To state the policy of the United States on the nuclear programs of Iran.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 2766, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2766) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2007 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Santorum amendment No. 4234, to authorize, with an offset,
assistance for pro-democracy programs and activities inside
and outside Iran, to make clear that the United States
supports the ability of the people of Iran to exercise self-
determination over their own form of government, and to make
enhancements to the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996.
McCain amendment No. 4241, to name the act after John
Warner, a Senator from Virginia.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there an amendment pending to the
Defense authorization bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, there are two
amendments pending.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that those amendments be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4253

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Obama, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Menendez, and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered
4253.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a pilot program on troops to nurse teachers)

At the end of subtitle E of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 662. PILOT PROGRAM ON TROOPS TO NURSE TEACHERS.

(a) Pilot Program Required.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services
and the Secretary of Education, conduct a pilot program to
assess the feasibility and potential benefits of a program
to--
(A) assist nurse corps officers described in subsection (c)
in achieving necessary qualifications to become nurse
educators and in securing employment as nurse educators at
accredited schools of nursing;
(B) provide scholarships to nurse corps officers described
in subsection (c) in return for continuing service in the
Selected Reserve or other forms of public service; and
(C) help alleviate the national shortage of nurse educators
and registered nurses.
(2) Duration.--Except as provided in subsection (h), the
pilot program shall be conducted during the period beginning
on January 1, 2007, and ending on December 31, 2012. A nurse
corps officer may not enter into an agreement to participate
in the pilot program after December 31, 2012.
(3) Regulations.--The pilot program shall be conducted
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense in
consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services
and the Secretary of Education.
(b) Designation.--The pilot program required by subsection
(a) shall be known as the ``Troops to Nurse Teachers Pilot
Program'' (in this section referred to as the ``Program'').
(c) Nurse Corps Officers.--A nurse corps officer described
in this subsection is any commissioned officer of the Armed
Forces qualified and designated as an officer in a Nurse
Corps of the Armed Forces who is--
(1) serving in a reserve component of the Armed Forces;
(2) honorably discharged from the Armed Forces; or
(3) a retired member of the Armed Forces.
(d) Selection of Participants in Program.--
(1) Application.--An eligible nurse corps officer seeking
to participate in the Program shall submit to the Secretary
of Defense an application therefor. The application shall be
in such form, and contain such information, as the Secretary
may require.
(2) Selection.--The Secretary shall select participants in
the Program from among qualified nurse corps officers
submitting applications therefor under paragraph (1).
(e) Participant Agreement.--
(1) In general.--A nurse corps officer selected under
subsection (d) to participate in the Program shall enter into
an agreement with the Secretary of Defense relating to
participation in the Program.
(2) Elements.--The agreement of a nurse corps officer under
the program shall, at the election of the Secretary for
purposes of the Program and as appropriate with respect to
that status of such nurse corps officer--
(A) require such nurse corps officer, within such time as
the Secretary may require, to accept an offer of full-time
employment as a

[[Page S5910]]

nurse educator from an accredited school of nursing for a
period of not less than one year; or
(B) require such nurse corps officer--
(i) within such time as the Secretary may require, to
successfully complete a program leading to a master's degree
or doctoral degree in a nursing field from an accredited
school of nursing or to a doctoral degree in a related field
from an accredited institution of higher education;
(ii) to serve in the Selected Reserve or some other form of
public service under terms and conditions established by the
Secretary; and
(iii) upon completion of such program and service, to
accept an offer of full-time employment as a nurse educator
from an accredited school of nursing for a period of not less
than 3 years.
(f) Assistance.--
(1) Transition assistance.--The Secretary of Defense may
provide a participant in the Program who enters into an
agreement described in subsection (e)(2)(A) assistance as
follows:
(A) Career placement assistance in securing full-time
employment as a nurse educator at an accredited school of
nursing.
(B) A stipend in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for
transition to employment referred to in paragraph (1), and
for educational training for such employment, for a period
not to exceed two years after entry by such participant into
an agreement under subsection (e).
(2) Scholarship assistance.--The Secretary of Defense may
provide a participant in the Program who enters into an
agreement described in subsection (e)(2)(B) scholarship
assistance to pursue a degree described in subsection
(e)(2)(B)(i) in an amount not to exceed $30,000 annually for
a period of not more than four years.
(g) Treatment of Assistance.--A stipend or scholarship
provided under subsection (f) shall not be taken into account
in determining the eligibility of a participant in the
Program for Federal student financial assistance provided
under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1070 et seq.).
(h) Administration After Initial Period.--
(1) In general.--The termination of the Program on December
31, 2012, under subsection (a)(2) shall not terminate the
entitlement to assistance under the Program of any nurse
corps officer entering into an agreement to participate in
the Program under subsection (e) that continues in force
after that date.
(2) Administration.--The Secretary of Education shall
undertake any administration of the Program that is required
after December 31, 2012, including responsibility for any
funding necessary to provide assistance under the Program
after that date.
(i) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than three years after the
commencement of the Program, the Secretary of Defense shall,
in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and the Secretary of Education, submit to Congress a
report on the Program.
(2) Elements.--The report shall--
(A) describe the activities undertaken under the Program;
and
(B) include an assessment of the effectiveness of the
Program in--
(i) facilitating the development of nurse educators;
(ii) encouraging service in the Selected Reserve and other
forms of public service; and
(iii) helping alleviate the national shortage of nurse
educators and registered nurses.
(j) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Nurse educator.--The term ``nurse educator'' means a
registered nurse who--
(A) is a member of the nursing faculty at an accredited
school of nursing;
(B) holds a graduate degree in nursing from an accredited
school of nursing or a doctoral degree in a related field
from an accredited institution of higher education;
(C) holds a valid, unrestricted license to practice nursing
from a State; and
(D) has successfully completed additional course work in
education and demonstrates competency in an advanced practice
area of nursing.
(2) School of nursing.--The term ``school of nursing''
means a school of nursing (as that term is defined in section
801 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 296)) that is
accredited (as that term is defined in section 801(6) of the
Public Health Service Act).
(k) Funding.--From amounts authorized to be appropriated
for the Department of Defense, $5,000,000 may be available
for the Program.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, he is not on the floor, but Senator Warner
and I have been discussing this amendment. I would like to at least
leave open the option that he will join me in cosponsoring it. It is a
bipartisan amendment which I would like to describe at this point, if I
can, and ask the Senator from Oklahoma if I may have a few minutes to
describe the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Yes. Before the Senator from Illinois proceeds, I would
like to comment. The Senator has worked very hard on this amendment.
There is a problem that the Senator is seeking to correct, and I
believe the amendment does correct it. I join him as a cosponsor of
this amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much. I am honored that the Senator from
Oklahoma would join me as a cosponsor.
In speaking to this amendment, this morning's Washington Post had a
front-page story that should startle and trouble all of us. It is a
story about the status of emergency rooms in hospitals across America.
The organization that represents the emergency rooms and their
physicians across America has issued a troubling report which suggests
that many of those emergency rooms are not really adequately staffed or
prepared to deal with emergencies. Too often, the men and women who are
brought there in terrible medical situations can't find the help they
need. As a result, they are shipped off to other hospitals or they wait
sometimes up to 2 days before they are admitted to a bed in the regular
hospital. It is a serious problem.
You might ask: What does that have to do with the Department of
Defense authorization bill? Part of the problem facing the emergency
rooms is also facing hospitals and clinics across America, and the
problem is this: We don't have enough health care professionals; in
particular, we don't have enough nurses in America. We know this is a
fact.
Just last week, an administrator of a major hospital in Chicago came
to see me. She is a wonderful woman. She is a Catholic nun who runs a
hospital in one of the toughest parts of Chicago--Inglewood--and she
has kept that hospital open. I don't know how she has done it. It has
been nothing short of a miracle. The biggest single problem that she
faces year in and year out is not just coming up with money but finding
nurses.
I said to her: What do you pay a nurse?
And she said: About $50,000 a year. But, she said, if I can't hire
that nurse for $50,000 a year, I have to buy what we call contract
nurses. There are companies which, when hospitals don't have enough
nurses, will send a nurse in to work for a day, a week, or a month. But
the contract nurses cost three times as much, $150,000 annualized
salary.
She said to me: Senator, I don't know if I can keep this hospital
open if I can't find nurses.
This isn't just a problem at that hospital. It is a problem across my
State and across our Nation. I am from downstate Illinois, a part of
our State dominated by smaller towns, rural areas, struggling to keep
hospitals open. We know better than most that when one of our neighbors
goes into labor, she may not have the time to make it to the big city
where there is a big hospital. She is counting on that rural hospital
being open. When she gets there, she is counting on finding a nurse and
a doctor to help her.
In many places in rural Illinois and across our country, the same
challenge that faces the administrator of that hospital in the
Inglewood section of Chicago is facing them: inadequate supplies of
professionals, health care professionals.
The ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased the need
for qualified nurses in military medical facilities. Unfortunately, the
military faces the same difficulty in recruiting and in the retention
of nurses as the civilian medical facilities which I just described.
Neither the Army nor the Air Force has met their nurse recruitment
goals since the 1990s. In 2004, the Navy nurse core recruitment fell 32
percent below its target, while the Air Force missed its nurse
recruitment target by 30 percent.
Have you seen this special on HBO called ``Baghdad ER''? I have
watched a little bit of it. As you watch it, you realize the heroic
efforts that are being made by the men and women in the military who
are providing emergency medical care to our soldiers who are shot in
Iraq. It is incredible. It is heartbreaking to think about what they go
through every day.
Now, put it in the context where the major sources of military nurses
are telling us they can't recruit enough nurses fast enough. Last year,
the Army experienced a 30-percent shortage of certified registered
nurse anesthetists, as one example.

