National Defense Authorizaton Act for Fiscal Year 2007

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (Senate - June 14, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 4234

Mr. SANTORUM. 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 legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SANTORUM] proposes an amendment numbered 4234.

Mr. SANTORUM. 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 printed in today's RECORD under ``Text of Amendments.'')

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I spoke about yesterday and which I wanted to bring to the floor. I think it is a very important one. It is an amendment that is embodied in the bill I introduced last year dealing with Iran. It now has 61 cosponsors.

We have had lots of debates on the floor of this Senate. We have not had a debate on what I believe is the greatest foreign policy threat to this country at this time; that is, Iran, what our policies should be toward Iran, and what we as a Congress and the Senate should do with respect to supporting the President's policy or modifying the President's policy with respect to Iran.

This legislation which I have introduced as an amendment brings together a couple of pieces of legislation into this one amendment. Before I describe what the amendment is about, let me describe what I believe is the problem that faces us and then lay out a prescription of what Congress can do in the interim to support the process of a diplomatic or peaceful solution to the problem that I am about to describe.

It is not a surprise to anyone reading the papers that Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. They are fairly clear about their desire to gain more nuclear technology. They have been very clear about their desire to enhance their ability to reprocess uranium. It is also clear to observers that they are doing so with the intent of developing nuclear weapons.

As a result of that, the United States has been engaged in discussions, both with multinational organizations, as well as with some of our allies who are similarly concerned about this attempt by Iran to develop this type of capability, to get them to cease to do so. We have had attempts by the Russians to get them to rely on them for this technology. We have now seen recent efforts by the United States and a group of countries to approach Iran in multilateral talks about the possibility of getting a different type of nuclear reactor there that does not lead to the potential for development of nuclear weapons. We have seen a whole host of attempts on the part of the world to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of this regime.

The question is, Why? What is the great concern about Iran? Why do we have more concerns about them than, say, other countries in the Middle East and in southeast Asia which have, in fact, developed nuclear weapons?

The answer to me is obvious, but it is important we lay that out as to what the great threat to this world is if Iran has the nuclear capability they seek to develop.

We are fighting a war right now and everyone focuses on the war in Iraq. Certainly that is important and that is the major field of battle right now, but the war in Iraq is part of a broader war. The President described it as a war on terror. I prefer to describe it as a war on Islamic fascism, Islamic extremism. The President has referred to it as Islamic totalitarianism. It is a movement within Islam, within the Middle East, within southeast Asia, but it actually goes beyond the Middle East and southeast Asia that believes in, eventually, the domination of the entire world, the Islamization of the entire world under this rather radical ideology, this fascist ideology.

This is not one particular group or one particular faction that is in charge. This is not one group--al-Qaida or Islamic jihad or the nation State of Iran--but it is a mosaic of different organizations, some of which are not necessarily allied with each other but coordinated with each other.

We saw that the other day when Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi was killed. We saw Hamas come forward and call this al-Qaida leader a brother in the struggle. These are not organizations, at least from all of our intelligence, that are closely tied, but they have a common theme. Even though they have different views of Islam, they have a general idea of a war, a jihad, against the West and against the infidels, if you will.

So we have this mosaic of different organizations, different Islamic fascist organizations. They are commonly called within the media terrorist organizations. Terrorism is just the tactic they use. What ties them together is not just their terrorism but their ideology. Although there are different strains and different ideas, they are tied together in a common theme at a common enemy, more importantly.

The largest piece of this mosaic, the dominant piece of this mosaic--and it is the dominant piece because it happens to be the biggest piece with the biggest wallet, the most resources--is Iran. The mosaic is a big mosaic, but the major piece which tends to touch all of the other pieces in one way or another is Iran. Iran not only supports these organizations--some of them very directly, others very indirectly--but it is itself a threat to the world.

How do we understand what this threat is to America? We only need to look at the new leader of the country: Ahmadinejad is the new President. To Americans, the President is the leader of the country. In Iran, the President is an important position but traditionally has not been the most important position within the country of Iran. However, it seems to be that Ahmadinejad has taken that position to a new level because of his support from the ruling clerics within the country. As we know, this is a country ruled by these clerics, these mullahs. And the lead mullah is a spiritual adviser to Ahmadinejad, a supporter of his. He has been very forthright about what his design is. He has been very forthright. He has stated publicly that he would like to wipe out Israel off the face of the Earth. This is a leader of a country that is trying to develop nuclear weapons, that has the resources and the capability if not stopped to do so, that has been very clear about its desire to use these weapons to eliminate the State of Israel.

