[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11316-11347]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

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

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

  Pending:

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

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


                           Amendment No. 4253

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11317]]

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

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

[[Page 11318]]

little bit of it. As you watch it, you realize the heroic efforts that 
are being made by the men and women in the military who are providing 
emergency medical care to our soldiers who are shot in Iraq. It is 
incredible. It is heartbreaking to think about what they go through 
every day.
  Now, put it in the context where the major sources of military nurses 
are telling us they can't recruit enough nurses fast enough. Last year, 
the Army experienced a 30-percent shortage of certified registered 
nurse anesthetists, as one example.
  I have talked about civilian hospitals. According to the American 
College of Health Care Executives, 72 percent of hospitals have been 
experiencing a nursing shortage since 2004, and it is growing. This 
chart that I will show you is an indication of the projected shortfalls 
and shortages in registered nurses. The dark blue indicates the supply 
of nurses, which continues to decline, and, of course, the lighter 
blue, the shortage, which continues to increase. As you can see, our 
need for nurses is growing, and it is no surprise. We have an aging 
population that needs help: specialized medical care that requires 
specialized nurses. Time and again we find ourselves relying and 
counting on those nurses to be there, and we see from this chart as we 
project forward for the next 15 years that the problem is going to get 
much worse.
  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services looked at all 
licensed nurses, both civilian and military. They found that in the 
year 2000, our country was 110,000 nurses short of the number needed to 
adequately provide quality health care--110,000 across our Nation. Five 
years later, that shortage had doubled to 219,000 nurses that we needed 
and didn't have in America. By the year 2020, we will be more than 1 
million nurses short of what is necessary for quality health care.
  Now, the National Institutes of Health can engage in medical research 
to find new cures and treatments for diseases, and God bless them for 
all the work they do. The best and brightest minds can get together in 
laboratories and find new pharmaceuticals and new medical devices that 
give us a new lease on life. But we know that when the moment comes, 
when we need this help, we need a nurse. And if we find ourselves in a 
few short years with a million fewer nurses than we actually need, it 
will compromise the quality and availability of health care in America. 
It is not just a problem for the military, as I mentioned earlier, it 
is a nationwide problem.
  To avoid the vast shortages the Department of Health and Human 
Services is projecting, we have to make a significant and substantial 
increase in the number of nurses graduating and entering the workforce 
each year. Just to replace the nurses who are retiring, we need to 
increase student enrollment at nursing schools by 40 percent. This 
chart is an indication of where we are, starting in the year 2000. This 
shows the baseline supply of nurses across America, which you can see 
is declining. This next line, the green line, shows the demand which is 
going up dramatically for nurses in our society, and this purple line 
shows what happens if 90 percent--the supply if 90 percent more grads 
take place. So even increasing graduate nurses by 90 percent over the 
next 15 years will still leave us short of our national goal.
  Clearly, this is an emergency which has to be addressed. The baseline 
demand for nurses is rising; the supply is falling. If we increase the 
number of nurses graduating from nursing school by 90 percent by 2020, 
we are still not going to have enough.
  I might add parenthetically, there is another element to this issue. 
I have been involved in this as long as I have been in public service. 
Small hospitals, small towns come to you desperate because they have 
lost their doctor. They need a doctor, and I do my best to find a 
doctor. But in 9 cases out of 10, the doctor you find comes from a 
foreign land. Many doctors have come to the United States from India, 
from Asia, from Africa, and we welcome them. We greet their families 
warmly as they have come to our country, and they are meeting our 
needs. And I thank them for making the decision to come and be a part 
of the solution to America's health care problem. But I have come to 
learn that there are two sides to this equation. The other side of the 
equation, of course, is that these doctors and nurses and health care 
professionals are leaving a land, too.
  Last year, and over the last several years, we have taken 20,000 
health care professionals out of Africa; doctors and nurses, people who 
really are essential in the frontline of defense when it comes to 
medical care. We have attracted them to the United States, to England, 
to Germany, and to France, and it is no surprise that they want to be 
here. Doctors in central Africa are paid $600 a month by the 
Government, if they are paid. They work in substandard conditions. 
Despite their education, they struggle to provide even the most basic 
care. In the area of eastern Congo in Goma, where I visited with 
Senator Brownback just a few months ago, we learned that there was one 
doctor for every 160,000 people. Think about that: one doctor for every 
160,000 people. What is the number in the United States? We have 549 
doctors for every 100,000 people. Also, think about what it means when 
it comes to specialties like surgery.
  I asked them in this hospital in Goma in Congo--where women were 
lined up in long lines praying that this would be the day or the week 
or the month when they would finally have the necessary surgery that 
they had been waiting so long for--I asked them: How many surgeons do 
you have in this part of Africa? This doctor said to me: We have one 
surgeon for every 1 million people--one surgeon for every 1 million. 
What does that mean? It would mean in the United States, three surgeons 
for the entire city of Chicago. Think about what those poor people face 
without those medical professionals.
  So those who argue that the answer to our need in the United States 
will be bringing in nurses and doctors and professionals from around 
the world have to understand that this equation is not a zero sum. We 
end up bringing in these health care professionals at the expense of 
other countries and other people who face many more medical challenges 
than in the United States.
  Some would say: Well, that is their problem. They ought to pay their 
doctors more or train more. But it is our problem, too. If an avian flu 
epidemic, God forbid, should ever start, if there would be a 
transmission from an animal to a human, it would likely occur in one of 
these developing nations. If they don't have the capacity to move 
immediately to contain that crisis to make sure there are public health 
officials and doctors and nurses present, and if they don't do it 
within 21 days, that epidemic can circle the world.
  Diseases which used to die on immigrant ships coming across the ocean 
live quite well, unfortunately, on the airliners that crisscross this 
globe every single day. So if you take away the medical professionals 
in some of the poorest nations on Earth, you are opening the 
possibility that the dread diseases in that part of the world will make 
it to our part of the world. That is part of this shrinking globe on 
which we live.
  The problem, when you look at the United States, is that there are 
not enough teachers at schools of nursing. Last year, nursing colleges 
across America denied admission to 35,000 qualified applicants for 
nursing school simply because they didn't have enough teachers at the 
nursing schools. Think about that: 35,000 more nurses that we could 
train and have serving us and others in the military and civilian life.
  In my home State of Illinois, schools of nursing are denying 
qualified students admittance because they don't have enough teachers. 
Last year, 1,900 qualified student applicants were rejected from 
Illinois nursing schools because there weren't enough professors. 
Northern Illinois University in Dekalb, one of our best, was forced to 
turn down 233 qualified nursing applicants because they didn't have 
enough teachers and financial resources.
  Illinois State University, another top university in our State, 
increased its

