To require the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq and urge the convening of an Iraq summit.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. FRIST. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, at this moment we do want to honor the
2,500 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq, and their families.
We ask all Senators to take their seats and offer that moment of
silence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
observe a moment of silence out of respect for our fallen troops.
(The Senate observed a moment of silence.)

Amendment No. 4257

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2
minutes equally divided prior to the vote on the Biden amendment.
Who yields time?
Mr. BIDEN. Will the manager yield me time to speak to my amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, our amendment merely states that we support
the President's efforts, in a nutshell. I only have a minute. We
support the President's efforts in negotiations with our European
allies, the Russians, and Chinese to both offer incentives and
sanctions to Iran regarding its proceeding with construction of a
nuclear weapon.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield a minute to the distinguished
senior

[[Page S5922]]

Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 1 minute in
opposition.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as I said during debate, this amendment
simply says that we support the President's effort to negotiate a
diplomatic resolution to Iran's garnering of nuclear weapons. I support
the amendment. I wish the President and those efforts well. I suspect
we will be back, talking about this again in the future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called 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 99, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]

YEAS--99

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rockefeller

The amendment (No. 4257) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to proceed as if in morning business for up to 25 minutes, and that
after I have spoken Senator Nelson of Florida be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Gregg and Mr. Sessions pertaining to the
introduction of S. 3521 are printed in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Florida is here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Florida is recognized.

Amendment No. 4265

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send to the desk an
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
laid aside.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for himself and Mr.
Menendez, proposes an amendment numbered 4265.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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 express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq
should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or
wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States)

At the end of subtitle A of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1209. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE GRANTING OF AMNESTY TO
PERSONS KNOWN TO HAVE KILLED MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition
military forces are serving heroically in Iraq to provide all
the people of Iraq a better future.
(2) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition
military forces have served bravely in Iraq since the
beginning of military operations in March of 2003.
(3) More than 2,500 members of the Armed Forces of the
United States and members of coalition military forces have
been killed and more than 18,000 injured in operations to
bring peace and stability to all the people of Iraq.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to
persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of
the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) the President should immediately notify the Government
of Iraq that the Government of the United States strongly
opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members
of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, a significant hubbub has
occurred as a result of stories that have appeared in this morning's
Washington Post that directly affect the defense posture of this
country. It is stated in the Washington Post that the Prime Minister of
Iraq is expected to release within days a ``plan [that] is likely to
include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops'' in Iraq.
That is according to a top adviser.
As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister of Iraq is quoted as saying--
and I will get to the quote--reconciliation could include an amnesty
for those ``who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood.''
Ergo, there would be amnesty for those who would have been involved in
the shedding of American blood.
Now, it is possible--and this Senator hopes that something was lost
in the translation because I cannot imagine the Prime Minister of Iraq
turning on his heel away from American troops and suddenly--as he is
trying to bring about reconciliation in his country--trying to then say
as part of that reconciliation we are going to give amnesty for anybody
who killed American men and women.
Well, naturally the Government of the United States should not stand
for this. That is why Senator Menendez and I are offering this
amendment to the Defense authorization bill, so that we can clearly set
forth the policy--in this case, the sense of the Senate--that we will
not stand for this.
By the adoption of this sense of the Senate amendment, clearly our
President should speak to the Iraqi Prime Minister, who he just spoke
with a couple of days ago, and he should speak with him immediately to
get him to retract this statement. There should be no amnesty for those
who murder American troops. American troops continue to serve bravely,
and they are fighting for the freedom of all Iraqis. So it brings us to
a point that is pretty clear. The Senate should go on record as having
said that we repudiate that statement.
I will very clearly state what the Senate sense of the Congress is,
that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known
to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the
United States and that the President should immediately notify the
Government of Iraq that the Government of the United States strongly
opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members of the
Armed Forces of the United States.
It is fairly straightforward. I could go on and on with comments. I
am awaiting the arrival of Senator Menendez because I want him to make
some comments as well.
If you do what a number of us in this body have done in visiting
either with the families of those who have borne the brunt of the
fighting and have given the ultimate sacrifice or if you have visited
with those who return wounded and maimed, then there is no question
there should be no obfuscation as to the policy of granting amnesty to
those who have killed Americans.
I remember going back to the time that I served as a captain in the
Army, which was years and years ago. One of the most dread duties I had
was to be the officer who was given the task of notifying the loved
ones in the family of a service person who was killed. That, of course,
is an exceptionally emotional event. And although it was decades ago,
those experiences are seared in my memory because of the

[[Page S5923]]

trauma and the emotion when you meet with the grieving family of a
loved one.
By the same token, there are over 18,000 of our service people who
have been wounded. And many of them, because the body armor is working
and saving the vital organs, their lives are being saved, but they have
been maimed. The extremities are often the part of the body that is the
casualty since the body armor is saving the vital organs. As a result,
what we see is a lot of soldiers and sailors and Marines who come back,
and they are just as optimistic as they can be in their outlook and yet
think of the life that they will live with the maiming that has
occurred. Their life was spared, but their life is going to be clearly
different for the future.
Anyone who would dare suggest that in the formulation of a new
government of Iraq, which we, the United States Government, clearly
support, anyone who would even contemplate that that government have a
policy that, as they try to build reconciliation, they are going to
grant amnesty to those who have killed Americans, as we say in the
South, they have to have another thing coming, because we are not going
to tolerate it.
I offer a simple resolution on behalf of the Senate. I hope it is not
going to be controversial. I hope it will be accepted.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I had my fourth trip to Iraq recently
and met with a number of leaders over there. I have been impressed with
them and have enjoyed them. I know Senator Nelson has also. He and I
are the chair and ranking member respectively of the Strategic Forces
Subcommittee. We have worked together on many important issues.
I wanted to say a couple things. First, the amendment he has is of
value and will be something that can be accepted. I believe it should
be. You worry a little bit that maybe language difficulties come into
play in how miscommunications can occur. Even among those of us who
speak English together, we can have misunderstandings.
I was just handed a CNN interview today. It just came across the
wire. It was by a reporter, Daryn Kagan, with the new national security
adviser to Prime Minister Maliki in Iraq. He was asked about this very
subject because the reporter obviously felt some of the same concerns
the Senator from Florida raised. He said this to him.
The reporter:

Doctor, I know there's a big effort by your government in
your country to try to prevent civil war. And as a part of
that, the Washington Post reports today that your Prime
Minister is considering offering amnesty to Sunnis or to
others who perhaps attacked only U.S. troops. This, not
surprisingly, is causing great consternation here in the
U.S., even talking about it and being raised on the floor of
the U.S. Senate today. Is this, indeed, the case? Is your
government thinking about offering amnesty to those that
attacked only U.S. military?

This is Dr. Rubaie's reply:

This is not the case. I'm sorry to say that the prime
minister of Iraq has been misquoted and misunderstood. He did
not mean to give amnesty to those who killed Americans.
As a matter of fact, if you go there in his meeting with
the President Bush a couple of days ago, he looked the
president in the eye and he said, thank you very, very much
for liberating our country. Please thank the American wives
and American women and American mothers for the treasure and
blood they have invested in this country. It's well worth
investing, of liberating 30 million people in this country.
And we are ever so grateful.
And we will--the blood of the Iraqi soldier and the blood
of Iraqi civilian soldier is as sacred to us as the American
soldier. We are fighting the same war, we are fighting
together, and this is a joined responsibility. And we will
never give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers
or killed Iraqi soldier or civilian.
What the prime minister is going to give amnesty to are
those who have not committed the crimes, rather they're
against Iraqis or coalition. Those who have--still carry arms
and they might have probably done some minor mistakes in
storing some arms or allowing some terrorists to stay
overnight or shelter, give shelter to some of these
insurgents. That's it. Basically, it's a goodwill gesture
he's extending to the Sunni community, to those who have
committed some mistakes in the past.

I don't know exactly how it all came about or how the comments were
made. Mr. Maliki is new to being Prime Minister. There are language
difficulties. I hope this reflects the firm view of the people of Iraq.
I find it consistent with the responses I have had when I talked to the
Iraqi leadership.
I thank the Senator from Florida for raising the question. I am
pleased to see this very strong response from the national security
adviser, Prime Minister Maliki's top adviser on national security.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SESSIONS. I will.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. This Senator hopes, too, as I said at the
outset of this Senator's remarks, that there is something lost in the
translation, a mistake. But if there is, it is time for Prime Minister
Maliki to step forward and clarify it. He can easily clarify it. But
that does not diminish the need for the sense of Congress that says
that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known
to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the
United States.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Florida.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the
amendment Senator Nelson and I have offered on this issue of amnesty
for those who have killed American soldiers.
I know the latest statements that have come out. I hope that is
ultimately where the intention is. But it became very clear to me. I
hope my colleagues have had the opportunity to read today's Washington
Post article. It says: ``Iraq Amnesty Plan May Cover Attacks On U.S.
Military.'' When you read the statements there, I have to be honest,
they were very unequivocal but unequivocal in a way that we could not
accept as the U.S. Senate.
As I continued to reread this article, my anger grew. In the article
it refers to the Prime Minister of Iraq acknowledging that
reconciliation could include an amnesty for those ``who weren't
involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood.'' That is where the quote
ends. There is not one single mention of American blood. Is that a
misinterpretation? Is that an oversight on the day on which we
recognize the loss of 2,500 American soldiers and the thousands and
thousands who have shed their blood and come back injured? Is that an
oversight?
How about American blood and American lives, Mr. Prime Minister? Are
you willing to have reconciliation on the pool of American blood that
has been spilled to give your country and your people a chance for
freedom? Is there so little value to the 2,500 American lives that have
been lost and the over 18,000 wounded on behalf of your country that
you wouldn't even think about including American lives when you were
talking about Iraqi lives? No way. No way.
Then I look at the article and look at the quotes attributed to Adnan
Kadhimi, a top adviser to Maliki. What does he say? He says:

The government has in mind somehow to do reconciliation,
and one way to do it is to offer an amnesty . . .

Then he goes on to talk about amnesty. He says:

We can see if somehow those who are so-called resistance
can be accepted if they have not been involved in any kind of
criminal behavior, such as killing innocent people or
damaging infrastructure, and even infrastructure, if it is
minor, will be part of it.

So we have this elaborate plan that talks about even infrastructure,
but doesn't talk about American lives. And then, when asked about
clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops, he goes on to say--the
adviser to the Prime Minister--that ``that's an area where we can see a
green line.''
There is some sort of preliminary understanding between us and the
U.S.-led multinational force in 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.''
Well, who in the U.S.-led multinational force has an understanding

[[Page S5924]]

with the Iraqis that it is OK to offer amnesty for those who have
killed Americans? I would like to know the answer to that question.
I do believe very strongly that Senator Nelson's and my amendment
should be embraced by the entire Senate. We cannot allow to chance that
those statements attributed on the record--one directly by the Prime
Minister and one directly by his top adviser--can be equivocated on. We
have to send a very strong message that we will not tolerate amnesty to
those who have taken the lives of American soldiers and for those who
have spilled American blood in defense of their country.
Just a little while ago, we had a moment of silence for the 2,500
American soldiers who have died in Iraq. Let's do much more than have a
moment of silence in the face of these statements. Let's make sure the
taking of American lives can never be rewarded with amnesty. The Senate
has an opportunity to make a clear, unequivocal statement that it is
unacceptable, and I believe that it should take this opportunity. It is
not only with a moment of silence that we show our respect, it is with
our deeds that we show our respect.
Let the Senate act unanimously and speak with one voice to make it
very clear that this should not even be a thought on behalf of the
Iraqi Government. Then we will have honored the lives of those people,
our fellow Americans, who gave the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of
their country.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, I placed a call to a
Nevada mother, Jennifer Laybourn. These calls are not easy; they are
hard. Like many other Nevada mothers, she lost a boy, 19 years old, her
son David, in Iraq. He was performing his duties as a soldier when he
was killed by an improvised explosive device. Again, he was 19 years
old.
Nevada has lost 39 soldiers in Iraq. Nevada is a small, sparsely
populated State. Thirty-nine is a lot of funerals, a lot of sorrow for
those of us from Nevada. There is no way we can ever repay those 39
Nevada heroes and their parents, siblings, family, and friends for
their sacrifices. But we must always make sure their service is
honored, which is why today I compliment and applaud Senators Nelson
from Florida and Menendez from New Jersey, and to express my complete
shock and outrage that the Iraqi Prime Minister has even considered
granting amnesty to the insurgents who have killed our troops.
Up to this day, today, we have lost 2,500 soldiers in Iraq. The mere
idea that this proposal would go forward is an insult to the brave
Nevadans who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom, and this doesn't
take into consideration those Nevadans who have been grievously wounded
in battle. It is my hope the President will denounce this proposal
immediately--not wait for a retraction by the Iraqis but denounce it
immediately. We should remember that the majority of Nevadans killed in
Iraq were not killed in acts of warfare, as we historically have known
warfare. They were killed in acts of terror.
All of us who are committed to freedom and democracy should recognize
that their murders, 39 Nevadans, deserve justice. While I support
reconciliation efforts to bring Iraqi political factions together, I
don't support amnesty for those who commit acts of terror against
Americans.
It sends the wrong signal to our troops, the wrong signal to the
Iraqis, and it sends the wrong signal to all Americans. It certainly
sends a wrong signal to the insurgents who have now been given the
message that they can attack our forces without consequence.
President Bush continually makes a point of saying that a free Iraq
means the United States will have a friend in the Middle East. This
amnesty proposal is no sign of friendship; it is a sign of hostility
which dishonors the sacrifice of our troops. Our troops deserve better.
Again, I urge the President to tell the new Iraqi Government to stand
down. America will not stand as our troops are dishonored in this way.
It seems so unfortunate that after the President's visit in Iraq, a
day later this is floated through the Iraqi Government. It is too bad.
We deserve better.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to my
good friend from Nevada. I hope Senators will be more supportive of our
elected allies who are the Government of Iraq. The national security
adviser for the Government of Iraq just said a few hours ago:

And we will never give amnesty to those who have killed
American soldiers or killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.

