Floor Statements

Mr. President, if you search the State of Nevada, you will find many elder statesmen. But you won't find any finer than Judge Lloyd D. George.

Judge George is my friend, and Nevadan through and through.

Judge George moved to Las Vegas in 1933, when he was just 3 years old. His family's business was moving sand and gravel. He recalls his house as being built on two railroad lots and remembers Las Vegas at the time as a ``slow city.''

Las Vegas has grown a lot since 1933, and so has Lloyd George.

A graduate of Brigham Young University and University of California Berkeley Law School, he has been an institution in our State's legal community, as both a lawyer and a judge.

In 1984, President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge George to the U.S. district court, and he quickly won Senate confirmation. In 1992, he became chief judge of the Nevada District, a position he held until 1997.

Today, Judge George is a retired senior U.S. district judge, but he still comes in to work every day. His continued service is a testament to Judge George's commitment to the law and the people of Nevada. All of us here recognized that commitment when we named the Las Vegas' Federal courthouse the ``Lloyd D. George Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse'' in the year 2000.

Mr. President, I began by calling Judge George a statesmen, which is exactly what he is.

When statesmen speak, the community has an obligation to listen. Which is why I rise to submit Judge George's moving 2006 Memorial Day remarks into the Congressional Record. His words paint a vivid picture of the sacrifice America's heroes made at Iwo Jima, and they remind us of our obligation to carry their memories with us today.

I ask unanimous consent that Lloyd George's remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the night before last, I went home and my wife told me: You have to be home tomorrow--that is, Wednesday night-- because at 9 o'clock all nine Democratic women Senators will be on ``Larry King.'' I did get home in time to watch the nine Democratic women Senators on ``Larry King.''

When I came to the House of Representatives, there were 22 women in that huge 435-Member body. Now I think there are 62 or something like that. I don't know the exact number.

I was elected to the Senate in 1986 with Barbara Mikulski. As indicated last night, she is the dean of the Senate women. She is certainly the dean of those nine Democratic Senators there.

Having experienced the Senate, a body of 100, with hardly any women, I know how much better the Senate is because of having women in the Senate. It has improved the Senate. It has improved our country.

I was so proud of those nine women last night, proud of what our country has done and what it has come to. These women have not made the Senate better simply because they work on issues relating to women. That has only been part of their talent. They have worked on wide- ranging issues. Senator Mikulski, for example, spent tremendous time on health. The National Institutes of Health are located in her State. Senator Feinstein, for example, was the ranking member and chair of the Military Construction Subcommittee responsible for billions of dollars. She has done an outstanding job.

I am not going to run through the talents of all nine, but they have made the Senate a much better place. Even though I, as the Democratic leader, was so very proud of those nine women last night, it didn't matter what their party affiliation was. This was good for the country to see these women there on national television, talking about

issues they believe are important. The Senate will get better with more women. It is a unique body, and we are all very fortunate to be able to serve in the Senate. But just speaking from personal experience, the Senate, I repeat, is a much better place because of the women who serve in the Senate.

Madam President, I would be certainly amiss if I didn't extend my appreciation for the civil nature of this debate to two of the Senate's finest, the distinguished Senator from Virginia and the distinguished Senator from Michigan, two of the finest the Senate has ever had. I thank them both very much for the civil nature of this very contentious debate.

``That we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people.'' Let me repeat that. ``That we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people.''

That was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who said that. It is an appropriate quote for the Senate to hear before we vote.

Today we will decide on a way to move forward in Iraq. I speak in support of the Levin-Reed amendment. I believe it is long past time to change course in Iraq and start to end the President's open-ended commitment. It is time for sound policy, not more tired slogans designed to distort the facts and divide the American people. It is time for a strategy that honors the brave service of our troops. A majority of Americans recognize that we need a new strategy in Iraq. I am hopeful a bipartisan majority of this body will agree.

Almost 4 years ago, we stood in this Chamber debating whether to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq. Much has happened in Iraq since that fateful day, at a great price to our troops, our taxpayers, our country, and our security. The Iraq war will soon become the longest conflict in this Nation's history, longer than World War II, a war in which we fought across Europe, North Africa, and the Pacific. My own State of Nevada, a small, sparsely populated State, has paid an enormous price in this war. We have lost 39 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them in Iraq. That is 39 fathers, brothers, uncles, sons, daughters, and aunts who will never come home. Thousands of other Nevadans have sacrificed as well. Last year 70 percent of the National Guard of Nevada was deployed. These Nevadans deserve to know their sacrifices will be honored. They deserve to know their Government has a plan for success in Iraq that honors our troops and completes the mission. Just as important, they deserve an honest debate, not political slogans and not a President and a Republican Congress content with no plan and no end in sight.

Today the real choice facing this body is a choice between doing nothing, the so-called ``stay the course'' option the President and his supporters advocate, or changing the course and providing our troops and the Iraqi people a way forward. After 4 long years, more than 2,500 Americans have died, thousands have been grievously wounded. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent and threats ignored around the globe. Congress needs to offer a new direction. I believe we need to signal to the Iraqi Government that our patience and our presence in Iraq are not unlimited. We need to say to President Bush: You need a plan for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country, their own security, so that the phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq can begin by year's end.

Robert Taft, a great Republican Senator, said:

Criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of

any kind of democratic government.

Senator Taft was talking about World War II. But his words still ring true. There is nothing careless about pointing to the President's mistakes and missteps in Iraq. In fact, we must. His misjudgments have made America less safe. From the outset, administration blunders increased the costs and risks of confronting Saddam Hussein and securing Iraq: The administration built its case for war on faulty and cherry-picked intelligence. Smoking guns would become mushroom clouds. Al-Qaida and Saddam had a dangerous alliance. Nuclear weapons materials were flowing into Iraq from Africa. We could invade Iraq without diverting resources from the ongoing war on terror. The Iraq war would be over quickly, and the costs would be covered by the proceeds from Iraqi oil sales.

All these assertions, every one of them, turned out to be false. By the start of 2003, U.S. troops and intelligence assets had already been diverted from the hunt for Osama bin Laden in order to prepare for an attack on Iraq. The President's war plan turned out to be as deficient as the prewar intelligence. He rejected the Powell Doctrine's key tenets: No. 1, that military force should be used as a last resort; No. 2, that force, when used, should be overwhelming; and No. 3, that there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict. And he rejected the advice of his senior military commanders who called for 4 to 500,000 troops, a recommendation that was based on years of hard-learned and costly lessons.

