committed to war, 
before we send our sons and daughters to battle in faraway lands, there 
are critical questions that must be asked, and it is not unpatriotic to 
ask questions.
  To date, the answers from the administration have been less than 
satisfying. After weeks of criticism from Congress and, indeed, from 
the countries of the world, President Bush went to the United Nations 
to press his case that Iraq posed a serious threat to the peace and 
security of the globe. But instead of offering compelling evidence that 
the Iraqi regime had taken steps to advance its weapons program to the 
point that it is necessary for the United States to deliver an 
unprovoked attack on a sovereign state--namely, Iraq--the President 
offered the U.N. more of a warning than an appeal for support.
  Instead of using the forum of the U.N. General Assembly to offer 
evidence and proof of his claims, the President basically told the 
nations of the world that ``you are either with me or against me.''
  ``Do not question this stand,'' the President said. If the U.N. is 
unwilling to act, then ``by heritage and by choice, the United States 
of America will make that stand.''
  While Mr. Bush tried to play the role of an international prosecutor, 
his case was at best circumstantial. He did a fine job in laying out 
the facts with regard to the failure of the United Nations to uphold 
and take more compelling action in upholding its previous resolutions. 
He made a fine statement in that regard. He made it clear that the 
United Nations had not enforced its resolutions. Sixteen resolutions 
had been adopted by that agency.
  But in the days that followed that address, the administration 
officials have attempted to provide some answers to the looming 
question. However, this week, when asked by the House Armed Services 
Committee members what was new, what was compelling to force the hand 
of this Nation against Saddam Hussein, Secretary of Defense Donald 
Rumsfeld offered nothing new. He pointed to the terrorist acts of 
September 11 as compelling reason, and he said:

       The last thing we want is a smoking gun. A gun smokes after 
     it has been fired. The goal must be to stop Saddam Hussein 
     before he fires a weapon of mass destruction against our 
     people.

  Well, he said the same thing before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee on yesterday. He said: We are being asked what is new.
  He said: What is new? September 11.
  Well, September 11 is not all that new, Mr. President, September 11 
was 365 plus 9 days, in other words, 374 days ago. That is not so new.
  With reference to Mr. Rumsfeld's statement concerning a smoking gun, 
when he said, ``The last thing we want is a smoking gun. A gun smokes 
after it has been fired''--my concern, Mr. President, is that the 
United States, in forcing war in Iraq, will end up shooting itself in 
the foot. Unless proper care and deliberation precede any action, we 
must not be hell-bent on an invasion until we have exhausted every 
other possible option to assess and eliminate Iraq's supposed weapons 
of destruction program.
  The United States must not act alone. The United States must have the 
support of the world.
  Yesterday, the administration sent to Congress a draft resolution to 
authorize the use of American military might against Iraq. In that 
resolution, President Bush requests approval to ``use all means'' he 
determines to be appropriate. In other words, the President is saying: 
Authorize me, the President, authorize the President to ``use all 
means'' he, the President, determines to be appropriate.
  Congress must not hand this administration or any other 
administration a blank check for military action, period. What Congress 
needs is solid evidence. What we need are answers. Does Saddam Hussein 
pose an imminent threat to the United States? Should the United States 
act alone as this administration has been threatening to do? Should 
Congress grant the President authority to launch a preemptive attack on 
Iraq? What would be the repercussions in the Middle East? What would be 
the repercussions around the globe?
  How many civilians would die in Iraq? How many American men and women 
would be involved? Will even greater numbers of National Guardsmen and 
Reserves be called up to prepare for an invasion? And if they are, what 
will happen to the war on terrorism here at home? Will troops be 
shifted from other missions to support a war against Iraq?
  We have 8,500 men and women in Afghanistan. We have forces in the 
Philippines, in Bosnia, in Kosovo and in many other places throughout 
the world. What are we going to do, pull all of them out of those 
faraway places and use them in an unprovoked attack on the sovereign 
state of Iraq?
  How do we afford this war? The gulf war cost $61 billion. The gulf 
war of a decade ago cost $61 billion. Of that, other countries coughed 
up, in cash and in contributions in kind, $54 billion, leaving, I 
believe, roughly $7 billion, the cost to American taxpayers.
  Now, what would it cost this time if other nations are not helping 
the United States to bear the financial burden? Bruce Lindsey, the 
President's economic adviser, says it might cost $100 billion or $200 
billion. And then he said: $100 billion why, that is nothing. He is 
quoted in the press as saying: $100 billion? That is nothing. Yet, this 
administration won't get its feet out of the concrete and head out of 
the sand when it comes to raising the top line for Congress to be able 
to utilize in passing 13 appropriations bills and sending them to the 
President--not