So this notion of amnesty about a new, duly-elected Iraqi Government
is a sideshow, an effort to divert our attention away from the core
issue. Over in the House of Representatives today, they are having a
much needed debate on the Iraq war. I had hoped that we would have that
debate in the Senate. I read that several of our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle were interested in offering an amendment that
would codify what they have said publicly, which is that the troops
ought to be out by the end of this year. I hope they will come down and
offer that amendment. I hope we will have that debate. I think it is a
good time to have that debate.
It is a good time to remind the American people that it is no
accident that we have not been attacked again since 9/11. Nobody would
have predicted that in the fall of 2001. If we asked for a show of
hands in the Senate of how many Senators thought we would be attacked
again that year, I think every hand would have gone up. Certainly, the
American people expected another attack. By going on the offense, which
the President suggested we do shortly after 9/11, we have succeeded
dramatically in the principal reason for advancing the war on
terrorism, and that was to protect us at home. Almost 5 years later, we
have not been attacked again. While nobody will predict that we will
never be attacked again, it is noteworthy that we have not been
attacked again. Believe me, it is not an accident. Why have we not been
attacked again? Because we went into Afghanistan and into Iraq. We
liberated 50 million people. A lot of the terrorists are dead. Several
are at Guantanamo. Many are hiding in their caves. Yes, some are still
around doing mischief in Baghdad rather than in Washington or New York.
This is the time we ought to be having the debate about Iraq
strategy. We are on the Defense authorization bill. Colleagues on the
other side have said they were going to offer an amendment to advocate
withdrawal by the end of the year. Let's have that debate. I cannot
think of a better time.
Right now in Iraq, according to the latest AP story, since we were
able to get Zarqawi last week, we have carried out 452 raids; 104
insurgents were killed during those actions; we have discovered 28
significant arms caches; 255 of the raids were joint operations, with
143 of them carried out by Iraqi forces alone; and the raids resulted
in casualties of 759 anti-Iraqi elements. That is just in the last
week. So we have them on the run in Iraq.
Why would anybody want to suggest that we ought to run when we have
them on the run? But I think that is a legitimate debate. I hoped that
we would have it. It is 2:10. I have been waiting anxiously all day,
assuming that we would have that amendment laid down by those on the
other side of the aisle and get on about the debate. Maybe we should
have it in any event because it is time to step up and be counted.
Do we want to stay and finish the job and continue to protect America
or do we want to send a message to the terrorists, when we have them on
the run, that we are about to cut and run and leave them there to their
own devices? I don't know any responsible countries in the world at
this point, regardless of how they may have initially felt about the
decision to go into Iraq, that think it is a good idea to leave now--
particularly as we are making dramatic progress with their new
constitution; a new, fully staffed government; the death of the most
notorious terrorist in the country; these successful raids that have
been carried out in the last week; and the effort underway to clean
Baghdad out.
Why in the world would we want to say to those elements in Iraq,
which want the country to be a haven for terrorism forever, that you
can count on

[[Page S5925]]

us to be out of here by the end of the year; that we are giving you
adequate notice that we are leaving by the end of the year?
I see my colleague from Texas on the Senate floor. I wondered if he
had a question.
Mr. CORNYN. Yes. Will the Senator yield for a question at this point?
Mr. McCONNELL. I will.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished majority whip,
isn't the real difference between those of us who believe war is bad
and must never be fought and those of us who believe that war is bad
but must sometimes be fought for the right reasons? What is the
alternative to fighting the good fight that our troops are fighting in
Iraq now? I just ask whether the Senator has heard any alternatives
offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Texas, the only
alternative I heard suggested, I have read about it in the press--I
have not heard it offered on the floor yet--is that we essentially give
the terrorists advance notice that we are going to be out of the
country by the end of the year.
Look, we all hate, as the Senator from Texas indicated, to read
reports of the death of any of our troops. We value human life in this
country greatly. We do not, however, honor those who have given their
lives in this great cause by giving up when we are making dramatic
progress. And it is also important to remember that while we value
every single life, we have lost fewer of our soldiers liberating
Afghanistan and Iraq--50 million people liberated--than we lost on 9/11
in one morning or in Normandy during the invasion in World War II.
So while we value every life and we regret the loss of each soldier,
it is extremely difficult to fight a war and lose absolutely no one.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for an
additional question, I ask the distinguished majority whip, what does
he believe the consequences in Iraq to be--and not just to Iraq, but to
America itself in terms of our own security--if we were to
precipitously draw down our forces and leave a void there that might
then be filled by enemies of our country and, indeed, terrorists akin
to those who attacked our country on 9/11?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Texas, I think
one thing that is pretty obvious is the terrorists would have a haven
from which to operate, once again, such as they had in Afghanistan for
a number of years prior to our clearing that out and giving those folks
an opportunity to set up a democratic government. They would have a
base of operations right in the Middle East from which to attack our
neighbors, to attack the Europeans, and probably attack us again. That
would be the consequence of cutting and running just on the heels of
making dramatic forward progress in Iraq.
Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator will yield for one final question, I just
want to be sure I understood his earlier comments from the National
Security Adviser for the Government of Iraq.
There had been some suggestion that the Iraqis were planning on
granting amnesty to those who had killed American soldiers. But if I
understood the distinguished majority whip, the National Security
Adviser said:

And we will never give amnesty to those who killed American
soldiers or who killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.

If that language is true, that they would never do that, would the
Senator care to venture a guess as to what the reason for this supposed
sense of the Senate is to condemn some amnesty that will never be
given?
Mr. McCONNELL. It sounds to me, I answer my good friend from Texas,
as some kind of diversion from the core issue we ought to be debating
in the Senate, which is these suggestions that have been made by a
number of our colleagues that we ought to have all the troops out by
the end of the year. It is time to have that debate in the Senate, not
a sense-of-the-Senate resolution about a proposal, as the Senator from
Texas points out, that has been shot down today by the National
Security Adviser in Iraq who, as the Senator from Texas indicated, said
today:

And we will never give amnesty to those who have killed
American soldiers or who killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.

What part of ``never give amnesty'' do our colleagues not understand?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID addressed the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I have the floor. Would someone like to ask
a question?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to my friend from Florida for a question.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. This Senator clearly doesn't support pulling
the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. This Senator offered an
amendment which is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that the Government
of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked,
killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States
based on this morning's story in this newspaper that indicates comments
that were made by the Prime Minister.
Is the Senator suggesting that he does not agree with the sense-of-
the-Senate resolution being expressed in this amendment as laid down by
this Senator from Florida?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, answering the question, let me just
repeat what the National Security Adviser in Iraq has just said:

And we will never give amnesty to those who killed American
soldiers or who killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.

Is it helpful to be passing resolutions condemning our allies in Iraq
for positions that the National Security Adviser says the Government
doesn't hold?
I am pleased to hear that my good friend from Florida opposes the
amendment that I hope will be offered later today that calls for an
American troop withdrawal by the end of the year. That is a debate I
thought we were going to be having, rather than adopting resolutions
condemning one part of the Iraqi Government or another--the Iraqi
Government, of course, being a great ally of the United States in the
war on terrorism.
Maybe that debate will occur later in the day, and I look forward to
hearing from the Senator from Florida when we have that debate. I am
sure he will be arguing the vote on that should be no, and the Senator
from Florida, of course, will be entirely correct; that is exactly how
that amendment should be dealt with. I hope it will be defeated
overwhelmingly.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
Mr. McCONNELL. Does the Senator have a question or is he seeking the
floor?
Mr. REID. I thought the Senator was finished.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Kentucky and my friend from
Texas are involved in a debate that doesn't exist. The amendment before
the Senate, which will require a vote, is based on a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution offered by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, and
the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez. Here is what the matter
pending before the Senate now says:

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition
military forces are serving heroically in Iraq to provide all
the people of Iraq a better future.
(2) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition
military forces have served bravely in Iraq since the
beginning of military operations in March of 2003.
(3) More than 2,500 members of the Armed Forces of the
United States and members of the coalition forces have been
killed and more than 18,000 injured in operations to bring
peace and stability to all the people of Iraq.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
(1) the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to
persons known who have attacked, killed, or wounded members
of the Armed forces of the United States; and
(2) the President should immediately notify the Government
of Iraq that the Government of the United States strongly
opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members
of the Armed Forces of the United States.

That is very clear. That is what we are going to be called to vote
on.
Why do we have this before us? Because last night a man by the name
of Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi, a top adviser to the Prime Minister of Iraq,
said, among other things, the following:

Asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops, he
said: ``That's an area

[[Page S5926]]

where we can see a green line. There's some sort of
preliminary understanding between us and the MNF-I,'' the
U.S.-led Multinational 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.