As a result, after the Iraqi Government fell, there were not enough forces to pacify the country, to control looting, to guard the ammo dumps, to secure the borders, and to restore civility. The seeds for the insurgency and the sectarian warfare that would soon plague Iraq had been sown. But this didn't stop the President from donning a flight suit and landing on an aircraft carrier to declare ``mission accomplished'' in May of 2003, more than 2 years ago.

Since that date, 95 percent of our casualties have occurred in Iraq-- since the ``mission accomplished'' performance on that aircraft carrier.

Meanwhile, his viceroy in Baghdad continued to execute a series of disastrous decisions, including disbanding the Iraqi Army, purging the Government of all Baath Party officials, and delaying the training of Iraqi security forces. These early missteps had far-reaching consequences that our troops must live with.

Three and a half years after the start of the war, there is still not a single Iraq Army battalion that can operate

independently--not one. On the reconstruction front, things aren't any better. The President who campaigned on the pledge not to do nation building unfortunately stuck to that pledge. From the start, the rebuilding effort was plagued in Iraq by massive corruption and contracting abuses. The American taxpayer and the Iraqi people have paid the price.

Power, water, and oil production all soon slipped below prewar levels. Today, oil production is still 400,000 barrels per day below prewar levels. And the availability of electricity in Baghdad dropped from 16 hours a day prior to the war to its current average of 4 hours a day.

These Bush administration missteps have reduced Iraqi support for our presence and fueled anti-American sentiments and insurgent activity. As a result, the mission of our troops has become more difficult and certainly more dangerous.

At the same time the President was sending too few troops for the mission in Iraq, he even failed to provide those he did send--those valiant troops--with armor and equipment which they need to do the job. Military families already stretched and burdened from multiple deployments were forced to buy armor and ship it to their loved ones serving in Iraq.

They went out and bought equipment and sent it to their loved ones because the military wasn't providing it. Combat units had to jury-rig vehicles with scrap metal in order to get some extra degree of protection from the improvised explosive devices--and understandably so.

A study by the Marine Corps last year found that 80 percent of upper- body fatalities could have been prevented with proper armor. The greatest military in the world should not have to depend on scrap metal from Iraqi junk yards to protect its troops.

Meanwhile, security problems in Iraq grow more dangerous every day. In April and May of this year alone, more than 160 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq. Weekly insurgent attacks are higher than they have ever been. At least five troops were killed in Iraq yesterday. We don't know the exact number, but at least five were killed yesterday.

The country has become what is was not before the war--a training ground and a launching pad for acts of international terror.

The killing of terrorist Zarqawi was a step forward. But as we have seen, the killings have not ended. Sectarian violence has not ceased because the Iraqi Government has failed to make the political compromises necessary to create a stable government that can provide for the security of its people--people taken from buses, kidnapped, and likely will be killed.

That is only part of what happened last night in Iraq. I recall vividly when the Senate paused for a moment of silence when we reached the grim milestone of 2,000 U.S. military killed in Iraq. But just last week on a date that arrived far too quickly, we paused again to honor the now 2,500 who have given their lives. And, of course, that figure has since passed and there is more.

The Senate has an obligation to our troops and their families to do everything we can to delay indefinitely the next milestone. Are we going to have a moment of silence for 3,000 of our best?

Twenty-five hundred dead Americans is not ``just a number,'' as Tony Snowe, the President's spokesman, said. These 2,500 are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, husbands, and wives. They are PFC Thomas Tucker and PFC Kristian Menchaca, whose mutilated bodies were found in Iraq yesterday. These aren't just numbers.

We owe it to these troops and all of our forces serving in Iraq to develop a sound policy. We hear a lot of rhetoric about ``supporting the troops.'' But the best way we can support them is with a smart strategy--not with more rhetoric or slogans. That is why the Levin-Reed amendment is so important.

The Levin-Reed amendment recognizes that it is time to transform the U.S. mission in Iraq and to begin the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces this year. It builds upon the bipartisan Senate amendment which we passed overwhelmingly last year calling for ``2006 to be a year of significant transition in Iraq.'' With the midpoint of 2006 upon us, that transition must begin.

The open-ended commitment advocated by the President and the majority--that is the Republicans in this body--is not the way to get the Iraqis to assume responsibility for governing and securing their country. They have trained 287,000 troops.

The Levin-Reed amendment recognizes that there are only political solutions remaining in Iraq, not military solutions. This amendment rightfully focuses on the need to reconcile the sectarian differences, to regionalize the U.S. strategy, and to revitalize reconstruction efforts.

Passage of this amendment would chart a new course, one that is well balanced between the military, the political, the regional, and the international solutions. An open-ended commitment is not sustainable, and the American people know that.

The war is now costing the American people every month upwards of $2 billion--$500 million each week. The military has been stretched so thin, with every available combat unit of the Army and Marine Corps serving multiple tours in Iraq.

This war is not a matter for ``future Presidents'' as President Bush said. It is his war. It is the war of President George Bush. And the time to act is now, for as we are bogged down in Iraq, the threats to our freedom around the world only grow.

An open-ended commitment in Iraq hurts our ability to address other national security challenges around the world. While beginning the phased redeployment this year will allow many of our troops to come home, it will also permit the President to redeploy forces so they can deal with other crises such as we now have in Afghanistan--where four or five were killed yesterday--where the resurgent Taliban threat must be eliminated and Osama bin Laden must be finally captured or killed.

I watched the floor debate yesterday. The majority, instead of offering their vision for the future in Iraq, or even speaking to the merits of the Levin-Reed amendment, chose to resort to a familiar playbook straight from Karl Rove's book of partisan political tricks. They have engaged in these cheap political attacks saying Democrats want to ``surrender'' and ``cut and run.'' Not only are these attacks baseless, but they won't help Iraqis--and they certainly won't help our troops who are right now lugging 70-pound packs in 100-degree heat while trying to avoid roadside bombs and snipers.

The Republicans in the Senate stand alone, insisting on ``no plan and no end.'' It isn't a position shared by the American people, and it isn't even a position shared by our military leaders.

On today's morning news, it is reported that General Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, has stated that thousands of troops will likely be redeployed by year's end. That is General Casey.

To my Republican colleagues, is General Casey surrendering? To my Republican colleagues, is General Casey cutting and running? To my Republican colleagues, is General Casey admitting defeat? I think not.

Over at the White House, we see similar partisan games. The administration continues to mislead the American people. The Vice President continues to insist the insurgency is in its ``last throes,'' despite the headlines we read every day. The President continues to insist that we will ``stand down when Iraqis stand up.'' That has yet to occur.

It is time to change from the slogans, the attacks, and the continual misleading nature of this administration as it relates to the war in Iraq. Demanding a change of course is not irresponsible, it is not unpatriotic, it is the right thing to do.