He has also made a lot of other comments that would lead one to believe he does not want to stop there with respect to his designs on the war against the ``infidels.''

So we have in the person of this President a character that has the resources, is developing the technology, has the desire, and wants to use this capability if it was developed, and has said so publicly, repeatedly. That is a pretty serious threat. In fact, I can think of no other threat that is more serious than that. This man and this country is actively pursuing the development of these weapons. I don't know of anyone in the world who does not believe that is what Iran is doing.

The Senate has, so far, not taken any action to try to deter that development, to try to change the political dynamic within Iran. Obviously, we have not taken any action to pursue any military force to stop them from doing so.

These are our three options, the way I see it: to get some sort of political dynamic going on within the country to change the regime; to impose sanctions or to get collaboration with other governments to stop them from developing these weapons; or, third, a military option.

I don't think we are prepared at this point to offer a military option, but with this amendment I am offering the other two. I am offering an amendment that will both support and codify Executive Order sanctions already in place against Iran; impose additional sanctions, not on Iran but on other entities that are doing business with Iran; and then try to impose a prohibition on importing into this country nuclear fuel assemblies made outside of this country if they do business with Iran.

Companies have to make a choice whether they want to do business with Iran or whether they want to do business with the United States. That is the sanctions part of it. So we need to enact these provisions because a lot of what is in place right now is done through Executive Orders. Part of the amendment directs the President to cut off foreign assistance to the host country of a company investing more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector; allow the President to waive that under certain circumstances--and, by the way, that is a prospective investment. It is very important we send a signal to companies and countries that if they are going to continue to support this development within Iran, there are consequences to the country and to the company for continuing to do that.

There are a variety of different sanctions we place in this legislation. By the way, the sanctions portion of this legislation has already passed the House of Representatives. It passed by a vote of over 300 votes in the House--well over 300 votes in the House. So the House has already spoken on this issue, has already said we want to codify the sanctions that are in place. We want to impose new sanctions on companies and countries that do business with Iran, particularly in their energy sector, and we want to make companies choose between doing business in the United States with respect to the nuclear program versus Iran and the nuclear program.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield.

Mr. WARNER. Could the Senator state the time when the House cast that vote?

Mr. SANTORUM. April of this year.

Mr. WARNER. It seems to me that vote preceded some remarkable developments which have taken place in the international forum within our country. With the great leadership of the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, we have taken some strong initiatives to try and resolve primarily the issue of the desire to proceed with the weapons of mass destruction effort, but there are a lot of collateral ramifications to these important talks.

The House vote is of record, but we should let our colleagues know that vote took place way before what I regard as rather dramatic developments with respect to the international consortium of nations--Great Britain, France, United States, and now recently both Russia and China participating in some way.

Does the Senator think the amendment is wise in light of what is taking place now?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would say that the developments have been--I would not call them dramatic. I would say they are modest in this respect: they are modest in the sense that the United States, for the first time, has decided to join with other countries in making an offer to Iran. The wisdom of that can be debated.

What would be dramatic is if Iran would seriously consider doing what is being suggested, and I don't see any indication they are willing to do so nor do I anticipate their willingness to do so.

My concern is--and the President has been very clear about this--that Iran is already jockeying around, seeming to extend the time for consideration and drawing this out, certainly, to their advantage. If you are developing a program, and you are actively pursuing developing a capability, the longer you can stall any action by your adversaries to stop you from doing so, buying that time is of great value to Iran.

What we are seeing with this development already, Iranians are trying to buy time.

The President has said, and I am not sure the other countries have been quite as firm as the United States has--that they have weeks, not months, to make this decision.

However, I have seen no indication that the Iranians are anywhere near accepting this proposal. I will make the argument that this is actually a very good time for the Senate to speak and say we see this as a very serious issue, that we need to at this point speak into this very critical juncture.