That is the reason for this resolution. It is not about an amendment
that will be offered and there will be some other debate. It is about
whether the people of Iraq, who are running that government, should
pardon those people, grant amnesty to the people who have attacked our
forces either through snipers, armed combat, or explosive devices. It
is a simple vote.
Further, the man went on to say they would consider taking a look at
Iraqi forces who were attacked. They wouldn't necessarily be given
amnesty like those who attacked Americans.
That is a pretty clear vote, Mr. President. And that is the issue
before the Senate, not some make-believe thing that will come at some
later time, maybe. The issue before the Senate today is whether this
resolution will be approved, yes or no, based upon statements made by
officials in Iraq.
Someone has since then said: We don't like that. Good. We should
adopt this resolution anyway. This is no attack on the Iraqi Government
other than to say: Be careful, don't tread on our soldiers' graves.
This is the debate before us. I talked about a woman I called
yesterday in Nevada who lost her 19-year-old son in Iraq, and to think
that anyone in the Iraqi Government--anyone in the Iraqi Government--
should pardon an Iraqi who killed this young man is repulsive. That is
what the debate is about today. It is not about these terms that my
friends like to throw around--cut and run, tax and spend.
The American people know what is going on here. They know what is
going on. We all want the Iraqi issue to proceed even though it is
costing us $2.5 billion a week, 2,500 dead soldiers, 18,000 or 20,000
wounded, a third of them grievously wounded, 20 percent of them coming
back from Iraq with post-traumatic stress syndrome with a Veterans'
Administration that is underfunded.
That is what this is all about. It is not about some other issue. It
is about whether the Government of Iraq, now or at any other time in
the future, should pardon people who harm our soldiers.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, what is the agreement at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the Nelson of Florida amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from Georgia is here. I think he would like
to offer an amendment. I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the amendment offered
by the Senator from Florida.
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no unanimous consent request pending.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up an amendment of
mine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the unanimous consent
request.
Who seeks recognition?
Then Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since we are going to be on the amendment
of the Senator from Florida for a few minutes, I have a couple other
thoughts I would like to offer to our colleagues in response to those
offered by the Democratic leader.
First of all, I don't know why, after the Iraqi officials have
disclaimed any intent whatsoever to offer amnesty to those who have
killed an American soldier, we would gratuitously offer a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment to condemn them for doing something they said they are
not going to do, unless we are engaged more in gamesmanship than we are
in working and passing serious legislation.
The comment was made earlier that perhaps this is just a diversion. I
thought we were going to have a serious debate about whether we were
going to bring our troops back home and on what kind of timetable we
were going to do that, whether it is some arbitrary timetable or,
instead, whether it is based on conditions on the ground. I thought
that was the kind of debate we were going to have today, not some sort
of manufactured debate offering a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to
divert public attention from an issue that does not exist about this
amnesty that has been suggested which has been expressly disclaimed by
the Iraqi leadership.
My suggestion is that we move on to the serious work that the people
of this country sent us here to do and not to engage in sideshows,
which is clearly what this sense-of-the-Senate proposition is designed
to do.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CORNYN. I will be glad to yield for a question.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, since this Senator from Florida
is the author of the amendment, I would recall, for the consideration
of the distinguished Senator from Texas, that there is nothing in this
resolution that says anything about condemnation of the Iraqi
Government. It says: It is the sense of Congress that the Government of
Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked,
killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.
I would further call to the attention of the distinguished Senator
that the yeas and nays have been ordered on the amendment, and as soon
as the leadership is ready to dispose of the amendment, we can vote.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I don't know what the question was, but
let me just respond to the distinguished Senator from Florida. It makes
no sense for the Senate to shake its finger at the new Government of
Iraq and to criticize them, whether it is a condemnation or a criticism
or an admonishment or whatever you want to call it, for something that
they have expressed that they have no intention of doing. I don't
dispute from a procedural standpoint the Senator's right at some point,
perhaps, to have a vote on the sense-of-the-Senate amendment, but I
just question the wisdom of proceeding in this way when we are a nation
at war.
We have done everything that we could to help the Iraqi people help
themselves, from training their security forces to encouraging them and
helping them in the development of a new government, something that is
really a miracle to behold, if you think about it. Three years ago,
they had a blood-thirsty dictator with his boot heel on the back of the
neck of the Iraqi people, responsible for killing hundreds of thousands
of Iraqis, and a threat to the entire world because of the potential
partnerships with terrorists who might export their terror to places
such as the United States. Why we would gratuitously take an occasion
like this, to distract us from the important business that we are
about, to criticize in one way, form, or fashion the new Iraqi
Government which is just beginning to show that they are able to take
the first small steps toward self-determination and self-governance,
why we would take this occasion to admonish them for something they
have expressly indicated no intention of doing is beyond me.
Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CORNYN. I would.
Mr. McCONNELL. I know the Senator from Texas and I covered this a few
moments ago, but I would ask the Senator from Texas again if it is not
the case that the national security adviser to the Iraqi Government
just this very day said the following: And we will never give amnesty
to those who have killed American soldiers or killed Iraqi soldiers or
civilians?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would answer the distinguished majority
whip by saying, that is exactly the quotation. The same individuals
went on to say that who the Prime Minister is going to give amnesty to
are those who have not committed the crimes, whether against Iraqis or
coalition forces. He went on to say, they might probably have done some
minor mistakes in storing some arms or allowing some terrorist to stay
overnight or provided shelter. But he has expressly said: We will never
give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers or killed Iraqi
soldiers or civilians.

[[Page S5927]]

Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator from Texas yield for an additional
question?
Mr. CORNYN. I would.
Mr. McCONNELL. Might it not be just as useful an exercise to try to
pass a resolution commending the Iraqi Government for the position they
have taken today with regard to this discussion of amnesty?
Mr. CORNYN. I would answer the distinguished majority whip and say, I
would feel much better about something that was constructive and
encouraging in assisting the Iraqi Government in their determination
not to give amnesty than I would in offering criticism where it appears
to be gratuitous and where it is a distraction from the debate that I
think the American people would want us to have; that is, under what
conditions do we want to leave Iraq, and are some of the proposals that
some of our colleagues on the Senate floor have made about setting
timetables, are those in the best interests of the American people or
do they endanger America by allowing perhaps those who are America's
enemies, the enemies of all civilization, to plot and plan, and then
use that failed state as a platform to export their terrorist
activities to other parts of the world?

Amendment No. 4269 to Amendment No. 4265

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

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 4269 to amendment No. 4265.

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

(Purpose: To require the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from
Iraq and urge the convening of an Iraq summit)

At the end of the amendment add the following:

SEC. __. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) Withdrawal of Troops From Iraq.--
(1) Schedule for withdrawal.--The President shall reach an
agreement as soon as possible with the Government of Iraq on
a schedule for the withdrawal of United States combat troops
from Iraq by December 31, 2006, leaving only forces that are
critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi
security forces.
(2) Consultation with congress required.--The President
shall consult with Congress regarding such schedule and shall
present such withdrawal agreement to Congress immediately
upon the completion of the agreement.
(3) Maintenance of over-the-horizon troop presence.--The
President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence
to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security
interests.
(b) Iraq Summit.--The President should convene a summit as
soon as possible that includes the leaders of the Government
of Iraq, leaders of the governments of each country bordering
Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary
General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the
governments of each permanent member of the United Nations
Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive
political agreement for Iraq that addresses fundamental
issues including federalism, oil revenues, the militias,
security guarantees, reconstruction, economic assistance, and
border security.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk
is the amendment that I believe the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr.
Kerry, had indicated he was going to be offering today so that we can
have an appropriate debate on this very important day about whether it
is appropriate to withdraw American troops by the end of 2006. That is
the second-degree amendment that I just sent to the desk.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I don't have a dog in this fight, you
might say, but I have been listening to this debate, and I wonder about
history. I wonder about the amendment of the Senator from Florida. I
remember reading so clearly that after the War Between the States, the
North lined up those from the South and took their guns and let some of
them take them home. I remember so well that after World War II, we
went through a process of trying to urge the governments involved in
the access to obtain a pledge from the former members of the military
that they would support the new democracy. That was amnesty.
In Japan, we certainly had a period under General MacArthur which was
probably the greatest period of amnesty that has ever been known. We
helped that country immediately to form a democracy and we never
prosecuted the people who killed Americans.
I wonder seriously about what the Senator from Florida is doing by
telling this new fledgling democracy that they cannot go through the
process of cleansing, go through the process of trying to get people
who were misguided, who were part of coalitions that they now are
willing to recant, if they are, to come forward and support this new
democracy. What are we doing anyway on the floor of the Senate trying
to tell the new democracy what they can and can't do? I didn't like
that story when I read it in the paper this morning, but I was happy to
see the new statement from the security people that clarified what they
intend to do.
But the time will come, if that democracy is going to succeed, when
they are going to have to fold into their population those who are
willing now to give up terrorism, those who are willing to put aside
the activities of the past which led them to attack Americans as well
as any other--there are 34 other nations over there. Are we saying just
those who did kill Americans, they can't get amnesty, but the rest of
them can?
What are we doing on the floor of the Senate trying to debate an
issue as to how this country is going to come back together again? I am
sort of appalled at it, really. I don't know if anyone else is. But it
seems to me that we ought to do everything we can to encourage them to
bring their people together, to forget the sins of the past, to forget
the terrorists of the past, and to pledge themselves to a new future of
democracy and have people come forward and say: I am willing to support
this new democracy. And if they do, and demonstrate that they do after
a period of time, shouldn't they be recognized as being loyal citizens
of the new democracy?
This is a debate that disturbs me. It disturbs me to think we are
willing to just seize the moment and make a political point--seize the
moment and make a point--and not think. It is time we started thinking
about how we can assure and take steps to help this country survive as
a democracy. If it becomes a democracy in that part of the world, it
will be a marvelous success, and I think it will lead to greater
consideration by other countries of liberalization of their concepts
and giving the people more power.
I believe we ought to try to find some way to encourage that country,
to demonstrate to those people who have been opposed to what we are
trying to do, that it is worthwhile for them and their children to come
forward and support this democracy. And if that is amnesty, I am for
it, I would be for it. And if those people who come forward and want to
obtain a better life for their families in the future are willing to
support that democracy--if they bear arms against our people, what is
the difference between those people who bore arms against the Union in
the War Between the States? What is the difference between the Germans
and the Japanese and all the people we have forgiven?
When I left the war and came home, I had a deep hatred for the
Japanese. Today, Mr. President, I have a granddaughter who is Japanese.
I have a daughter-in-law who is Japanese. And her parents were involved
in World War II. Now, are we to understand that time can heal, heal the
pain of the past?
I really wish the Senator from Florida would have the courage to
withdraw the amendment, just withdraw it and say it was a political
effort. This is nothing but politics. I will vote to table it or vote
against it in good conscience.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield for
a question?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Is it not true, Mr. President, that today we have
Iraqis who are fighting the war against the

[[Page S5928]]

insurgents who at one time fought against American troops and other
coalition troops as they were marching to Baghdad, who have now come
over to our side and are doing one heck of a job of fighting alongside
the Americans and coalition forces, attacking and killing insurgents on
a daily basis?
Mr. STEVENS. That is absolutely true. I would say to the Senator, I
was there and participated in the conversation with some of our
military people who were trying to find ways to help the Iraqis take
into the regular armed services some of those people who served in the
Red Guard under Saddam Hussein. But they are willing to come forward
now and see that there is a country they would like to support. And if
they asked my opinion about that, I would say I would encourage it. I
would encourage it. I think if there is anything that can bring about
stability in that country and have them support this new democracy, we
should encourage it.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield for
a question?
Mr. STEVENS. I will, Mr. President.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Alaska
would agree that as he goes through the history of countries that have
been torn apart by war, including our country in the Civil War and
Japan, after the Second World War, and the processes of reconciliation,
whether South Africa might not be an example. And is it not true that
Nelson Mandela's courage and his ability to create a process of
reconciliation and forgiveness was a major factor in what has been a
political miracle in Africa, where White and Black people now are able
to live together in a democracy? Is not that process of reconciliation
one of the most admired processes in the last century? Nelson Mandela,
the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize just for this sort of gesture, would
he not fit into the series of examples that the Senator from Alaska
used a few moments ago?
Mr. STEVENS. Absolutely. Mr. President, I would say it falls under
the concept of the Christian ethic. We are people who believe that you
can be converted. You can be a nonbeliever and then become a believer.
What is the difference between that and amnesty, between those people
who may have been on the wrong side and then will come forward and
belong to this new government? And if they pledge and demonstrate to do
it, I think it is up to the Iraqis to determine when and how they
become full-fledged citizens of the new democracy.
But this amendment would have us say if they indicate they are going
to grant amnesty to them, that is wrong. Amnesty ought to be a reward
for a pledge of cooperation and support. In this context, the military
context, I think you can go through history and find time after time
after time where it was successful. But this amendment is a political
amendment, and I am tired of these political things coming on the
floor. The minute something comes in the paper, before it can even be
corrected by the country, we have an amendment saying, oh, here, let's
force the majority to vote against this amendment. Baloney. I am proud
to vote against it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I just came to the Chamber a few moments
ago. I understand the pending amendment is the Kerry amendment, and
although I have not reviewed it in its entirety, I see that it reads
that the President----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader will be corrected; the
pending amendment is the McConnell amendment.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand. I will speak to the Kerry
amendment. I will read that amendment just so my colleagues will be
clear what I am talking to. The amendment says:

The President shall reach an agreement as soon as possible
with the Government of Iraq on a schedule for the withdrawal
of United States combat troops from Iraq by December 31,
2006, leaving only forces that are critical to completing the
mission of standing up Iraqi security forces.

