[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S563-S567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          MOTION TO DISCHARGE

  Mr. SCHUMER. Pursuant to S. Res. 27, the Committee on Financing being 
tied on the question of reporting, I move to discharge the Committee on 
Finance from further consideration of the nomination of Sam Bagenstos 
to be General Counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the provisions of S. Res 27, there will 
now be up to 4 hours of debate on the motion, equally divided between 
the two leaders or their designees, with no motions, points of order, 
or amendments in order.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to 
discharge be at a time to be determined by the majority leader in 
consultation with the Republican leader, notwithstanding rule XXII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                         American Manufacturing

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have had so much good news in Ohio and 
across the country over the last few weeks--rising wages, record job 
growth, a million jobs in 2 months.
  Intel is bringing 10,000 new good-paying manufacturing and trades 
jobs to Central Ohio. That facility will be built by union workers--
electricians, carpenters, laborers, pipefitters, and other workers of 
the skilled trades.
  Hyperion, a fuel manufacturer, is opening the largest factory built 
in Columbus in a decade, creating 700 jobs.
  GE Aviation with Boeing signed a new deal exporting planes built with 
next-generation jet engines developed in Southwest Ohio, supporting 
thousands of Ohio jobs.
  As I was flying into Columbus with Senator Portman a couple of weeks 
ago to join Intel to announce those jobs, I was thinking: Today we are 
finally burying the term ``rust belt.''
  For too long, corporate elites on the coast have used that outdated, 
offensive term--a term that demeans our workers and devalues our work. 
Now Ohio--the center of the country, the heart of the industrial 
Midwest--leads the way in the next generation of manufacturing.
  The State that founded the auto industry and gave us the Wright 
Brothers is today making the most advanced chips that go into cars and 
phones and appliances.
  All of this is made possible because we are putting American workers 
at the center of our economy. It is not a coincidence we are seeing 
this record job growth, when we finally have a President who 
understands what carrying a union card means, who centers workers, who 
cares about wages, who comes from the industrial heartland--a union 
card that means better wages, a union card that means better benefits, 
a union card that often means a more flexible work schedule that 
workers have a decision and input into forming.
  And look at the results we are getting. Last year, for the first time 
in 20 years, our economy grew faster than China. Think about that. For 
the first time in two decades, the American economy grew faster than 
China's economy.
  We know that China and other competitors aren't giving up. They are, 
every week, trying to find new ways to cheat, new ways to undermine 
American jobs.
  We need every possible tool to compete. It is why last year in the 
Senate we passed the Innovation and Competition Act. We passed what we 
are now calling the Make it in America Act. It is a serious effort to 
invest in manufacturing research and development and bring and build 
supply chains back in the United States.
  It is going to mean jobs. It is going to bring down prices. For too 
long, we have had a trade policy and a tax policy lobbied in this body 
by corporate interests that wanted to move overseas for cheap labor. We 
have had a trade and tax policy that essentially hollowed out 
manufacturing in Ohio and across the Midwest. Ohioans know what 
permanent normal trade relations with China 20 years ago when Congress 
passed it--to be asked of corporate America and pushed by people like 
Newt Gingrich--people know what that did to our economy. Almost 
everyone knows the devastation the North American Free Trade Agreement 
caused to industrial towns in Ohio and across the country.
  PNTR and admitting China to the WTO hasn't gotten the same media 
attention, but Ohio steel companies and

[[Page S564]]