I would say it is more important now that we have this vote, or more important now that we pass this, to show the Iranians that both Chambers support this President in his desire, our country's desire, a bipartisan desire, to see that Iran does not develop this capability. The Senate going on record, codifying sanctions, increasing sanctions and, the point I did not get a chance to discuss but I will momentarily, funding prodemocracy, authorizing funding for prodemocracy groups, and for more communication, public diplomacy within the country of Iran to communicate to the dissidents within Iran and encourage the dissidents within Iran is exactly the kind of message we want to send if we want to force the Iranians' hand to actually come to the table.

I think pulling this back, in my mind, would be seen by the Iranians as a sign that the U.S. Senate does not support this President, does not support getting tough. Because the President has been very clear: If the Iranians do not come to the table here, they are going to seek resolutions at the U.N. to begin the process toward a different way of resolving this dispute--maybe that is the best way to put it--in a way that could be a lot more confrontational.

So I think the Senate speaking at this moment is actually critical for us to force the Iranians' hands. I am not particularly hopeful, by the way, that the Iranians will come to the table or will agree to any of the provisions that the groups have laid out. I understand why the President has done so. I do not believe they have any desire to comply.

I think it is important for us not to blink. I think this is a moment for us to deal with this issue, to debate it here, and to vote on it or to approve this amendment to send a very clear message to the Iranian Government that we stand four square behind this President and this administration in doing what we can here at this point in time both from the standpoint of sanctions as well as supporting a change of regime from within Iran.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

Yesterday, the Senate had an opportunity to visit with the Secretaries of State and Defense. I believe my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania was there, as was I. And while those discussions are private in nature, I just simply say that with those discussions, combined with other discussions and communications I have had with the Department of State, I am somewhat more encouraged about the prospects of the negotiations now taking place than perhaps my colleague from Pennsylvania.

My main concern is, given the fragility of the situation with regard to these negotiations, the almost overriding importance of the question of the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue, and the need to have Iran publicly begin to cooperate with the IAEA and other organizations to prevent the proliferation of that type of weapon--I just wonder, had the Senator thought about maybe an effective date of this amendment to give some reasonable period of time for these negotiations to take place as to the effective date of the amendment?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what I would certainly say to the chairman is, this is the Defense authorization bill. We will probably be here the remainder of this week and maybe going into next week finishing this bill. Usually, the Defense authorization bill takes months to be able to discern the differences between the two bodies, of which this amendment, pending in this legislation, will be part of that discussion.

So I do not anticipate there will be any final resolution to this particular amendment that I am offering until several months. If the President is serious about what the President has said, that they do not have months but weeks, I do not anticipate that anything we do here today will have any impact on the deadline or any of these negotiations.

I think what they will do is signal to the Iranians that not only is the House serious about this, but even now that they are engaged potentially in a negotiated settlement, that the Senate is serious about pursuing this if, in fact, the Iranians do not come forward with an agreement.

If there is an agreement, we may want to take another look at this. But I do not think any harm is done by passing this legislation and putting us in the conference so if, in fact, things do not go well or if, in fact, we believe--whatever the result is of these negotiations--that it is important for us to go on record on some of these or all of these things, that we are in a position to produce a bill relatively quickly and send that message.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly respect the views of my colleague who once served on the Armed Services Committee. I regret that the Senator felt there were other areas where he could serve his country other than in our committee. But we still consider him a member of the committee.

The Senator is quite accurate that it is likely that this bill will be before this body into next week. I am hoping to conclude next week. Then, of course, there will be a period of time thereafter in which we will have a deliberation between the two bodies in the conference.

But I would like to have some additional time today for purposes of consultation. I assure the Senator, he has a right to move forward, as he has sought to do at this time. I say to the Senator, if you can indulge the chairman in trying to schedule such action as may take place on this amendment at some point today, a little later than now, I would be appreciative of that.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have tremendous respect for my former chairman. I say to the Senator, I served 8 absolutely remarkable and wonderful years on your committee, and got to serve under Senator Thurmond and then your great leadership. I certainly will do everything I can to work with you to make sure we can come to some agreement as to how we can dispose of this amendment, whether it is a vote or whether it is accepted or whatever the case may be. I am certainly not going to push for a vote today if that is not what you desire. But, obviously, this is a very important issue.