[[Page 11319]]

enrollment by 50 percent in nursing over the past 5 years by working 
with health care systems and seeking grants, but last year, ISU was 
still forced to reject 100 qualified nursing applicants because they 
didn't have enough faculty and fiscal resources.
  Take a look at this chart which is an indication of what we are being 
told by nursing schools. Sixty-six percent, or two out of three nursing 
schools across the United States, tell us that they need additional 
faculty. We find that in some schools there are no vacancies and no 
additional faculty needed. That is 18 percent. And in 15 percent, 
almost 16 percent, there are no vacancies, but they could use 
additional faculty. They could expand. The American Association of 
Colleges of Nursing surveyed more than 400 schools of nursing last 
year. As I said, two out of three reported vacancies in their faculty. 
Fifteen percent said they are fully staffed but could use more faculty. 
These statistics paint a bleak picture for the availability of nursing 
faculties now and into the future.
  Take a look at this final chart I will show you which is showing that 
there is, as in most things in America, a graying of the population 
that serves us. The median age of doctorally prepared nursing faculty 
members is 52. The average age of retirement for faculty at nursing 
institutions is 62. It is expected that 200 to 300 doctorally prepared 
faculty will be eligible for retirement each year from 2005 to 2012, 
reducing faculty, even though more than a million are needed. The 
military recruits nurses.
  I want to thank all the men and women who are in nursing in the 
military and all in our medical professions. But they recruit from the 
same place that doctors and hospitals also recruit: civilian nursing 
schools.
  Unless we address the lack of faculty, there is going to be a 
shortage of nurses everywhere. In 1994, the Department of Defense 
established a program which is a terrific idea. It is called Troops to 
Teachers. It serves the dual purpose of helping relieve the shortages 
of math, science, and special education teachers in high-poverty 
schools and assists military personnel in making transitions from the 
military to a second career in teaching. It is a terrific idea. As of 
January 2004--listen to this--more than 6,000 former soldiers have been 
hired as teachers through the Troops to Teachers Program, and an 
additional 6,700 are now qualified teachers looking for placements. We 
need teachers, and the men and women trained and educated in the 
military who want to serve bring a special quality to this mission.
  The amendment which I have before the Senate will set up a pilot 
program--we call it Troops to Nurse Teachers--to encourage nurses in 
the Reserves, retiring nurses, or those leaving the military, to pursue 
a career teaching the future nurse workforce. More than 300 nurses left 
the Army last year. Historically, about 330 nurses leave the Air Force 
each year. Between 30 and 40 percent of the nurses in the Navy leave 
after they fulfill their initial obligation.
  The Troops to Nurse Teachers Pilot Program will provide transitional 
assistance for servicemembers who already hold a master's or Ph.D. in 
nursing or related field and are qualified to teach. Eligible 
servicemembers can receive career placement assistance, transitional 
stipends, and educational training from accredited schools of nursing 
to expedite their transition. Troops to Nurse Teachers will also 
establish a pilot scholarship program that will provide financial 
assistance to officers of the armed services who have been involved in 
nursing during their military service and help them obtain the 
education necessary to become nursing educators. Tuition stipends and 
financing for educational expenses would be provided. Recipients of 
scholarships must commit to teaching at an accredited school of nursing 
for at least 3 years in exchange for the educational support they 
receive. The Secretary of Defense may also require them to continue 
their service in selected reserve areas or perform other public service 
in exchange for this program.
  The supporters of this amendment include the American Nurses 
Association, the American Hospital Association, the American 
Association of Colleges of Nursing, the American Organization of Nurse 
Executives, the American Health Care Association, and the National 
League for Nursing.
  Let me conclude. We must increase the number of teachers preparing 
tomorrow's nursing workforce. With the aging of the baby boom 
generation, long-term needs of growing numbers of wounded veterans and 
military and civilian health care systems will need qualified nurses 
more than ever in the years to come. Let's take quality men and women 
serving in the armed services, who gave so much to this country, and 
tell them that when they leave the armed services there is an option 
where they can continue to serve America as professors and teachers in 
our nursing schools. This will increase the capacity of these nursing 
schools, provide more nurses for America, which is what we need, and 
lessen the demand for nurses to come from overseas where they are also 
desperately needed. I think this is a winning opportunity all across 
the board, and I encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle 
to support this bipartisan amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, let me acknowledge to my 
friend from Illinois he is attempting to, and I believe will 
successfully, resolve a problem. I happen to be more sensitive to this 
than most people. Two of my kids are doctors, and they assure me that 
this nurse shortage is nationwide. It is all out there.
  One of the concerns I had when this came up was I would not want this 
to detract from any of the other programs. Right now I have been one to 
say our military budget, our Defense authorization bill, is really not 
quite adequate as it is. It is my understanding the Senator has been 
very cooperative to make sure this doesn't happen.
  I have added my name as a cosponsor, and it is my understanding 
Senator Warner is going to be here shortly and wants to add his name. 
So the amendment would give the discretion to the DOD, working with the 
Department of Education, to structure a program that would achieve the 
dual goals of creating more nurse educators and more Reserve officers. 
I think we have the support of the committee on both sides, and I 
commend the Senator for bringing up this solution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I spoke with Senator Warner about this amendment. I would 
really appreciate his cosponsorship, but I don't want to ask his name 
be added until we are certain. If there are any difficulties on this 
amendment, I stand ready to change it. We want to find a good 
bipartisan response. There are just a few elements we are still working 
on.
  I don't know if the Senator from Oklahoma thinks this is the time for 
us to move for passage of the amendment or whether we should wait?
  Mr. INHOFE. I respond I personally think it is time to pass it. We 
have limited time. This is one that enjoys support from both sides of 
the aisle. I am sure the Senator from Virginia can put his name on this 
and will make his own expression when he gets here.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment to 
create a pilot program on troops to nurse teachers. America is facing a 
nursing shortage and it is getting worse. America's nurses are 
overworked, underpaid, and undervalued yet nursing schools are still 
forced to turn away qualified students. More than 30,000 qualified 
applicants were turned away last year. In Maryland, nursing programs 
turned away more than 2,000 qualified students last year. Why are they 
turning away all of these qualified applicants? Because there aren't 
enough teachers to teach them. This is the biggest bottleneck in ending 
the nursing shortage.
  The military is also facing a nursing shortage. Medicine is a 24-hour 
job. Military medicine is even harder. Our

[[Page 11320]]

military medical professionals have accomplished something truly 
remarkable in this war: injured troops who make it to a field hospital 
have a 96 percent rate of survival. That is a testament to our military 
doctors and nurses on the front lines.
  We need to make sure there are enough military nurses to continue to 
provide this outstanding care. Neither the Army nor the Air Force have 
met their nurse recruitment goals since the 1990s. In 2004, Navy Nurse 
Corps recruitment fell 32 percent below its target. The Air Force and 
Army are also 30 percent below their targets. All branches of the 
military are offering incentives for nurses to join the Armed Forces. 
But there simply aren't enough nurses to fill those jobs because there 
aren't enough teachers to train them. There is a pool of potential 
nurse educators in our retired nurse corps. We should take advantage of 
their experience and their dedication to teach the next generation of 
military nurses.
  This amendment would help to train the next generation of military 
nurses and help to curb the nursing shortage by encouraging nurse corps 
officers to become nurse educators. It establishes a ``Troops to Nurse 
Teachers'' pilot program which will provide scholarships and other 
financial assistance to nurse corps officers so that they can get 
advanced degrees to become nurse educators. In exchange for these 
scholarships, they must teach for at least 3 years in a school of 
nursing and continue service in either the reserves or another form of 
public service. This is modeled after the ``Troops to Teachers'' 
program which gives incentives to people leaving the military to become 
teachers. Since 1994, more than 8,000 former soldiers have been hired 
as teachers through this program.
  We must make sure our troops have enough nurses to keep them safe. 
The nursing shortage affects every State, every city, every town. And 
it affects our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are so many 
dedicated military nurses that still want to give back to their 
country. They can do this by teaching the next generation of military 
nurses. But we must empower them to choose nurse education--making it 
more affordable, providing opportunities for advancement--so nurses can 
move up instead of moving on and so our troops get the care that they 
need. I thank my colleagues for accepting this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4253) was agreed to.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I was outraged this morning when I 
read a Washington Post article that suggests that the Prime Minister of 
Iraq is willing to allow an amnesty for those who have taken American 
lives. In this article, the Prime Minister of Iraq is quoted as saying:

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

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

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

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


                           Amendment No. 4192

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11321]]