other industries know how big a problem it has been. It is how we ended 
up with empty factories, lost dreams, supply chains that are too long, 
too fragile, and that stretch all over the world instead of made in 
America.
  That is why I wrote the Leveling the Playing Field Act that was 
passed into law in 2015. It is why Senator Portman and I are working to 
make sure that our bipartisan Leveling the Playing Field Act 2.0 is in 
the competition bill, the Made in America Act the House passed last 
week.
  Leveling the Playing Field has been critical for Ohio companies, 
allowing them to file and win trade cases against foreign companies 
that cheat the rules. We know our competition hasn't stopped coming up 
with new ways to skirt these rules and distort the global market to 
benefit their own companies.
  The Chinese Government still subsidizes steel. The Chinese Government 
engages in economic espionage to steal American trade secrets to prop 
up their own state-controlled companies.
  Look at the most recent conviction of a Chinese spy trying to steal 
GE Aviation's pioneering jet engine designs to swipe them and take them 
back to China. We need our trade laws to keep up.
  Both the Senate and the House bills include the CHIPS Act to invest 
in new semiconductor production in the United States, like the new 
Intel factory coming to Licking County, east and north of Columbus. 
Even though the United States started the semiconductor industry, today 
those vital chips are mostly made overseas.
  Fewer than 10 percent of chips are made in this country. Right now, 
75 percent of chip manufacturing is in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and 
China. It has meant severe shortages and long waits for those chips 
that are critical inputs to so many of the products Americans rely on.
  We need to bring the supply chain back home, starting with Intel in 
Ohio, by passing the CHIPS Act. We must invest in domestic 
manufacturing innovation. It is what Missouri Republican Senator Blunt 
and I worked together to do with our provisions in the Senate bill to 
create more manufacturing hubs across the country.
  The first one, as many in this body remember because they voted for 
it, was in Youngstown some years ago, something called America Makes. 
All of us in the Senate and the House need to get to work immediately 
to get these bills over the finish line.
  If you want to get a sense of how important this is, how strong these 
bills are, just look at what China is doing. The Chinese Communist 
Party is lobbying furiously against this bill. That is right. The CCP 
and its cronies, the communist party in China, are lobbying against the 
bill that invests in American innovation, supports American 
manufacturing, takes on unfair and illegal trade practices. They are 
scared, pure and simple.

  They know that pro-competition bills--the Make it in America Act--
will have real consequences for their cheating and their trying to 
undermine American workers.
  A Reuters headline from November: ``Beijing urges U.S. businesses to 
lobby against China-related bills in Congress.''
  I will say it again: ``Beijing urges U.S. businesses to lobby against 
China-related bills in Congress.''
  Unfortunately--I won't name them on the floor, maybe I should--but 
there are U.S. businesses that are lobbying against this because they 
do enough business in China, exploiting Chinese workers, evading any 
environmental laws or worker safety laws that may be in place.
  The Chinese Government threatens these American companies, recruiting 
them to lobby against the interests of American workers. This time we 
are not rolling over. We are going to stand up for American innovation, 
stand up for American manufacturing, stand up especially for American 
workers.
  As I said, we have a President now who puts workers at the center of 
our economic policy. We have a President who puts workers at the center 
of our economy. We have a President who is not afraid to talk about 
unions, knowing carrying a union card means a better life for workers.
  We are going to get a strong bipartisan bill that increases our 
economic competitors. We know how to speed up our supply chain and 
lower prices and end our reliance on China: make more things in this 
country.
  That is the solution to many of our economic problems: make it in 
Ohio. I urge my colleagues in both parties and both Chambers to go to 
work. Let's get this done for American workers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, many Americans are watching the news, 
reading the newspaper, watching cable news, and they are seeing the 
Russian buildup of troops on the border of Ukraine.
  So I thought what I would do is take just a few moments to speak 
about what is at stake in Ukraine. Why should Americans care, and what 
should we do in response?
  Tensions along the border are high. Shuttle diplomacy is occurring 
and is the order of the day. But more than 100,000 Russian troops are 
in position should an invasion of Ukraine be ordered by Russian 
Federation President Putin.
  Reports indicate that Russia has created a graphic propaganda video, 
something called a false flag operation, to serve as a pretext for 
invading and cyber attacks like those that might precede a planned 
invasion are already underway.
  Not surprisingly, the Kremlin is engaging in a disinformation 
campaign, making every attempt to blame the United States--or any other 
country for that matter--for its own aggressive actions.
  This kind of gaslighting might work in a totalitarian state, but in 
the rest of the world, where we have access to more complete and 
accurate information, we know better. There is no question that Russia 
and Russia alone is responsible for the military buildup on Ukraine's 
border and is also threatening peace in Europe.
  As Frederick Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 
has written:

       This isn't primarily a Ukraine crisis. It's a Russia 
     crisis. More precisely, [it is] a Putin-created crisis aimed 
     at destroying [the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 
     otherwise known as] NATO.
       It's Putin's attempt to drive the [United States] and its 
     West European allies to put ourselves in a time machine, [to] 
     abdicate our alliance obligations, expose countries 
     previously occupied, brutalized, and exploited by the Soviet 
     Union to Putin's continued aggression, demonstrate our 
     unreliability as partners, and show our unseriousness 
     about defending our own vital national security interests. 
     In return for a promise of nothing at all.

