Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 120 (Friday, September 20, 2002)

[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:

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.

____________________