       (D) A strategy for ensuring the safety and security of 
     United States forces in Iraq during and after the December 
     31, 2006, redeployment, and a contingency plan for addressing 
     dramatic changes in security conditions that may require a 
     limited number of United States forces to remain in Iraq 
     after that date.
       (E) A strategy for redeploying United States forces to 
     effectively engage and defeat global terrorist networks that 
     threaten the United States.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to withdraw that amendment. 
I had intended to call up another amendment which has to do with the 
special inspector general for Iraq. Will the Chair tell me what the 
number of that amendment is? I have to clarify the number of this 
amendment. In light of that, I yield the floor so Senator Schumer can 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I read, as many did, in the newspapers 
this morning that the Prime Minister of Iraq has proposed giving 
amnesty to those incarcerated by the Iraqi Government who have killed 
or maimed Americans. It was stated that if Iraqis killed Iraqis they 
would not be given amnesty, but if Iraqis killed Americans, they would.
  That is an outrageous statement. For the Prime Minister of Iraq to 
offer a ``get out of jail free'' card to those who have killed American 
soldiers is an insult to the soldiers, their families, and every 
American.
  Just 2 days ago, the Prime Minister stood with President Bush, and 
President Bush said he looked in his eyes and saw that he was a good 
man. We are urging that President Bush call up the Prime Minister of 
Iraq immediately and get him to retract this pernicious, nasty 
statement which basically abdicates the great sacrifices that have been 
made by American soldiers for the people of Iraq.
  It is just mind-boggling to believe that the Iraqi Prime Minister 
would decide that it would be OK to give amnesty to those who hurt 
Americans. What kind of ally is this? Will he turn on us in 2 months or 
6 months? He seems to be the new hope of the new government, and within 
24 hours after President Bush leaves Iraqi soil, he defames the 
sacrifices of American soldiers and their families.
  President Bush, you should call your friend the Prime Minister and 
get him to retract this evil statement immediately. How can we ask 
America's young men and women to risk their lives in Iraq if those who 
seek to shoot at them are then absolved of any blame?
  This is a statement which should really go down in infamy, and I hope 
and plead with the President to urge the Iraqi Prime Minister to 
withdraw the statement and figure out what consequences should follow 
if the Prime Minister refuses.
  I yield the floor.


                     Amendment No. 4192, withdrawn

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


                           amendment no. 4256

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their 
patience. I had identified the wrong amendment. I got that clarified.
  What I wish to tell my colleagues is that this amendment strengthens 
the Special Inspector General for Iraq and ensures that U.S. taxpayer 
dollars will be spent wisely, efficiently, and within the law.
  The Special Inspector General for Iraq, known as ``SIGIR,'' was 
established in 2003. I worked hard with a few of my colleagues in 
creating this office to monitor, audit, and report on the expenditure 
of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars that this body appropriated to the 
Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.
  My amendment is relatively simple. It recognizes the fact that we 
need to continue to ensure oversight and monitoring of U.S. taxpayer 
dollars that continue to support reconstruction efforts in Iraq, which 
includes over $1.6 billion in the latest supplemental for Iraq 
reconstruction and in the fiscal year 2006 foreign operations bill. It 
increases the mandate of the Special Inspector General for Iraq, while 
also extending the period for which that office will be in existence.
  This amendment will strengthen the capabilities of the Special IG to 
monitor, audit, and inspect funds made available for assistance for 
Iraq in both the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund--IRRF--and in 
other important accounts.
  I offer this amendment today because it is my firm belief that we 
should not be pouring tens of billions of dollars into Iraq 
reconstruction without ensuring there is appropriate oversight and 
auditing. American taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going 
in this costly war and that it is being used effectively and 
efficiently and ending up in the right place.
  The SIGIR's work to date has been extremely valuable to the U.S. 
Government and to Congress. The SIGIR has now completed over 55 audit 
reports, issued over 165 recommendations for program improvement, and 
has seized $13 million in assets. Overall, the SIGIR estimates that its 
operations have resulted in saving the U.S. Government over $24 
million, in addition to the considerable wasteful or fraudulent 
spending that office has uncovered.
  Throughout 2005, the Iraq IG provided aggressive oversight to prevent 
waste, fraud and abuse in the at-times lethal operating environment in 
Iraq. Its emphasis on real-time auditing--where guidance is provided 
immediately to management authorities upon the discovery of a need for 
change--provides for independent assessments while effecting rapid 
improvements.
  In its January report to Congress, the SIGIR concluded that massive 
unforeseen security costs, administrative overhead, and waste have 
crippled original reconstruction strategies and have prevented the 
completion of up to half of the work originally called for in critical 
sectors such as water, power, and electricity. The Iraq IG's work has 
resulted in the arrest of five individuals who were defrauding the U.S. 
Government, and it has shed light on millions of dollars of waste. It 
is this kind of investigation and reporting that helps shape the 
direction of reconstruction funding and ensures that the money is being 
used and allocated as transparently and effectively as possible.
  I pushed to create the Special Inspector General for Iraq in order to 
ensure that there is critical oversight of the

[[Page 11322]]

Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund allocated for Iraq reconstruction 
projects. Last year I fought to extend the life of this office, and my 
amendment today will ensure that the SIGIR has the capability and the 
life-span to finish up work associated with monitoring, evaluating, and 
reporting on how U.S. taxpayer dollars are being spent in Iraq for 
reconstruction purposes.
  Let me talk briefly about what my amendment actually does. Because 
current legislation requires that the SIGIR continue its work until 80 
percent of the IRRF had been expended, and unless we do something to 
change this, the SIGIR will cease to exist before U.S. taxpayer dollars 
going to Iraq reconstruction have been expended. This means that 
despite the fact that we continue to support Iraq reconstruction 
efforts, we are removing our ability to oversee billions of taxpayer 
dollars.
  To help avoid this potentially costly and unnecessary challenge, this 
amendment considers any money going to Iraq reconstruction efforts--
regardless of whether or not it is in the IRRF--be subject to the 
SIGIR's oversight mandate. It will also help determine when we can ask 
the SIGIR to stand down.
  This amendment is common sense. The SIGIR's great work has more than 
paid for itself, and it has developed a capacity that is unparalleled 
by either DoD or State's inspector general offices. The SIGIR is doing 
great work, and I, along with my distinguished colleagues Senator Levin 
and others, believe that this small change in the law will allow us to 
tell our constituents that we are making every effort to ensure that 
their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being used in the most effective 
way possible. Let's support the SIGIR, and lets give it the time and 
mandate to monitor Iraq reconstruction funds.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we should consult with leadership. The 
yeas and nays having been ordered, I wonder if the Senator would be 
gracious enough to allow the Senator from Michigan and myself to 
consult with leadership as to the time for a vote.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if it is all right with the Senator from 
Virginia, it is my understanding that it will be taken by voice vote.
  Mr. WARNER. Is that the intent?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I want to be make sure it has been cleared on the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it was my understanding that this was 
either cleared or was going to be supported by the chairman. I did not 
confirm that with my friend. That is a little bit in limbo. I very much 
support the Senator's amendment. I hope it can be cleared. If so, 
apparently the Senator is willing to take a voice vote.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I could proceed with my remarks in support of 
the amendment while they discuss it.
  I support the Feingold amendment to ensure that the Special Inspector 
General for Iraq Reconstruction has jurisdiction over funds 
appropriated for the reconstruction of Iraq.
  As the Senator from Wisconsin has mentioned, Congress established the 
Special Inspector General position in a fiscal year 2004 emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill to ensure effective oversight and 
audit of relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The Special 
Inspector General reports jointly to the Secretaries of Defense and 
State and has responsibility for oversight of operations and programs 
funded by the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. The Senator from 
Wisconsin last year offered an amendment to extend the position. It was 
very welcome. It was a very useful and important contribution. I 
commend him for it. It is unfortunate that the most recent emergency 
supplemental which we just passed today would appropriate funds for 
Iraq reconstruction without including those funds in the Iraq Relief 
and Reconstruction Fund. It is important that this amendment be agreed 
to so as to ensure that this Special Inspector General for Iraq 
Reconstruction has jurisdiction over all funds appropriated for the 
reconstruction of Iraq.
  Under current law, this funding approach would have the effect of 
excluding reconstruction projects using these new funds from the 
jurisdiction of the Special Inspector General.
  The State Department says that its Inspector General would be 
responsible for auditing the use of these funds. However, the State 
Department IG, unlike the Special Inspector General, does not have a 
significant presence in Iraq and does not have experience in auditing 
contracts and ferreting out fraud in the unique environment of Iraq.
  For the last 3 years, the Special Inspector General has been the only 
source of consistent, independent, on-the ground review of 
reconstruction activities in Iraq. As a result, the Special Inspector 
General has reported case after case of criminal fraud and egregious 
waste that would otherwise have gone unremedied. Report after report 
documents cases--at al Hillah General Hospital, Babylon Policy Academy, 
Karbala Library, Baghdad International Airport and elsewhere--in which 
we paid contractors millions of dollars for work without making site 
visits, issuing performance reports, preparing post-award assessments, 
or taking other steps to ensure that the work we paid for was actually 
performed. In case after case, the Special Inspector General determined 
that either the contractor's performance was deficient or the work was 
not performed at all.
  One particularly egregious case reviewed by the Special Inspector 
involved a $75 million contract with Kellogg Brown and Root, KBR, to 
develop a Pipeline River Crossing at Al Fatah, Iraq. The Special 
Inspector General reported that the project ailed because subsurface 
geologic conditions made it impossible to carry out the project design. 
These conditions were identified by a consultant before work commenced, 
but neither the Army Corps of Engineers nor KBR acted on the 
consultant's recommendation to perform additional research that would 
have prevented the failure.
  A subject matter expert for the Coalition Provision Authority 
recognized that KBR had limited experience in this type of project and 
advised that the project would probably fail because design 
restrictions provided no flexibility to accommodate site conditions. 
However, KBR refused to conduct design reviews requested by the subject 
matter expert.
  The Army Corps of Engineers awarded KBR a firm fixed price contract 
with no performance requirements. As a result, KBR was assured that it 
would get paid the full contract amount, regardless whether it 
successfully completed the project.
  A KBR subcontractor identified problems with the site conditions at 
the outset of the project and suggested alternative drilling sites, but 
was turned down by KBR. KBR prohibited the subcontractor from talking 
directly to the Army Corps of Engineers and told the Army Corps that 
detailed cost reports would not be provided, because they were not 
required by the contract.
  As a result, we spent the entire $75 million allocated to the 
project, but achieved only 28 percent of the planned pipeline 
throughput. According to the Inspector General, the lack of pipeline 
capacity resulted in the loss of more than $1.5 billion in potential 
oil revenues to the Iraqi government.
  The Special Inspector General is the only U.S. audit and 
investigative authority with a significant on-the-ground presence in 
Iraq. He is the only inspector general who has an experienced staff 
with hands-on knowledge of how things work in Iraq. He is the only 
inspector general who has shown the capacity and the desire to turn 
over rocks in Iraq to identify and address problems of fraud and 
criminal conduct.
  If we are serious about protecting the taxpayer and preventing 
contractor abuses in Iraq, we will adopt this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Feingold amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.

[[Page 11323]]

  We are trying to work this out. There is a problem. The problem is 
not to the generic virtues of Senator Feingold's amendment--which, 
incidentally, I support--but it is a question of the allocation of some 
funding in it and how that impacts on other areas of funding. As soon 
as I can work that out, I will advise the Senate. I am hopeful we can 
eventually go to a vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while that is being worked on--I hope we 
can resolve that because this is a very important amendment. We want 
that Special Inspector General, who is really doing the only 
significant oversight on the expenditure of these billions of dollars 
in Iraq, to perform the same oversight functions on the appropriations, 
for instance, which we just adopted.
  I again commend the Senator from Wisconsin. It was at his instigation 
and his initiative that we extended this Special Inspector General's 
Office last year, and it was that initiative which has paid off so 
handsomely for us. This initiative is critically important or else we 
might, I think inadvertently, not have the same watchdog looking over 
the most recent appropriations we adopted.
  I also believe the Special Inspector General actually testified 
before the Chair's subcommittee earlier this year, so the Presiding 
Officer has had the ability to hear firsthand from the Special 
Inspector General about his operations.
  By the way, I commend our Presiding Officer for those hearings. They 
were very helpful.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are prepared to go ahead with a voice 
vote at this time, if it is agreeable. I add my endorsement of the 
basic thrust of the amendment. Like others, I have had the opportunity 
to be debriefed by the inspector general, and I am very impressed with 
his conscientious service on this matter. He periodically goes over to 
Iraq, that theatre, and Afghanistan, for periods of time. He has 
accepted the challenges of this post with enormous enthusiasm and 
skill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank both the ranking member and 
chairman for their comments and support.
  My understanding is the chairman wants to take this by voice vote. 
Therefore, I ask the yeas and nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4256) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the leadership and the managers have 
reached a recommended unanimous consent request which I now propound.
  I ask unanimous consent at 12 noon today the Senate proceed to a vote 
in relation to Santorum amendment No. 4234, to be followed by a vote in 
relation to a first-degree amendment to be offered by Senator Biden 
related to the same subject; further, I ask unanimous consent that the 
time until 12 be equally divided between myself, representing Senator 
Santorum and others, and Senator Levin, with no second degrees in order 
to either amendment prior to the votes; provided there be 2 minutes for 
debate equally divided between the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is it my 
understanding that following the disposition of these two amendments 
that then a Democratic amendment would be the next in order?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am not able to answer that question. I 
believe that would be correct. I would be perfectly willing to have it 
that way because I know we did Senator Durbin's this morning.
  Mr. LEVIN. With that understanding--and there will be a Senator 
Nelson of Florida amendment, so you are on notice relative to that--I 
have no objection.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I first want to apologize to the chairman 
and ranking member that I came to the floor and realized they were in 
the process of doing this because I certainly would have spoken to them 
in advance before making this request. But I hope they will agree to 
this request.
  We have just been informed at the Department of Defense that we have 
now lost our 2,500th soldier in Iraq. Last October, when we lost our 
2,000th, the Senate observed a moment of silence in respect for all of 
the soldiers and those serving in uniform and their families. I would 
like to ask if the chairman would consider amending his request so that 
between the two rollcalls, when Members are on the floor, that they 
would come to their chairs and we would observe a moment of silence in 
respect for our troops and for this notification that we have reached 
this sad milestone.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I so amend the unanimous consent request 
that there be a time not to exceed whatever is appropriate for this 
proper recognition by the Senate of the loss of life.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for this 
suggestion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we are ready for the Senator from 
Delaware.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. WARNER. Let it be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today for two purposes: one is to 
speak against the Santorum amendment relating to Iran--the Iran 
sanctions--and, two, to offer an amendment relating to the negotiations 
that are now underway by the President of the United States.
  Let's cut right to it, if I may. Are we going to stand aside while 
the President of the United States of America is trying to stop the 
development of a nuclear bomb in Iran? The President of the United 
States of America has made a judgment--I would argue, finally, but he 
has made a judgment--that the best way to keep the worst thing from 
happening is to cooperate with our friends to put pressure on the bad 
guy.
  What do I mean by that? The President of the United States, I assume 
at the urging of the Secretary of State--although it is not relevant, 
actually--the President of the United States took a more aggressive 
course about a month ago in attempting to stop the Iranians from 
developing a nuclear weapon, a weapon that, if developed in conjunction 
with a missile, could change, in a material way, the dynamics in the 
Middle East and particularly relating to our interests, notwithstanding 
the fact that it might not be able to strike the United States--a 
development that if it occurred would almost assuredly put great 
pressure on the Sunni Arabs in the region, who have lots of money, to 
join with possibly Egypt or another country to develop a Sunni bomb. 
This is not a good thing.