  The United States has played no part in creating this crisis, but I 
do believe we have some responsibilities--not just a treaty obligation 
to our NATO allies--because Ukraine is not yet a member of NATO, so 
that obligation under article 5 does not apply to Ukraine, as I will 
discuss in a moment.
  But I do believe that we have a responsibility to support the 
Ukrainian people as they fight to defend their own sovereignty, despite 
the fact that they are not members of NATO.
  With so many challenges on the home front, though, and around the 
world, it is easy for folks in Texas or Massachusetts or anywhere else 
around the country to wonder, why should we care what is happening in 
Ukraine? Americans are experiencing the highest inflation in 40 years; 
there is growing concern about violent crime; we have a humanitarian 
crisis on our southern border; and let's not forget the ongoing fight 
against the pandemic. We know families are struggling to face the 
challenges right in front of them, let alone those on the other side of 
the globe.
  Americans want to know, how does a conflict on the other side of the 
globe actually impact the United States and, importantly, why should we 
help? I think those are fair questions. The human and financial costs 
of armed conflicts are very high. And we have learned the painful 
lesson during many times in our Nation's history, twice in the last 
century in Europe alone, where there were World Wars centered.
  But we also know how much the free world depends on the United States 
and its leadership and strength to provide stability and prevent wars 
and promote peace, if we can, while safeguarding freedom and democracy 
around the world.

[[Page S565]]