Edward R. Murrow said:

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal

opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

For all of those troops who are serving on their third and fourth tours of duty, for those who have served on their first and second tours of duty, for all those Iraqis who want to see an end to the civil war plaguing their nation, for all those people who want Iraq to succeed in delivering a free and democratic way of life, for those who believe we need to refocus on the larger global war on terror, we must vote for a change in policy and a change in direction. We must reject the ``stay the

course'' doctrine of the Bush administration. We must vote for the Levin-Reed amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Mrs. Lincoln to discuss an amendment accepted today by the distinguished chairman Mr. Warner, and ranking member, Mr. Levin.

I appreciate their willingness to advance this very important legislation. Our policy must reflect our Nation's care and appreciation for our veterans, and I will continue to work towards obtaining full concurrent receipt. I have said it before, but I will say it again.

It is unacceptable that the men and women who dedicated their entire careers to service in the military must surrender a portion of their retired pay if they want to receive the disability compensation.

It is acceptable, but today, because of the policy of concurrent receipt, it is the law for veterans classified as unemployable.

Throughout my time in the Senate, I have championed legislation that would end the unfair policy of denying America's disabled veteran's retirement benefits they have earned through years of service and sacrifice.

In 2004, I introduced legislation that was passed into helping those veterans who were 100 percent disabled to receive full concurrent receipt immediately. By eliminating the 10-year phasein period, the passage of this legislation was a significant victory for those who have fought for our freedom.

But, I never imagined that the administration would intentionally change the intent, interpret the law, and shamelessly deny unemployable veterans, no matter what their disability rating, retirement pay and disability compensation.

What kind of message does this send to our men and women in the military today?

We have thousands of new American veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. These men and women serve in the most inhospitable reaches of the world, defending our freedoms and fighting for the cause of liberty.

Most of these young American Veterans don't realize that if they are injured or wounded to the point were that can no longer work, will have to choose between their retired pay and their disability compensation. As of today, they will not receive both until 2009.

This is unfair.

Military retired pay is earned compensation for the extraordinary demands and sacrifices inherent in a military career. It is a reward promised for serving two decades or more under conditions that most Americans find intolerable.

For several years I have introduced and championed legislation that would end the unfair policy of denying America's disabled veterans' retirement benefits they have earned through years of service and sacrifice.

In November 2005, an amendment was passed to expand concurrent receipt to cover America's disabled veterans rated as ``unemployable,'' and to implement the new policy immediately instead of phasing it in over a decade. However, I was disappointed that the conference committee chose not to enact this valuable legislation until 2009.

Therefore, I introduced this amendment to restore their full benefits as originally intended in the legislation I introduced in 2004.

Veterans' disability compensation is recompense for pain, suffering, and lost future earning power caused by a service-connected illness or injury. Few retirees can afford to live on their retired pay alone, and a severe disability only makes the problem worse by limiting or denying any post-service working life.

Mr. President, an ``unemployable'' retiree should not have to forfeit part or all of his or her earned retired pay as a result of having suffered a service-connected disability.

At a time when our Nation is calling upon our Armed Forces to defend democracy and freedom, we must be careful not to send the wrong signal to those in uniform.

All who have selected to make their career in the U.S. military now face an additional unknown risk in our fight against terrorism. If they are injured, they would be forced to forego their earned retired pay in order to receive their VA disability compensation. In effect, they would be paying for their own disability benefits from their retirement checks unless my legislation is enacted.

This will send a signal to these brave men and women that the American people and government take care of those who make sacrifices for our nation. It is time for us to show our appreciation to the men and women who have demonstrated their allegiance to their country and the principles it stands for.

I, again, thank Senator Warner and Senator Levin for their assistance in including this provision in the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill.

amendment no. 4494

Mr. President, I appreciate very much that there has been consent to agree to my amendment No. 4337 on Congressional oversight of Iran policy. I would like to explain why I believe it is important that the Senate pass this amendment and sustain it in conference with the House.

Mr. President, we live in a dangerous time. The threats to our freedom are many.

As the administration embarks on serious diplomacy with Iran, the Senate must be engaged and consulted. We Senators must take seriously our responsibility to insist on a thorough review of the facts, a full debate of the threat, and full consultation as events move forward.

The amendment I propose today would help put in place the rigorous oversight necessary to hold the administration accountable for its rhetoric and its policy decisions.

Yesterday, Senate leadership met with State Department officials to get briefed on the details of the ``offer'' the administration laid on the table for Iran a few weeks ago. The meeting was welcome. I respect the hard work of Secretary Rice and Ambassador Burns in moving diplomacy forward. However, I am surprised the meeting happened several weeks after the deal was already offered. To the best of my knowledge, until yesterday, Congress had not been briefed on the key details of the deal offered to Iran a few weeks ago. The Iranians had been briefed. The Europeans had been briefed. The Russians and Chinese had been briefed. But not the United States Senate.

This reminds me of how the administration handled the proposed Indian nuclear deal, which Members first found out about from the Indian prime minister and the press, not from the Administration.

I am also reminded of the sales campaign that the administration engaged in, in the runup to war in Iraq. A sales campaign--rather than a serious effort to consult and treat Congress as a partner in figuring out how to protect America.

It makes the executive branch's job a lot tougher when Congress is consulted last, rather than first. Congress should be in the take off, not asked to join for the crash landing.

This amendment requires the administration to give Congress and the American people three things: an updated intelligence assessment of the threat of Iran, a clear statement of the President's policy objectives and strategy, and a confirmation that administration officials' public statements about the threat of Iran are being reviewed for accuracy.

These are reasonable requests to ensure a rigorous debate about the way forward. The amendment's adoption would increase the administration's information flow to Congress on Iran issues and improve the Senate's oversight in this important area of national security policy.

I would note that the House Armed Services Committee included parallel reporting requirements on the threat of Iran and the U.S. strategy for responding to it in its report on the House version of this bill. I trust that the conference of the two bodies will, in striving to reconcile these parallel reporting requirements, put the United States Congress on record in law about the importance of rigorous Congressional oversight of U.S. policy regarding Iran and the importance of the administration working in close consultation with Congress in this area.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for working with my office and Senator Ensign's office on scaling back the new exceptions to the Berry amendment--the Buy American rules--that were ultimately included in this legislation. The changes to narrow the language as originally proposed go a long way toward addressing the concerns of the U.S. specialty metals industry, including titanium production in Nevada. So again I thank the chairman and ranking member for working with us on these changes.