[[Page 11324]]

  So the President, in conjunction with France, Germany, and the United 
Kingdom, our three largest European allies, along with China, and 
Russia, has agreed to and has been sitting down and making a specific 
proposal, which the President of the United States has pledged the 
United States to, in order to both entice as well as dissuade the 
Iranians from pursuing their course. There are two pieces to it. One, 
it says to the Iranians: If you cooperate and verifiably cease and 
desist, we, the United States, the three European countries, China, and 
Russia, will move forward with the following incentives to move you 
closer to the family of nations as a responsible nation. And there are 
a set of very specific incentives that the President of the United 
States of America has signed on to--quote, an ``offer,'' if you will, 
to the Iranian Government.
  It also says, as was reported in the New York Times and the 
Washington Post today, that the Chinese, as well as the Americans and 
Russians, have communicated a second piece of information to the 
Iranians: If you do not cease and desist, these bad things are going to 
happen to you, and we are all jointly--jointly--going to impose them on 
you.
  I think that was a stroke of significant diplomacy on the part of the 
President, which basically, as I understand it, the Europeans, 
Russians, and Chinese said: Will you join us in some of the carrots? 
And the President, as I understand it, said: Yes, if you join me in the 
strikes. It is carrots and sticks.
  I know of no way to avoid one of two alternatives: one is the 
resignation to the acceptance of an Iranian weapon, and relying upon 
deterrence; or, two, the use of military force against Iran to prevent 
the development of that weapon.
  My friend from Pennsylvania, as well as all of us on this floor, have 
received, I expect, the same extensive briefings I have on just how 
limited those alternatives are at this point militarily.
  So I think the President has chosen a very reasonable course here. 
But even if you disagree with it, one of the things that--and I have 
been here during seven Presidents, and I have been very critical of 
this President's foreign policy--but the idea, in the midst of a 
negotiation, at the point at which the world is expecting and waiting 
and wondering what Iran's response will be, that the U.S. Senate would 
go on record as tying the President's hands in this negotiation--I find 
that amazing, absolutely amazing.
  I spoke this morning with the Secretary of State who authorized me to 
say, unequivocally, the administration opposes this amendment. It 
limits their flexibility in doing what we all want: preventing the 
construction of a nuclear weapon in Iran. How much clearer can the 
administration be? And as my Grandfather Finnegan from my home State of 
Pennsylvania used to say: Who died and left you boss? Since when do we 
negotiate for a President? We are in the midst of a negotiation. The 
only thing we have going for us now, with China, Russia, and Europe all 
siding with us, we are about to mess up? Folks, I think this is such a 
tragic mistake--well-intended but tragic. The underlying amendment, Mr. 
Santorum's amendment, in my view, and in the view of the Secretary of 
State, actually advocates a policy that would jeopardize President 
Bush's initiative and, I believe, play directly into the hands of 
Iranian hard-liners.
  I think if you read the language, it also has the potential to damage 
relations with some of the key countries whose cooperation we need to 
pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. If this approach were 
adopted, we would be in the untenable position of sanctioning companies 
located in countries that we are asking to impose sanctions on Iran if 
they fail to accept the offer put forward by Russia, China, Europe, and 
the United States.
  It does not, with all due respect to my friend, because I have joined 
him in Iran sanctions legislation in the past--I have joined him--but 
this is a different amendment and it is a fundamentally different time.
  I remember going down to see the President when he was making his 
first trip to Europe. He asked whether I would come down and speak with 
him and his staff and I did. It was very gracious of him to ask my 
opinion, which was very nice of him. He said he was going to Germany. 
And he said--I am paraphrasing--I understand you have been asked to 
speak to the Bundestag, the German Parliament.
  I said: Yes, I have, Mr. President.
  He said: I understand you have turned it down.
  I said: Yes, I have, Mr. President.
  He said: Why?
  I said: Mr. President, we only have one President. You are my 
President. My disagreements with you on foreign policy--at that time it 
related to the Balkans and some other things--I think it is totally 
inappropriate, while you are in Europe, while you are in discussions 
with the very people who invited me to speak, for me to go and publicly 
afront you in a foreign capital before their--their--Parliament, the 
very Parliament you are going to be speaking to. I am not President. 
You are our President. And he pressed: Well, why?
  And I said, somewhat facetiously--and I have had this discussion with 
Newt--I am not Newt Gingrich. I don't go to the Middle East and speak 
to Middle Eastern Parliaments while the previous Secretary of State is 
there negotiating. I think it is inappropriate.
  The President of the United States is in the midst of the most 
important negotiations, absent Korea--and not much is going on there--
that we have had since he has been President. And even if everything in 
here makes sense, why would we now do this?
  My plea to my friend from Pennsylvania is: Withhold this amendment. 
See what happens in the negotiations. If, in fact, they fail--as they 
have an overwhelming prospect that could happen--then come back to the 
Senate and the Congress to put on these restrictions.
  Mr. President, may I ask how much time the Senator from Delaware has 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 50 seconds.
  Mr. BIDEN. I say to my friend from Pennsylvania--I have not had a 
chance to speak to him personally--I say to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, I have an amendment.
  Mr. President, have I sent my amendment to the desk? Is the Biden 
amendment at the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is at the desk but not called up.


                           Amendment No. 4257

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

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

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that:
       (1) The pursuit by the Iranian regime of a capability to 
     produce nuclear weapons represents a threat to the United 
     States, the Middle East region, and international peace and 
     security.
       (2) On May 31, 2006, Secretary of State Rice announced that 
     the United States would join negotiations with Iran, along 
     with the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, provided that 
     Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and 
     reprocessing activities.
       (3) On June 1, 2006, President George W. Bush stated that 
     ``Secretary Rice, at my instructions, said to the world that 
     we want to solve the problem of the Iranian nuclear issue 
     diplomatically. And we made it very clear publicly that we're 
     willing to come to the table, so long as the Iranians 
     verifiably suspend their program. In other words, we said to 
     the Iranians [that] the United States of America wants to 
     work with our partners to solve the problem''.
       (4) On June 1, 2006, the United States, the United Kingdom, 
     France, Germany, the People's Republic of China, and the 
     Russian Federation agreed upon a package of incentives and 
     disincentives, which was subsequently presented to Iran by 
     the High Representative of the European Union, Javier Solana.

[[Page 11325]]

       (b) Sense of Congress.--Congress--
       (1) endorses the policy of the United States, announced May 
     31, 2006, to achieve a successful diplomatic outcome, in 
     coordination with leading members of the international 
     community, with respect to the threat posed by the efforts of 
     the Iranian regime to acquire a capability to produce nuclear 
     weapons;
       (2) calls on Iran to suspend fully and verifiably its 
     enrichment and reprocessing activities, cooperate fully with 
     the International Atomic Energy Agency, and enter into 
     negotiations, including with the United States, pursuant to 
     the package presented to Iran by the High Representative of 
     the European Union; and
       (3) urges the President and the Secretary of State to keep 
     Congress fully and currently informed about the progress of 
     this vital diplomatic initiative.