  The United States is a global power, but we are no longer the only 
one. That day has passed. Our leadership role and responsibilities in a 
rules-based international order were earned by the sacrifices of 
generations of Americans who defended our freedoms and our way of life 
and those of our allies.
  Believing, as Ronald Reagan said, that peace comes through strength, 
America's role in the world has been achieved by our military might, by 
our strategic alliances, our commitment to free markets and trade 
around the world that have produced the economy that has allowed us to 
defend ourselves as well as an unwavering dedication to our values. And 
whether we like it or not, our unique role in the world brings with it 
certain responsibilities.
  We can't give anyone--adversary or ally--a reason to doubt our 
commitment to freedom, peace, stability, and security. Unfortunately, 
our reputation for reliability has suffered some damage recently. The 
botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example, caused our NATO 
allies to doubt the future of American leadership and our commitments 
under the North Atlantic Treaty.
  Our friends and adversaries alike are wondering if the Afghanistan 
debacle is a one-time misstep or the beginning of dwindling U.S. 
commitment and power. Of course, Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi will not miss an 
opportunity to disparage America's credibility as a reliable ally.
  Our urgent task, by our actions as well as our words, should be to 
convince friend and foe that we will remain a credible friend and ally.
  But either way, Putin is an opportunist, and today the eyes of the 
world are on the United States to see how we will respond to this 
threatened Russian aggression. Will we stand strong in support of 
Ukraine or will we sit passively on the sidelines?
  Make no mistake, Russia is doing far more than just threatening 
Ukraine. President Putin told the world in a speech in 2005 that the 
collapse of the Soviet empire--the Soviet Union--was what he called 
``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'' That is his 
mindset.
  Putting that empire back together was clearly on his mind when Russia 
invaded the nation of Georgia in 2008, formerly part of the Soviet 
Union, and when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, also part of the Soviet 
order.
  And, of course, we can be confident this is foremost in his mind as 
he threatens to invade Ukraine, another country that used to be part of 
the Soviet Union.
  So Putin is trying to get away with as much as he can, and it would 
be naive to think that he will stop at Ukraine.
  If the United States fails to support Ukraine at this pivotal moment, 
other authoritarian governments, like those in China and Iran, will 
take note.
  Today's New York Times had a story that said, ``Both Sides of the 
Taiwan Strait Are Closely Watching Ukraine's Crisis,'' in other words, 
the People's Republic of China--mainland China--as well as Taiwan, the 
independent democratic state right across that thin band of water known 
as the South China Sea.
  Here is what one of the representatives of Taiwan said in this 
article. He said: ``If the Western powers fail to respond to Russia, 
they do embolden the Chinese thinking regarding action on Taiwan.''
  So this is not just about Ukraine. This is not just about Europe. 
This is about America's credibility and that of our friends and allies 
around the world and our willingness to stand up for our values and 
defend our freedoms.
  If our adversaries see that the United States responds merely with 
passivity or words, they too will inevitably see opportunities for them 
to exploit. That would risk further geopolitical instability and the 
cause of peace. It would inevitably diminish America's leadership 
position in the world, the global order of which we are what Elbridge 
Colby has termed the ``cornerstone balancer,'' a powerful country 
anchoring the coalition of freedom-loving nations.
  So, yes, Ukraine is on the frontlines of the current crisis, but the 
security of Europe is also in question. The reach of Russia's 
aspirations for reestablished empire are, as well, and, as I said, 
there are global repercussions to however we choose to respond.
  I am not suggesting that President Biden send American troops to 
Ukraine. I want to be clear on that point. I know of no one calling for 
American troops to be deployed to Ukraine.
  There are, however, concrete steps we can take to help Ukraine defend 
itself without putting American lives on the line, and, fortunately, 
there is precedent for that.
  In the early 1940s, Nazi Germany was making dramatic advances across 
Europe, and Great Britain was being pummeled by the blitz, a bombing 
campaign by the German air forces. While Britain was hanging on by a 
thread, Prime Minister Churchill asked President Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt for help from the United States.
  This ultimately resulted in a very creative and successful solution 
known as the Lend-Lease Act. In the words of President Roosevelt, this 
legislation transformed the United States into the ``arsenal of 
democracy'' by supplying Great Britain with the materiel it needed to 
fend off German attacks.
  He compared it to lending your neighbor a garden hose if his house 
was on fire. It wouldn't just protect the neighbor's home; it would 
protect your home as well.
  Congress and the American people agreed with President Roosevelt's 
logic, and this legislation was signed into law in March 1941.
  Soon after, American warships, aircraft, weaponry, oil, food, and 
other critical resources made their way across the Atlantic to Allied 
forces fighting against Germany.
  I think this is part of the response we need to provide today to 
provide the Ukrainians with the ability to defend themselves under a 
modern version of the 1941 Lend-Lease Act.
  With the inspiration of President Roosevelt in the 1941 act, I have 
worked with a number of my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats 
alike--to draft a 2022 version of that legislation, called, not 
surprisingly, the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, which will 
ensure that Ukrainian forces and the Ukrainian people will have what 
they need to deter and defend against Russian invasions.
  As it stands today, the President of the United States has a menu of 
options to support our international friends in times of conflict. In 
some cases, such as the loan of equipment, the United States will 
eventually retain end use. In others, such as grants and emergency aid, 
we do not recover the funding or the assets sent to our friends.
  This bill would provide an additional option to that menu, allowing 
the United States to provide assistance that may otherwise be 
unfeasible unless we could retain end use.
  This legislation would authorize President Biden to enter into lend-
lease agreements directly with Ukraine and provide military equipment 
necessary to protect the Ukrainian people.
  In an ideal world, access to this materiel will help the Ukrainians 
defend themselves and deter Russia from mounting an invasion in the 
first place. Knowing that Ukraine has access to the ``arsenal of 
democracy'' could help prevent Putin from risking a deadly war. But if 
Putin makes a bad decision to move forward, Ukrainian forces will have 
the lethal weapons that they need to defend their sovereignty.

  They will also have the support of the United States and our NATO 
allies.
  In the Senate, there is clear support for this sovereignty of 
Ukraine, and I am glad to have worked with my colleagues on this 
legislation that includes this lend-lease component.
  I want to thank Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Risch on the 
Foreign Relations Committee and a larger bipartisan group of our 
colleagues who have been working on a comprehensive approach to counter 
this threatened aggression by Russia. We have discussed my lend-lease 
bill, as well as additional security assistance and lethal aid for 
Ukraine. And, as we have read, Senator Menendez and Senator Risch are 
negotiating a limited but immediate sanctions response to this 
aggression, including cyber attacks, as well as the threat of 
additional sanctions in the event of an invasion.
  As the chairman and the ranking member have said, negotiations are 
making some progress, and I hope we