[[Page S5911]]

I have talked about civilian hospitals. According to the American
College of Health Care Executives, 72 percent of hospitals have been
experiencing a nursing shortage since 2004, and it is growing. This
chart that I will show you is an indication of the projected shortfalls
and shortages in registered nurses. The dark blue indicates the supply
of nurses, which continues to decline, and, of course, the lighter
blue, the shortage, which continues to increase. As you can see, our
need for nurses is growing, and it is no surprise. We have an aging
population that needs help: specialized medical care that requires
specialized nurses. Time and again we find ourselves relying and
counting on those nurses to be there, and we see from this chart as we
project forward for the next 15 years that the problem is going to get
much worse.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services looked at all
licensed nurses, both civilian and military. They found that in the
year 2000, our country was 110,000 nurses short of the number needed to
adequately provide quality health care--110,000 across our Nation. Five
years later, that shortage had doubled to 219,000 nurses that we needed
and didn't have in America. By the year 2020, we will be more than 1
million nurses short of what is necessary for quality health care.
Now, the National Institutes of Health can engage in medical research
to find new cures and treatments for diseases, and God bless them for
all the work they do. The best and brightest minds can get together in
laboratories and find new pharmaceuticals and new medical devices that
give us a new lease on life. But we know that when the moment comes,
when we need this help, we need a nurse. And if we find ourselves in a
few short years with a million fewer nurses than we actually need, it
will compromise the quality and availability of health care in America.
It is not just a problem for the military, as I mentioned earlier, it
is a nationwide problem.
To avoid the vast shortages the Department of Health and Human
Services is projecting, we have to make a significant and substantial
increase in the number of nurses graduating and entering the workforce
each year. Just to replace the nurses who are retiring, we need to
increase student enrollment at nursing schools by 40 percent. This
chart is an indication of where we are, starting in the year 2000. This
shows the baseline supply of nurses across America, which you can see
is declining. This next line, the green line, shows the demand which is
going up dramatically for nurses in our society, and this purple line
shows what happens if 90 percent--the supply if 90 percent more grads
take place. So even increasing graduate nurses by 90 percent over the
next 15 years will still leave us short of our national goal.
Clearly, this is an emergency which has to be addressed. The baseline
demand for nurses is rising; the supply is falling. If we increase the
number of nurses graduating from nursing school by 90 percent by 2020,
we are still not going to have enough.
I might add parenthetically, there is another element to this issue.
I have been involved in this as long as I have been in public service.
Small hospitals, small towns come to you desperate because they have
lost their doctor. They need a doctor, and I do my best to find a
doctor. But in 9 cases out of 10, the doctor you find comes from a
foreign land. Many doctors have come to the United States from India,
from Asia, from Africa, and we welcome them. We greet their families
warmly as they have come to our country, and they are meeting our
needs. And I thank them for making the decision to come and be a part
of the solution to America's health care problem. But I have come to
learn that there are two sides to this equation. The other side of the
equation, of course, is that these doctors and nurses and health care
professionals are leaving a land, too.
Last year, and over the last several years, we have taken 20,000
health care professionals out of Africa; doctors and nurses, people who
really are essential in the frontline of defense when it comes to
medical care. We have attracted them to the United States, to England,
to Germany, and to France, and it is no surprise that they want to be
here. Doctors in central Africa are paid $600 a month by the
Government, if they are paid. They work in substandard conditions.
Despite their education, they struggle to provide even the most basic
care. In the area of eastern Congo in Goma, where I visited with
Senator Brownback just a few months ago, we learned that there was one
doctor for every 160,000 people. Think about that: one doctor for every
160,000 people. What is the number in the United States? We have 549
doctors for every 100,000 people. Also, think about what it means when
it comes to specialties like surgery.
I asked them in this hospital in Goma in Congo--where women were
lined up in long lines praying that this would be the day or the week
or the month when they would finally have the necessary surgery that
they had been waiting so long for--I asked them: How many surgeons do
you have in this part of Africa? This doctor said to me: We have one
surgeon for every 1 million people--one surgeon for every 1 million.
What does that mean? It would mean in the United States, three surgeons
for the entire city of Chicago. Think about what those poor people face
without those medical professionals.
So those who argue that the answer to our need in the United States
will be bringing in nurses and doctors and professionals from around
the world have to understand that this equation is not a zero sum. We
end up bringing in these health care professionals at the expense of
other countries and other people who face many more medical challenges
than in the United States.
Some would say: Well, that is their problem. They ought to pay their
doctors more or train more. But it is our problem, too. If an avian flu
epidemic, God forbid, should ever start, if there would be a
transmission from an animal to a human, it would likely occur in one of
these developing nations. If they don't have the capacity to move
immediately to contain that crisis to make sure there are public health
officials and doctors and nurses present, and if they don't do it
within 21 days, that epidemic can circle the world.
Diseases which used to die on immigrant ships coming across the ocean
live quite well, unfortunately, on the airliners that crisscross this
globe every single day. So if you take away the medical professionals
in some of the poorest nations on Earth, you are opening the
possibility that the dread diseases in that part of the world will make
it to our part of the world. That is part of this shrinking globe on
which we live.
The problem, when you look at the United States, is that there are
not enough teachers at schools of nursing. Last year, nursing colleges
across America denied admission to 35,000 qualified applicants for
nursing school simply because they didn't have enough teachers at the
nursing schools. Think about that: 35,000 more nurses that we could
train and have serving us and others in the military and civilian life.
In my home State of Illinois, schools of nursing are denying
qualified students admittance because they don't have enough teachers.
Last year, 1,900 qualified student applicants were rejected from
Illinois nursing schools because there weren't enough professors.
Northern Illinois University in Dekalb, one of our best, was forced to
turn down 233 qualified nursing applicants because they didn't have
enough teachers and financial resources.

Illinois State University, another top university in our State,
increased its enrollment by 50 percent in nursing over the past 5 years
by working with health care systems and seeking grants, but last year,
ISU was still forced to reject 100 qualified nursing applicants because
they didn't have enough faculty and fiscal resources.
Take a look at this chart which is an indication of what we are being
told by nursing schools. Sixty-six percent, or two out of three nursing
schools across the United States, tell us that they need additional
faculty. We find that in some schools there are no vacancies and no
additional faculty needed. That is 18 percent. And in 15 percent,
almost 16 percent, there are no vacancies, but they could use
additional faculty. They could expand. The American Association of
Colleges of Nursing surveyed more than 400 schools of nursing last
year. As I said, two out of three reported vacancies in their faculty.
Fifteen percent said they are fully staffed

[[Page S5912]]