Still, I have concerns about provisions in this bill that were adopted as part of amendment 4286 on June 15 that weaken the Buy American provisions of the Berry amendment. I know this is not the intention of the Senate or the committee, but I am concerned that we may be opening a door to the use of foreign specialty metals in production of U.S. military equipment that is very dangerous, and we may have started down the proverbial slippery slope.

Right now, due in no small part to the policy of the Berry amendment, the United States has the most sophisticated titanium and specialty metals sector in the world. The Berry amendment policy is good national policy because these are materials that a modern military must have, and so we need to maintain a robust domestic manufacturing capability to meet our national security needs.

My starting point, then, and I know the Senators agree, is that we need strong Buy American provisions for purchases of specialty metals from the Defense Department. There have been some complaints about administrability--some of which are legitimate but some of which unfortunately I think may be driven by opponents of Buy American rules in and outside the administration.

I think the legitimate concerns can and should be addressed with some minor tweaking and appropriately limited waivers. If material of the right quality or grade is not available in the United States, the Pentagon could exercise its existing waiver authority. We could pass legislation that could improve that authority. If lax enforcement has led to a buildup in foreign inventories, we could create a temporary ``get well period.'' If a few off-the-shelf items should not be included under the Berry amendment, let's figure out what they are and exempt them.

But I worry we have gone much further than that. The Senate's bill introduces a number of new concepts that I am not sure we fully understand individually, and I am very concerned we do not understand how all of these different concepts will interact together.

Let me be clear about one thing. Outside of the U.S. companies, there is only one other worldwide producer of aerospace-quality titanium. In other words, one titanium company in the whole world will get the new U.S. defense business from weakening the Buy American provisions of the Berry amendment. That company is a Russian company called VSMPO. It was built by the Government of the Soviet Union, later privatized, and recently the Government of Russia has indicated that it intends to take a controlling share of the company.

That is right, the Kremlin intends to take a large ownership position in this company. This is the same Kremlin that used access to energy supplies to try to bully the Ukraine as an intimidation tactic. I have a series of newspaper articles on VSMPO and its relation to the Russian Government and I will ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

The administration has talked about needing to change the Berry amendment and has said that it wants greater ``commercial and military integration.'' But, I am concerned that if it is not appropriately narrow, changes to the Berry amendment will create greater ``Kremlin- Defense integration.'' So if this new language would have the result of increasing U.S. dependence on Russian titanium producers, I think it would be terrible military and defense policy.

I hope that as the bill moves forward, we will have an opportunity to take a closer look at these provisions and narrow them even further. Perhaps some concepts we will determine deserve to be dropped altogether.

I ask unanimous consent that the articles to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend Marilyn Wills, the director of Nevada's State Health Insurance Assistance Program, for her efforts during the implementation of the Medicare drug program in my State. I would like to recognize Marilyn for not only her service to Nevada's Medicare beneficiaries, but also for her dedication to her profession and her contributions to the community.

As most of us have surely heard from beneficiaries, the enrollment period for the new drug program was a time of great stress, confusion, and frustration. As seniors, people with disabilities, and their loved ones tried to understand the complicated new drug benefit, decide whether to sign up, and then find the best drug plan to join, many found themselves overwhelmed. And with the May 15 enrollment deadline looming, it became increasingly clear that the public needed better information and better help using that information.

I commend Nevada's State Health Insurance Assistance Program, or SHIP, for heeding this call in my State. Hundreds of SHIP volunteers gave their time and energy to counsel their fellow Nevadans about the new Medicare drug benefit, as well as other components of Medicare, supplemental health insurance, and long-term care. As more Medicare beneficiaries, their families, and friends turned to Nevada SHIP for one-on-one counseling and assistance, SHIP volunteers were eventually responding to over 1,000 phone calls every month. Nevada SHIP also made arrangements for homebound seniors and held outreach events for the community at large. During one 3-day event alone, over 500 Nevadans with Medicare received help from SHIP volunteers. The work of Nevada's SHIP volunteers is truly a testament to the value of public service.

As the director of Nevada's SHIP, Marilyn Wills was at the center of its operations. In that role, she was charged with a wide range of responsibilities, including overseeing the outreach events, giving educational presentations to the public, and training new volunteers. Moreover, Marilyn and the SHIP volunteers had to carry out their work in an environment that is continually evolving with new, uncertain, or changing program rules and details. The manner with which Marilyn carried out her responsibilities has earned her high praise from her colleagues, as well.

In one of many glowing stories about Marilyn that has reached my desk, one says, ``Marilyn worked tirelessly to ensure that all the community groups working on Part D outreach were aware of every event and that this was an inclusive effort. She believes in maximizing efforts to reach the entire community, but her passion focuses on every individual beneficiary and how to help each person get the help they need.'' The observer continues to write, ``She made sure her volunteers knew this was about people helping people. It was important to her that the volunteers and staff feel good about what they were doing, and always see how they were truly helping people that needed the information, or just the human contact to help them be comfortable in understanding all the options.''

The challenge was to inform the citizens of the State of Nevada about the new Medicare drug benefit and to guide them through the enrollment process. It is my pleasure to recognize Marilyn Wills and the Nevada SHIP volunteers for their success in tackling this challenge. They are a credit to all of us working toward the success of the new Medicare drug benefit in Nevada.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend Garrett Hall and Chris Shea, fellow Nevadans who deserve praise for their efforts during the implementation of the new Medicare Part D drug benefit in Nevada.

As most of us have surely heard, the enrollment period was a time of great stress, confusion, and frustration for nearly everyone involved. As seniors, people with disabilities, and their loved ones tried to understand the complicated new drug benefit, decide whether to sign up, and then find the best drug plan to join, many found themselves overwhelmed. Emerging from those reports were also stories about pharmacists who struggled with the numerous implementation problems.

Garrett and Chris, who operate PAX Rx in Reno, NV, are fine examples of pharmacists across the country who did their best to assist those seeking their help and advice. However, Garrett and Chris did more than simply rise to the occasion. By all accounts, they went above and beyond the minimum bar set for them.

For one particularly vulnerable group, the Medicare-Medicaid dual eligible beneficiaries, Garrett and Chris came to the rescue countless times to ensure that they did not fall through the bureaucratic cracks. As many of us know, newspapers widely reported the numerous implementation problems that threatened to keep these dual-eligible beneficiaries from receiving their vitally important medications. Garrett and Chris know that there are real lives behind these facts and statistics because their PAX Rx pharmacy repeatedly intervened on behalf of affected customers. At no cost to such beneficiaries, they provided the needed medications, either by mail or hand delivery.

