[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10503-S10504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        ISSUES BEFORE THE SENATE

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a couple of issues 
that I think are very important. One I will get to in a minute, the 
pending legislation before us, the issue of immigration, illegal 
immigration, and what we are trying to do to combat that in the Senate.
  Today, I am very hopeful that with the proper cooperation, we can get 
this done today and over to the President in the next 48 hours to begin 
the process of securing the border and dealing with an issue that may 
be the No. 1 issue in my State right now. I probably hear about this 
issue of illegal immigration from casual contact with my constituents 
in grocery stores, the train station, et cetera. I have more people 
asking me about the issue of illegal immigration than any other issue 
we deal with.
  It is remarkable in the sense that if you talk to folks here in 
Washington and the ``experts'' in the media, this is not important to 
people. Particularly, you would think in a State such as Pennsylvania, 
which is miles away from the southern border but not too far from the 
northern border, this would not be an important issue. But it is an 
important issue. It is one that I am very pleased the Senate is going 
to deal with today after, I think, making a misstep in the previous 
consideration of illegal immigration legislation. We have now taken a 
step in the right direction, a step where we put the horse before the 
cart instead of the cart before the horse. So I am very excited about 
that. I will mention that in a moment.
  There is one issue I wanted to get to. It is an issue the leader 
spoke about last night, the issue of Iran and the Iran Freedom and 
Support Act, which was passed in the House of Representatives 
yesterday. The House negotiated--and many of us in the Senate were 
involved, as well as the White House--and worked on an extension of the 
Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, to update that act, which needed to be done, 
and to take into consideration the change in dynamics in Libya and the 
change in dynamics with respect to Iran.
  There is no country that I see on the horizon that is more dangerous 
to the national security of this country, in my opinion, than the 
country of Iran--not just to the national security of this country but 
the safety and security of the world. We need to have a better regime 
of sanctions as well as a better overall policy for dealing with Iran 
than what we have today in the ILSA, or Iran Libya Sanctions Act.
  The House of Representatives, on a bipartisan basis, worked on the 
legislation, again, with the administration, which previously had 
opposed the Iran Freedom and Support Act, a bill that has 61 cosponsors 
here in the Senate, which we debated earlier this year. They took 
elements of that bill and the companion bill in the House, offered by 
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida. Working together with several House 
and Senate committees and with the administration, they were able to 
come up with a compromise and, again, many of us in the Senate worked 
with the administration and the House in crafting this. We were able to 
pass a bill that got so much support, they didn't even have to take a 
record vote on it. It passed by consent over there. That tells you the 
kind of strong support the bill enjoys. It was a bill authored by Tom 
Lantos and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and the chairman and ranking member of 
one of the committees of jurisdiction, the International Relations 
Committee, were on the legislation and, again, it passed yesterday 
unanimously. That bill now is sitting on the floor of the Senate, at 
the desk.
  The leader mentioned last night that it is our intent to bring this 
legislation up and to try to pass it in the Senate. We did not, last 
night, ask consent to do that because we were made aware there might be 
concerns on the other side of the aisle with respect to some of the 
provisions. We wanted to give ample opportunity to have the other side 
go through the legislation.
  Again, I state that this is not a new issue. I know the Democratic 
leader got up today and suggested that there have been no hearings on 
the bill and there hasn't really been a discussion on the bill. I will 
tell you that just within the last year, the following hearings were 
held:
  There was an ILSA reauthorization hearing in the Banking Committee, 
June 22; a terrorist threat hearing in the Homeland Security Committee, 
November 15 of last year; a nuclear Iran hearing, Foreign Relations 
Committee, March 2; response to nuclear Iran, Foreign Relations, 
September 19 of this year; Iran's nuclear and political ambitions, a 
two-part hearing, May 17 and 18 of this year; Iran's nuclear program/
intelligence, Foreign Relations Committee, May 11.
  In addition, as I mentioned, the Senate fully debated for 3 days the 
amendment I had offered to the National Defense Authorization Act back 
in June of this year. We debated that amendment for 3 days. We had a 
vote on the Senate floor. We had a full discussion of all of the 
provisions in the act, many of which, as I mentioned before, have been 
dropped. But many of the provisions that were debated were added to 
this bill--the ones that were noncontroversial. Things that were 
controversial were adapted to make them noncontroversial.
  To suggest that somehow this is a brandnew piece of legislation, we 
haven't seen this before, there haven't been any hearings, we don't 
know anything about it, is just not accurate. We have had a full 
debate.
  This is an important issue. For the United States Senate, for the 
Congress, the President to speak out on the issue of Iran at this time 
is critical as we confront, as we saw from a couple weeks ago, the 
machinations at the United Nations and President Ahmadinejad up there 
saber rattling as he does a little bit at the United Nations, but he is 
rattling sabers and all other types of weaponry in front of the people 
of Iran when he goes home and he speaks in his native language.
  This is a very serious and dangerous threat. It is without question 
the principal reason we are having increased problems in Afghanistan 
and Iraq, because of the influence of Iran. Iran is there with fighters 
from Iran, with money and support, weaponry from Iran to foment 
sectarian violence. One of the reasons we are having the level of 
sectarian violence that we see there is because of Iran and its stated 
intention of being the dominant view in the Islamic world. The clash 
between Shia and Sunni is front and center in the ideology of the 
ruling mullahs of Iran and the President of Iran, Ahmadinejad. This is 
what their objective is. It is part and parcel of their own war within 
their religion, but it is also part of their strategy of destabilizing 
Iraq so democracy cannot flourish because if democracy flourishes, then 
it is an opportunity for moderate Islam to win the day over the 
fanatics who are trying to destroy that religion and destroy the world.
  This is a vitally important issue for the Senate to bring up, I think 
no more important issue than for us to deal with this real threat, as I 
said on the floor a couple of weeks ago, I think the greatest threat 
that has ever faced this country and the world. If we do not act now 
when this threat is in its nascent stage, we risk cataclysmic 
consequences by not confronting this evil in time. We risk cataclysmic 
consequences if we don't, as this legislation permits, put increased 
sanctions on companies that do business with Iran and their nuclear 
program.
  This is a very important piece of legislation, one that is so 
important that we were able, as I mentioned before, to get this kind of 
very quick consideration on the floor of the House of Representatives, 
and it passed unanimously. People in the House understand the threat of 
Iran. I hope the Senate does so also.
  I will submit for the record the provisions of what this bill does. 
Some have suggested that it is a watered-down version of the Iran 
Freedom and Support Act. So to that degree I say, yes, it is, but it is 
watered down for the purpose of arriving at a consensus so we can speak 
into the moment.
  It does make major changes particularly with respect to the 
President's waiver. We have had ILSA now for 10 years. We have a 
situation where a waiver has only been utilized, to my recollection, 
one time because there is no requirement the President has to