but could use more faculty. These statistics paint a bleak picture for
the availability of nursing faculties now and into the future.
Take a look at this final chart I will show you which is showing that
there is, as in most things in America, a graying of the population
that serves us. The median age of doctorally prepared nursing faculty
members is 52. The average age of retirement for faculty at nursing
institutions is 62. It is expected that 200 to 300 doctorally prepared
faculty will be eligible for retirement each year from 2005 to 2012,
reducing faculty, even though more than a million are needed. The
military recruits nurses.
I want to thank all the men and women who are in nursing in the
military and all in our medical professions. But they recruit from the
same place that doctors and hospitals also recruit: civilian nursing
schools.
Unless we address the lack of faculty, there is going to be a
shortage of nurses everywhere. In 1994, the Department of Defense
established a program which is a terrific idea. It is called Troops to
Teachers. It serves the dual purpose of helping relieve the shortages
of math, science, and special education teachers in high-poverty
schools and assists military personnel in making transitions from the
military to a second career in teaching. It is a terrific idea. As of
January 2004--listen to this--more than 6,000 former soldiers have been
hired as teachers through the Troops to Teachers Program, and an
additional 6,700 are now qualified teachers looking for placements. We
need teachers, and the men and women trained and educated in the
military who want to serve bring a special quality to this mission.
The amendment which I have before the Senate will set up a pilot
program--we call it Troops to Nurse Teachers--to encourage nurses in
the Reserves, retiring nurses, or those leaving the military, to pursue
a career teaching the future nurse workforce. More than 300 nurses left
the Army last year. Historically, about 330 nurses leave the Air Force
each year. Between 30 and 40 percent of the nurses in the Navy leave
after they fulfill their initial obligation.
The Troops to Nurse Teachers Pilot Program will provide transitional
assistance for servicemembers who already hold a master's or Ph.D. in
nursing or related field and are qualified to teach. Eligible
servicemembers can receive career placement assistance, transitional
stipends, and educational training from accredited schools of nursing
to expedite their transition. Troops to Nurse Teachers will also
establish a pilot scholarship program that will provide financial
assistance to officers of the armed services who have been involved in
nursing during their military service and help them obtain the
education necessary to become nursing educators. Tuition stipends and
financing for educational expenses would be provided. Recipients of
scholarships must commit to teaching at an accredited school of nursing
for at least 3 years in exchange for the educational support they
receive. The Secretary of Defense may also require them to continue
their service in selected reserve areas or perform other public service
in exchange for this program.
The supporters of this amendment include the American Nurses
Association, the American Hospital Association, the American
Association of Colleges of Nursing, the American Organization of Nurse
Executives, the American Health Care Association, and the National
League for Nursing.
Let me conclude. We must increase the number of teachers preparing
tomorrow's nursing workforce. With the aging of the baby boom
generation, long-term needs of growing numbers of wounded veterans and
military and civilian health care systems will need qualified nurses
more than ever in the years to come. Let's take quality men and women
serving in the armed services, who gave so much to this country, and
tell them that when they leave the armed services there is an option
where they can continue to serve America as professors and teachers in
our nursing schools. This will increase the capacity of these nursing
schools, provide more nurses for America, which is what we need, and
lessen the demand for nurses to come from overseas where they are also
desperately needed. I think this is a winning opportunity all across
the board, and I encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle
to support this bipartisan amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, let me acknowledge to my
friend from Illinois he is attempting to, and I believe will
successfully, resolve a problem. I happen to be more sensitive to this
than most people. Two of my kids are doctors, and they assure me that
this nurse shortage is nationwide. It is all out there.
One of the concerns I had when this came up was I would not want this
to detract from any of the other programs. Right now I have been one to
say our military budget, our Defense authorization bill, is really not
quite adequate as it is. It is my understanding the Senator has been
very cooperative to make sure this doesn't happen.
I have added my name as a cosponsor, and it is my understanding
Senator Warner is going to be here shortly and wants to add his name.
So the amendment would give the discretion to the DOD, working with the
Department of Education, to structure a program that would achieve the
dual goals of creating more nurse educators and more Reserve officers.
I think we have the support of the committee on both sides, and I
commend the Senator for bringing up this solution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I spoke with Senator Warner about this amendment. I would
really appreciate his cosponsorship, but I don't want to ask his name
be added until we are certain. If there are any difficulties on this
amendment, I stand ready to change it. We want to find a good
bipartisan response. There are just a few elements we are still working
on.
I don't know if the Senator from Oklahoma thinks this is the time for
us to move for passage of the amendment or whether we should wait?
Mr. INHOFE. I respond I personally think it is time to pass it. We
have limited time. This is one that enjoys support from both sides of
the aisle. I am sure the Senator from Virginia can put his name on this
and will make his own expression when he gets here.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment to
create a pilot program on troops to nurse teachers. America is facing a
nursing shortage and it is getting worse. America's nurses are
overworked, underpaid, and undervalued yet nursing schools are still
forced to turn away qualified students. More than 30,000 qualified
applicants were turned away last year. In Maryland, nursing programs
turned away more than 2,000 qualified students last year. Why are they
turning away all of these qualified applicants? Because there aren't
enough teachers to teach them. This is the biggest bottleneck in ending
the nursing shortage.
The military is also facing a nursing shortage. Medicine is a 24-hour
job. Military medicine is even harder. Our military medical
professionals have accomplished something truly remarkable in this war:
injured troops who make it to a field hospital have a 96 percent rate
of survival. That is a testament to our military doctors and nurses on
the front lines.
We need to make sure there are enough military nurses to continue to
provide this outstanding care. Neither the Army nor the Air Force have
met their nurse recruitment goals since the 1990s. In 2004, Navy Nurse
Corps recruitment fell 32 percent below its target. The Air Force and
Army are also 30 percent below their targets. All branches of the
military are offering incentives for nurses to join the Armed Forces.
But there simply aren't enough nurses to fill those jobs because there
aren't enough teachers to train them. There is a pool of potential
nurse educators in our retired nurse corps. We should take advantage of
their experience and their dedication to teach the next generation of
military nurses.
This amendment would help to train the next generation of military
nurses and help to curb the nursing shortage by encouraging nurse corps
officers to become nurse educators. It establishes a ``Troops to Nurse
Teachers'' pilot program which will provide scholarships and other
financial assistance to

[[Page S5913]]

nurse corps officers so that they can get advanced degrees to become
nurse educators. In exchange for these scholarships, they must teach
for at least 3 years in a school of nursing and continue service in
either the reserves or another form of public service. This is modeled
after the ``Troops to Teachers'' program which gives incentives to
people leaving the military to become teachers. Since 1994, more than
8,000 former soldiers have been hired as teachers through this program.
We must make sure our troops have enough nurses to keep them safe.
The nursing shortage affects every State, every city, every town. And
it affects our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are so many
dedicated military nurses that still want to give back to their
country. They can do this by teaching the next generation of military
nurses. But we must empower them to choose nurse education--making it
more affordable, providing opportunities for advancement--so nurses can
move up instead of moving on and so our troops get the care that they
need. I thank my colleagues for accepting this amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4253) was agreed to.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I was outraged this morning when I
read a Washington Post article that suggests that the Prime Minister of
Iraq is willing to allow an amnesty for those who have taken American
lives. In this article, the Prime Minister of Iraq is quoted as saying:

Reconciliation could include an amnesty for those ``who
weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood. . . .''

That is where his quote ends. Mr. Prime Minister, how about American
blood? Are you willing to have reconciliation on the pool of American
blood that has been spilled to give your people and your country a
chance for freedom?
Then to read on in this article, where a top adviser to Prime
Minister Maliki is asked about clemency for those who attack U.S.
troops, he is quoted as saying:

``That's an area where we can see a green line. There's
some sort of preliminary understanding between us and the
MNF-I,'' the U.S.-led Multi-National Force-Iraq, ``that there
is a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief
that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and
defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned
definitely, I believe.''

Pardoned definitely? So those who were armed and killed Iraqis, they
will not be pardoned. Those who were armed and killed Americans, they
will be pardoned? That is outrageous. President Bush, you went to Iraq
and you said you wanted to look into the eyes of Prime Minister Maliki
to know that he is a man you can trust, a man who will move us forward.
I don't know how deep you looked into his soul, but you have to pick up
the phone today and tell Prime Minister Maliki that we will not have
the ability to pardon anyone with the blood of American soldiers on
their hands.
Today we have hit the mark of 2,500 Americans who have given their
lives to give the Iraqi people a chance. We have thousands of our young
men and women who have returned to America wounded, who have lost their
legs, who have lost their limbs, lost their sight, have had half of
their faces blown off. Their blood was shed in Iraq. Are we going to
stand by and permit an amnesty to be given to those who killed our
fellow countrymen?
I intend to, with Senator Nelson, offer a resolution that makes it
very clear that the Senate believes the Iraqi Government should not
grant amnesty to persons who have attacked, killed, or wounded members
of the U.S. Armed Forces serving heroically in Iraq to provide all
Iraqis a better future, and that President Bush should immediately
notify the Government of Iraq that the U.S. Government opposes granting
amnesty in the strongest possible terms. This has to end immediately.
I hope, when we offer that resolution, the Senate will speak with one
clear and unequivocal voice that the blood of Americans and the lives
of Americans is not subject to any pardoning, and is certainly not part
of an offer that can be made that stains the honor and the sacrifices
made by Americans.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 4192

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 4192.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an
amendment numbered 4192.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the redeployment of United States forces from
Iraq by December 31, 2006)

At the end of subtitle I of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1084. REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES FORCES FROM IRAQ.

(a) Redeployment.--The United States shall redeploy United
States forces from Iraq by not later than December 31, 2006,
while maintaining in Iraq only the minimal force necessary
for direct participation in targeted counterterrorism
activities, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting
United States infrastructure and personnel.
(b) Report on Redeployment.--
(1) Report required.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall,
in consultation with the Secretary of State, submit to
Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the
redeployment of United States forces from Iraq by December
31, 2006.
(2) Strategy elements.--The strategy required in the report
under paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) A flexible schedule for redeploying United States
forces from Iraq by December 31, 2006.
(B) The number, size, and character of United States
military units needed in Iraq after December 31, 2006, for
purposes of counterterrorism activities, training Iraqi
security forces, and protecting United States infrastructure
and personnel.
(C) A strategy for addressing the regional implications for
diplomacy, politics, and development of redeploying United
States forces from Iraq by December 31, 2006.
(D) A strategy for ensuring the safety and security of
United States forces in Iraq during and after the December
31, 2006, redeployment, and a contingency plan for addressing
dramatic changes in security conditions that may require a
limited number of United States forces to remain in Iraq
after that date.
(E) A strategy for redeploying United States forces to
effectively engage and defeat global terrorist networks that
threaten the United States.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to withdraw that amendment.
I had intended to call up another amendment which has to do with the
special inspector general for Iraq. Will the Chair tell me what the
number of that amendment is? I have to clarify the number of this
amendment. In light of that, I yield the floor so Senator Schumer can
speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I read, as many did, in the newspapers
this morning that the Prime Minister of Iraq has proposed giving
amnesty to those incarcerated by the Iraqi Government who have killed
or maimed Americans. It was stated that if Iraqis killed Iraqis they
would not be given amnesty, but if Iraqis killed Americans, they would.
That is an outrageous statement. For the Prime Minister of Iraq to
offer a ``get out of jail free'' card to those who have killed American
soldiers is an insult to the soldiers, their families, and every
American.
Just 2 days ago, the Prime Minister stood with President Bush, and
President Bush said he looked in his eyes