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


                           Amendment No. 4234

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time as our colleague wishes. 
I ask unanimous consent that each manager have at least 3 minutes to 
address this at the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. With respect to the Biden amendment, I was handed a 
copy of it a couple minutes ago. But having read it, it is a sense of 
the Senate. I don't see any reason not to support the Biden amendment. 
I have no problem with the language. It basically says that we hope for 
a resolution to the diplomatic efforts under way, a positive resolution 
with respect to Iran not pursuing nuclear weapons. That is no problem 
for me. But it doesn't do anything other than say we wish you well.
  The amendment I have offered is an amendment that is in substance the 
bill that passed the House of Representatives in April with over 300 
votes. At the time it passed, prior to the negotiations that were 
commenced at the end of May by the administration, as the Senator from 
Delaware suggested, when it passed in April, the administration opposed 
it. I suspect, although I will let the Senator from Delaware speak for 
himself, I know he is not a cosponsor of my bill that is in the Foreign 
Relations Committee, and, to my knowledge, Senator Lugar has not 
supported this legislation. The State Department has not supported my 
legislation. It is not surprising to me that they don't support this 
amendment. They don't generally support amendments that have to do with 
sanctions and forcing them to do things they don't want to do.
  We are a coequal branch of Government, and it is vitally important 
for us at a critical time--and I agree with the Senator from Delaware 
on this, this is a critical time. I disagree with him on several 
things. One of the things on which I disagree with him, I think these 
negotiations are more important than North Korea. I think the threat of 
Iran and Islamic fascism is more significant than the threat posed by 
North Korea.
  I believe this is a vitally important negotiation. I think it is 
vitally important during the course of these negotiations to speak to 
them and to speak in support not only in words but in deeds of what the 
President is trying to accomplish. The deeds here are very clear. It is 
twofold. The Senator from Delaware suggested there are not very many 
good options on the table.
  The two options on the table, other than military force, are in this 
amendment. Those two options are to support prodemocracy efforts within 
Iran, to try to see if we can get a peaceful transformation of that 
government. The second is to try to dissuade the Iranians from moving 
forward and dissuade others, companies and countries, from working with 
them in development of their nuclear weapons program. Those are the 
options.
  The President is trying to do it through a diplomatic arrangement. I 
wish him the very best. But I remind everybody here who is going to 
vote, this is not going to the President today. It is not going to the 
President next week. It is not going to the President next month. This 
is an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. It will be months, I 
am sure. I would be amazed if we were able to get this done before 
September or October. This bill is not going to be decided upon, this 
amendment is not going to be concluded and passed on to the President 
before these negotiations come to a conclusion. What we do here is put 
ourselves in a position to have an amendment in conference ready to 
move if these negotiations do not work.
  Putting off this amendment is not such an easy thing to do. Putting 
off this amendment and finding a vehicle to attach it to, particularly 
over the next few weeks, is not going to be easy to do, as we bring up 
appropriations bills. So this may be the last vehicle between now and 
the summer recess in August and potentially the rest of this Congress 
to debate this issue. It is important for us to speak to this issue 
now.
  This is not a radical piece of legislation. This is a piece of 
legislation that has 61 cosponsors that passed with over 300 votes in 
the House of Representatives. It has broad bipartisan support. I 
understand it is opposed by the Department of State. Senator Warner was 
kind enough to show the letter that came from the Department suggesting 
their opposition. I remind all Members, they opposed this bill and have 
consistently, not just because of these negotiations but have opposed 
this bill, period. They opposed it when the House passed it in April. 
So this is nothing new.
  I suggest that the opportunity we have on the most important national 
security issue facing this country, the threat of Islamic fascism and 
the threat of Iran as the principal cog in orchestrating, supporting, 
financing, and encouraging this type of behavior, is to speak into the 
moment where we are confronting them right now with our administration 
in their development of nuclear weapons. For the Congress to remain 
silent, for the Congress to step back and say: We wish you well, Mr. 
President, but we are not going to go on record of really supporting 
you, in deed not just in word, will be interpreted one way, in my 
opinion, the way words are always interpreted. I think the Senator from 
Delaware said that this will play into the hardliners in Iran. Let me 
remind the Senator from Delaware, the hardliners run Iran. The 
hardliner is the President of Iran. The hardliners are the mullahs who 
run the country. There are not hardliners and

[[Page 11326]]

then the governing powers of Iran. The hardliners are the governing 
powers of Iran. They are the ones making the decision. We are not 
playing into their hands. We are telling them we are serious, as 
serious as the President is about doing something about their 
development of nuclear weapons and their desire and explicit statements 
about their willingness to use those weapons on the State of Israel and 
others.
  This is a very serious debate. This is a very serious vote. This is a 
very serious message that we either will or will not send. Are we going 
to send a message to the Iranian hardliners that we are going to stand 
by our President in word and action and that we are not going to let 
their talk of maybe possibly down the road potentially coming and 
talking to us, which is all they are talking about right now, dissuade 
us from acting while they are acting right now in developing nuclear 
capability, which they are. They are acting right now. They are 
developing. They are pursuing. They are saying they are going to use 
it. All we are going to say is: Well, your talk about maybe talking to 
us in the future will dissuade us from acting? No, it should not. We 
should act today. We have 61 cosponsors of this legislation. I hope 
that all 61 and then some stand by and say to the Iranian hardliners/
government that we will stand with our President in word and deed and 
make sure that we do everything we can through peaceful means, and that 
is what this amendment is about, to stop them from getting nuclear 
weapons.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. I ask to speak for up to 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I appreciate the time from the 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  I rise to strongly support the Biden amendment. It is the responsible 
and appropriate position for this body to take on a very serious issue. 
It is important that we recognize, just as the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania has noted, that we support our President. I believe 
President Bush's actions and directions, as they are now playing out, 
are, in fact, the appropriate, responsible, and relevant actions to 
take.
  I also rise to strongly oppose the Santorum amendment. Again, noting 
what the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania said, that we should 
send a strong message to the world that we are supporting our 
President, I am not certain how that is accomplished by supporting the 
Santorum amendment. In fact, as has been noted on the floor this 
morning, the President's senior foreign policy agent, the Secretary of 
State, Dr. Rice, is opposed. The Secretary of State of the United 
States Government is opposed to the Santorum amendment. I am not 
certain how that connects with what my distinguished colleague from 
Pennsylvania has noted.
  What we are dealing with in the Santorum amendment is a very 
irresponsible, dangerous direction to take. Let me remind colleagues 
that we already are at war in two nations. We have 130,000 American 
troops engaged now in a war in Iraq. The Middle East is in turmoil. We 
have 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. NATO is in Afghanistan. Many of our 
allies are with us in Iraq.
  We better be careful here. We better be careful in how we are dealing 
with this issue. It is a serious issue. It is dangerous. But it is 
complicated. Iran is not a monolithic government that we can ascribe 
motives to, agreements to. Our best course of action is exactly where 
the President is going. And that is, engaging Iran, engaging with our 
allies, strengthening our alliances. If we are not careful, we will 
find America isolated in the world at a very dangerous time. That is 
what the Santorum amendment is about.
  This is not helping our President. Our President is opposed to it. He 
is taking a different direction.
  Let's be careful. This is not just some amendment. This is the force 
of the U.S. Senate that could be put into a law in fact limiting the 
President's options. Is that what we want to do and is that how we 
describe supporting the President, limiting the President's options? I 
don't think so. This is dangerous business, very dangerous business. 
Before our colleagues vote, they better understand what is going to be 
required.
  Again, I thank my distinguished colleague from Virginia for the time. 
I hope our colleagues, before they vote, will understand the 
consequences of a dangerous amendment like this. I shall oppose it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I ask the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania, in fairness, I think he should wrap this debate up. 
How many minutes does he desire?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I understand I have 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator has 4 minutes, and 
the managers have 3 minutes left.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let us establish the hour of 12:15 for the 
vote, with 5 minutes at the conclusion for the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania and 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from 
Virginia and 5 minutes under the control of Senator Levin. I ask 
unanimous consent that be the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleagues here 
that in the course of this debate, I have studied this matter very 
carefully. I spoke out on it yesterday expressing my concerns. I do 
believe the actions proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania are not 
irresponsible. They are a clear matter of conscience and what he thinks 
is in our best interest.
  My concern, which I think is the Senator's concern, is that the 
timing is unwise. I support the Senator from Nebraska in that 
observation, as I do the Senator from Delaware, because we have a 
negotiation of great sensitivity underway at the direction of the 
President, who, under the Constitution of the United States, has the 
primary responsibility in the matter of conducting foreign affairs. His 
chief designee, the Secretary of State, has spoken through Senator 
Biden.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter 
addressed to me, to which I will refer momentarily, from the Department 
of State.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Department of State,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 2006.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: It is our understanding that the Iran 
     Freedom Support Act (S. 333) will soon be offered as an 
     amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 
     2007 (S. 2766). The Administration has serious concerns about 
     S. 333, and therefore opposes its inclusion in S. 2766.
       As Secretary Rice recently announced, Iran is being offered 
     a choice: either continue to pursue nuclear weapons and face 
     isolation and progressively stronger sanctions, or verifiably 
     abandon uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities and 
     receive civil nuclear energy and economic cooperation from 
     the international community. We are in agreement with our 
     European partners on the elements of the benefits if Iran 
     makes the right choice, and the costs if it does not. More 
     broadly, we have found support from Russia and China for this 
     approach.
       The amendment runs counter to our efforts and those of the 
     international community to present Iran with a clear choice 
     regarding their nuclear ambitions. This amendment, if 
     enacted, would shift unified international attention away 
     from Iran's nuclear activities and create a rift between the 
     U.S. and our closest international partners. Moreover, it 
     would limit our diplomatic flexibility.
       By contrast, we endorse the concept of providing support 
     for democracy and human rights in Iran. The Administration 
     has worked closely with the Congress to include funding in 
     the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006 (H.R. 
     4939) to increase our support for democracy and improve radio 
     broadcasting, expand satellite television broadcasting, and 
     increase contacts through expanded fellowships and 
     scholarships for Iranian students.