[[Page S10504]]

use his waiver authority. The President can look at these issues and 
decide yes or no sanctions, but there is no trigger, there is no force 
for the President to actually do something.
  This compromise bill would encourage him to actually do something, to 
actually look at this information, make a decision, and if sanctions 
are warranted as a result of the investigation, then the President 
either has to impose those sanctions or waive them for six months. 
Right now he doesn't have to waive them. He simply keeps investigating. 
That is an important point to highlight.
  That is an important pressure point that Iran needs to know that we 
are ratcheting up--albeit slightly compared to the original Iran 
Freedom and Support Act--we are ratcheting up the pressure on this 
illicit regime in Iran to do something. It is very important for the 
future security of our country.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a fact sheet on the 
bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Fact Sheet on Santorum Iran Bill

       Senator Santorum and Majority Leader Frist worked with 
     House counterparts, House leadership, and Administration 
     officials to craft a new bill that provides for key 
     enhancements to the soon to expire Iran-Libya Sanctions Act 
     (ILSA).
       The bill also contains provisions that authorize assistance 
     to pro-democracy groups inside and outside Iran, and provides 
     additional authorities in the way of tools to curb money 
     laundering efforts that support WMD proliferation.
       The bipartisan House bill, H.R. 6198, was just passed by 
     the House by voice vote.
       This Santorum-Frist/Ros-Lehtinen-Lantos bipartisan Iran 
     Freedom and Support Act contains several crucial elements 
     that advance U.S. policy towards Iran:
       First, it codifies sanctions, controls and Executive Orders 
     in place against Iran. This was an important part of S. 333, 
     the Iran Freedom and Support Act. This is a way Congress can 
     make these important Executive Branch actions and measures 
     part of our laws.
       Second, the bill addresses the issue of investigating 
     foreign investments in Iran's energy sector and revises the 
     current waiver for the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. The 
     bipartisan bill strongly urges the Administration to 
     investigate investment activity in Iran and report to 
     Congress within 180 days on an investment. Instead of 
     continuing with the open-ended waiver in current law, the 
     bipartisan bill authorizes the President to avoid sanctioning 
     foreign companies that invest in Iran's energy sector only if 
     use of the waiver is vital to the national security interests 
     of the United States. This is a six-month waiver, not an 
     open-ended waiver. The bill permits the President to renew 
     this waiver for six month periods. The bill also extends 
     ILSA, due to expire on Friday, September 29, 2006, until the 
     end of 2011.
       Third, the bill directs the President to impose sanctions 
     on foreign entities that export, transfer or provide Iran 
     with WMD or WMD-related technologies or destabilizing 
     conventional weapons. The President must impose these 
     sanctions if a transfer occurs. This provision was also a key 
     component of S. 333, the Iran Freedom and Support Act.
       Fourth, and perhaps most important, the bill authorizes 
     assistance for pro-democracy forces inside and outside Iran. 
     These funds are authorized for groups that are committed to 
     democratic ideals, respect for human rights, and equality of 
     opportunity, among other things. Activities such as radio and 
     television broadcasting into Iran are examples of activities 
     that could be funded under this bill.
       Fifth, the bill states that Congress declares it should be 
     the policy of the U.S. to support the efforts of the people 
     of Iran to exercise self-determination over the form of their 
     government, and to support independent human rights and 
     peaceful pro-democracy forces inside Iran. This provision is 
     central to our efforts to successfully effect peaceful change 
     inside Iran.
       Sixth, there are provisions that enhance current money 
     laundering sanctions available to the government. Current law 
     is enhanced to enable Treasury to target entities that are 
     involved in money laundering related to the proliferation of 
     WMD and missiles.
       In all, the bill takes many of the provisions found in S. 
     333 and H.R. 282, the House companion, and blends them 
     together in a bill that has earned Administration support.
       The bill is supported by outside stakeholders such as the 
     American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am hopeful today that the leaders will 
be able to get together and will be able to get consent to move forward 
on this bill. I assure you, this is a bill we must pass. This is ``the 
extension'' of ILSA with some very well thought out, negotiated 
compromises between Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, as well 
as the administration. I am hopeful that we can get a successful 
conclusion to that bill. The security of our country demands it.

                          ____________________