[[Page S5914]]

and saw that he was a good man. We are urging that President Bush call
up the Prime Minister of Iraq immediately and get him to retract this
pernicious, nasty statement which basically abdicates the great
sacrifices that have been made by American soldiers for the people of
Iraq.
It is just mind-boggling to believe that the Iraqi Prime Minister
would decide that it would be OK to give amnesty to those who hurt
Americans. What kind of ally is this? Will he turn on us in 2 months or
6 months? He seems to be the new hope of the new government, and within
24 hours after President Bush leaves Iraqi soil, he defames the
sacrifices of American soldiers and their families.
President Bush, you should call your friend the Prime Minister and
get him to retract this evil statement immediately. How can we ask
America's young men and women to risk their lives in Iraq if those who
seek to shoot at them are then absolved of any blame?
This is a statement which should really go down in infamy, and I hope
and plead with the President to urge the Iraqi Prime Minister to
withdraw the statement and figure out what consequences should follow
if the Prime Minister refuses.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 4192, withdrawn

The PRESIDING OFFICER. For clarification, the amendment No. 4192
offered by the Senator from Wisconsin was withdrawn.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

amendment no. 4256

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] for himself, Mr.
Levin, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 4256.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strengthen the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction)

At the end of subtitle F of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1054. STRENGTHENING THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR
IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION.

For purposes of discharging the duties of the Special
Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction under subsection
(f) of section 3001 of the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of
Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (5 U.S.C. 8G note), and for
purposes of determining the date of termination of the Office
of the Special Inspector General under subsection (o) of such
section, any funds appropriated or otherwise made available
for fiscal year 2006 for the reconstruction of Iraq,
regardless of how such funds may be designated, shall be
treated as amounts appropriated or otherwise made available
for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their
patience. I had identified the wrong amendment. I got that clarified.
What I wish to tell my colleagues is that this amendment strengthens
the Special Inspector General for Iraq and ensures that U.S. taxpayer
dollars will be spent wisely, efficiently, and within the law.
The Special Inspector General for Iraq, known as ``SIGIR,'' was
established in 2003. I worked hard with a few of my colleagues in
creating this office to monitor, audit, and report on the expenditure
of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars that this body appropriated to the
Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.
My amendment is relatively simple. It recognizes the fact that we
need to continue to ensure oversight and monitoring of U.S. taxpayer
dollars that continue to support reconstruction efforts in Iraq, which
includes over $1.6 billion in the latest supplemental for Iraq
reconstruction and in the fiscal year 2006 foreign operations bill. It
increases the mandate of the Special Inspector General for Iraq, while
also extending the period for which that office will be in existence.
This amendment will strengthen the capabilities of the Special IG to
monitor, audit, and inspect funds made available for assistance for
Iraq in both the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund--IRRF--and in
other important accounts.
I offer this amendment today because it is my firm belief that we
should not be pouring tens of billions of dollars into Iraq
reconstruction without ensuring there is appropriate oversight and
auditing. American taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going
in this costly war and that it is being used effectively and
efficiently and ending up in the right place.
The SIGIR's work to date has been extremely valuable to the U.S.
Government and to Congress. The SIGIR has now completed over 55 audit
reports, issued over 165 recommendations for program improvement, and
has seized $13 million in assets. Overall, the SIGIR estimates that its
operations have resulted in saving the U.S. Government over $24
million, in addition to the considerable wasteful or fraudulent
spending that office has uncovered.
Throughout 2005, the Iraq IG provided aggressive oversight to prevent
waste, fraud and abuse in the at-times lethal operating environment in
Iraq. Its emphasis on real-time auditing--where guidance is provided
immediately to management authorities upon the discovery of a need for
change--provides for independent assessments while effecting rapid
improvements.
In its January report to Congress, the SIGIR concluded that massive
unforeseen security costs, administrative overhead, and waste have
crippled original reconstruction strategies and have prevented the
completion of up to half of the work originally called for in critical
sectors such as water, power, and electricity. The Iraq IG's work has
resulted in the arrest of five individuals who were defrauding the U.S.
Government, and it has shed light on millions of dollars of waste. It
is this kind of investigation and reporting that helps shape the
direction of reconstruction funding and ensures that the money is being
used and allocated as transparently and effectively as possible.
I pushed to create the Special Inspector General for Iraq in order to
ensure that there is critical oversight of the Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund allocated for Iraq reconstruction projects. Last
year I fought to extend the life of this office, and my amendment today
will ensure that the SIGIR has the capability and the life-span to
finish up work associated with monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on
how U.S. taxpayer dollars are being spent in Iraq for reconstruction
purposes.
Let me talk briefly about what my amendment actually does. Because
current legislation requires that the SIGIR continue its work until 80
percent of the IRRF had been expended, and unless we do something to
change this, the SIGIR will cease to exist before U.S. taxpayer dollars
going to Iraq reconstruction have been expended. This means that
despite the fact that we continue to support Iraq reconstruction
efforts, we are removing our ability to oversee billions of taxpayer
dollars.
To help avoid this potentially costly and unnecessary challenge, this
amendment considers any money going to Iraq reconstruction efforts--
regardless of whether or not it is in the IRRF--be subject to the
SIGIR's oversight mandate. It will also help determine when we can ask
the SIGIR to stand down.
This amendment is common sense. The SIGIR's great work has more than
paid for itself, and it has developed a capacity that is unparalleled
by either DoD or State's inspector general offices. The SIGIR is doing
great work, and I, along with my distinguished colleagues Senator Levin
and others, believe that this small change in the law will allow us to
tell our constituents that we are making every effort to ensure that
their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being used in the most effective
way possible. Let's support the SIGIR, and lets give it the time and
mandate to monitor Iraq reconstruction funds.

[[Page S5915]]