[[Page 11327]]

       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to the presentation of this letter from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's Program.
           Sincerely,

                                           Jeffrey T. Bergner,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
                                              Legislative Affairs.

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

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

  Mr. President, I have to accept the good faith of the Secretary of 
State on this matter and as communicated to this Chamber.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am one who has cosponsored a version of 
the Iranian sanctions amendment which Senator Santorum offered now over 
a year ago. I believed then and I believe now that it may well be 
necessary for sanctions to be imposed on Iran.
  However, I cannot support the amendment that has been offered by 
Senator Santorum for two reasons. One is the fact that it is 
significantly broader than the other amendment that was introduced by 
Senator Santorum, the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005. In many 
ways, it is broader and it interjects an unrelated issue with respect 
to Russian pricing for nuclear reactor fuel. It removes the requirement 
that a person have actual knowledge of the actions for which he is 
going to be sanctioned. There is a direction here to a United Nations 
representative, which was not present in the amendment I cosponsored. 
It changes the threshold which makes it more difficult for the 
President to waive sanctions. So there are a number of significant 
differences between this and an amendment I cosponsored.
  The other difference is that, of course, there has been significant 
change which occurred since that time. Senator Warner has outlined that 
point. That change is now the decision of the administration--which I 
support--to engage or participate in direct talks with Iran under 
specified circumstances. I think that is a policy which should be given 
a chance to work, and if the policy doesn't succeed and Iran does not 
work out a negotiation and agreement with all the countries with which 
there are discussions going on, at that point, it seems to me there is 
a greater chance we will get those other countries, including Russia, 
to support sanctions if, in fact, the negotiations and discussions with 
Iran do not succeed.
  So those discussions the President has decided to engage upon are 
actually a prelude to a much stronger chance to succeed with sanctions 
down the road because countries that might support us on sanctions, and 
whose support would be extremely helpful, would then realize we had 
gone through the negotiation and discussion route with Iran. I believe 
that policy is wise. It will strengthen our position in getting 
sanctions, should that be necessary. Also, it is the best chance of 
having the solution here, which will avoid greater and greater conflict 
down the road. While it is with some reluctance that I cannot support a 
sanction amendment relating to Iran, nonetheless, because this is 
broader than the one that previously I cosponsored, and mainly because 
of the ongoing negotiations which will strengthen our position if they 
do not lead to a good resolution, I cannot support the Santorum 
amendment. I will support the Biden amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will address the comments made by my 
colleagues. I appreciate their thoughtful comments.
  First, this is not just a sanctions amendment. This is a sanctions 
amendment which imposes additional sanctions, but it also has a large 
prodemocracy component to support prodemocracy efforts and public 
diplomacy within Iran.
  Second, with respect to the sanctions, I agree with some of the 
criticisms leveled by Senator Levin that it adds things which were not 
in the previous versions. One thing it adds is a nuclear components 
provision, which says that if you are going to be a company that is 
doing business with Iran in the development of their nuclear weapons 
capability, you cannot do business with us in America. If that is 
objectionable to folks, I find it somewhat remarkable that we would 
want companies doing business in Iran doing business here. But that is 
a new sanction; he is correct.
  What he is not correct about is that we make it more difficult to 
waive these sanctions. In fact, we have made it easier to waive 
sanctions. We have given the President more time to waive sanctions. In 
fact, the big difference between the House bill and ours is we are much 
more liberal with respect to the waiver authority of the President. In 
that respect, the House bill passed--I have the exact vote--by a vote 
of 397 to 21. That is the bill which passed in the House of 
Representatives just 2 months ago. It has, with the exception of what I 
have said, a more liberal waiver authority component that deals with 
nuclear technology because of, obviously, this concern about the major 
difference between the two. I suspect that both the increased 
flexibility and the nuclear component provision would have very strong 
support in the Senate.
  The other thing I wish to talk about is what Senator Warner referred 
to in the letter from the Secretary of State. I remind everybody that 
the Secretary and the State Department have opposed this legislation 
from the day I have introduced it.
  No. 2, I have had discussions with the Secretary personally over at 
the State Department, and we have had ongoing discussions. They support 
aspects of this bill. They don't like some of the sanction provisions, 
specifically the codification of Executive orders. I understand that. 
That has been sort of an intractable problem we have had during these 
negotiations.
  I also remind everybody here that I bet I could pull out a letter 
identical to the letter just read by the Senator from Virginia on the 
issue of the Syrian Accountability Act, which passed here after about 
3\1/2\ years or 2\1/2\ years of work, to try to get the administration 
on board with that legislation. The State Department opposed it, 
opposed it, opposed it. The President opposed it. They thought it was 
the wrong time, something we shouldn't do.
  I had three conversations with the President on the Syrian 
Accountability Act. The first two times, he about tore my head off, 
saying how inappropriate it was for Congress to act in this regard and 
try to impose sanctions and mess around with foreign policy. The third 
conversation I had with him was a conversation where he said he would 
sign it. Six months later, he gave the State of the Union Address and 
took credit for the Syrian Accountability Act as one of the great 
accomplishments of his administration in foreign policy.
  I believe the impact of the Syrian Accountability Act is pretty 
discernible--what happened with the withdrawal of Syrian troops from 
Lebanon. The Congress, when we act and do so in a responsible fashion, 
can make a difference. I believe this is an appropriate time and 
appropriate subject for us to make a difference.
  Iran is the great threat before us. If anyone believes that by being 
weak, by