[[Page S566]]

can wrap things up quickly and bring the bill to the Senate floor 
without much more delay.
  The fact is, we are racing against the clock. Putin could invade 
Ukraine at a moment's notice, and he is not going to wait on the U.S. 
Senate to act. That is why time is of the essence.
  Ideally, the lend-lease agreement, military assistance, sanctions, 
and other provisions included in this package will cause Putin to think 
twice about invading. But that can only happen if we act before Putin 
acts.
  So the clock is ticking, and we need to move. I am encouraged by the 
bipartisan support we have seen for Ukraine and for this effort, and I 
hope we can take action soon to reaffirm America's position as the lead 
defender of global peace and security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                                 JCPOA

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, the world was safer when the JCPOA, the 
Iran nuclear agreement negotiated by President Obama, was in place. The 
world became a much less safe place when President Trump tore up that 
agreement against the advice of his Secretary of State and his 
Secretary of Defense.
  We have an opportunity right now to reconstruct that agreement--or 
the most important elements of it--so that Iran once again is as far as 
possible from being able to obtain a nuclear weapon. That would make 
the region safer. That would make the United States safer.
  But time is of the essence. U.S. negotiators, European negotiators, 
the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians are right now entering what 
could be the last round of discussions, and it is absolutely imperative 
that the U.S. Senate provide this administration with the support it 
needs to effectuate an agreement.
  I want to talk to my colleagues for a few minutes about how important 
it is for the United States and our European allies--for the world, 
indeed--to reconstruct a diplomatic agreement with Iran.
  And I want to also talk for a moment about how disastrous the last 5 
years have been--a period of time during which the United States has 
largely been out of compliance with that agreement.
  The JCPOA was signed by the United States and European allies and was 
entered into, on behalf of a coalition that included Russia and China, 
with the Iranian Government. It was signed in July of 2015, and within 
about 6 months, the IAEA was able to verify that Iran had completed its 
obligations under the nuclear agreement.
  This included commitments that would increase the amount of time that 
Iran needed to acquire enough material for a nuclear weapon from 2 to 3 
months--that was the amount of time that it would have taken them prior 
to the nuclear agreement--to at least a year or more.
  The agreement reduced Iran's stockpiles of enriched uranium by 
requiring it to ship 25,000 pounds of it out of the country. Iran 
committed to dismantling and removing two-thirds of its centrifuges. It 
modified its heavy water reactor at Arak and filled it with concrete so 
that it could never be used again, preventing Iran from producing 
weapons-grade plutonium. And, finally, Iran agreed to provide 
unprecedented access to its nuclear facilities and to its nuclear 
supply chain--not only the sites that we knew about, but it also agreed 
to adopt what are called the additional protocols which allow the IAEA 
to be able to request and get access to sites in which they might have 
some suspicion that there was new prohibited nuclear research activity 
happening.
  Under this deal, Iran reduced its stockpile of uranium by 98 percent. 
It kept its level of uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent, significantly 
below the levels that you would need to make a bomb.
  The JCPOA, as I said, got the Iranians to reduce their number of 
centrifuges from 20,000 to 6,000.
  And so this was the world that President Trump inherited--the United 
States, Europe, Russia, and China united on Iran policy; Iran shutting 
down major elements of their nuclear research program, such that they 
were now more than a year out from getting a nuclear weapon if they 
made the decision to achieve a nuclear weapon. That is called the 
breakout time, the time from which a country decides it wants a nuclear 
weapon to the point at which it has a nuclear weapon. For Iran, that 
went from 2 to 3 months prior to the agreement to over a year after the 
agreement.
  But it also lined up the United States, Europe, China, and Russia--
this unlikely alliance of traditional adversaries, at least with 
respect to Russia and China--so that we could then move on to Iran's 
other malevolent behaviors.
  Critics of the deal said it only pertains to the nuclear program, but 
that is not the only bad behavior that Iran is engaged in.
  Well, President Trump inherited a united front of unlikely allies 
that then could be utilized to pressure Iran to make changes to its 
ballistic missile program, to reduce its support for terrorist 
organizations and proxy armies around the region. That is why Secretary 
Tillerson and Secretary Mattis and many other Trump advisers encouraged 
him to stay in the deal.
  But he didn't. President Trump tore up the deal and announced to the 
country and the world that he was going to pursue a different strategy.
  Critics of JCPOA said that President Obama shouldn't have entered 
into an agreement. Critics said that he should have held out and kept 
applying more and more sanctions, even if the Europeans walked away, as 
a means of getting Iran to come to the table on a broader agreement 
that would include its ballistic missile program and its support for 
terrorists.
  President Obama believed it was important to get the nuclear question 
off the table. But to the extent there was any silver lining of 
President Trump's decision, it is that it allowed us for 4 years to 
test the theory of the opponents, the theory of the critics, because 
President Trump implemented the strategy that the critics of the JCPOA 
wanted President Obama to employ.
  Donald Trump imposed greater sanctions. He did it without the 
Europeans, and he demanded that he would only talk to the Iranians if 
they came to the table on everything. In fact, he set it down on a 
piece of paper.
  Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave Iran a list of 12 demands and 
said that we will come to the table and talk to you and we will 
consider releasing these sanctions if you talk to us about all of your 
dangerous behaviors in the region--your nuclear program, your ballistic 
missile program, your support for terrorists. So President Trump gave 
us the gift of testing the theory of the opponents. You know how the 
story goes. It was a spectacular failure.
  It was a spectacular failure in multiple respects. First, let's just 
talk about what happened to Iran's nuclear program. In May 2019 Iran 
announces that it will no longer observe the JCPOA stockpile limit. 
And, as of November of last year, the stockpile of enriched uranium--
enriched uranium gas--was roughly 11 times what it was during the 
agreement.
  In July 2019, Iran began enriching uranium up to 4.5 percent, above 
3.6 percent, as specified in the agreement. In January of 2021, it 
began enriching uranium to 20 percent; in April of 2021, up to 60 
percent.
  In September 2019, Iran announced it would no longer be bound by any 
research and development limitations on advanced centrifuges. They 
started that research again.
  In November 2019, Iran announced that it would start enriching 
uranium at Fordow up to 4.5 percent. Under the JCPOA, enrichment at 
Fordow was prohibited for 15 years. By January of last year, Iran was 
enriching uranium to 20 percent at Fordow.
  And in November of 2020, Iran's Parliament passed a bill requiring 
the country to build that new heavy water reactor at Arak that allows 
them a path to plutonium. Once built, that reactor will be capable of 
producing enough plutonium annually for two nuclear weapons.
  And since February of this year, Iran has been restricting that IAEA 
access to its facilities. It no longer complies with the additional 
protocols. So if you ask for access to a site in which you think there 
is new nuclear research activity being undertaken, Iran no longer feels 
obligated to grant that access.