As I look at this amendment, as we evaluate it, I think the first
thing we must do is say: What if we did cut and run? I know we hear
that discussion of a rapid withdrawal. In many ways, I am glad this
amendment has come to the floor, that it has been put on the floor by
Senator Kerry. I think we do have to grasp what is at stake, and if we
withdraw from Iraq----
Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
Does the majority leader yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. FRIST. I will shortly. Let me finish my statement because I think
it is important to look at the issue that has been put on the floor. I
will be very brief. Then we can do the parliamentary inquiries back and
forth.
If we withdraw from Iraq before the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi
people are capable of defending their new democracy, I am absolutely
convinced that the terrorists would see this as a vindication, a
vindication of their strategy of intimidation, of confrontation, and
that they would take that vindication and continue to challenge us
elsewhere in the world--in Afghanistan, in other countries in the
region, overseas, and, indeed, right here at home. If we were to cut
and run, the violence in Iraq would certainly increase.
We know there is violence there, and we know how tough it is on our
troops who are there and the American people who watch this violence.
But I am absolutely convinced that if we cut and run, violence will
increase in Iraq, terrorists will increase their attacks on the Iraqi
people and on that brandnew Iraqi Government. Clearly, it has only been
5 days. Clearly, the Government itself is not able, completely alone,
to defend itself. Chaos would result. Bloody civil war would result.
Terrorists and rival militia would tear the country apart. They would
kill thousands of innocent Iraqis, and that terrorism would spread
through that region, around the world, and, indeed, I believe right
here at home.
The unity of Iraq that we celebrated on this floor, the unity of Iraq
that has resulted from a democratically elected government through
three elections, would be destroyed, would be torn apart; sectarian
violence would ensue and would explode. It would split the country
apart into segments that, yes, probably would be controlled, but they
would be controlled by terrorists, ethnic militias, tribal militias. I
am convinced parts of Iraq would become safe havens for terrorists who
have spelled out--and we think of the letters and the words of
Zarqawi--who have spelled out what their intentions are in terms of us
here, right here in the United States.
I believe terrorist bases in Iraq would threaten Middle East
security. Although it may be a secondary issue, we do know that energy
supplies ultimately would be disrupted. We have seen supply go down,
demand go up, and a disruption of energy sources all over the country.
Indeed, I believe it would result in a skyrocketing of gas prices in
this country.
The terrorists affiliated with bin Laden and Zarqawi have stated in
crystal clear terms what their objectives are, their aim of
overthrowing moderate governments.
Given the presence in Iraq of many of Saddam Hussein's former weapons
scientists--remember Saddam Hussein? Forget about weapons of mass
destruction right now, but we actually know that Saddam Hussein and his
scientists have developed weapons of mass destruction, chemical and
biological weapons, and he has used both of those on his own people.
Those scientists are still around. If we cut and run, I believe those
scientists once again will pursue and will have the freedom to pursue
those weapons of mass destruction: saran gas, anthrax, biological
weapons.
President Bush has repeatedly stated that the potential combination
of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction does pose the greatest
threats to the United States. I believe cutting and running would allow
those weapons of mass destruction and that terrorism intent to come
back together, to endanger the people of the region but also the people
right here in the United States of America.
In some ways, I am glad this amendment has come to the floor, this
modification of the amendment. It is clear that those calling for an
early withdrawal of American troops from Iraq failed to fully play out,
to fully understand the potential implications of

[[Page S5929]]

leaving prematurely. Cutting and running before Iraq can really defend
itself threatens the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority reader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, two things that do not exist in Iraq and
have not are weapons of mass destruction and cutting and running.
This is the McConnell amendment. It is not the Kerry amendment.
People have the right to file amendments. They can decide whether they
want to offer them or modify them or change them.
I move to table the McConnell amendment and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. REID. Mr. 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. REID. 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. REID. I reoffer my motion to table. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. Is
there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 6, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]

YEAS--93

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--6

Boxer
Byrd
Feingold
Harkin
Kennedy
Kerry

NOT VOTING--1

Rockefeller

The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is the Senate now turns
to the measure by the Senator from Florida, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. I understand that. I ask the indulgence of the Senator if,
after he has finished his business, I could just have a moment.
Mr. WARNER. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, what is ``a moment''?
If the Senator propounds a unanimous consent for an amount of time, I
would be glad to not object. I wonder what a moment is?
Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to have 5 minutes.
I thought the concept of ``a moment'' was not incomprehensible even
in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, following that, I ask unanimous consent
the Senator from Arizona be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just say if I may, earlier today,
the distinguished chairman and manager of this legislation came to me
and asked me if I was prepared to put my amendment in. I told him then,
as he knows, that I said no, because a number of Members were talking,
as is the right of the Senator with respect to any amendment filed. So
the chairman, the manager, was on notice that we were, in fact, in the
process of working on this.
I voted no on this because any Senator reserves that right, No. 1;
and No. 2, this is a debate I look forward to. This is a debate I want
to have on the floor of the Senate. This is a debate we will have on
the floor of the Senate.
I resent the fact that some Senators think the business of the United
States is somehow better done by calling up another Senator's
amendment, that may or may not be the language presented to the Senate,
and having a fictitious vote on it. It is not unlike the war itself
where we are in the third war: The first being about Saddam Hussein and
weapons of mass destruction; the second being about al-Qaida; and the
third, now, the sectarian violence.
I look forward to having a debate on the floor of the Senate. But I
look forward to having a debate on the language that I, as a U.S.
Senator, present to the Senate in an amendment that bears my name and
the name of other Senators that joined me. That has always been the
prerogative of the Senator, and it is one that ought to be protected.
I respect and I understand completely what the distinguished minority
leader did. He did it in consultation with me. I think it was the
appropriate measure for him to take to protect my interests and the
interests of those on our side.
The Senate ought to give a more appropriate kind of seriousness of
purpose to debate of this kind of consequence. This will be the first
time in some time that we will have debated this issue. I suggest some
of my colleagues go back and reread the resolution which gave the
President the authority to go into Iraq. There is nothing in that
resolution that gives authority for what we are doing today.
So, in effect, this is a war of evolution, a war of transformation,
and it deserves the kind of serious debate that it will get next week
in the Senate.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator from Arizona yield to me for a few
minutes?
Mr. McCAIN. For a moment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts and I did
have a brief conversation just before the conclusion of the vote in the
middle of the noon hour. I, in an effort to try and keep momentum on
the bill, did inquire of the desire to move forward with his amendment.
I only conveyed his response to me, which was not at this time--he was
in consultation with colleagues--to my distinguished ranking member,
advising him we best look at other amendments to keep the momentum
going forward. I then departed for the memorial services at the
Department of Defense honoring those who lost their lives on 9/11. And,
therefore, when I arrived back we were in the middle of the debate that
has been described by the Senator from Massachusetts.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank you for the recognition, and I
thank the distinguished chairman for his explanation of what just
transpired.
Mr. President, I rise to discuss the pending Nelson amendment. I
think it is very important that, first of all, we try not to react on
the floor of the Senate to the headlines that appear in the morning
paper--whether they happen to be totally accurate or not.
The second thing I want to point out is that all of us--all of us--
are pained

[[Page S5930]]

when a brave American is killed in this terrible, long, drawn-out
conflict which has divided America and cost us so much in American
blood and treasure. All of us--no matter where we stand on this
conflict--feel the utmost sorrow and regret at the loss or wounding of
a single brave, young American man or woman. So this debate is
certainly not about the enormous sacrifice that has already been made
and probably will be made in the course of this conflict.
But I think we have to be realistic about the way out of this
conflict, the way out we have seen time after time throughout history
of other conflicts, especially those that in many respects are civil
wars.
Nelson Mandela probably had the greatest reason to seek revenge and
full accounting not only for the years of imprisonment and mistreatment
he personally received but also because of the hundreds if not
thousands of his countrymen who were brutalized, mistreated, kept in
inferior status, and, in some cases, even massacred by the minority
government that ruled his country.
When Nelson Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, it was not
only because of his bravery and courage while he underwent unspeakable
unpleasantries and indignities as a prisoner--I believe the number was
27 years--but primarily because Nelson Mandela realized he had to knit
and heal the wounds that had so badly scarred his nation.
Nelson Mandela, in the spirit of forgiveness, for the good of his
country, put his personal injuries aside because he realized the only
way his nation could move forward is to put those terrible things that
happened behind him.
We also saw terrible things happen in El Salvador's civil war. Jose
Napoleon Duarte, a name that some of us have forgotten, was elected
President of the country. And he did two things. He vigorously
prosecuted the insurgency, and then he reached out his hand to the
insurgents because he knew if they did not forgive and even try to
forget, that nation would continue a bloodletting that had afflicted it
for a long period of time.
In Colombia, the President of Colombia has just attested that 40,000
people--paramilitaries and guerrillas who, again, have carried out
these same kinds of attacks and murder and mayhem in their country--
have laid down their arms because of an amnesty program that he has
extended to them.
I could go on about many of the conflicts in our history. But the
fact is that wars end when enemies stop killing each other. After Pearl
Harbor we talked with the Japanese. After years of war in Vietnam, we
talked to the North Vietnamese in Paris. Time and again, there reaches
a point where enemies must if not be forgiven at least be included, as
hostilities come to an end and peace begins.
Our brave men and women are working with Iraqis to build a new
country, and by co-opting the insurgents, perhaps we can save the lives
and fortunes of our own and those who we support.
Things are very difficult in Iraq. And we are angered when we hear of
an IED that blows up and kills and maims innocent Americans. We are
sometimes driven to frustration and incredible--incredible--sorrow when
we hear of the loss of these precious young men and women.
But we also know that the insurgency does not end until the
insurgents stop fighting. And the sooner the new Prime Minister, freely
elected--freely elected--Mr. Maliki, is able to bring his country back
together, the sooner we will find peace, and the sooner Americans can
be withdrawn, and the sooner American casualties will end.
I am confident the amendment by the Senator from Florida amendment is
well-meaning, and I understand the intentions behind it. But I think it
is important we look back and recognize that not only do times change,
as in the case of Vietnam--our Secretary of Defense just in the last
week visited Vietnam, as we have renewed our relationships, as we have
healed the wounds of the Vietnam war, and moved forward in partnership
with the Vietnamese.
Mr. President, from a personal standpoint, there are a few Vietnamese
I would very much like to see again, people I may not have the most
peaceful intentions toward. But the reality is--the reality is--we must
heal the wounds of war if we are going to unite a nation and move
forward. And that is the case with Iraq, as it has been with almost
every other nation in history.
I finally add, as a footnote, I am not sure we here in the U.S.
Senate should be dictating to the leaders of Iraq how they should
conduct their affairs as they, the freely elected leaders of that
nation, attempt to bring about peace and reconciliation in their
nation.
But the larger issue here is, I believe, that our goal is to bring an
end to the conflict as quickly as possible in Iraq. If that means, in
return for laying down their arms, that some are allowed an amnesty or
allowed to reenter the society of Iraq, in a peaceful manner, in a
productive manner, as has happened in South Africa, El Salvador--and is
happening in Colombia--and many other insurgencies throughout history,
then I think we should welcome it. And as we place our confidence in
the new Government of Iraq, perhaps we should give them some latitude.

I would also like to add, by the way, that that quote in the press
may not have been exactly right as to who might be eligible for amnesty
and who might not. At least that should be cleared up. But it doesn't
obscure the fact that the freely elected government, that we support,
of the country of Iraq is now reaching out to attempt to end the
fighting and the conflict. I do not think we should be micro managing
that from the floor of the U.S. Senate.
I am sure that the enemies we faced in World War II--who the
distinguished chairman of the committee fought against in that great
war--that there was a time where we had reconciliation with our enemies
on both sides of the Atlantic.
Now, were people who were guilty of specific war crimes brought to
trial? Absolutely, and punished, in some cases, to the point of
execution. But those who fought against us are clearly now our friends.
So I hope that we would understand that this amendment would not be
helpful to the process of peace, would not be an endorsement of the
freely elected leaders of the country of Iraq, and might even serve, in
an unintended fashion, as an impediment to a process of peaceful
reconciliation in Iraq rather than helping it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my very good and longtime friend,
we have known each other since the closing months of the war in Vietnam
when I was Secretary and he was serving in our naval service and
returned. So I just think sometimes of the great fortune of this body
to have men such as John McCain, Daniel Inouye, and Ted Stevens, and
others, who have experience firsthand. I do not claim that same
experience that these men had in the mortal combat of the wars.
Senator McCain recounts the history of our Nation very accurately;
that is, when the conflicts are over, it has always been the stature
and the greatness of this Nation to bind the wounds of war and to move
forward with peace.
I say to the Senator from Florida, I have just handed him the
corrections that are now in the press, corrected by the national
security adviser to the new Prime Minister of Iraq, in which it is very
explicit that there was an error in translation. Some misfortune. But
he sets it forth here with absolute clarity, and I think that I would
want to state for my colleagues exactly what he said. He said the
following--and he said it, I presume, with the full knowledge of the
Prime Minister.
He said: We thank--and the quote is--``the American wives and
American women and American mothers for the treasure and the blood they
have invested in this country . . . of liberating 30 million people in
this country. And we are ever so grateful.''
And further, he affirmed their position of the government that they
``will never give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers or
killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.''
It seems to me that puts to rest, as my colleague from Arizona said,
this issue. And I wonder if the Senator would consider the withdrawal
of his amendment to obviate the necessity on our side to take other
steps, and let us move forward with the bill.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

[[Page S5931]]

Mr. WARNER. Yes, of course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Does the Senator from Florida have the floor
or----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator from Florida has been seeking
recognition for the past hour and has not been able to speak.
Will the Senator from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of our
Armed Services Committee, agree to a unanimous consent request that the
Senator from Florida would be allowed to speak on this issue
immediately after the comments of the Senator from Virginia?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am delighted to accommodate my
colleague. I would hope we could discourse this matter in the
traditional way of a colloquy, but if you want the exclusive right to
the floor--if that is your desire--then I yield the floor, Mr.
President.
Is that your desire?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is.
Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, what I understand of the
parliamentary procedure is that the majority will offer an additional
amendment that will be a side-by-side and be voted upon, and the Senate
can make its choice.
In the case of the amendment that is being proffered by the
majority--indeed, in the copy that has been represented to me as being
the accurate one--it will recite the comments of the gentleman to whom
in Iraq the chairman has just referred.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, that is the
national security adviser.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. And that side-by-side amendment will state
that the national security adviser of Iraq, on today, had ``thanked
`the American wives and American women and American mothers for the
treasure and the blood they have invested in the country . . . of
liberating 30 million people in this country . . . And we are ever so
grateful.' '' And that affirms their position that they will never give
amnesty to those who would kill American soldiers or those who have
killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians. I think that is all well and good.
This Senator would certainly intend to vote yes on that side-by-side
amendment.