[[Page S8963]]

willing to agree to $9 billion more than the President's foot-in-
concrete figure of $759 billion.
  Congress needs $768 billion. The House chairman, Mr. Young, and this 
chairman in the Senate, and Senator Ted Stevens, ranking member on the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, have agreed, and others agreed--and 
this Senate has agreed--it should be $768 billion. There is a $9 
billion gap between what the President says and what the Congress needs 
to meet the needs of the people. I am talking about veterans' care, 
education, homeland security, and so on, these are the needs.
  Congress would require--and has already reported bills out of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee which assume the figure $768 billion. 
The President and his OMB Director say, no, $759 billion; that is all. 
So, here we are--stuck; 13 appropriations bills are stuck because of 
the administration's immovability in dealing with the needs of the 
American people here at home.
  The Administration, says: No, we won't accept that. Hence, we have 13 
appropriations bills stuck.
  Lawrence Lindsey has reportedly said, with reference to a war against 
Iraq: ``Oh, that might cost $100 billion or $200 billion. $100 billion? 
Well, that is nothing.'' That is the attitude of this administration. 
That is the attitude of this administration.
  Has the United States ruled out responding with nuclear weapons 
should Saddam Hussein use chemical or biological weapons against our 
soldiers? Does Saddam Hussein have the capability to unleash weapons of 
mass destruction within the United States? Does the United States have 
adequate military and intelligence resources to fight a war in 
Afghanistan and a war in Iraq while, at the same time, mobilizing 
resources to prevent or defend against attack within our own shores? 
What will happen to this war here at home?
  What will happen to homeland security if the President unleashes an 
unprovoked attack on Iraq? Does anyone believe there would not be any 
repercussions here at home? We have terrorists within our midst in this 
country. They are all about us. The FBI arrested six in New York just 
recently. So the FBI is on the job. The FBI is working to defend this 
country. But what else might happen? Are we focused too greatly on 
fighting suspected terrorism overseas, while focusing too little on the 
threat of terrorism here at home? What is going to happen to the needs 
of this country--the monetary needs and the needs with respect to 
security of our nuclear plants? What is going to happen at our ports of 
entry and on our borders? What is going to happen within our midst if 
the President launches an unprovoked attack on Iraq?
  These are questions--and there are many more questions--that will be 
asked. If it is unpatriotic to ask questions, then I am unpatriotic. Is 
it unpatriotic to ask questions, when this President is seeking powers 
that have never been given to any other President?
  On September 19, yesterday, the President sent to Congress his 
suggested text for a resolution to authorize war with Iraq. The 
problems with this proposed resolution are numerous. When taken as a 
whole, this resolution would constitute the broadest possible grant of 
war powers to any President in the history of our Republic. The 
President has inherent powers under the Constitution to repel a sudden, 
unforeseen attack on this Nation--nobody argues with that--but he 
doesn't have inherent power under that Constitution to launch an 
unprovoked offensive military attack on another nation or state.