I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we should consult with leadership. The
yeas and nays having been ordered, I wonder if the Senator would be
gracious enough to allow the Senator from Michigan and myself to
consult with leadership as to the time for a vote.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if it is all right with the Senator from
Virginia, it is my understanding that it will be taken by voice vote.
Mr. WARNER. Is that the intent?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I want to be make sure it has been cleared on the other
side.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it was my understanding that this was
either cleared or was going to be supported by the chairman. I did not
confirm that with my friend. That is a little bit in limbo. I very much
support the Senator's amendment. I hope it can be cleared. If so,
apparently the Senator is willing to take a voice vote.
Mr. FEINGOLD. That is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I could proceed with my remarks in support of
the amendment while they discuss it.
I support the Feingold amendment to ensure that the Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction has jurisdiction over funds
appropriated for the reconstruction of Iraq.
As the Senator from Wisconsin has mentioned, Congress established the
Special Inspector General position in a fiscal year 2004 emergency
supplemental appropriations bill to ensure effective oversight and
audit of relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The Special
Inspector General reports jointly to the Secretaries of Defense and
State and has responsibility for oversight of operations and programs
funded by the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. The Senator from
Wisconsin last year offered an amendment to extend the position. It was
very welcome. It was a very useful and important contribution. I
commend him for it. It is unfortunate that the most recent emergency
supplemental which we just passed today would appropriate funds for
Iraq reconstruction without including those funds in the Iraq Relief
and Reconstruction Fund. It is important that this amendment be agreed
to so as to ensure that this Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction has jurisdiction over all funds appropriated for the
reconstruction of Iraq.
Under current law, this funding approach would have the effect of
excluding reconstruction projects using these new funds from the
jurisdiction of the Special Inspector General.
The State Department says that its Inspector General would be
responsible for auditing the use of these funds. However, the State
Department IG, unlike the Special Inspector General, does not have a
significant presence in Iraq and does not have experience in auditing
contracts and ferreting out fraud in the unique environment of Iraq.
For the last 3 years, the Special Inspector General has been the only
source of consistent, independent, on-the ground review of
reconstruction activities in Iraq. As a result, the Special Inspector
General has reported case after case of criminal fraud and egregious
waste that would otherwise have gone unremedied. Report after report
documents cases--at al Hillah General Hospital, Babylon Policy Academy,
Karbala Library, Baghdad International Airport and elsewhere--in which
we paid contractors millions of dollars for work without making site
visits, issuing performance reports, preparing post-award assessments,
or taking other steps to ensure that the work we paid for was actually
performed. In case after case, the Special Inspector General determined
that either the contractor's performance was deficient or the work was
not performed at all.
One particularly egregious case reviewed by the Special Inspector
involved a $75 million contract with Kellogg Brown and Root, KBR, to
develop a Pipeline River Crossing at Al Fatah, Iraq. The Special
Inspector General reported that the project ailed because subsurface
geologic conditions made it impossible to carry out the project design.
These conditions were identified by a consultant before work commenced,
but neither the Army Corps of Engineers nor KBR acted on the
consultant's recommendation to perform additional research that would
have prevented the failure.
A subject matter expert for the Coalition Provision Authority
recognized that KBR had limited experience in this type of project and
advised that the project would probably fail because design
restrictions provided no flexibility to accommodate site conditions.
However, KBR refused to conduct design reviews requested by the subject
matter expert.
The Army Corps of Engineers awarded KBR a firm fixed price contract
with no performance requirements. As a result, KBR was assured that it
would get paid the full contract amount, regardless whether it
successfully completed the project.
A KBR subcontractor identified problems with the site conditions at
the outset of the project and suggested alternative drilling sites, but
was turned down by KBR. KBR prohibited the subcontractor from talking
directly to the Army Corps of Engineers and told the Army Corps that
detailed cost reports would not be provided, because they were not
required by the contract.
As a result, we spent the entire $75 million allocated to the
project, but achieved only 28 percent of the planned pipeline
throughput. According to the Inspector General, the lack of pipeline
capacity resulted in the loss of more than $1.5 billion in potential
oil revenues to the Iraqi government.
The Special Inspector General is the only U.S. audit and
investigative authority with a significant on-the-ground presence in
Iraq. He is the only inspector general who has an experienced staff
with hands-on knowledge of how things work in Iraq. He is the only
inspector general who has shown the capacity and the desire to turn
over rocks in Iraq to identify and address problems of fraud and
criminal conduct.
If we are serious about protecting the taxpayer and preventing
contractor abuses in Iraq, we will adopt this amendment. I urge my
colleagues to support the Feingold amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.
We are trying to work this out. There is a problem. The problem is
not to the generic virtues of Senator Feingold's amendment--which,
incidentally, I support--but it is a question of the allocation of some
funding in it and how that impacts on other areas of funding. As soon
as I can work that out, I will advise the Senate. I am hopeful we can
eventually go to a vote.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while that is being worked on--I hope we
can resolve that because this is a very important amendment. We want
that Special Inspector General, who is really doing the only
significant oversight on the expenditure of these billions of dollars
in Iraq, to perform the same oversight functions on the appropriations,
for instance, which we just adopted.
I again commend the Senator from Wisconsin. It was at his instigation
and his initiative that we extended this Special Inspector General's
Office last year, and it was that initiative which has paid off so
handsomely for us. This initiative is critically important or else we
might, I think inadvertently, not have the same watchdog looking over
the most recent appropriations we adopted.
I also believe the Special Inspector General actually testified
before the Chair's subcommittee earlier this year, so the Presiding
Officer has had the ability to hear firsthand from the Special
Inspector General about his operations.
By the way, I commend our Presiding Officer for those hearings. They
were very helpful.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are prepared to go ahead with a voice
vote at this time, if it is agreeable. I add my endorsement of the
basic thrust of the amendment. Like others, I have had the opportunity
to be debriefed by the inspector general, and I am very impressed with
his conscientious service on this matter. He periodically goes over to
Iraq, that theatre, and Afghanistan, for periods of time. He has
accepted the challenges of this post with enormous enthusiasm and
skill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank both the ranking member and
chairman for their comments and support.

[[Page S5916]]

My understanding is the chairman wants to take this by voice vote.
Therefore, I ask the yeas and nays be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4256) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the leadership and the managers have
reached a recommended unanimous consent request which I now propound.
I ask unanimous consent at 12 noon today the Senate proceed to a vote
in relation to Santorum amendment No. 4234, to be followed by a vote in
relation to a first-degree amendment to be offered by Senator Biden
related to the same subject; further, I ask unanimous consent that the
time until 12 be equally divided between myself, representing Senator
Santorum and others, and Senator Levin, with no second degrees in order
to either amendment prior to the votes; provided there be 2 minutes for
debate equally divided between the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is it my
understanding that following the disposition of these two amendments
that then a Democratic amendment would be the next in order?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am not able to answer that question. I
believe that would be correct. I would be perfectly willing to have it
that way because I know we did Senator Durbin's this morning.
Mr. LEVIN. With that understanding--and there will be a Senator
Nelson of Florida amendment, so you are on notice relative to that--I
have no objection.
Mr. WARNER. Fine.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I first want to apologize to the chairman
and ranking member that I came to the floor and realized they were in
the process of doing this because I certainly would have spoken to them
in advance before making this request. But I hope they will agree to
this request.
We have just been informed at the Department of Defense that we have
now lost our 2,500th soldier in Iraq. Last October, when we lost our
2,000th, the Senate observed a moment of silence in respect for all of
the soldiers and those serving in uniform and their families. I would
like to ask if the chairman would consider amending his request so that
between the two rollcalls, when Members are on the floor, that they
would come to their chairs and we would observe a moment of silence in
respect for our troops and for this notification that we have reached
this sad milestone.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I so amend the unanimous consent request
that there be a time not to exceed whatever is appropriate for this
proper recognition by the Senate of the loss of life.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for this
suggestion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we are ready for the Senator from
Delaware.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. WARNER. Let it be charged equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today for two purposes: one is to
speak against the Santorum amendment relating to Iran--the Iran
sanctions--and, two, to offer an amendment relating to the negotiations
that are now underway by the President of the United States.
Let's cut right to it, if I may. Are we going to stand aside while
the President of the United States of America is trying to stop the
development of a nuclear bomb in Iran? The President of the United
States of America has made a judgment--I would argue, finally, but he
has made a judgment--that the best way to keep the worst thing from
happening is to cooperate with our friends to put pressure on the bad
guy.
What do I mean by that? The President of the United States, I assume
at the urging of the Secretary of State--although it is not relevant,
actually--the President of the United States took a more aggressive
course about a month ago in attempting to stop the Iranians from
developing a nuclear weapon, a weapon that, if developed in conjunction
with a missile, could change, in a material way, the dynamics in the
Middle East and particularly relating to our interests, notwithstanding
the fact that it might not be able to strike the United States--a
development that if it occurred would almost assuredly put great
pressure on the Sunni Arabs in the region, who have lots of money, to
join with possibly Egypt or another country to develop a Sunni bomb.
This is not a good thing.
So the President, in conjunction with France, Germany, and the United
Kingdom, our three largest European allies, along with China, and
Russia, has agreed to and has been sitting down and making a specific
proposal, which the President of the United States has pledged the
United States to, in order to both entice as well as dissuade the
Iranians from pursuing their course. There are two pieces to it. One,
it says to the Iranians: If you cooperate and verifiably cease and
desist, we, the United States, the three European countries, China, and
Russia, will move forward with the following incentives to move you
closer to the family of nations as a responsible nation. And there are
a set of very specific incentives that the President of the United
States of America has signed on to--quote, an ``offer,'' if you will,
to the Iranian Government.
It also says, as was reported in the New York Times and the
Washington Post today, that the Chinese, as well as the Americans and
Russians, have communicated a second piece of information to the
Iranians: If you do not cease and desist, these bad things are going to
happen to you, and we are all jointly--jointly--going to impose them on
you.
I think that was a stroke of significant diplomacy on the part of the
President, which basically, as I understand it, the Europeans,
Russians, and Chinese said: Will you join us in some of the carrots?
And the President, as I understand it, said: Yes, if you join me in the
strikes. It is carrots and sticks.
I know of no way to avoid one of two alternatives: one is the
resignation to the acceptance of an Iranian weapon, and relying upon
deterrence; or, two, the use of military force against Iran to prevent
the development of that weapon.
My friend from Pennsylvania, as well as all of us on this floor, have
received, I expect, the same extensive briefings I have on just how
limited those alternatives are at this point militarily.
So I think the President has chosen a very reasonable course here.
But even if you disagree with it, one of the things that--and I have
been here during seven Presidents, and I have been very critical of
this President's foreign policy--but the idea, in the midst of a
negotiation, at the point at which the world is expecting and waiting
and wondering what Iran's response will be, that the U.S. Senate would
go on record as tying the President's hands in this negotiation--I find
that amazing, absolutely amazing.