The reason the Senator from Florida has been seeking recognition for
the last hour is this Senator's amendment has been characterized in
ways that defy what the amendment says. The amendment clearly said that
it is the sense of Congress that ``the Government of Iraq should not
grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded
members of the Armed Forces of the United States; and the President
should immediately notify the Government of Iraq that the Government of
the United States strongly opposes granting amnesty to persons who have
attacked members of the Armed Forces of the United States.''
That is what the amendment says.
What this has been causing is a brouhaha because of something being
read in to a simple little amendment that came as a result of a front-
page story today in the Washington Post in which a top adviser to the
Prime Minister, Mr. Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi, who happens to be the former
chief of staff to the previous Prime Minister, a high-ranking official
in the Dawa Party, he is the one who is quoted in the article as going
on to say, when asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S.
troops:

That's an area where we can see a green line. There's some
sort of preliminary understanding between us and the MNF-1
that there is a patriotic feeling among 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.

Now, it is very enlightening that the national security adviser has
tried to clarify Prime Minister Maliki's comments. The Prime Minister
can certainly clarify his own comments. But here we have a high-ranking
Iraqi official who is quoted on the front page of the paper today as
saying amnesty for those who would have killed American men and women.
This Senator's name has been invoked by several speakers, including
the distinguished Senator from Alaska, who I have the greatest and
utmost respect for, in talking about the reconciliation process as if
this were contrary to the reconciliation process. The Senator from
Alaska was even quoting the reconciliation that took place after the
Civil War, on which we all agree. The Senator from Alaska was talking
about the reconciliation that has taken place in South Africa, of which
we all agree, even talk of the reconciliation that took place with
regard to Germany and Japan. But that didn't stop those who were
responsible for war crimes and the killings of Americans to be brought
to justice; in other words, not to have amnesty granted for them. That
was not the case in South Africa where they had a process that those
who did those criminal acts were brought to justice. That was certainly
not the case in Germany after World War II where those who had
committed those atrocities were brought to justice.
It just simply, in the opinion of this Senator, ought to be that a
policy of the very government that we have helped and have liberated a
people should not be amnesty for those who have killed Americans. How
much more simple could it be? Yet I suspect, as others have implied
politics, I suspect politics has a way of taking over and starting to
make something seem like it isn't. It certainly wasn't the intention of
this Senator.
As I understand, my wonderful chairman of the committee is going to
offer a second-degree or will offer another amendment that will be a
side by side amendment to that which I have offered, and we can vote
for both. It would be the intention of this Senator to vote for both.
I said at the outset of my remarks, the first thing out of my mouth
when I offered the amendment was, I hope there was something lost in
the translation of what was reported in this morning's Post.
I don't understand--or maybe I do--all the brouhaha that has occurred
over the course of the last 2 hours on such a simple amendment as
saying that it is the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq
should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or
wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first I would like to say to my colleague,
we have had a very strong, fervent and heartfelt debate, not a brouhaha
by any definition of the use of those terms. We have heard from two of
the most respected combat veterans currently serving in this Chamber.
It was not in the nature of a brouhaha. They were simply reciting the
history of this great Republic since its inception as to how it has
dealt with adversaries in the several conflicts that we have had.
I first say to the Senator, I hope that you will reconsider the use
of that term.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Yes, of course.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. This Senator is referring to the rhubarb that
has occurred for the last 2 hours on the floor, where statements were
made about my amendment that mischaracterized the amendment and that
further, then, allowed a totally different issue, an issue on which
this Senator agrees with the chairman of the committee, not withdrawing
all of the troops by the end of the year.
The Senator can characterize it as he would like. This Senator will
characterize it as he would like.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I so note his comments.
Again, addressing the Senator's amendment, it clearly, in my
judgment, restricts in some respects the recognition that this is a
sovereign government in Iraq today, in the hands of a duly elected
Prime Minister and others, and that this amendment could well be
construed as restricting what they can and cannot do. That was so
eloquently stated by Senator McCain. I wondered if the Senator would
care to try and revise the amendment so it is consistent with the
longstanding practices of our country with respect to our adversaries,
in some way to recognize that it is not in conflict with that?

[[Page S5932]]

Mr. NELSON of Florida. If the Senator would like, we could have a
quorum call and discuss exactly that matter.
Mr. WARNER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as a coauthor of the amendment of my
distinguished colleague from Florida, I hope he will continue to pursue
his amendment. It is incredibly important to send a very clear message
on behalf of the United States about what is and is not acceptable as
it relates to the future of our young men and women in the armed
services of the United States.
We are told on the Senate floor: Don't react to the morning's papers.
But, in fact, it is our reaction to it that brings about a
clarification from the National Security Adviser of the Iraqi
Government that moves us in the direction which should have been the
position of the Iraqi Government from the outset.
I am amazed how I have heard some of my colleagues in this Chamber
stretch and twist and turn to justify a position which even now the
Iraqi Government supposedly rejects. We had some history lessons about
amnesty. Most of those were as it related to civil wars. But I remember
how President Bush started this engagement. He said to the Nation: You
are either with the terrorists or you are with us.
As I listened to my colleagues suggest that amnesty is something we
should actually be in favor of for those who have committed acts
against the Armed Forces of the United States, for those who have
killed American soldiers, for those who have wounded American soldiers,
it is beyond my imagination that there are Members of the Senate who
believe that is the signal we want to send throughout the world. What
happened to ``you are either with the terrorists or you are with us''?
What happened to making it very clear that our men and women are not
sitting ducks for those who think they could ultimately seek to kill
them and then walk away and get amnesty? I don't understand--if a
terrorist survives our arrest or attack, does that mean that if they
suddenly see the light, we will say: Yes, it is up to the Iraqis to
give them amnesty? Is that the message the Senate wants to send?
It is beyond my imagination--we hear about the challenges of
democracy in Iraq. Democracy is about the rule of law, and then
ultimately we would set aside the rule of law and say you can kill
American soldiers and we will have no say. Imagine that as the Nation
sends its sons and daughters abroad to shed their blood and to give
their lives, that we should have no say? That is what we heard on the
Senate floor, that we should have no say, that we should let the Iraqi
Government pursue even a course which might include amnesty against
those who kill American soldiers. That is the message we want to send?
I think not.
The essence of the message we want to send is that we do not believe
and do not accept and are outraged by the fact that there may have even
been a consideration that there could be amnesty for those who killed
American soldiers but not amnesty for those who killed Iraqis. That is
the world's worst message we could send. We have to send a very clear
message that we will not allow our sons and daughters to have their
lives lost, and that their lives are not expendable and cannot be
bartered for amnesty. That is what Senator Nelson is trying to do with
this amendment. Why it is so difficult for the Senate to come together
in a bipartisan effort to send that very clear message, not only in
Iraq but throughout the world, that this is simply not a standard which
is acceptable, is beyond belief.
This amendment is very clear, it is very simple, but it is also very
powerful. It is a message that you can't kill our soldiers and walk
away with impunity. Truly, you are either with the terrorists or you
are with us, but you can't be a terrorist and then suddenly get caught,
see the light, and then ultimately walk away with amnesty. That would
be a horrible message for the Senate to send.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. 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. 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, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
McConnell now be recognized, that the pending amendments be set aside,
and that Senator McConnell then offer an amendment which is relevant to
the Nelson amendment; provided further that if and when the McConnell
and Nelson amendments are scheduled for votes--that would be sometime
next week--the McConnell amendment would be voted on first. Finally, I
ask unanimous consent that following the offering of the amendment,
Senator Chambliss be recognized in order to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might amend the UC to delete the last
sentence which reads:

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the
offering of the amendment, Senator Chambliss be recognized in
order to offer an amendment.

I ask that sentence be dropped.
Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 4272

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, pursuant to the agreement just entered
into, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment will be set aside. The
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 4272.

Mr. McCONNELL. 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 commend the Iraqi Government for affirming its positions
of no amnesty for terrorists who have attacked U.S. forces)

Sec.__. Sense of the Congress Commending the Government of
Iraq for affirming its Position of No Amnesty for Terrorists
who Attack U.S. Armed Forces.
(a) Findings. Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition
military forces are serving heroically in Iraq to provide all
the people of Iraq a better future.
(2) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition
military forces have served bravely in Iraq since the
beginning of military operations in March 2003.
(3) More than 2,500 of the Armed Forces of the United
States and members of coalition military forces have been
killed and more than 18,000 injured in operations to bring
peace and stability to all the people of Iraq.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the new Government of Iraq is commended for its statement by
the National Security Adviser of Iraq on June 15, 2006 that--
(1) thanked ``the American wives and American women and
American mothers for the treasure and the blood they have
invested in this country . . . of liberating 30 million
people in this country . . . And we are ever so grateful.''
and
(2) that affirmed their position that they ``will never
give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers or
killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians''.

Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I now ask that the amendments be laid
aside. The leadership is in agreement that there will be no more votes
tonight. We will now turn to other matters relating to the bill. My
understanding, then, is these two amendments are now the pending
amendments; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The McConnell amendment is the pending
amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S5933]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The 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.

Amendments Nos. 4278, 4279, 4280, 4200, 4201, 4198, 4281, 4282, 4283,
4284, 4252, as Modified; 4225, 4218, 4285, 4286, 4199, as Modified; and
4287, En Bloc

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and members of the
Armed Services Committee, I send a series of amendments to the desk
which have been cleared by myself and the ranking member. Therefore, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider these amendments en
bloc, the amendments be agreed to en bloc, and the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table. Finally, I ask unanimous consent
that any statements related to any of these individual amendments be
printed in the Record at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 4278

(Purpose: To provide for the incorporation of a classified annex)

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

SEC. 1008. INCORPORATION OF CLASSIFIED ANNEX.

(a) Status of Classified Annex.--The Classified Annex
prepared by the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate to
accompany S. 2766 of the 109th Congress and transmitted to
the President is hereby incorporated into this Act.
(b) Construction With Other Provisions of Act.--The amounts
specified in the Classified Annex are not in addition to
amounts authorized to be appropriated by other provisions of
this Act.
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Funds appropriated
pursuant to an authorization contained in this Act that are
made available for a program, project, or activity referred
to in the Classified Annex may only be expended for such
program, project, or activity in accordance with such terms,
conditions, limitations, restrictions, and requirements as
are set out for such program, project, or activity in the
Classified Annex.
(d) Distribution of Classified Annex.--The President shall
provide for appropriate distribution of the Classified Annex,
or of appropriate portions of the annex, within the executive
branch of the Government.

AMENDMENT NO. 4279

(Purpose: To modify the limitations applicable to payments under
incentives clauses in chemical demilitarization contracts)

On page 93, strike lines 23 through 25 and insert the
following:
(c) Additional Limitation on Payments.--
(1) Payment conditional on performance.--No payment may be
made under an incentives clause under this section unless the
Secretary determines that the contractor concerned has
satisfactorily performed its duties under such incentives
clause.
(2) Payment contingent on appropriations.--An incentives
clause under this section shall specify that the obligation
of the Government to make payment under such incentives
clause is subject to the availability of appropriations for
that purpose. Amounts appropriated for Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction, Defense, shall be available for
payments under incentives clauses under this section.