[[Page 11328]]

not acting, by not stepping forward, and by not getting involved and 
saying we are going to hold those who cooperate with the Iranians 
accountable for their cooperation, if we think that by backing off on 
that somehow or another we will create some good will with the 
hardliners who control Iran, you have not been watching how the 
Iranians behave. They respect one thing and one thing only--we are 
about to give it to them, I hope--and that is action, deeds, and a 
credible threat that we will impose sanctions and we will hurt their 
capability if they do not change their course. That is what we have an 
opportunity to do here in about 2 minutes. I hope we take that 
opportunity and do not simply say that we like what the President is 
doing and we are all for negotiation and we hope everything goes well. 
It will be interpreted as stepping back, as weakness. We cannot afford 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Biden 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Also, I ask unanimous consent, I believe with the 
agreement of the chairman, that Senator Lautenberg, who has been 
promised 3 minutes, be given those 3 minutes, and that if Senator 
Santorum needs a minute or two to respond to Senator Lautenberg, he be 
given it.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, with an 
additional 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, and then the 
vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will try to be quick. I listened 
with interest to the Senator from Pennsylvania and his presentation. I 
also looked at the amendment he has produced. In that amendment, we are 
going to administer sanctions against companies doing business with 
Iran.
  Now, the surprise here is that three times before, when I had an 
amendment, the Senator from Pennsylvania voted against it, would not 
include it, didn't want to discriminate against firms that do business 
with Iran and that provide revenues that kill our kids in Iraq. And now 
we have a flimsy aspect. We say we are going to impose sanctions; 
however, it will be out of reach of American jurisdiction. It, 
therefore, will not apply to the company that owns it--in this case it 
happens to be a Halliburton--that has a sham corporation operating in 
Dubai based originally in the Cayman Islands. That should not be 
allowed, that the grasp of the U.S. Government cannot reach these 
perpetrators of the kind of indecency that places our soldiers at risk 
because they are doing business with an avowed enemy of the United 
States that is providing funds that are lethal to our troops over 
there.
  I hope everybody will take a good close look at this amendment and 
vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this goes under the old rubric of no 
good deed goes unpunished. We have attempted in this amendment to meet 
the Senator from New Jersey halfway. The Senator's amendment has 
consistently been voted on. I have opposed it and so has most of the 
Senate, which suggests that those who are currently doing business and 
have invested should be penalized for their investment. What we say is 
that on any future investment, you will be penalized. We make the 
Lautenberg language prospective.
  In attempting to meet the Senator from New Jersey halfway, we find 
out that this is not sufficient and, therefore, we should oppose this 
amendment. I would think half a loaf is better than no loaf. This, by 
the way, was not in the Iran Freedom and Support Act. This is one of 
the provisions Senator Levin mentioned that was added, frankly, out of 
respect for the concerns the Senator from New Jersey raised and has 
raised on the floor repeatedly.
  This is an attempt to make a good-faith attempt--and I do mean that--
a good-faith attempt to meet the Senator from New Jersey halfway and to 
take his policy and put it in place in a prospective manner. If that is 
not sufficient for the Senator from New Jersey, that is fine. He is 
welcome to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, is the Senator aware that the 
exemption in his amendment would make it almost impossible to hold a 
U.S. company liable for doing business with Iran through a foreign 
subsidiary?
  Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding is that we crafted this language 
pursuant to the language the Senator from New Jersey used in the past 
and put a threshold we thought was--I think it was a $20 million 
threshold we put in place which we thought was a reasonable threshold 
of investment to reach the level of sanction.
  If the Senator from New Jersey would like to toughen that language or 
change the threshold, I would be happy to sit down and talk with him 
about it. I am open to discussion.
  My only point, and I think the point we have had in this discussion 
in the past, is I don't believe it is proper to penalize companies that 
have investments there, in many cases longstanding investments. What we 
want to do is discourage future investment. That is what we attempt to 
do in this amendment. If the Senator does not believe it has been 
effectively written, I will be happy to sit down with him, in all 
sincerity, and work to make it effective that future investments are 
discouraged.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have another question, if I may, and 
that is, would the Senator be willing to move the vote back, if we can 
do it, so we can discuss the language?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are under a unanimous consent 
agreement. The time, I believe, has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6 seconds remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield back the 6 seconds so we can get 
to the vote? I regret we have to move forward.
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator has heard his answer.
  Mr. WARNER. There are Senators who have to go to the Pentagon for a 
memorial service. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are a number of differences between 
S. 333 and the Santorum amendment. These differences include a number 
of new provisions in the amendment that are not in the S. 333. Some of 
them are:
  Remove the requirement that a parent or a subsidiary of a person 
against whom sanctions have been issued must have actual knowledge of 
the activities before sanctions can be issued against them.
  Remove the requirement that an affiliate of the Company against which 
sanctions have been issued must have actual knowledge of the activities 
before sanctions can be issued against them.
  Remove Libya from the scope and title of the Iran Libya Sanctions 
Act.
  Would impose an additional condition on the exercise of the 
President's waiver authority by imposing an additional element in the 
report that must be submitted to Congress prior to the waiver going 
into effect. Current law requires, among other elements of the report, 
an assessment of the significance of the assistance provided to the 
development of Iran's petroleum production. The new requirement would 
also require an assessment of the significance of the assistance to the 
development of Iran's weapons of mass destruction or other military 
capabilities.
  Reduces operations and maintenance funding for the Army for Iraq and 
Afghanistan by $100 million.
  In other instances, there are modifications to provisions in the 
amendment that are included in S. 333. For instance, both S. 333 and 
the Santorum amendment would expand the universe

[[Page 11329]]

of persons against whom sanctions could be imposed to include a private 
or government lender, insurer, underwriter, reinsurer, or guarantor of 
a person sanctioned. S. 333 would require that these persons would have 
to have actual knowledge of the activities of the person sanctioned; 
the Santorum amendment does not include the requirement of actual 
knowledge.
  Both S. 333 and the Santorum amendment would expand the definition of 
a person to include a financial instution, insurer, underwriter, 
reinsurer, guarantor. The Santorum amendment would also include any 
other business organization, including any foreign subsidiaries of the 
foregoing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 4234. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 4234) was rejected.
  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 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:

[[Page 11330]]

       (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 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

[[Page 11331]]

     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 
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,

[[Page 11332]]

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 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

[[Page 11333]]

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 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.

[[Page 11334]]


  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.
  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

[[Page 11335]]

     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 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

[[Page 11336]]

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 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

[[Page 11337]]


     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 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

[[Page 11338]]

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?
  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

[[Page 11339]]

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?
  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

[[Page 11340]]

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.
  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

[[Page 11341]]

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 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.

[[Page 11342]]

       ``(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 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.

[[Page 11343]]

       ``(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

[[Page 11344]]

     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--
       (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

[[Page 11345]]

     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.


                           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

[[Page 11346]]

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.
  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

[[Page 11347]]

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 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.

                          ____________________