These two Nevadans' contributions extended beyond the scope of their pharmacy practice. Garrett and Chris also attended townhall meetings and

other public events, seeking out stakeholders in need of guidance and lending their expertise. In the words of one observer, Garrett and Chris ``saved the day for Nevada during the early days of implementation.'' They are among the countless pharmacists who deserve recognition for their efforts in Nevada and across the country.

For these deeds, Garrett and Chris are a credit to all of us working toward the success of the new Medicare drug benefit in Nevada.

Mr. President, the Senate is now in the middle of an important debate on Iraq, but it wasn't so long ago that we found ourselves in an important debate on another issue, immigration reform. It took weeks of negotiations for the Senate to develop the basic framework for legislation that both Democrats and Republicans could support. Then it took several more weeks to work through dozens of amendments and pass a bill, a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

The day we finally passed immigration legislation, I came to the floor to say it was a good day for the Senate but a day not for celebrating. News reports from all over the country this morning show why I was right. For example, from the Washington Post today:

House Republicans have largely given up on passing a broad

rewrite of the nation's immigration laws before the November

elections. House GOP leaders said today they would hold

hearings even before naming conferees.

The truth is out. For all their tough talk about securing our borders, House Republicans have no intention of actually accomplishing the goal. They want to defeat comprehensive immigration reform of the kind we passed in the Senate, a bipartisan bill, and House leaders are willing to sacrifice the security of the American people to accomplish what I believe are their selfish goals.

Let's be perfectly clear. This idea of field hearings is just a front, an attempt to delay, impede, and obstruct a bipartisan effort to strengthen our borders and fix our immigration system. The House doesn't need hearings to write a bill because they have already passed their bill. They don't need hearings to name conferees. The only reason for hearings is to pander to the rightwing base of their party and avoid the hard work of negotiating a final bill with the Senate for the American people.

It has been clear for weeks now that House Republicans have no interest in passing an immigration bill this year.

But even as House leaders speak more and more openly about their opposition to comprehensive reform, we have heard only silence from the White House. The President went on national television and pledged his support for comprehensive reform. Now we will see if his actions match his words. I know the President is overseas, but I am confident there is reliable telephone service in Vienna. I respectfully suggest that President Bush pick up the phone and tell the Speaker and the majority leader of the House to stop stalling. He needs to persuade them that our national security depends on action, a conference, and final legislation.

Meanwhile, here in the Senate, I am waiting for assurances from the majority leader that the conference committee on immigration reform will address only immigration reform, not tax breaks for corporations or billionaires. I am confident the majority leader can provide those assurances. He has told me he wants to; he just hasn't done so.

Democrats are ready to roll up their sleeves and get this bill done. We are determined to move forward. I have a list of Democratic conferees in my pocket. I also happen to know that there are a fair number of Republicans who want to move forward. I spoke yesterday to two of my Republican colleagues who said they are willing to sign a letter saying that if anything comes back from conference with anything other than the tax measures that are in this bill, they will not support the conference report.

Unlike same-sex marriage and flag burning, immigration reform is an issue that affects real people every day. It is a national security issue. It is an economic issue, an issue that my constituents want us to deal with. It is an issue all Americans want us to deal with. Certainly no one wants to do it the way the House did it, by making felons out of immigrants, by making criminals out of humanitarian workers who operate soup kitchens, or the clergy who offer these immigrants religious counseling or, from a Catholic perspective, have them be given the holy sacraments. It is untoward what their bill does.

The way the Senate did it, by beefing up security on the borders and forcing employer sanctions and giving out undocumented aliens who are here a way to get right with the law and to have strong employer sanctions, is what the American people want and deserve.

The Senate has worked its will. The House has worked its will. It is time to let the conference committee go forward and come up with a product. It is my hope President Bush won't let a few extreme Republicans hold our border security hostage. It is my hope the House leaders will abandon their delaying tactics once and for all.

Some have said that the immigration bill is on life support. Well, we Democrats don't believe that. We want to breathe life into this process. This legislation is imperative. It is important. I hope my Republican colleagues won't put this on life support. If so, they will help us revive this most important issue.

I am happy to yield.

I respond to my friend, there is no finer example of how legislation should move forward than what we did in the Senate. The President got involved. We applauded him. We had Democrats and Republicans working together. What we did was extraordinary. I heard an interview on National Public Radio this morning where the acting head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service was saying that he doesn't want a fence on the entire border with Mexico. Well, the Senate worked its will. We agreed. We have a fence in certain places, but we have security. Security was our No. 1 issue. We took care of security. We took care of a guest worker program that is badly needed, a pathway to legalization. We took care of enforcing employer sanctions. We have a piece of legislation that every American should be proud of. It should not be demagogued, and that is what is happening in the House.

We need to work together. It is so important that we do something. I hold up the Senate legislation as a model for how we should move legislation. We should have a conference with the House and have a final product. I am calling on the President today to continue his partnership with us on this legislation, not concede that we can't get this done.

Mr. President, as an example on employer sanctions--they are in such desperate shape--last year there were three enforcement measures taken. In our bill, we provide for 7,000 new hires that will deal only with employer sanctions. That is one example. The other example is that with border security, which is in desperate shape as we speak, I have been there. I have seen what happens. There are 24 lanes of traffic coming in at the San Ysidro border security point, 24 lanes of traffic every day, 24 hours a day. They don't have enough help there. We have given them help so they can do their job. That is another example.

I feel so desperate, desperate for the American people. I feel desperate for my State. We have problems. This bill would address our problems in Nevada.

The Senator is absolutely right. I want to say to my friend, people are calling for bipartisanship in the Congress.

Here we had it in the Senate. We have the Senator from Massachusetts who has a certain political philosophy and the Senator from Arizona with a certain political philosophy; they have locked arms with Democrats and Republicans of all political philosophies, and we came up with a tremendous piece of legislation.

If there is something wrong with our legislation, let's go to conference on it. We would be happy to visit with them. Let's not say we are not going to work with you. We want to have a conference and work out legislation that will protect our borders and give the American people what they need. We have to do this.

Yes. I have in my pocket the names of our conferees. We are ready to roll; we are ready to go to work.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to respond to a question from my friend from Florida.

Mr. President, it is very clear we worked very hard to make sure there was no amnesty and that there was a path to legalization. The people had to have a job, pay their taxes and stay out of trouble, learn English and pay penalties and fines and then move to the back of the line. What we did legislatively was nothing short of miraculous to get it passed in this body. It would be a disaster for this country not to move forward on this with the tremendous amount of work we have done. As I have said, on a bipartisan basis we did that. Here is a Senate action that was not in a partisan vein but in a bipartisan vein.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of giving 56,000 Nevandans a raise by increasing the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.