AMENDMENT NO. 4280

(Purpose: To repeal requirements for certain reports applicable to
other nations)

At the end of subtitle B of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1223. REPEAL OF CERTAIN REPORT REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Reports on Allied Contributions to the Common
Defense.--Section 1003 of the Department of Defense
Authorization Act, 1985 (22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is amended by
striking subsections (c) and (d).
(b) Cost-Sharing Report.--Section 1313 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law
103-337; 108 Stat. 2894; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).

AMENDMENT NO. 4200

(Purpose: To modify the requirements for contingency program management
to require only a Department of Defense plan for such management)

On page 358, strike lines 18 and 19 and insert the
following:

SEC. 864. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PLAN FOR CONTINGENCY PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT.

On page 358, beginning on line 21, strike ``Secretary of
Defense'' and all that follows through ``interagency plan''
and insert ``Secretary of Defense shall develop a plan for
the Department of Defense''.
On page 359, beginning on line 1, strike ``interagency
plan'' and insert ``plan of the Department of Defense''.
On page 359, line 17, strike ``United States Government''
and insert ``Department''.
On page 360, line 20, strike ``government procedures'' and
insert ``procedures for the Department''.
On page 361, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
(c) Utilization in Plan for Interagency Procedures for
Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations.--To the extent
practicable, the elements of the plan of the Department of
Defense for contingency program management required by
subsection (a) shall be taken into account in the development
of the plan for the establishment of interagency operating
procedures for stabilization and reconstruction operations
required by section 1222.

AMENDMENT NO. 4201

(Purpose: To make a technical correction to section 871, relating to a
clarification of authority to carry out certain prototype projects)

On page 362, line 1, strike ``by striking'' and insert ``by
inserting''.

AMENDMENT NO. 4198

(Purpose: To improve the authorities relating to policies and practices
on test and evaluation to address emerging acquisition approaches)

On page 51, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
(a) Reports on Certain Determinations To Proceed Beyond
Low-Rate Initial Production.--Section 2399(b) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph (5):
``(5) If, before a final decision is made within the
Department of Defense to proceed with a major defense
acquisition program beyond low-rate initial production, a
decision is made within the Department to proceed to
operational use of the program or allocate funds available
for procurement for the program, the Director shall submit to
the Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense
committees the report with respect to the program under
paragraph (2) as soon as practicable after the decision under
this paragraph is made.''.
On page 51, line 17, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(b)''.
On page 51, line 20, insert ``and the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation'' after ``Logistics''.
On page 51, beginning on line 22, strike ``in light'' and
all that follows through line 23 and insert ``in order to--
(A) reaffirm the test and evaluation principles that guide
traditional acquisition programs; and
(B) determine how best to apply such principles to emerging
acquisition approaches.''
On page 52, line 4, strike ``shall issue'' and insert ``and
the Director shall jointly issue''.
On page 52, strike lines 7 through 11.
On page 52, line 12, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
On page 52, line 13, strike ``subsection (a)'' and insert
``subsection (b)''.
On page 53, line 18, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
On page 53, line 25, strike ``subsection (a)'' and insert
``subsection (b)''.
On page 54, line 4, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
On page 54, line 8, strike ``subsection (a)'' and insert
``subsection (b)''.
On page 54, line 11, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
On page 54, line 15, insert before the period the following
``, which length of time may be not more than 6 years from
milestone B to initial operational capability''.

AMENDMENT NO. 4281

(Purpose: To improve the authorities relating to major automated
information system programs)

On page 296, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
``(c) Increments.--In the event any increment of a major
automated information system program separately meets the
requirements for treatment as a major automated information
system program, the provisions of this chapter shall apply to
such increment as well as to the overall major automated
information system program of which such increment is a part.
On page 297, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
``(c) Baseline.--(1) For purposes of this chapter, the
initial submittal to Congress of the documents required by
subsection (a) with respect to a major automated information
system program shall constitute the original estimate or
information originally submitted on such program for purposes
of the reports and determinations on program changes in
section 2445c of this title.
``(2) An adjustment or revision of the original estimate or
information originally submitted on a program may be treated
as the original estimate or information originally submitted
on the program if the adjustment or revision is the result of
a critical change in the program covered by section 2445c(d)
of this title.
``(3) In the event of an adjustment or revision to the
original estimate or information originally submitted on a
program under paragraph (2), the Secretary of Defense shall
include in the next budget justification documents submitted
under subsection (a) after

[[Page S5934]]

such adjustment or revision a notification to the
congressional defense committees of such adjustment or
revision, together with the reasons for such adjustment or
revision.
On page 302, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
``(g) Prohibition on Obligation of Funds.--(1) If the
determination of a critical change to a program is made by
the senior Department official responsible for the program
under subsection (d)(2) and a report is not submitted to
Congress within the 60-day period provided by subsection
(d)(1), appropriated funds may not be obligated for any major
contract under the program.
``(2) The prohibition on the obligation of funds for a
program under paragraph (1) shall cease to apply on the date
on which Congress has received a report in compliance with
the requirements of subsection (d)(2).

AMENDMENT NO. 4282

(Purpose: To require a report assessing the desirability and
feasibility of incentives to encourage certain members and former
members of the Armed Forces to serve in the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection)

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

SEC. 1065. REPORT ON INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE CERTAIN MEMBERS
AND FORMER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES TO SERVE
IN THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly submit to
the appropriate committees of Congress a report assessing the
desirability and feasibility of offering incentives to
covered members and former members of the Armed Forces for
the purpose of encouraging such members to serve in the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
(b) Covered Members and Former Members of the Armed
Forces.--For purposes of this section, covered members and
former members of the Armed Forces are the following:
(1) Members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces.
(2) Former members of the Armed Forces within two years of
separation from service in the Armed Forces.
(c) Requirements and Limitations.--
(1) Nature of incentives.--In considering incentives for
purposes of the report required by subsection (a), the
Secretaries shall consider such incentives, whether monetary
or otherwise and whether or not authorized by current law or
regulations, as the Secretaries jointly consider appropriate.
(2) Targeting of incentives.--In assessing any incentive
for purposes of the report, the Secretaries shall give
particular attention to the utility of such incentive in--
(A) encouraging service in the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection after service in the Armed Forces by covered
members and former of the Armed Forces who have provided
border patrol or border security assistance to the Bureau as
part of their duties as members of the Armed Forces; and
(B) leveraging military training and experience by
accelerating training, or allowing credit to be applied to
related areas of training, required for service with the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
(3) Payment.--In assessing incentives for purposes of the
report, the Secretaries shall assume that any costs of such
incentives shall be borne by the Department of Homeland
Security.
(d) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description of various monetary and non-monetary
incentives considered for purposes of the report.
(2) An assessment of the desirability and feasibility of
utilizing any such incentive for the purpose specified in
subsection (a), including an assessment of the particular
utility of such incentive in encouraging service in the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection after service in the
Armed Forces by covered members and former members of the
Armed Forces described in subsection (c)(2).
(3) Any other matters that the Secretaries jointly consider
appropriate.
(e) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committees on Armed Services, Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, and Appropriations of the Senate; and
(2) the Committees on Armed Services, Homeland Security,
and Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

AMENDMENT NO. 4283

(Purpose: Relating to energy efficiency in the weapons platforms of the
Armed Forces)

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

SEC. 375. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN WEAPONS PLATFORMS.

(a) Policy.--It shall be the policy of the Department of
Defense to improve the fuel efficiency of weapons platforms,
consistent with mission requirements, in order to--
(1) enhance platform performance;
(2) reduce the size of the fuel logistics systems;
(3) reduce the burden high fuel consumption places on
agility;
(4) reduce operating costs; and
(5) dampen the financial impact of volatile oil prices.
(b) Report Required.--
(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the progress of the Department of Defense in implementing the
policy established by subsection (a).
(2) Elements.--The report shall include the following:
(A) An assessment of the feasibility of designating a
senior Department of Defense official to be responsible for
implementing the policy established by subsection (a).
(B) A summary of the recommendations made as of the time of
the report by--
(i) the Energy Security Integrated Product Team established
by the Secretary of Defense in April 2006;
(ii) the Defense Science Board Task Force on Department of
Defense Energy Strategy established by the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics on May 2,
2006; and
(iii) the January 2001 Defense Science Board Task Force
report on Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms.
(C) For each recommendation summarized under subparagraph
(B)--
(i) the steps that the Department has taken to implement
such recommendation;
(ii) any additional steps the Department plans to take to
implement such recommendation; and
(iii) for any recommendation that the Department does not
plan to implement, the reasons for the decision not to
implement such recommendation.
(D) An assessment of the extent to which the research,
development, acquisition, and logistics guidance and
directives of the Department for weapons platforms are
appropriately designed to address the policy established by
subsection (a).
(E) An assessment of the extent to which such guidance and
directives are being carried out in the research,
development, acquisition, and logistics programs of the
Department.
(F) A description of any additional actions that, in the
view of the Secretary, may be needed to implement the policy
established by subsection (a).

AMENDMENT NO. 4284

(Purpose: To modify limitations on assistance under the American
Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002)

At the end of subtitle A of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1209. MODIFICATION OF LIMITATIONS ON ASSISTANCE UNDER
THE AMERICAN SERVICEMEMBERS' PROTECTION ACT OF
2002.

Section 2013(13)(A) of the American Servicemembers'
Protection Act of 2002 (title II of Public Law 107-206; 116
Stat. 909; 22 U.S.C. 7432(13)(A)) is amended by striking ``or
5''.

AMENDMENT NO. 4252

(Purpose: To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect judges,
prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their family members, and for
other purposes)

At the end of title X of division A, insert the following:

SEC. 1084. COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) Judicial Branch Security Requirements.--
(1) Ensuring consultation and coordination with the
judiciary.--Section 566 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) The Director of the United States Marshals Service
shall consult and coordinate with the Judicial Conference of
the United States on a continuing basis regarding the
security requirements for the judicial branch of the United
States Government.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 331 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``The Judicial Conference shall consult and coordinate with
the Director of United States Marshals Service on a
continuing basis regarding the security requirements for the
judicial branch of the United States Government.''.
(b) Protection of Family Members.--Section 105(b)(3) of the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or a family member
of that individual'' after ``that individual''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by inserting ``or a family
member of that individual'' after ``the report''.
(c) Extension of Sunset Provision.--Section 105(b)(3) of
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App) is
amended by striking ``2005'' each place that term appears and
inserting ``2009''.
(d) Protections Against Malicious Recording of Fictitious
Liens Against Federal Judges and Federal Law Enforcement
Officers.--
(1) Offense.--Chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1521. RETALIATING AGAINST A FEDERAL JUDGE OR FEDERAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BY FALSE CLAIM OR
SLANDER OF TITLE.

``(a) Whoever files or attempts to file, in any public
record or in any private record which is generally available
to the public, any false lien or encumbrance against the real
or personal property of a Federal judge or a Federal law
enforcement official, on account of the performance of
official duties by that Federal judge or Federal law
enforcement official, knowing or having reason to know that
such lien or encumbrance is false

[[Page S5935]]

or contains any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
``(b) As used in this section--
``(1) the term `Federal judge' means a justice or judge of
the United States as defined in section 451 of title 28,
United States Code, a judge of the United States Court of
Federal Claims, a United States bankruptcy judge, a United
States magistrate judge, and a judge of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims, United States Tax Court,
District Court of Guam, District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands, or District Court of the Virgin Islands; and
``(2) the term `Federal law enforcement officer' has the
meaning given that term in section 115 of this title and
includes an attorney who is an officer or employee of the
United States in the executive branch of the Government.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
73 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new item:

``1521.  Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement
officer by false claim or slander of title.''.

(e) Protection of Individuals Performing Certain Official
Duties.--
(1) Offense.--Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 118. PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING CERTAIN
OFFICIAL DUTIES.

``(a) Whoever knowingly makes restricted personal
information about a covered official, or a member of the
immediate family of that covered official, publicly
available, with the intent that such restricted personal
information be used to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm
upon, or to threaten to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm
upon, that covered official, or a member of the immediate
family of that covered official, shall be fined under this
title and imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
``(b) As used in this section--
``(1) the term `restricted personal information' means,
with respect to an individual, the Social Security number,
the home address, home phone number, mobile phone number,
personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to,
that individual;
``(2) the term `covered official' means--
``(A) an individual designated in section 1114;
``(B) a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement officer as
those terms are defined in section 1521; or
``(C) a grand or petit juror, witness, or other officer in
or of, any court of the United States, or an officer who may
be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any
United States magistrate judge or other committing
magistrate; and
``(3) the term `immediate family' has the same meaning
given that term in section 115(c)(2).''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 7
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``Sec. 117. Domestic assault by an habitual offender.
``Sec. 118. Protection of individuals performing certain official
duties.''.