I remind the chairman there are 61 cosponsors on a similar piece of legislation, and it has very broad support here in this body from both sides of the aisle. It passed, as I said, with well over 300 votes in the House. And this issue is quite timely. So I would be happy to suspend any request for votes until we can negotiate how we would dispose of this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He is recognized as one of the leaders of our party, and he is very cooperative with regard to all legislative matters.

My understanding is the Dorgan amendment is the pending amendment; is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Santorum amendment is now pending.

Mr. WARNER. I see. And we did not move on the Dorgan amendment as of yet.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Dorgan amendment was set aside.

Mr. WARNER. Set aside. At the appropriate time, will the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, when he completes his remarks, move to have this amendment set aside for the time being?

Mr. SANTORUM. I would be happy to do so after we have had discussions about how we can dispose of this amendment, absolutely.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I see our colleague from Maine, a member of the committee, and in due course I expect, after the completion of the Senator's remarks, the Senator from Maine can be recognized.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. President, if I can just finish the explanation of the legislation, I talked about the sanctions portions of this legislation. The final component of the legislation deals with what we call the pro-democracy side. This is very interesting. I introduced this legislation last year. Actually, I introduced it 3 years ago. It provided, at the time we introduced it 3 years ago, $10 million for the pro-democracy component of this.

I felt very strongly this was really the key to this legislation. In fact, just meeting a few weeks ago with a student dissident who had recently escaped from Iran, I am even more convinced there is a strong anti-regime movement within Iran. There is a very strong pro-American component of the Iranian population that understands the tremendous effort that our country has put forward in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, like most people around the world, seek self-determination and freedom. It is very important for us to communicate that in unequivocal terms.

One of the concerns I have with the diplomatic efforts being taken right now is that we are potentially muddying the waters somewhat with respect to our opinion of the regime in Iran. I want to make it very, very clear that personally that regime is the greatest threat to this country and must be removed. That is how I feel. Now, that is not in this legislation. But that is, to me, one of the highest national security priorities of this country.

I think the best way to do that under the current circumstances is to support pro-democracy groups, to support groups that would like to see changes within Iran and peaceful changes.

The one gentleman I met with just recently, a couple weeks ago, was very clear about the intention of at least the student movement within Iran to be a peaceful movement, similar to what happened in the old Soviet Union. They believe they can, in fact, rally support. But they need support. They need resources. They need to communicate. One of the things this legislation does is provide not $10 million but $100 million for that purpose. The reason I talk about the difference is that in the interim the President, thankfully, took some of the provisions of the Iran Freedom Support Act, which is the bulk of this amendment that I am proposing today, and proposed that in the emergency supplemental that he sent up and that we will be voting on, in all likelihood, tomorrow. So that money is being appropriated, in this case, before it is being authorized. But this is the authorization, and sets an authorization level of $100 million, which is what the President's request was.

Excuse me, the President's request was $75 million. We make it $100 million.

So we think this is important to send another strong signal that we support efforts for peaceful change within Iran, that we support those who on the evening of 9/11 stood in the city of Tehran in candlelight vigils in support of Americans. We support the Iranian people who would like to see the oppression end in that country that they have suffered under now for over 25 years. So this is a vitally important component of this authorization, and it is a very important signal to the people of Iran.

When I met with that student leader a few weeks ago, he told me how evil this regime was on a personal level, not only with his imprisonment for leading student protests, but also with the current group of students who are, in the eyes of the regime, a great threat to the future of that regime. He talked about how his sister, who is a student at one of the universities in Iran, recently had to sign a document as a condition of attending the university. The document was a commitment to be a suicide bomber.

So now every student in colleges within Iran has to sign a document pledging their commitment to be a suicide bomber. In fact, shortly after those documents were signed in every university in Iran, they conducted training courses for the students on how to strap on and detonate a suicide bomb.

This is the enemy we are confronting. This is why I think it is important for us to step forward now and have this debate, to step forward now and pass this legislation, to send a signal now, while they are deciding whether to engage the United States and the free world in the pursuit of peaceful nuclear energy as opposed to nuclear warheads.

It is important for the Senate to act. This is our moment in history. This is the great threat that faces us. This is the war we are currently engaged in, and this is the principal player on that stage today. We must act.

I thank the Chair.

http://thomas.loc.gov/