My colleagues have done an excellent job of making the case for this raise. My side has pointed out it has been nearly 10 years since the minimum wage was last increased. We have communicated that the current wage is woefully inadequate, that someone who works full-time and makes the minimum wage lives below the poverty line. We have also talked about how minimum wage workers don't make enough to provide their families adequate housing, food, and essentials like clothing. We have talked about all the facts. So what I wish to do now is appeal to the Senate's sense of fairness.

All of us in the Senate, don't we believe that someone working full time should be able to live a life out of poverty? I believe the answer is yes, and I believe that is reason enough for us all to vote yes to increasing this wage. Three times in the last Congress the Republican leadership brought down a minimum wage bill rather than have an up-or- down vote. We can't wait any longer. There are only a few weeks left in this Congress, and those 56,000 Nevadans deserve a raise.

I know the majority has a proposal to raise the minimum wage by about a dollar an hour but it is not enough. It doesn't impact nearly enough Americans and won't make a big enough difference. Whereas an increase to $7.25 will help over 5 million Americans, the majority amendment will help only 2. Moreover, our amendment will mean an additional $4,370 a year to help minimum wage earners support their families. An increase of this size can help offset the cost of high gas prices, not to mention the costs of health care, food, and other needs.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to pass a graduated increase of the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.

I thank the Chair. Senator Lieberman has been here off and on during the day wanting to speak.

If there is going to be any time agreement, Senator Lieberman ought to be worked into this. We have Senator Byrd here who has been calling all day.

Senators Byrd and Lieberman or both.

We will take you up on that, if you will give Senator Lieberman 10 minutes.

As usual, the Senator from Virginia is very kind.

Mr. President, when people around the world think of my home State of Nevada, their first thoughts are usually of Las Vegas.

Around the world, people know us for our first-class entertainment and resorts, our world-class dining, and for slogans like ``what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.'' But what most people don't know is that Las Vegas is the city it is today because of the hard work of one man--Manny Cortez. Manny was a friend, and it is with great sadness that I come to the chamber today to pay tribute to his life. He passes away from a heart attack on Sunday. He was 67.

Manny Cortez achieved so much in life. He served on the Clark County Commission, the Taxi Authority, and in the district attorney's office. He was, however, best known as the president of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. He held this post for 13 years, from 1991 to 2004. Under Manny's tenure, Las Vegas went from seeing 21 million visitors a year to more than 35 million, from 1.8 convention delegates to nearly 6 million, and from 73,000 hotel rooms to 140,000 hotel rooms.

As his successor on the convention board, Rossi Ralenkotter, said: Manny was one of the cornerstones that made Las Vegas the success it is today.

Former Clark County Commissioner Paul Christensen has echoed that sentiment, saying: Putting Manny Cortez in charge of the (convention authority) was one of the better moves we ever made. He never ever told you he would so something that he wouldn't back up.

Throughout his life, Manny was recognized as an astute marketer and businessman. For example, he was named Person of the Year by Travel Magazine in 1999. He was past president of the Boys and Girls Clubs in Las Vegas. He served on a number of boards. But for all his achievements and success, I think the Las Vegas community will remember Manny more for being a leader and good man.

In Monday's Las Vegas Sun, Editor Brian Greenspun shares this recollection of Manny.

When the late Gov. Mike O'Callaghan appointed Manny to the

Taxi Authority, he said that in Manny he had a man who cared

about people and about doing what was right. Manny lived that

obligation throughout his life.

That is how I will remember Manny too, as a good man who always did the right thing.

Manny--like Las Vegas--was a true American success story. He was born in Las Cruces, NM. His father was a baker. His mother was a retailer. They moved to Las Vegas when Manny was 5. A product of Las Vegas schools, he held a degree from Nevada Southern University. He didn't start at the top, but he ended up there.

Manny leaves behind his wife Joanna, two daughters, Catherine and Cynthia, and two grandchildren, Andrew and Christina. Today, Mr. President, our prayers are with them.

Many is gone. He will be missed. And his presence will be felt by everyone who visits Las Vegas.

Mr. President, it goes without saying there are a number of issues upon which Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans will never agree. We have our differences about whether there is global warming, about the staggering deficits we have, lack of health care, economic policy generally. I understand and respect the differences we have on those issues. If there were ever an issue where we should be able to find common ground, it is supporting the troops we have around the world. I use the word ``should'' because of what is now happening in the Senate.

As I speak, there is an amendment pending before this body. It is an amendment that says the Iraqi Government should not proceed with their plan to grant amnesty to terrorists who kill American troops. It is a very simple amendment with a message the American people, I know, agree with. So why is it that Republicans who control this body have filibustered this amendment? It has been going on for days now. I really have trouble figuring that out. Their excuses don't make sense.

Their first excuse is that aides to the Prime Minister were misquoted, but we don't have any evidence of that. In fact, it is quite the contrary. The aide who first stated this stands by his story. They have asked him to step down, and he no longer has his position. But he was quoted, after having stepped down, as saying:

The prime minister himself has said that he is ready to

give amnesty to the so-called resistance, provided they have

not been involved in killing Iraqis.

That was the end of the quote. Of course, what it doesn't say, according to everything that they have said, is that it is OK to kill Americans but not Iraqis. We now have news accounts--not confirmed by the Pentagon, at least to me--that Kristian Menchaca, 23 years old, member of the U.S. Army, and Thomas Tucker, age 25, U.S. Army, who were abducted, taken as prisoners of war, have been killed. Try telling their families that it is OK to give amnesty to the so-called resistance provided they have not been involved in killing Iraqis, only Americans. The families of Tucker and Menchaca would be very displeased.

Over the weekend we received even more evidence that the Iraqi Government favors amnesty for those who shed American blood. From Sunday's Los Angeles Times: The amnesty plan would apparently include insurgents alleged to have staged attacks against Americans.

They are saying amnesty. So it is clear that the situation regarding amnesty, the amendment pending before this body, is one where the Iraqis who serve in their Government are saying that it is OK if the insurgents kill Americans and not OK if they kill Iraqis. The only thing that is clear is the Senate needs to go on record and direct President Bush to tell the Iraqi Government that that plan is unacceptable. That is what the amendment does.

There are other excuses offered by the majority. Some have argued that if indeed this amnesty plan is real, we should just accept it as we did amnesty plans following World War II and Vietnam. Of course, we know that there were war trials in World War II. World War II went on for 3 years plus. This war has been going on for 3 years plus. World War II was fought all over the world, Southeast Asia, all over Europe, Africa, all of the islands between Hawaii and Japan. The war in Iraq has been fought in a relatively small area and has been going on almost as long as World War II. So I believe the argument that we should accept their amnesty plan doesn't set well with me or with the American people.