(f) Prohibition of Possession of Dangerous Weapons in
Federal Court Facilities.--Section 930(e)(1) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or other
dangerous weapon'' after ``firearm''.
(g) Clarification of Venue for Retaliation Against a
Witness.--Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) A prosecution under this section may be brought in
the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not
pending, about to be instituted or completed) was intended to
be affected, or in which the conduct constituting the alleged
offense occurred.''.
(h) Witness Protection Grant Program.--Title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3711 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new part:

``PART JJ--WITNESS PROTECTION GRANTS

``SEC. 3001. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

``(a) In General.--From amounts made available to carry out
this part, the Attorney General may make grants to States,
units of local government, and Indian tribes to create and
expand witness protection programs in order to prevent
threats, intimidation, and retaliation against victims of,
and witnesses to, crimes.
``(b) Uses of Funds.--Grants awarded under this part shall
be--
``(1) distributed directly to the State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe; and
``(2) used for the creation and expansion of witness
protection programs in the jurisdiction of the grantee.
``(c) Preferential Consideration.--In awarding grants under
this part, the Attorney General may give preferential
consideration, if feasible, to an application from a
jurisdiction that--
``(1) has the greatest need for witness and victim
protection programs;
``(2) has a serious violent crime problem in the
jurisdiction; and
``(3) has had, or is likely to have, instances of threats,
intimidation, and retaliation against victims of, and
witnesses to, crimes.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.
(i) Grants to States to Protect Witnesses and Victims of
Crimes.--
(1) In general.--Section 31702 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) to create and expand witness and victim protection
programs to prevent threats, intimidation, and retaliation
against victims of, and witnesses to, violent crimes.''.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 31707 of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to carry out this
subtitle.''.
(j) Eligibility of State Courts for Certain Federal
Grants.--
(1) Correctional options grants.--Section 515 of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3762a) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) grants to State courts to improve security for State
and local court systems.''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting after the period the
following:

``Priority shall be given to State court applicants under
subsection (a)(4) that have the greatest demonstrated need to
provide security in order to administer justice.''.
(2) Allocations.--Section 516(a) of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3762b) is
amended by--
(A) striking ``80'' and inserting ``70'';
(B) striking ``and 10'' and inserting ``10''; and
(C) inserting before the period the following: ``, and 10
percent for section 515(a)(4)''.
(l) Bankruptcy, Magistrate, and Territorial Judges Life
Insurance.--
(1) Bankruptcy judges.--Section 153 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) For purposes of construing and applying chapter 87 of
title 5, United States Code, including any adjustment of
insurance rates by regulation or otherwise, a bankruptcy
judge of the United States in regular active service or who
is retired under section 377 of this title shall be deemed to
be a judge of the United States described under section
8701(a)(5) of title 5.''.
(2) United states magistrate judges.--Section 634(c) of
title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) For purposes of construing and applying chapter 87 of
title 5, United States Code, including any adjustment of
insurance rates by regulation or otherwise, a magistrate
judge of the United States in regular active service or who
is retired under section 377 of this title shall be deemed to
be a judge of the United States described under section
8701(a)(5) of title 5.''.
(3) Territorial judges.--
(A) Guam.--Section 24 of the Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C.
1424b) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) For purposes of construing and applying chapter 87 of
title 5, United States Code, including any adjustment of
insurance rates by regulation or otherwise, a judge appointed
under this section who is in regular active service or who is
retired under section 373 of title 28, United States Code,
shall be deemed to be a judge of the United States described
under section 8701(a)(5) of title 5.''.
(B) Commonwealth of the northern mariana islands.--Section
1(b) of the Act of November 8, 1977 (48 U.S.C. 1821) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) For purposes of construing and applying chapter 87 of
title 5, United States Code, including any adjustment of
insurance rates by regulation or otherwise, a judge appointed
under this section who is in regular active service or who is
retired under section 373 of title 28, United States Code,
shall be deemed to be a judge of the United States described
under section 8701(a)(5) of title 5.''.
(C) Virgin islands.--Section 24(a) of the Revised Organic
Act of the Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 1614(a)) is amended--
(i) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) For purposes of construing and applying chapter 87 of
title 5, United States Code, including any adjustment of
insurance rates by regulation or otherwise, a judge appointed
under this section who is in regular active service or who is
retired under section 373 of title 28, United States Code,
shall be deemed to be a judge of the United States described
under section 8701(a)(5) of title 5.''.
(m) Health Insurance for Surviving Family and Spouses of
Judges.--Section 8901(3) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--

[[Page S5936]]

(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (D), by adding ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) a member of a family who is a survivor of--
``(i) a Justice or judge of the United States, as defined
under section 451 of title 28, United States Code;
``(ii) a judge of the District Court of Guam, the District
Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court
of the Virgin Islands;
``(iii) a judge of the United States Court of Federal
Claims; or
``(iv) a United States bankruptcy judge or a full-time
United States magistrate judge.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 4225

(Purpose: To require that, not later than March 31, 2007, the Secretary
of the Army transport to an authorized disposal facility for
appropriate disposal all of the Federal Government-furnished uranium in
the chemical and physical form in which it is stored at the Sequoyah
Fuels Corporation site in Gore, Oklahoma)

At the end of division C, add the following new title:

TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

SEC. 3301. TRANSFER OF GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED URANIUM STORED AT
SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION, GORE, OKLAHOMA.

(a) Transport and Disposal.--Not later than March 31, 2007,
the Secretary of the Army shall, subject to subsection (c),
transport to an authorized disposal facility for appropriate
disposal all of the Federal Government-furnished uranium in
the chemical and physical form in which it is stored at the
Sequoyah Fuels Corporation site in Gore, Oklahoma.
(b) Source of Funds.--Funds authorized to be appropriated
by section 301(1) for the Army for operation and maintenance
may be used for the transport and disposal required under
subsection (a).
(c) Liability.--The Secretary may only transport uranium
under subsection (a) after receiving from Sequoyah Fuels
Corporation a written agreement satisfactory to the Secretary
that provides that--
(1) the United States assumes no liability, legal or
otherwise, of Sequoyah Fuels Corporation by transporting such
uranium; and
(2) the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation waives any and all
claims it may have against the United States related to the
transported uranium.

AMENDMENT NO. 4218

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the Chemical
Weapons Convention)

On page 437, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1084. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DESTRUCTION OF CHEMICAL
WEAPONS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on
Their Destruction, done at Paris on January 13, 1993
(commonly referred to as the ``Chemical Weapons
Convention''), requires all United States chemical weapons
stockpiles be destroyed by no later than the extended
deadline of April 29, 2012.
(2) On April 10, 2006, the Department of Defense notified
Congress that the United States would not meet even the
extended deadline under the Chemical Weapons Convention for
destruction of United States chemical weapons stockpiles.
(3) Destroying existing chemical weapons is a homeland
security imperative, an arms control priority, and required
by United States law.
(4) The elimination and nonproliferation of chemical
weapons of mass destruction is of utmost importance to the
national security of the United States.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the United States is committed to making every effort
to safely dispose of its chemical weapons stockpiles by the
Chemical Weapons Convention deadline of April 29, 2012, or as
soon thereafter as possible, and will carry out all of its
other obligations under the Convention;
(2) the Secretary of Defense should prepare a comprehensive
schedule for safely destroying the United States chemical
weapons stockpiles to prevent further delays in the
destruction of such stockpiles, and the schedule should be
submitted annually to the congressional defense committees
separately or as part of another required report; and
(3) the Secretary of Defense should make every effort to
ensure adequate funding to complete the elimination of the
United States chemical weapons stockpile in the shortest time
possible, consistent with the requirement to protect public
health, safety, and the environment.

AMENDMENT NO. 4285

(Purpose: To improve authorities to address urgent nonproliferation
crises and United States nonproliferation operations)

On page 480, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

SEC. 1304. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON PROVISION OF
COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ASSISTANCE.

(a) Repeal of Restrictions.--
(1) Soviet nuclear threat reduction act of 1991.--Section
211(b) of the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991
(title II of Public Law 102-228; 22 U.S.C. 2551 note) is
repealed.
(2) Cooperative threat reduction act of 1993.--Section
1203(d) of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993
(title XII of Public Law 103-160; 22 U.S.C. 5952(d)) is
repealed.
(3) Russian chemical weapons destruction facilities.--
Section 1305 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65; 22 U.S.C. 5952 note) is
repealed.
(b) Inapplicability of other restrictions.--
Section 502 of the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian
Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992 (Public Law
102-511; 106 Stat. 3338; 22 U.S.C. 5852) shall not apply to
any Cooperative Threat Reduction program.

AMENDMENT NO. 4286

(Purpose: To provide for the applicability of certain requirements to
the acquisition of certain specialty metals)

Strike section 822 and insert the following:

SEC. 822. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS REGARDING
SPECIALTY METALS.

(a) Exemption for Certain Commercial Items.--Subsection (i)
of section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``, Dual-Use Items, and Electronic
Components'' after ``Commercial Items'';
(2) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``this section'';
(3) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by inserting
``described in subsection (b)(1)'' after ``commercial
items''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) This section is not applicable to--
``(A) a contract or subcontract for the procurement of a
commercial item containing specialty metals described in
subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3); or
``(B) specialty metals that are incorporated into an
electronic component, where the value of the specialty metal
used in the component is de minimis in relation to the value
of the electronic component.
``(3) For purposes of paragraph (2)(A), a commercial item
does not include--
``(A) any item that contains noncommercial modifications
that cost or are expected to cost, in the aggregate, more
than 5 percent of the total price of such item;
``(B) any item that would not be considered to be a
commercial item, but for sales to government entities or
inclusion in items that are sold to government entities;
``(C) forgings or castings for military unique end items;
``(D) fasteners other than commercial off-the-shelf items
(as defined in section 35(c) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 431(c)); or
``(E) specialty metals.''.
(b) Exception for Certain Dual-Use Items To Facilitate
Civil-Military Integration.--Such section is further amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(k) Exception for Certain Dual-Use Items To Facilitate
Civil-Military Integration.--Subsection (a) does not apply to
the procurement of an item from a contractor or a first-tier
subcontractor if the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of
a military department determines that--
``(1) the item is or will be produced using the same
production facilities, a common supply chain, and the same or
similar production processes that are used for the production
of similar items delivered to non-defense customers; and
``(2) the contractor or subcontractor has made a
contractual commitment to purchase a quality, grade, and
amount of domestically-melted specialty metals for use by the
purchaser during the period of contract performance in the
production of the item and other similar items delivered to
non-defense customers that is not less that the greater of--
``(A) the amount of specialty metals that is purchased by
the contractor for use in the item delivered to the
Department of Defense; or
``(B) 40 percent of the amount of specialty metals
purchased by the contractor or subcontractor for use during
such period in the production of the item and similar items
delivered to non-defense contractors.''.
(c) De Minimis Standard for Specialty Metals.--Such section
is further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(l) Minimum Threshold for Specialty Metals.--
Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (a), the
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military
department may accept delivery of an item containing
specialty metals that were not grown, reprocessed, reused, or
produced in the United States if the total amount of
noncompliant specialty metals in the item does not exceed 2
percent of the total amount of specialty metals in the
item.''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and
(c) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act, and shall apply with respect to items accepted for
delivery on or after that date.
(2) Civil-military integration.--The amendment made by
subsection (b) shall take effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act, and shall apply to contracts entered into on or
after that date.

[[Page S5937]]

AMENDMENT NO. 4199

(Purpose: To authorize a pilot program on the expanded use of mentor-
protege authority)

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

SEC. 874. PILOT PROGRAM ON EXPANDED USE OF MENTOR-PROTEGE
AUTHORITY.