[[Page S5917]]

I spoke this morning with the Secretary of State who authorized me to
say, unequivocally, the administration opposes this amendment. It
limits their flexibility in doing what we all want: preventing the
construction of a nuclear weapon in Iran. How much clearer can the
administration be? And as my Grandfather Finnegan from my home State of
Pennsylvania used to say: Who died and left you boss? Since when do we
negotiate for a President? We are in the midst of a negotiation. The
only thing we have going for us now, with China, Russia, and Europe all
siding with us, we are about to mess up? Folks, I think this is such a
tragic mistake--well-intended but tragic. The underlying amendment, Mr.
Santorum's amendment, in my view, and in the view of the Secretary of
State, actually advocates a policy that would jeopardize President
Bush's initiative and, I believe, play directly into the hands of
Iranian hard-liners.
I think if you read the language, it also has the potential to damage
relations with some of the key countries whose cooperation we need to
pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. If this approach were
adopted, we would be in the untenable position of sanctioning companies
located in countries that we are asking to impose sanctions on Iran if
they fail to accept the offer put forward by Russia, China, Europe, and
the United States.
It does not, with all due respect to my friend, because I have joined
him in Iran sanctions legislation in the past--I have joined him--but
this is a different amendment and it is a fundamentally different time.
I remember going down to see the President when he was making his
first trip to Europe. He asked whether I would come down and speak with
him and his staff and I did. It was very gracious of him to ask my
opinion, which was very nice of him. He said he was going to Germany.
And he said--I am paraphrasing--I understand you have been asked to
speak to the Bundestag, the German Parliament.
I said: Yes, I have, Mr. President.
He said: I understand you have turned it down.
I said: Yes, I have, Mr. President.
He said: Why?
I said: Mr. President, we only have one President. You are my
President. My disagreements with you on foreign policy--at that time it
related to the Balkans and some other things--I think it is totally
inappropriate, while you are in Europe, while you are in discussions
with the very people who invited me to speak, for me to go and publicly
afront you in a foreign capital before their--their--Parliament, the
very Parliament you are going to be speaking to. I am not President.
You are our President. And he pressed: Well, why?
And I said, somewhat facetiously--and I have had this discussion with
Newt--I am not Newt Gingrich. I don't go to the Middle East and speak
to Middle Eastern Parliaments while the previous Secretary of State is
there negotiating. I think it is inappropriate.
The President of the United States is in the midst of the most
important negotiations, absent Korea--and not much is going on there--
that we have had since he has been President. And even if everything in
here makes sense, why would we now do this?
My plea to my friend from Pennsylvania is: Withhold this amendment.
See what happens in the negotiations. If, in fact, they fail--as they
have an overwhelming prospect that could happen--then come back to the
Senate and the Congress to put on these restrictions.
Mr. President, may I ask how much time the Senator from Delaware has
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 50 seconds.
Mr. BIDEN. I say to my friend from Pennsylvania--I have not had a
chance to speak to him personally--I say to the Senator from
Pennsylvania, I have an amendment.
Mr. President, have I sent my amendment to the desk? Is the Biden
amendment at the desk?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is at the desk but not called up.

Amendment No. 4257

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for himself, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment
numbered 4257.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. 1231. UNITED STATE'S POLICY ON THE NUCLEAR PROGRAMS OF
IRAN.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that:
(1) The pursuit by the Iranian regime of a capability to
produce nuclear weapons represents a threat to the United
States, the Middle East region, and international peace and
security.
(2) On May 31, 2006, Secretary of State Rice announced that
the United States would join negotiations with Iran, along
with the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, provided that
Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and
reprocessing activities.
(3) On June 1, 2006, President George W. Bush stated that
``Secretary Rice, at my instructions, said to the world that
we want to solve the problem of the Iranian nuclear issue
diplomatically. And we made it very clear publicly that we're
willing to come to the table, so long as the Iranians
verifiably suspend their program. In other words, we said to
the Iranians [that] the United States of America wants to
work with our partners to solve the problem''.
(4) On June 1, 2006, the United States, the United Kingdom,
France, Germany, the People's Republic of China, and the
Russian Federation agreed upon a package of incentives and
disincentives, which was subsequently presented to Iran by
the High Representative of the European Union, Javier Solana.
(b) Sense of Congress.--Congress--
(1) endorses the policy of the United States, announced May
31, 2006, to achieve a successful diplomatic outcome, in
coordination with leading members of the international
community, with respect to the threat posed by the efforts of
the Iranian regime to acquire a capability to produce nuclear
weapons;
(2) calls on Iran to suspend fully and verifiably its
enrichment and reprocessing activities, cooperate fully with
the International Atomic Energy Agency, and enter into
negotiations, including with the United States, pursuant to
the package presented to Iran by the High Representative of
the European Union; and
(3) urges the President and the Secretary of State to keep
Congress fully and currently informed about the progress of
this vital diplomatic initiative.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what my amendment does is speak to and
support the President's present negotiation. It gives full support to
the President of the United States, because if there was ever a time
the President should have the world know the Nation stands behind him,
it is now. It is now in this negotiation. I don't have time to read the
amendment, but I promise you, it is a rendition of the administration's
position on negotiations and compliments him for it and says we support
him.
Although Senator Hagel is in a hearing and on his way, there will
probably not be much time for him to speak. But he is a cosponsor,
along with Senators Levin and Dodd. I am sure there are others, and I
ask unanimous consent that they be able to be added later.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I also want to point out that the
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, if I am not
mistaken, yesterday raised significant concerns with the Santorum
amendment as well. As I look at the Record, they all are pertinent and
accurate.
I will conclude by saying, this is no time to be meddling in the
midst of a negotiation on one of the most important issues facing the
United States, when the President has newly initiated a specific
proposal. I urge my friend from Pennsylvania to withhold his amendment
until we see what turns out there. If he thinks it is necessary after
the negotiations succeed or fail, then come back.
I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for allowing me to probably run
over a minute or so.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 4234

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time as our colleague wishes.
I ask unanimous consent that each manager have at least 3 minutes to
address this at the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.

[[Page S5918]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. With respect to the Biden amendment, I was handed a
copy of it a couple minutes ago. But having read it, it is a sense of
the Senate. I don't see any reason not to support the Biden amendment.
I have no problem with the language. It basically says that we hope for
a resolution to the diplomatic efforts under way, a positive resolution
with respect to Iran not pursuing nuclear weapons. That is no problem
for me. But it doesn't do anything other than say we wish you well.
The amendment I have offered is an amendment that is in substance the
bill that passed the House of Representatives in April with over 300
votes. At the time it passed, prior to the negotiations that were
commenced at the end of May by the administration, as the Senator from
Delaware suggested, when it passed in April, the administration opposed
it. I suspect, although I will let the Senator from Delaware speak for
himself, I know he is not a cosponsor of my bill that is in the Foreign
Relations Committee, and, to my knowledge, Senator Lugar has not
supported this legislation. The State Department has not supported my
legislation. It is not surprising to me that they don't support this
amendment. They don't generally support amendments that have to do with
sanctions and forcing them to do things they don't want to do.
We are a coequal branch of Government, and it is vitally important
for us at a critical time--and I agree with the Senator from Delaware
on this, this is a critical time. I disagree with him on several
things. One of the things on which I disagree with him, I think these
negotiations are more important than North Korea. I think the threat of
Iran and Islamic fascism is more significant than the threat posed by
North Korea.
I believe this is a vitally important negotiation. I think it is
vitally important during the course of these negotiations to speak to
them and to speak in support not only in words but in deeds of what the
President is trying to accomplish. The deeds here are very clear. It is
twofold. The Senator from Delaware suggested there are not very many
good options on the table.
The two options on the table, other than military force, are in this
amendment. Those two options are to support prodemocracy efforts within
Iran, to try to see if we can get a peaceful transformation of that
government. The second is to try to dissuade the Iranians from moving
forward and dissuade others, companies and countries, from working with
them in development of their nuclear weapons program. Those are the
options.
The President is trying to do it through a diplomatic arrangement. I
wish him the very best. But I remind everybody here who is going to
vote, this is not going to the President today. It is not going to the
President next week. It is not going to the President next month. This
is an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. It will be months, I
am sure. I would be amazed if we were able to get this done before
September or October. This bill is not going to be decided upon, this
amendment is not going to be concluded and passed on to the President
before these negotiations come to a conclusion. What we do here is put
ourselves in a position to have an amendment in conference ready to
move if these negotiations do not work.
Putting off this amendment is not such an easy thing to do. Putting
off this amendment and finding a vehicle to attach it to, particularly
over the next few weeks, is not going to be easy to do, as we bring up
appropriations bills. So this may be the last vehicle between now and
the summer recess in August and potentially the rest of this Congress
to debate this issue. It is important for us to speak to this issue
now.