The majority of Americans killed in Iraq have not been killed in traditional acts of war. This war is different from others. They have been killed in acts of war, even though they have been so-called nontraditional acts of war. They were killed in acts of terror, which is part of this war. Anybody who believes in freedom and what our troops are dying for in Iraq should believe their killers should be brought to justice if possible. I believe the excuses on the majority side are designed by Republicans to hide the truth.

The filibuster of the anti-amnesty amendment is just another example of cutting and running. We hear this all the time. If there were ever an example of cutting and running, it is not to allow a vote on a simple amendment that says we should not condone the Iraqis granting amnesty to Iraqis who have killed Americans.

I believe this cutting and running, which is thrown around here so gratuitously by the majority, could apply to what happened last year on the Defense authorization bill. It took months. The bill was reported out of committee, I think sometime in late April. We didn't get to the bill for months after that. Why? We had it on the floor once, but it was pulled because of gun liability legislation, which some believed was more important than the bill directing

how we are going to handle the policy of our armed services.

Today, instead of pulling this bill for gun liability or some other extraneous issue, they are doing it with filibustering. They have more votes than we have. They control what happens on the floor most of the time, and they are not letting us vote on this amendment. The majority doesn't want to embarrass the White House, so they are content to sit on their hands and have the Iraqi Government over there talking about granting amnesty to those who kill Americans.

The President said he looked Prime Minister al-Maliki in the eye and said he is OK, ``I looked him in the eye.'' Well, I hope he saw in that eye the fact that this man was willing to grant amnesty to Iraqis who killed Americans. It is not an eye that I think the American people think is appropriate--amnesty for the killers of American troops. But it appears that the majority is willing to do this even if it jeopardizes our soldiers serving in Iraq by giving terrorists who want to attack them a get-out-of-jail-free card.

We can do a lot better than that. Let's put the excuses aside and do the right thing before another day passes. Let's join together and pass this amendment.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

We will vote on it in the morning.

If the Senator will yield, we just got a call that some Senator objects to this.

A Senator just called objecting to this request.

Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

I ask that the Senator, when we finish, be permitted to resume the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to ask the unanimous consent request made by the Senator from Virginia a few minutes ago be agreed to.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Virginia would yield--

--the problem we have is, the Senator from Connecticut wants to have his amendment heard prior to cloture. The problem is, there has not been a motion for cloture filed yet. If the cloture motion is filed tonight, then under the rules, an hour after we come in on Thursday, cloture would be voted on. That being the case, under the proposed unanimous consent agreement we have here, there is going to be a lot of hours used up prior to Thursday morning at 9 or 10, whenever we come in here. I think there are a lot of people who want to offer amendments, but unless they are germane amendments, there would be no guarantee that there would be a vote on them, other than the two here. We have had assurances that the Levin and the Kerry amendment, even though there would be a problem with cloture, they would allow a vote on that. I think realistically, it would be hard for anyone to guarantee a vote prior to cloture to the Senator from Connecticut.

That would certainly be long before cloture and the debate would be finished tonight, and we could slow up Senators Levin and Kerry by more than 20 minutes.

I respectfully request, I have spent nearly all of the day trying to work something out on these two amendments. Senator Levin and Senator Kerry can speak for themselves. I am not sure they want another hour. We can finish the debate on yours tonight and vote on it in the morning with 15 or 20 minutes evenly divided. Maybe something like that could be worked out, but I don't think there is an hour left. If these two men debate tomorrow night, we aren't going to finish this thing until some time late tomorrow night at best.

I would simply say this--and I appreciate very much the Senator from Iowa being so courteous--everyone is in agreement that we are going to try to work something out so that you and Senator Bingaman can get a vote on your amendment tomorrow morning. It is just a question of how we do it timewise.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, what is the matter before the Senate at this time?

We are on the Defense bill, then?

Mr. President, at an appropriate time I will lay down an amendment. Right now I will just speak on it for a few minutes.

(The remarks of Mr. Reid pertaining to the introduction of S. 3536 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, the hour of 4 o'clock will be here in a couple minutes, and I have a few more minutes to speak. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my statement using leader time, and that the 4 o'clock time for consideration of the judicial nomination be extended for probably less than 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner.

Yes, but I will do it at a subsequent time.

I want to talk to Senator Levin and the chairman before offering it.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Washington Ms. (Cantwell), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``yea.''

Mr. President, we live in a dangerous time, and that is an understatement. The threats to our freedom are many. They range from terrorist attacks such as those that hit our shores on 9/11 to rogue nations with nuclear ambitions such as North Korea and Iran.

It is important that we, as a country, address each of these threats. Recent history is rife with examples of what happens if we fail to do so. The threats don't go away; they only get worse.

This is a fact we can see in today's headlines about North Korea's new missile tests--they have not fired a missile since 1998; and from all reports we have been able to pick up on the news, they are now fueling another missile just prior to launch--and also in Iran, where efforts to halt the country's nuclear program have been delayed and complicated by the administration's, I believe, failures in Iraq.

This weekend, the Washington Post reported that top Bush administration officials ignored an offer from Iran in 2003, when American leverage in the region was at its height. The offer from Iran was to curtail its nuclear activities. This is very troubling.

Paul Pillar, the former head of Middle East analysis for the intelligence community, said that the U.S. position regarding Iran is ``inherently weaker now'' because of Iraq, and that ``there have been a lot of lost opportunities.'' One expert analyst said the administration's mismanagement ``strengthened the hands of those in Iran who believe the only way to compel the United States to talk or deal with Iran is not by sending peace offers but by being a nuisance.''

Today, I am introducing legislation which would improve Congress's oversight of the administration's efforts on Iran--the Iran Intelligence Oversight Act. The legislation will ensure that Congress is fully engaged in the Iran debate, and it will also push the Bush White House to develop and implement the right policy for dealing with Iran.

All of us are painfully aware of this Congress's unwillingness to hold this administration accountable for its mistakes and misjudgments. There has been virtually no oversight on anything.

I have said before that there has been a lack of a legislative branch of Government. The executive exists, the judicial branch exists, but the Founding Fathers' view to have three separate but equal branches of Government has not been in existence for the last 5\1/2\ years. The reason the President has not had to veto a single bill is he has gotten anything he wants from this Republican Congress.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has led the way in terms of stonewalling and rubber-stamping the Bush administration. Nearly 3 years into its investigation of the White House's politicization of Iraq intelligence, we still don't have a report.

Unfortunately, the committee record on Iran is not any better.