(a) Pilot Program Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may
carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and
advisability of treating small business concerns described in
subsection (b) as disadvantaged small business concerns under
the Mentor-Protege Program under section 831 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (10 U.S.C.
2302 note).
(b) Covered Small Business Concerns.--The small business
concerns described in this subsection are small business
concerns that--
(1) are participants in the Small Business Innovative
Research Program of the Department of Defense established
pursuant to section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
638); and
(2) as determined by the Secretary, are developing
technologies that will assist in detecting or defeating
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) or other critical force
protection measures.
(c) Treatment as Disadvantaged Small Business Concerns.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of the pilot program, the
Secretary may treat a small business concern described in
subsection (b) as a disadvantaged small business concern
under the Mentor-Protege Program.
(2) Mentor-protege agreement.--Any eligible business
concerned approved for participation in the Mentor-Protege
Program as a mentor firm may enter into a mentor-protege
agreement and provide assistance described in section 831 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991
with respect to a small business concern treated under
paragraph (1) as a disadvantaged small business concern under
the Mentor-Protege Program.
(d) Funding.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the limitation in section
9(f)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(f)(2)),
funds for any reimbursement provided to a mentor firm under
section 831(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991 with respect to a small business concern
described in subsection (b) under the pilot program shall be
derived from funds available for the Small Business
Innovative Research Program of the Department of Defense.
(2) Limitation.--The amount available under paragraph (1)
for reimbursement described in that paragraph may not exceed
the amount equal to one percent of the funds available for
the Small Business Innovative Research Program.
(e) Sunset.--
(1) Agreements.--No mentor-protege agreement may be entered
into under the pilot program after September 30, 2010.
(2) Other matters.--No reimbursement may be paid, and no
credit toward the attainment of a subcontracting goal may be
granted, under the pilot program after September 30, 2013.
(f) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2009, the Secretary
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a
report on the pilot program. The report shall--
(1) describe the extent to which mentor-protege agreements
have been entered under the pilot program; and
(2) describe and assess the technological benefits arising
under such agreements.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
(A) the Committees on Armed Services, Appropriations, and
Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate; and
(B) the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of
the House of Representatives.
(2) The term ``small business concern'' has the meaning
given that term in section 831(m)(1) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991.

AMENDMENT NO. 4287

(Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate on the nomination of an
individual to serve as Director of Operational Test and Evaluation of
the Department of Defense on a permanent basis)

At the end of subtitle C of title IX, add the following:

SEC. 924. SENSE OF SENATE ON NOMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL TO
SERVE AS DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL TEST AND
EVALUATION ON A PERMANENT BASIS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Congress established the position of Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation of the Department of Defense
in 1983 to ensure the operational effectiveness and
suitability of weapon systems in combat.
(2) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation serves
as the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense on
operational test and evaluation and is vital to ensuring the
operational effectiveness of weapon systems in combat.
(3) The position of Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation has been held on an acting basis since February
15, 2005.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the President should submit to the Senate the nomination of
an individual for the position of Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation as soon as practicable.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment to provide compensation
for civilian veterans of the Cold War who contracted cancer as a result
of their work at our nuclear weapons facilities.
My amendment will ensure that employees who worked at the Nevada Test
Site during the years of above- and below-ground nuclear weapons
testing and suffer from radiation-induced cancers as a result of that
work finally receive the compensation they deserve. These Cold War
veterans sacrificed their health and well-being for their country. We
can wait no longer to acknowledge those sacrifices and to try, in some
small way, to compensate for the cancers they have suffered as a result
of their service to their country.
U.S. citizens have served their country working in facilities
producing and testing nuclear weapons and engaging in other atomic
energy defense activities that served as a deterrent during the Cold
War. Many of these workers were exposed to cancer-causing levels of
radiation and placed in harm's way by the Department of Energy and
contractors, subcontractors, and vendors of the Department without the
knowledge and consent of the workers, without adequate radiation
monitoring, and without necessary protections from internal or external
occupational radiation exposures.
Six years ago, I worked with President Clinton to pass The Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000,
EEOICPA, to ensure fairness and equity for the men and women who
performed duties uniquely related to the nuclear weapons production and
testing programs by establishing a program that would provide timely,
uniform, and adequate compensation for 22 specified radiation-related
cancers.
Research by the Department of Energy, the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, NIOSH's contractors, the
President's Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, and
congressional committees indicates that workers were not adequately
monitored for internal or external exposures to ionizing radiation to
which the workers were exposed and records were not maintained, are not
reliable, are incomplete, or fail to indicate the radioactive isotopes
to which workers were exposed.
Because of the inequities posed by the factors described above and
the resulting harm to the workers, EEOICPA has an expedited process for
groups of workers whose radiation dose cannot be estimated with
sufficient accuracy or whose dose cannot be estimated in a timely
manner. These workers are placed into a Special Exposure Cohort, SEC.
Workers in an SEC do not have to go through the dose reconstruction
process, which can take years and be extremely difficult as these
workers are often unable to produce information because it was or is
classified.
Congress has already legislatively designated classes of atomic
energy veterans at the Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, Oak Ridge
K-25, Tennessee, and the Amchitka Island, AK, sites as members of the
special exposure cohort under EEOICPA. Amchitka Island was designated
because three underground nuclear tests were conducted on the Island.
Nevada Test Site workers deserve the same designation.
I and many other Nevadans remember watching explosions at the Nevada
Test Site. We were struck with awe and wonder at the power and strength
of these explosions. Little did we know that there was another side to
those atomic tests--the exposure of men and women working at the site
to cancer-causing substances. Now, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
these Cold War veterans face deadly cancers. Many have already passed
away.
The contribution of the State of Nevada to the security of the United
States throughout the Cold War and since has been unparalleled. In
1950, President Harry S. Truman designated what would later be called
the Nevada Test Site as the Nation's nuclear proving grounds and, a
month later, the first atmospheric test at the Nevada Test Site was
detonated. The United States conducted 100 aboveground and 828
underground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site from 1951 to 1992.
Out of the 1054 nuclear tests conducted in the United States, 928, or
88 percent, were conducted at the Nevada Test Site.

[[Page S5938]]

Unfortunately, Nevada Test Site workers, despite having worked with
significant amounts of radioactive materials and having known exposures
leading to serious health effects, have been denied compensation under
EEOICPA as a result of flawed calculations based on records that are
incomplete or in error as well as the use of faulty assumptions and
incorrect models.
It has become evident that it is not feasible to estimate with
sufficient accuracy the radiation dose received by employees at the
Department of Energy facility in Nevada known as Nevada Test Site at
all in some cases and in others in a timely manner. In fact, the
administration has admitted that it cannot construct internal radiation
dose for workers employed on the site during the aboveground test and
yet is still balking at full compensation for all of these workers.
There are many reasons for this, including inadequate monitoring,
incomplete radionuclide lists, and DOE's ignoring nearly a dozen tests
conducted at the site that vented. Because of these problems, Nevada
Test Site workers have been denied compensation under the act, some of
which have waited for decades for their Government to acknowledge the
sacrifices they made for their country and compensate them.
Unfortunately, 6 years since the passage of EEOICPA and in some cases
decades after their service to their country, very few of those Nevada
Test Site Cold War veterans who have cancer have received compensation.
In fact, Nevada Test Site workers are receiving compensation at a rate
lower than the national average, and many who have waited decades are
being told that they have to wait longer. And many have already died
while waiting for their compensation.
Last November, I sent a letter to President Bush asking him to
initiate this process himself. He still has not responded. However, his
administration is trying to rewrite the law via regulation and cut
funding to this program in order to delay compensation further and halt
it for some workers altogether.
This is unacceptable.
That is why I am committed to ensuring that Nevada Test Site workers
through 1993 are designated as a ``special exposure cohort.'' This will
streamline and speed up the recovery process for those workers.
My amendment would ensure employees and survivors of employees who
worked at the Nevada Test Site through 1993 that they receive
compensation. They helped this country win the Cold War, sacrificing
their personal health in the process, and after decades of waiting and
suffering, it is time the Government honored these sacrifices.
This bill would include within the special exposure cohort Nevada
Test Site workers employed at the site from 1950 to 1993 who were
present during an atmospheric or underground nuclear test or performed
drillbacks, reentry, or cleanup work following such tests; present at
an episodic event involving radiation release; or employed at Nevada
Test Site for at least 250 workdays and in a job activity that was
monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation or worked in a job
activity that is or was comparable to a job that is, was, or should
have been monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation.
The Nevada Test Site has served, and continues to serve, as the
premier research, testing, and development site for our nuclear defense
capabilities. The Nevada Test Site and its workers have been, and are,
an essential and irreplaceable part of our Nation's defense
capabilities. This bill would honor the service of our atomic energy
veterans and provide them with the compensation they deserve.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished ranking member
for his always cooperative efforts to move this bill along. I think we
have made progress on the bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Somehow or other, we did make progress.
Mr. WARNER. We did make progress. There will be a briefing in S-407
tomorrow with regard to operations in Iraq. Members of the Senate are
invited. I expect we will convene in the morning under an order later
this evening from the leadership, but we will be back on the bill for
some period of time tomorrow.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, you can imagine the surprise, the
consternation of so many who woke up this morning and read on the front
page of the Washington Post that the Prime Minister of Iraq suggested
he would grant amnesty to those who killed, maimed, hurt Americans.
This was just appalling.
I rise in support of the resolution offered by my colleagues from
Florida and New Jersey to, first, condemn those despicable remarks,
and, second, to importune our President, President Bush, to make sure
the Prime Minister of Iraq retracts those remarks and registers the
strong disapproval of this Senate and of our Nation about what
happened.
To give those who shot at, sometimes killed, often maimed Americans a
get-out-of-jail-free card is nothing short of despicable and a slap in
the face to all Americans. We have been told we are in Iraq for the
noblest of purposes--to bring peace and democracy. When the head of
state of that country says it is okay if you shot at American troops,
it defies belief, it defies credibility.
The bottom line is our President stood with Prime Minister Maliki
just a day or two ago and said he looked him in the eye and saw he was
a good man. President Bush must have missed something. Clearly, no one
can be a good man and state that it would be okay to give amnesty to
those who shot at our soldiers.
This is something which calls into question the whole endeavor in
Iraq. If this is the man we are relying on to get us out of the morass,
to lead a government, and he is able to say that those who shot at our
soldiers should be given amnesty while those who shot at Iraqis should
not, something is dramatically wrong.
I will never forget when our President said he met President Putin,
looked in his eye, and found he was a good man. Yet we have had trouble
with President Putin ever since.
Something is desperately the matter. We need to do a few things. We
need to pass this resolution immediately and register our condemnation
of the remarks.
President Bush, America is asking you to demand a retraction from the
Prime Minister of Iraq of these despicable words or America can no
longer support sending soldiers to defend Iraqi freedom, to defend
Iraqi peace. How can we, our soldiers, and their families go over to
Iraq if, when they are shot at by renegade Iraqis, those Iraqis may be
given amnesty and a pat on the back? That is despicable. It is so
wrong.
I have spent time with families who have lost loved ones in Iraq. I
have spent hours seeing our soldiers off to victory, watching as their
families, their wives, their husbands, and their children, with tears
in their eyes, watched them board the planes and the transports. For
these families, while their beloved men and women are over there, to
read that the Prime Minister of Iraq would grant amnesty to someone who
tried to kill that soldier who is bravely serving, how would they feel?
President Bush must get on the phone, if he has not already, with the
Iraqi Prime Minister and demand a retraction. If not, the American
people, and particularly the soldiers and their families, deserve an
explanation about what is going on over there. Again, to give a get-
out-of-jail-free card to those who shoot at American soldiers while
those soldiers are trying to defend freedom and peace in Iraq boggles
the mind.
Another question: How can we rely on this man, this new Prime
Minister Maliki, as an ally if he says this? My faith in him is shaken
to the core. What will happen 2 months from now or 6 months from now?
This is a serious issue. I hope my colleagues will pay attention. It
is serious

[[Page S5939]]

because of the honor of our soldiers. It is serious because it casts
doubt on the future of whatever plan there is in Iraq. It is serious
mostly because it is an inhumane and nasty comment that negativizes all
the sacrifices our people have made.
I hope our President will act. He has been silent today. There is no
clarification. There is no discussion of a phone call. There is no
expression of outrage from the White House. I hope that will change and
change soon. If it doesn't, it has to call into doubt everything we are
trying to do over there. This was not a happy day for what is going on
in Iraq because of that awful newspaper story this morning and what it
reported. I hope, I pray, things will change.
I certainly urge my colleagues to support unanimously the resolution
offered by my colleague from Florida and my colleague from New Jersey,
that I am proud to support, asking for that change.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. SARBANES. 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. SARBANES. Mr. President, I understand the Senate is in morning
business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business with 10-minute
grants.

____________________