[[Page S567]]

  Iran went to a breakout time of 2 to 3 months to a breakout time 
under the agreement of more than a year, to, today, a breakout time of 
2 months--arguably less than the breakout time prior to the deal.
  But it is important to also note that during these last 4 years, none 
of Iran's other malevolent activities in the region have abated. In 
fact, arguably, they have gotten worse. Iran continues to support proxy 
armies in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon. In fact, their connection with 
Hezbollah in Lebanon and with the Houthis in Yemen is probably stronger 
today than it was during the JCPOA.
  After President Trump backed out of the JCPOA, Iran restarted attacks 
on U.S. troops. Now, Iran has been engaged in permanent destabilizing 
activities in Iraq since the outset of that war, but during the period 
of time that we were in the JCPOA, they were not shooting directly at 
U.S. troops. Their proxy armies had stood down. Once we were outside of 
the JCPOA, those attacks started again. In fact, one rocket that was 
sent by a proxy army at a U.S. staff base in Iraq could have killed 100 
U.S. troop members. It just narrowly missed.
  The Iranians have undertaken attacks against the Saudis that they 
never would have contemplated while the JCPOA was in effect, taking 
action against Saudi oil facilities, including a high-profile attack 
against Saudi Aramco.
  And their proxy armies, similarly, are firing at our friends in the 
Gulf. Just in the last few months, we have seen an increased level of 
drone attacks and missile attacks against Saudi Arabia and the UAE from 
inside Yemen.
  One of my Republican colleagues here in this body claimed that 
Trump's Iran policy had ``restored deterrence.'' That is a laughable 
proposition because it did exactly the opposite. Once we got out of 
that agreement, Iran started their nuclear research program to the 
point that it is stronger than it was prior to the JCPOA in some ways. 
They didn't stop any of their other destabilizing activity. It got 
worse, and they didn't come back to the table.