This is not a radical piece of legislation. This is a piece of
legislation that has 61 cosponsors that passed with over 300 votes in
the House of Representatives. It has broad bipartisan support. I
understand it is opposed by the Department of State. Senator Warner was
kind enough to show the letter that came from the Department suggesting
their opposition. I remind all Members, they opposed this bill and have
consistently, not just because of these negotiations but have opposed
this bill, period. They opposed it when the House passed it in April.
So this is nothing new.
I suggest that the opportunity we have on the most important national
security issue facing this country, the threat of Islamic fascism and
the threat of Iran as the principal cog in orchestrating, supporting,
financing, and encouraging this type of behavior, is to speak into the
moment where we are confronting them right now with our administration
in their development of nuclear weapons. For the Congress to remain
silent, for the Congress to step back and say: We wish you well, Mr.
President, but we are not going to go on record of really supporting
you, in deed not just in word, will be interpreted one way, in my
opinion, the way words are always interpreted. I think the Senator from
Delaware said that this will play into the hardliners in Iran. Let me
remind the Senator from Delaware, the hardliners run Iran. The
hardliner is the President of Iran. The hardliners are the mullahs who
run the country. There are not hardliners and then the governing powers
of Iran. The hardliners are the governing powers of Iran. They are the
ones making the decision. We are not playing into their hands. We are
telling them we are serious, as serious as the President is about doing
something about their development of nuclear weapons and their desire
and explicit statements about their willingness to use those weapons on
the State of Israel and others.
This is a very serious debate. This is a very serious vote. This is a
very serious message that we either will or will not send. Are we going
to send a message to the Iranian hardliners that we are going to stand
by our President in word and action and that we are not going to let
their talk of maybe possibly down the road potentially coming and
talking to us, which is all they are talking about right now, dissuade
us from acting while they are acting right now in developing nuclear
capability, which they are. They are acting right now. They are
developing. They are pursuing. They are saying they are going to use
it. All we are going to say is: Well, your talk about maybe talking to
us in the future will dissuade us from acting? No, it should not. We
should act today. We have 61 cosponsors of this legislation. I hope
that all 61 and then some stand by and say to the Iranian hardliners/
government that we will stand with our President in word and deed and
make sure that we do everything we can through peaceful means, and that
is what this amendment is about, to stop them from getting nuclear
weapons.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. I ask to speak for up to 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I appreciate the time from the
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
I rise to strongly support the Biden amendment. It is the responsible
and appropriate position for this body to take on a very serious issue.
It is important that we recognize, just as the distinguished Senator
from Pennsylvania has noted, that we support our President. I believe
President Bush's actions and directions, as they are now playing out,
are, in fact, the appropriate, responsible, and relevant actions to
take.
I also rise to strongly oppose the Santorum amendment. Again, noting
what the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania said, that we should
send a strong message to the world that we are supporting our
President, I am not certain how that is accomplished by supporting the
Santorum amendment. In fact, as has been noted on the floor this
morning, the President's senior foreign policy agent, the Secretary of
State, Dr. Rice, is opposed. The Secretary of State of the United
States Government is opposed to the Santorum amendment. I am not
certain how that connects with what my distinguished colleague from
Pennsylvania has noted.
What we are dealing with in the Santorum amendment is a very
irresponsible, dangerous direction to take.

[[Page S5919]]

Let me remind colleagues that we already are at war in two nations. We
have 130,000 American troops engaged now in a war in Iraq. The Middle
East is in turmoil. We have 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. NATO is in
Afghanistan. Many of our allies are with us in Iraq.
We better be careful here. We better be careful in how we are dealing
with this issue. It is a serious issue. It is dangerous. But it is
complicated. Iran is not a monolithic government that we can ascribe
motives to, agreements to. Our best course of action is exactly where
the President is going. And that is, engaging Iran, engaging with our
allies, strengthening our alliances. If we are not careful, we will
find America isolated in the world at a very dangerous time. That is
what the Santorum amendment is about.
This is not helping our President. Our President is opposed to it. He
is taking a different direction.
Let's be careful. This is not just some amendment. This is the force
of the U.S. Senate that could be put into a law in fact limiting the
President's options. Is that what we want to do and is that how we
describe supporting the President, limiting the President's options? I
don't think so. This is dangerous business, very dangerous business.
Before our colleagues vote, they better understand what is going to be
required.
Again, I thank my distinguished colleague from Virginia for the time.
I hope our colleagues, before they vote, will understand the
consequences of a dangerous amendment like this. I shall oppose it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I ask the distinguished Senator
from Pennsylvania, in fairness, I think he should wrap this debate up.
How many minutes does he desire?
Mr. SANTORUM. I understand I have 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator has 4 minutes, and
the managers have 3 minutes left.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let us establish the hour of 12:15 for the
vote, with 5 minutes at the conclusion for the distinguished Senator
from Pennsylvania and 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from
Virginia and 5 minutes under the control of Senator Levin. I ask
unanimous consent that be the case.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleagues here
that in the course of this debate, I have studied this matter very
carefully. I spoke out on it yesterday expressing my concerns. I do
believe the actions proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania are not
irresponsible. They are a clear matter of conscience and what he thinks
is in our best interest.
My concern, which I think is the Senator's concern, is that the
timing is unwise. I support the Senator from Nebraska in that
observation, as I do the Senator from Delaware, because we have a
negotiation of great sensitivity underway at the direction of the
President, who, under the Constitution of the United States, has the
primary responsibility in the matter of conducting foreign affairs. His
chief designee, the Secretary of State, has spoken through Senator
Biden.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter
addressed to me, to which I will refer momentarily, from the Department
of State.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of State,

Washington, DC, June 15, 2006.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Mr. Chairman: It is our understanding that the Iran
Freedom Support Act (S. 333) will soon be offered as an
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY
2007 (S. 2766). The Administration has serious concerns about
S. 333, and therefore opposes its inclusion in S. 2766.
As Secretary Rice recently announced, Iran is being offered
a choice: either continue to pursue nuclear weapons and face
isolation and progressively stronger sanctions, or verifiably
abandon uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities and
receive civil nuclear energy and economic cooperation from
the international community. We are in agreement with our
European partners on the elements of the benefits if Iran
makes the right choice, and the costs if it does not. More
broadly, we have found support from Russia and China for this
approach.
The amendment runs counter to our efforts and those of the
international community to present Iran with a clear choice
regarding their nuclear ambitions. This amendment, if
enacted, would shift unified international attention away
from Iran's nuclear activities and create a rift between the
U.S. and our closest international partners. Moreover, it
would limit our diplomatic flexibility.
By contrast, we endorse the concept of providing support
for democracy and human rights in Iran. The Administration
has worked closely with the Congress to include funding in
the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006 (H.R.
4939) to increase our support for democracy and improve radio
broadcasting, expand satellite television broadcasting, and
increase contacts through expanded fellowships and
scholarships for Iranian students.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this letter from the
standpoint of the Administration's Program.
Sincerely,

Jeffrey T. Bergner,

Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs.

Mr. WARNER. I strongly believe the Senator from Pennsylvania is of
clear conscience on this matter.
Regarding the fact that he had these cosponsors and the fact that the
House spoke on this in April, since the April timeframe--and I believe
his earlier amendment had 60 cosponsors--much has transpired. That has
been addressed here today, the sensitivity of these negotiations
between our Nation and other nations in line for the interests of the
United States and the Government of Iran. Therefore, my concern about
this amendment is the timing of it.
I now would like to refer to the letter forwarded to me as chairman,
dated today, which was printed in the Record. One paragraph reads:

The amendment runs counter to our efforts and those of the
international community to present Iran with a clear choice
regarding their nuclear ambitions. The amendment, if enacted,
would shift unified international attention away from Iran's
nuclear activities and create a rift between the U.S. and our
closest international partners. Moreover, it would limit our
diplomatic flexibility.

Mr. President, I have to accept the good faith of the Secretary of
State on this matter and as communicated to this Chamber.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am one who has cosponsored a version of
the Iranian sanctions amendment which Senator Santorum offered now over
a year ago. I believed then and I believe now that it may well be
necessary for sanctions to be imposed on Iran.
However, I cannot support the amendment that has been offered by
Senator Santorum for two reasons. One is the fact that it is
significantly broader than the other amendment that was introduced by
Senator Santorum, the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005. In many
ways, it is broader and it interjects an unrelated issue with respect
to Russian pricing for nuclear reactor fuel. It removes the requirement
that a person have actual knowledge of the actions for which he is
going to be sanctioned. There is a direction here to a United Nations
representative, which was not present in the amendment I cosponsored.
It changes the threshold which makes it more difficult for the
President to waive sanctions. So there are a number of significant
differences between this and an amendment I cosponsored.
The other difference is that, of course, there has been significant
change which occurred since that time. Senator Warner has outlined that
point. That change is now the decision of the administration--which I
support--to engage or participate in direct talks with Iran under
specified circumstances. I think that is a policy which should be given
a chance to work, and if the policy doesn't succeed and Iran does not
work out a negotiation and agreement with all the countries with which
there are discussions going on, at that point, it seems to me there is
a greater chance we will get those other countries, including Russia,
to support sanctions if, in fact, the negotiations and discussions with
Iran do not succeed.
So those discussions the President has decided to engage upon are
actually a prelude to a much stronger chance to succeed with sanctions
down the road because countries that might support us on sanctions, and
whose

[[Page S5920]]

support would be extremely helpful, would then realize we had gone
through the negotiation and discussion route with Iran. I believe that
policy is wise. It will strengthen our position in getting sanctions,
should that be necessary. Also, it is the best chance of having the
solution here, which will avoid greater and greater conflict down the
road. While it is with some reluctance that I cannot support a sanction
amendment relating to Iran, nonetheless, because this is broader than
the one that previously I cosponsored, and mainly because of the
ongoing negotiations which will strengthen our position if they do not
lead to a good resolution, I cannot support the Santorum amendment. I
will support the Biden amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will address the comments made by my
colleagues. I appreciate their thoughtful comments.
First, this is not just a sanctions amendment. This is a sanctions
amendment which imposes additional sanctions, but it also has a large
prodemocracy component to support prodemocracy efforts and public
diplomacy within Iran.
Second, with respect to the sanctions, I agree with some of the
criticisms leveled by Senator Levin that it adds things which were not
in the previous versions. One thing it adds is a nuclear components
provision, which says that if you are going to be a company that is
doing business with Iran in the development of their nuclear weapons
capability, you cannot do business with us in America. If that is
objectionable to folks, I find it somewhat remarkable that we would
want companies doing business in Iran doing business here. But that is
a new sanction; he is correct.
What he is not correct about is that we make it more difficult to
waive these sanctions. In fact, we have made it easier to waive
sanctions. We have given the President more time to waive sanctions. In
fact, the big difference between the House bill and ours is we are much
more liberal with respect to the waiver authority of the President. In
that respect, the House bill passed--I have the exact vote--by a vote
of 397 to 21. That is the bill which passed in the House of
Representatives just 2 months ago. It has, with the exception of what I
have said, a more liberal waiver authority component that deals with
nuclear technology because of, obviously, this concern about the major
difference between the two. I suspect that both the increased
flexibility and the nuclear component provision would have very strong
support in the Senate.