  The resolution is an affront to the powers given by the Constitution 
to Congress on matters of war. The first 2 pages of the draft 
resolution have 16 ``whereas'' clauses that would serve to explain the 
intent of Congress--if the resolution were adopted as it is written--in 
passing the resolution for the use of force.
  These clauses, as conceived by the White House, include numerous 
distortions of fact. For example, in the ninth ``whereas'' clause, it 
is asserted that the United States has the inherent right, as 
acknowledged in the U.N. Charter, to use force in order to defend 
itself, as if that is a justification for preemptive war. Let me read 
the relevant section of the U.N. Charter:

       Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent 
     right of individual or collective self defense if an armed 
     attack occurs against a member of the United Nations until 
     the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain 
     international peace and security.

  That does not seem to justify a preemptive attack. In the 16th 
clause, it is asserted that:

       The President has the authority under the Constitution to 
     use force in order to defend the national security interests 
     of the United States.

  At last, the administration has awakened to the fact that there is 
still a Constitution. That is the first time that I have ever read 
anything or heard anything from the administration that would invoke 
the Constitution in this matter. Let's see what they are saying.
  In the 16th ``whereas'' clause it is asserted that:

       The President has the authority under the Constitution to 
     use force in order to defend the national security interests 
     of the United States.

  Well, that is the broadest reading of the Commander in Chief clause I 
think I have ever seen. What about the power of the Congress under 
article I, section 8 of the Constitution to declare war? That is not 
mentioned at all in the resolution proposed by the White House.
  Mr. President, the White House resolution would authorize the 
President to use all means that he determines--that he determines. What 
a colossus this President is going to become if the Senate gives him 
this kind of authority. The White House resolution would authorize the 
President to use all means that he determines appropriate.
  What does that mean? What does ``appropriate'' mean here? It would 
authorize the President to use all means that he--I repeat, that he--
determines appropriate, including forces, to restore international 
peace and security in the region.
  Mr. President, that is not an authorization for war with Iraq only. 
That language would allow the President to march our troops into Iran, 
Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the West Bank, and anywhere else that is part of 
the Middle East or where the United States has any security interest in 
the Middle East. I cannot believe the gall and the arrogance of the 
White House in requesting such a broad grant of war powers.
  Mr. President, this is the worst kind of election year politics!

                               Exhibit 1

               [From The Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2002]

    In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue; U.S. Drillers Eye Huge 
                             Petroleum Pool

                  (By Dan Morgan and Davis B. Ottaway)

       A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could 
     open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from 
     Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France 
     and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, 
     according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi 
     opposition.
       Although senior Bush administration officials say they have 
     not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, 
     American and foreign oil companies have already begun 
     maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves 
     of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world 
     outside Saudi Arabia.
       The importance of Iraq's oil had made it potentially one of 
     the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations 
     to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western 
     allies for President Bush's call for tough international 
     action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the 
     Security Council--the United States, Britain, France, Russia 
     and China--have international oil companies with major stakes 
     in a change of leadership in Baghdad.
       ``It's pretty straightforward,'' said former CIA director 
     R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates 
     of forcing Hussein from power. ``France and Russia have oil 
     companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if 
     they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent 
     government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new 
     government and American companies work closely with them.'' 
     But he added: ``If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it 
     will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the 
     new Iraqi government to work with them.''
       Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has 
     fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will 
     be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly 
     would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath 
     of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil 
     concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi 
     opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound 
     them out about their intentions

[[Page S8964]]

       Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies form more 
     than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, 
     Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to 
     reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, 
     refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. 
     Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. 
     sanctions.
       But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews 
     last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.
       ``We will review all these agreements, definitely,'' said 
     Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London 
     office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella 
     organization of opposition groups that is backed by the 
     United States. ``Our oil policies should be decided by a 
     government in Iraq elected by the people.''
       Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he 
     favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop 
     Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a 
     decade of sanctions. ``American companies will have a big 
     shot at Iraqi oil,'' Chalabi said.
       The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position 
     on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change 
     of leadership.
       While the Bush adminsitration's campaign against Hussein is 
     presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants, 
     it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil 
     market, according to industry analysts.
       Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature 
     and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a 
     member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, 
     for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC 
     cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the 
     flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela 
     and Angola.
       While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major 
     financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices 
     that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world 
     markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract 
     foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is 
     because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to 
     unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing.
       Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil 
     business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But 
     despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil 
     companies, the administration, preoccupied with military 
     planning and making the case about Hussein's potential 
     threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, 
     according to U.S. officials.
       The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State 
     Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a 
     department spokesman said last week. An official with the 
     National Security Council declined to say whether oil had 
     been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had 
     over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir 
     Putin and Western leaders.
       On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-
     day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early 
     October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy 
     summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and 
     American energy companies are expected.
       Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of 
     Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 
     billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow 
     before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to 
     Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the 
     Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get 
     private assurances from Bush that Russia ``will be made 
     whole'' financially.
       Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week 
     that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met 
     with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged 
     Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's 
     government.
       But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy 
     transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival 
     ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the 
     the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority 
     Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.
       Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the 
     United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi 
     oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil 
     companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq 
     since the late 1980s, when relations soured between 
     Washington and Baghdad.
       Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to 
     repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war 
     against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. 
     government studies say the results have been disappointing.
       While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 
     to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern 
     Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N sanctions. 
     Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless work began 
     immediately.
       Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft 
     reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at 
     the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion 
     Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes 
     opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in 
     Iraq's western desert.
       The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights 
     to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, 
     which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in 
     July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French 
     firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its 
     decision to abide by the sanctions.
       Officials of several major firms said they were taking care 
     to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over 
     how to proceed on Iraq. ``There's no real upside for American 
     oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. 
     There'll be plenty of time in the future,'' said James 
     Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.
       But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with 
     Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and 
     ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry 
     officials said. ``There's not an oil company out there that 
     wouldn't be interested in Iraq,'' one analyst said.
       Staff writer Ken Bredemeier contributed to this report.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

          [From the Charleston Gazette Online, Sept. 20, 2002]

                   War Fever: Bush, Cheney Won't Stop

       Although Iraq agreed to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors, 
     President Bush and Vice President Cheney still are clamoring 
     for U.S. military action to topple dictator Saddam Hussein.
       The White House continues its mantra that war is necessary 
     because Saddam is ``evil'' and he's secretly making weapons 
     of mass destruction. But this justification may be a smoke 
     screen. Some observers say the administration's hidden motive 
     is to gain control of Iraq's oil.
       In a front-page Sunday report subtitled ``U.S. Drillers Eye 
     Huge Petroleum Pool,'' The Washington Post said America's oil 
     industry--to which Bush and Cheney are closely tied--eagerly 
     wants a ``regime change'' in Iraq so U.S. firms can begin 
     drilling into Iraq's vast, 112-billion-barrel reserve.
       The White House supports the London-based Iraqi National 
     Congress, an umbrella organization of exiled Iraqi groups 
     seeking to remove Saddam. INC leader Ahmed Chalabi told the 
     Post that, when a new regime is installed in Baghdad, 
     ``American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.''
       The Washington paper quoted former CIA Director James 
     Woolsey:
       ``It's pretty straightforward. France and Russia have oil 
     companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if 
     they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent 
     government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new 
     government and American companies work closely with them.''
       Amazing. This implies that Bush's war urge isn't about 
     ``evil'' or weapons. It's about oil.
       Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker said 
     the White House war demands are ``tainted with the sickening 
     smell of gasoline.''
       ``If the Bush administration invades Iraq,'' she wrote, 
     ``future scholars will look back on this period and name the 
     period for what it was: the Petroleum Wars. . . . What but 
     oil could possibly explain the Bush administration's stubborn 
     insistence on attacking Suddam Hussein, who had no connection 
     to the atrocities of Sept. 11?''
       Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., has taken the lead in 
     questioning President Bush's war plans.
       We hope that he and colleagues in Congress try to learn 
     whether the White House war cry is designed to serve 
     America's oil industry.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Hearing no objection, the quorum call will 
be terminated.
  The Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson.

                          ____________________