  The whole point of the critics of the Obama policy was that if we had 
just kept on applying sanctions, Iran would come to the table on 
everything. Trump tried it. It didn't work. Iran didn't come to the 
table on anything.
  Their actions in the region, their actions against the United States, 
their nuclear research program just got more serious and worse.
  Listen, diplomacy is not weakness. News flash: Occasionally there are 
diplomatic agreements that are in the best interests of the United 
States, and the JCPOA was inarguably one of them. The data tells a 
clear story.
  Iran wasn't a good actor during the JCPOA. They were still engaged in 
all sorts of deleterious activity. But Donald Trump inherited the 
ability to use that coalition that was built to build the JCPOA to take 
on that other activity. He inherited a nuclear research program which 
was controlled, and he threw it all away.
  What is interesting is that many of our allies who were very 
skeptical of the JCPOA when it was signed are now very supportive of 
the United States reentering it. It tells you that they see the same 
story that I am telling you.
  Our Gulf allies, who were among the most vocal opponents of the JCPOA 
in 2014 and 2015, sent out a joint statement urging ``a mutual return 
to full compliance of the JCPOA.'' This was a deal that the Gulf 
nations opposed, and they now support the United States entering back 
into it.
  And a cavalcade of Israeli officials--former intelligence and defense 
officials who can now feel freer to speak about their personal views--
have been equally clear about the need to get back into this agreement.
  Tamir Pardo was the former director of Mossad. For 5 years he 
directed the Mossad. He said:

       What happened in 2018 was a tragedy. It was an 
     unforgiveable strategy, the fact that Israel pushed the 
     United States to withdraw from the agreement 10 years early. 
     It was a strategic mistake.

  Amos Yadlin, the former chief of the IDF military intelligence unit, 
a job he held for 4 years, said: ``If we want to be honest, what 
postponed Iranian progress towards achieving nuclear weapons was the 
nuclear agreement--and not military action. . . . [Iran is] closer now 
than they have ever been before. And that is because of the very wrong 
policy . . .'' of withdrawing from the agreement.
  Gadi Eisenkot, former IDF chief of staff said that ``the fact that 
the U.S. withdrew in 2018 from the . . . deal released Iran from all 
restrictions and inspections in the deal, even if there were holes [in 
the agreement], and brought Iran to the most advanced position today 
with regard to its nuclear program.''
  And so, so many of our friends in the region see the need to get back 
into this agreement. The status quo is not acceptable.
  Now, it is not going to be easy because there are elements of Iran's 
progress in nuclear research that are difficult, if not impossible, to 
undo given how much new research, how many advanced centrifuges they 
have built since President Trump left the agreement.
  And, quite frankly, there are some sanctions that we have applied to 
Iran since the nuclear agreement that we aren't going to release, 
because we told the Iranians and the world that we were going to apply 
sanctions to Iran relevant to their ballistic missile program and their 
support for terrorist organizations, and we did that--some of them 
under President Trump. Those aren't going to go away.
  But it is important for the Biden administration to see that many of 
the sanctions that Trump put in place during that period of time may 
have sounded good, but they had no impact on Iranian behavior.
  I would put on that list the sanctioning of the Iranian Revolutionary 
Guard and the sanctioning of the Supreme Leader. These aren't good 
people, but those sanctions didn't change Iran's behavior for the 
better. In fact, during that period of time, their behavior got worse. 
Their nuclear research program became more advanced. And so, if 
releasing those designations or sanctions are required in order to make 
the world safer and get Iran back into the nuclear box, then I hope the 
administration will give serious consideration.
  I hope the administration understands the vital importance of getting 
back into this agreement and being willing to do the tough things in 
order to achieve a new nuclear agreement with the Iranians.
  The Iranians are going to have to make concessions as well. The 
Iranians are going to have to make some serious changes to their 
current scope of nuclear research. But it is the only way to unlock 
sanctions relief for a country that badly needs it. There is no way for 
the current President of Iran to make good on all the promises he made 
without the sanctions relief.

  But time is of the essence. Time is of the essence. President Biden 
promised to restart diplomacy with Iran to make the world a safer place 
by getting back into a nuclear agreement. This is the moment to do it, 
and I would urge the administration to take all of the smart steps 
necessary in order to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, 
making the region and the world a safer place.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The Senator from Connecticut.


                 Order of Business--Motion to Discharge

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I yield back all time on the motion to 
discharge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Duly noted.

                          ____________________