The other thing I wish to talk about is what Senator Warner referred
to in the letter from the Secretary of State. I remind everybody that
the Secretary and the State Department have opposed this legislation
from the day I have introduced it.
No. 2, I have had discussions with the Secretary personally over at
the State Department, and we have had ongoing discussions. They support
aspects of this bill. They don't like some of the sanction provisions,
specifically the codification of Executive orders. I understand that.
That has been sort of an intractable problem we have had during these
negotiations.
I also remind everybody here that I bet I could pull out a letter
identical to the letter just read by the Senator from Virginia on the
issue of the Syrian Accountability Act, which passed here after about
3\1/2\ years or 2\1/2\ years of work, to try to get the administration
on board with that legislation. The State Department opposed it,
opposed it, opposed it. The President opposed it. They thought it was
the wrong time, something we shouldn't do.
I had three conversations with the President on the Syrian
Accountability Act. The first two times, he about tore my head off,
saying how inappropriate it was for Congress to act in this regard and
try to impose sanctions and mess around with foreign policy. The third
conversation I had with him was a conversation where he said he would
sign it. Six months later, he gave the State of the Union Address and
took credit for the Syrian Accountability Act as one of the great
accomplishments of his administration in foreign policy.
I believe the impact of the Syrian Accountability Act is pretty
discernible--what happened with the withdrawal of Syrian troops from
Lebanon. The Congress, when we act and do so in a responsible fashion,
can make a difference. I believe this is an appropriate time and
appropriate subject for us to make a difference.
Iran is the great threat before us. If anyone believes that by being
weak, by not acting, by not stepping forward, and by not getting
involved and saying we are going to hold those who cooperate with the
Iranians accountable for their cooperation, if we think that by backing
off on that somehow or another we will create some good will with the
hardliners who control Iran, you have not been watching how the
Iranians behave. They respect one thing and one thing only--we are
about to give it to them, I hope--and that is action, deeds, and a
credible threat that we will impose sanctions and we will hurt their
capability if they do not change their course. That is what we have an
opportunity to do here in about 2 minutes. I hope we take that
opportunity and do not simply say that we like what the President is
doing and we are all for negotiation and we hope everything goes well.
It will be interpreted as stepping back, as weakness. We cannot afford
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WARNER. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Biden
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Also, I ask unanimous consent, I believe with the
agreement of the chairman, that Senator Lautenberg, who has been
promised 3 minutes, be given those 3 minutes, and that if Senator
Santorum needs a minute or two to respond to Senator Lautenberg, he be
given it.
Mr. WARNER. Yes, 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, with an
additional 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, and then the
vote.
Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will try to be quick. I listened
with interest to the Senator from Pennsylvania and his presentation. I
also looked at the amendment he has produced. In that amendment, we are
going to administer sanctions against companies doing business with
Iran.
Now, the surprise here is that three times before, when I had an
amendment, the Senator from Pennsylvania voted against it, would not
include it, didn't want to discriminate against firms that do business
with Iran and that provide revenues that kill our kids in Iraq. And now
we have a flimsy aspect. We say we are going to impose sanctions;
however, it will be out of reach of American jurisdiction. It,
therefore, will not apply to the company that owns it--in this case it
happens to be a Halliburton--that has a sham corporation operating in
Dubai based originally in the Cayman Islands. That should not be
allowed, that the grasp of the U.S. Government cannot reach these
perpetrators of the kind of indecency that places our soldiers at risk
because they are doing business with an avowed enemy of the United
States that is providing funds that are lethal to our troops over
there.

I hope everybody will take a good close look at this amendment and
vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this goes under the old rubric of no
good deed goes unpunished. We have attempted in this amendment to meet
the Senator from New Jersey halfway. The Senator's amendment has
consistently been voted on. I have opposed it and so has most of the
Senate, which suggests that those who are currently doing business and
have invested should be penalized for their investment. What we say is
that on any future investment, you will be penalized. We make the
Lautenberg language prospective.
In attempting to meet the Senator from New Jersey halfway, we find
out

[[Page S5921]]

that this is not sufficient and, therefore, we should oppose this
amendment. I would think half a loaf is better than no loaf. This, by
the way, was not in the Iran Freedom and Support Act. This is one of
the provisions Senator Levin mentioned that was added, frankly, out of
respect for the concerns the Senator from New Jersey raised and has
raised on the floor repeatedly.
This is an attempt to make a good-faith attempt--and I do mean that--
a good-faith attempt to meet the Senator from New Jersey halfway and to
take his policy and put it in place in a prospective manner. If that is
not sufficient for the Senator from New Jersey, that is fine. He is
welcome to oppose the amendment.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, is the Senator aware that the
exemption in his amendment would make it almost impossible to hold a
U.S. company liable for doing business with Iran through a foreign
subsidiary?
Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding is that we crafted this language
pursuant to the language the Senator from New Jersey used in the past
and put a threshold we thought was--I think it was a $20 million
threshold we put in place which we thought was a reasonable threshold
of investment to reach the level of sanction.
If the Senator from New Jersey would like to toughen that language or
change the threshold, I would be happy to sit down and talk with him
about it. I am open to discussion.
My only point, and I think the point we have had in this discussion
in the past, is I don't believe it is proper to penalize companies that
have investments there, in many cases longstanding investments. What we
want to do is discourage future investment. That is what we attempt to
do in this amendment. If the Senator does not believe it has been
effectively written, I will be happy to sit down with him, in all
sincerity, and work to make it effective that future investments are
discouraged.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have another question, if I may, and
that is, would the Senator be willing to move the vote back, if we can
do it, so we can discuss the language?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are under a unanimous consent
agreement. The time, I believe, has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6 seconds remaining.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield back the 6 seconds so we can get
to the vote? I regret we have to move forward.
Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator has heard his answer.
Mr. WARNER. There are Senators who have to go to the Pentagon for a
memorial service. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are a number of differences between
S. 333 and the Santorum amendment. These differences include a number
of new provisions in the amendment that are not in the S. 333. Some of
them are:
Remove the requirement that a parent or a subsidiary of a person
against whom sanctions have been issued must have actual knowledge of
the activities before sanctions can be issued against them.
Remove the requirement that an affiliate of the Company against which
sanctions have been issued must have actual knowledge of the activities
before sanctions can be issued against them.
Remove Libya from the scope and title of the Iran Libya Sanctions
Act.
Would impose an additional condition on the exercise of the
President's waiver authority by imposing an additional element in the
report that must be submitted to Congress prior to the waiver going
into effect. Current law requires, among other elements of the report,
an assessment of the significance of the assistance provided to the
development of Iran's petroleum production. The new requirement would
also require an assessment of the significance of the assistance to the
development of Iran's weapons of mass destruction or other military
capabilities.
Reduces operations and maintenance funding for the Army for Iraq and
Afghanistan by $100 million.
In other instances, there are modifications to provisions in the
amendment that are included in S. 333. For instance, both S. 333 and
the Santorum amendment would expand the universe of persons against
whom sanctions could be imposed to include a private or government
lender, insurer, underwriter, reinsurer, or guarantor of a person
sanctioned. S. 333 would require that these persons would have to have
actual knowledge of the activities of the person sanctioned; the
Santorum amendment does not include the requirement of actual
knowledge.
Both S. 333 and the Santorum amendment would expand the definition of
a person to include a financial instution, insurer, underwriter,
reinsurer, guarantor. The Santorum amendment would also include any
other business organization, including any foreign subsidiaries of the
foregoing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 4234. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Snowe
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wyden

NAYS--54

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Rockefeller

The amendment (No. 4234) was rejected.

=========================== NOTE =========================

On page S5921, June 15, 2006, the Rollcall Vote No. 172
announcement appeared as follows: The result was announced--yeas
45, nays 54, as follows:

YEAS--45

Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Snowe
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich

NAYS--54

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rockefeller

The amendment (No. 4234) was rejected.

The online version has been corrected to read: The result was
announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

YEAS--46

Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Snowe
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wyden

NAYS--53

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Rockefeller

The amendment (No. 4234) was rejected.

============================ END NOTE ======================

____________________