U.S. News and World Report had a quote earlier this spring from the committee's chairman, saying:

[W]e have not made the progress on our oversight of Iran

intelligence, which is critical.

U.S. News further said the panel had done only piecemeal scrutiny of the spy agencies' work on Iran, quoting a Republican staffer as saying:

There is no organized committee staff effort to look at

Iran right now. . . . It's all sort of on hold.

That is really too bad.

Perhaps Tehran will be kind enough to wait for them, but the Senate should not. The Senate must be engaged as we move our diplomacy forward with Iran. We must take seriously our responsibility to insist on a thorough review of the facts, a full debate of the threat, and full consultation as events move forward.

The legislation I am introducing today would put in place the rigorous oversight necessary to hold the administration accountable for its rhetoric and its all too frequent tendency to spin and distort the facts.

The act requires the administration to give Congress and the American people solid answers to three questions.

First, what is the judgment of the Government's professional intelligence analysts about the threat of Iran, and what tools are most likely to influence the Iranians to change their ways?

Second, what are the President's policy objectives with Iran, and what is his strategy for achieving these objectives?

Currently, we are only left to guess.

To the best of my knowledge, Congress has not yet been briefed on any of the key details of the deal offered to Iran a few weeks ago. The Iranians have been briefed, the Europeans have been briefed, the Russians have been briefed, the Chinese have been briefed--but not the U.S. Senate.

Congress needs to be in on the takeoff, not asked to board the plane for the crash landing.

Third, this legislation asks the question: What is the process for making sure that senior administration officials do not publicly mischaracterize the evidence and the challenge of Iran?

Much of what we heard from the administration in the run-up to Iraq about mushroom clouds, yellow cake, and aluminum tubes turned out to be overstated or based on intelligence that was known to be very, very suspect.

I am told that the most famous of the Vice President's speeches on Iraq--the August 2002 VFW speech that set the rush to war and dramatically overstated the threat from Iraq--was never even cleared by the intelligence community.

With my legislation in place, and with vigilance from Congress, we will be one step closer to ensuring this kind of misleading information does not happen regarding the threat posed by Iran.

I want to be clear: President Bush must take seriously the challenge of Iran, as I know he does, but the way to success will be a policy based on the facts. Under my legislation, the administration will be held accountable for anything less.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we live in a dangerous time, and that is an understatement. The threats to our freedom are many. They range from terrorist attacks such as those that hit our shores on 9/11 to rogue nations with nuclear ambitions such as North Korea and Iran.

It is important that we, as a country, address each of these threats. Recent history is rife with examples of what happens if we fail to do so. The threats don't go away; they only get worse.

This is a fact we can see in today's headlines about North Korea's new missile tests--they have not fired a missile since 1998; and from all reports we have been able to pick up on the news, they are now fueling another missile just prior to launch--and also in Iran, where efforts to halt the country's nuclear program have been delayed and complicated by the administration's, I believe, failures in Iraq.

This weekend, the Washington Post reported that top Bush administration officials ignored an offer from Iran in 2003, when American leverage in the region was at its height. The offer from Iran was to curtail its nuclear activities. This is very troubling.

Paul Pillar, the former head of Middle East analysis for the intelligence community, said that the U.S. position regarding Iran is ``inherently weaker now'' because of Iraq, and that ``there have been a lot of lost opportunities.'' One expert analyst said the administration's mismanagement ``strengthened the hands of those in Iran who believe the only way to compel the United States to talk or deal with Iran is not by sending peace offers but by being a nuisance.''

Today, I am introducing legislation which would improve Congress's oversight of the administration's efforts on Iran--the Iran Intelligence Oversight Act. The legislation will ensure that Congress is fully engaged in the Iran debate, and it will also push the Bush White House to develop and implement the right policy for dealing with Iran.

All of us are painfully aware of this Congress's unwillingness to hold this administration accountable for its mistakes and misjudgments. There has been virtually no oversight on anything.

I have said before that there has been a lack of a legislative branch of Government. The executive exists, the judicial branch exists, but the Founding Fathers' view to have three separate but equal branches of Government has not been in existence for the last 5\1/2\ years. The reason the President has not had to veto a single bill is he has gotten anything he wants from this Republican Congress.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has led the way in terms of stonewalling and rubber-stamping the Bush administration. Nearly 3 years into its investigation of the White House's politicization of Iraq intelligence, we still don't have a report.

Unfortunately, the committee record on Iran is not any better.

U.S. News and World Report had a quote earlier this spring from the committee's chairman, saying:

[W]e have not made the progress on our oversight of Iran

intelligence, which is critical.

U.S. News further said the panel had done only piecemeal scrutiny of the spy agencies' work on Iran, quoting a Republican staffer as saying:

There is no organized committee staff effort to look at

Iran right now. . . . It's all sort of on hold.

That is really too bad.

Perhaps Tehran will be kind enough to wait for them, but the Senate should not. The Senate must be engaged as we move our diplomacy forward with Iran. We must take seriously our responsibility to insist on a thorough review of the facts, a full debate of the threat, and full consultation as events move forward.

The legislation I am introducing today would put in place the rigorous oversight necessary to hold the administration accountable for its rhetoric and its all too frequent tendency to spin and distort the facts.

The act requires the administration to give Congress and the American people solid answers to three questions.

First, what is the judgment of the Government's professional intelligence analysts about the threat of Iran, and what tools are most likely to influence the Iranians to change their ways?

Second, what are the President's policy objectives with Iran, and what is his strategy for achieving these objectives?

Currently, we are only left to guess.

To the best of my knowledge, Congress has not yet been briefed on any of the key details of the deal offered to Iran a few weeks ago. The Iranians have been briefed, the Europeans have been briefed, the Russians have been briefed, the Chinese have been briefed--but not the U.S. Senate.

Congress needs to be in on the takeoff, not asked to board the plane for the crash landing.

Third, this legislation asks the question: What is the process for making sure that senior administration officials do not publicly mischaracterize the evidence and the challenge of Iran?

Much of what we heard from the administration in the run-up to Iraq about mushroom clouds, yellow cake, and aluminum tubes turned out to be overstated or based on intelligence that was known to be very, very suspect.

I am told that the most famous of the Vice President's speeches on Iraq--the August 2002 VFW speech that set the rush to war and dramatically overstated the threat from Iraq--was never even cleared by the intelligence community.

With my legislation in place, and with vigilance from Congress, we will be one step closer to ensuring this kind of misleading information does not happen regarding the threat posed by Iran.

I want to be clear: President Bush must take seriously the challenge of Iran, as I know he does, but the way to success will be a policy based on the facts. Under my legislation, the administration will be held accountable for anything less.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.