[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4899-S4901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1950
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, while we are standing here right now in
Washington, DC, in the middle of an afternoon, protests are happening
all over Iran right now.
The latest news reports coming out from social media and the very
limited media that can get out of Iran--massive protesters are in the
streets of 20 different cities in Iran right now. The latest count is
nine people have been killed in those protests by Iranian forces trying
to be able to shut down the protests that are now breaking out all over
the country--including, by the way, protests in Tehran.
What is going on? This has been a simmering issue for a long time in
Iran. As I have stated several times on this floor and in committee
hearings, our opposition with Iran is not with the Iranian people. The
Iranian people live in oppression underneath the Iranian regime, which
pushes their thumb down on them and limits their progress in the world
and in their own country.
The spark of this latest group of protests that are happening in the
streets all over Iran is a young lady who was murdered in police
custody in Iran named Mahsa Amini.
Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian woman, died in custody because she
broke Iran's hijab law. In other words, she wasn't wearing her head
covering, and so--brace yourself--the morality police arrested her. The
morality police in Iran detained her, where she was apparently beaten
to death while she was in prison. Now, the police and the regime have
come out and said she had sudden heart failure, but with multiple
injuries around her head, that is not sudden heart failure.
The nation--once again--of Iran is rising up to say: This has to
stop.
Americans would be surprised at the number of social media posts that
are getting out of Iran right now, where
[[Page S4900]]
large crowds--large crowds--are gathering in cities, tearing down the
pictures of the Ayatollah, and chanting in the streets of Tehran,
``Death to the dictator.''
I have friends in Iran who have actually sent me some of the social
media posts to be able to show me that this is what the street looks
like today. This is breaking out across Iran.
Now, what is interesting is that, at the same time, the President of
Iran has been allowed to be able to come into the United States to be
at the U.N. General Assembly to be able to speak out for the regime's
benefit to the rest of the world. It will be a remarkable side-by-side
of what is happening in Iran on the streets right now and the Iranian
leadership at the U.N. General Assembly.
At this same moment as well, Iran is working with Russia and has
delivered hundreds of unmanned aerial vehicles that are weaponized,
little kamikaze drones that are literally taking out Ukrainian
artillery right now in the field in Ukraine. The Iranians haven't just
supplied these weaponized drones to Russia; they have brought Russian
leaders into Iran to be able to train them on how to be able to attack
Ukraine with these weapons.
Right now as well, the Russians are calling up additional reservists
to be able to fight the Ukrainians and to be able to continue to take
the fight to them. Protests are also erupting in Russia right now from
Russian moms who are furious that their husbands and their sons are
being called up to be able to fight in Ukraine to replace the thousands
of casualties that Russia has suffered in Ukraine.
Now, why do I connect the dots in all of these--what is happening in
Iran on the streets, what is happening on the streets in Russia, and
what is happening right now in Ukraine? Because in the middle of that
moment internationally that is happening, the U.S. Government has
partnered with Russian diplomats to negotiate with Iran a restart of
the nuclear deal with them. I can't make this up. So the United States
is using Russia as its proxy to negotiate with Iran to be able to
restart a nuclear negotiation with them.
Listen, the JCPOA, this nuclear deal, as it is commonly called, when
it was put in place in 2015, was then set aside to say: It is not
accomplishing its purposes.
In 2015, when it was put in place--let's just review real quick what
happened in the days after that.
Planes full--literal planes full--of pallets loaded with cash were
sent to Iran as soon as this deal was signed. It was a government
suddenly flush with cash. How did that regime use that cash? They
bought munitions to be able to fight against Americans in Iraq.
From 2015 to 2017--that period immediately after the JCPOA was signed
and planes full of cash were sent to them--munitions fired against
American troops in Iraq increased 341 percent. During that same time
period, terrorist incidents increased 183 percent. There were 58
incidents involving Iranian vessels in the gulf that put American
troops at risk. Iran used its money not to be able to help the Iranian
people but to attack us and to attack our allies.
Our Nation withdrew from this nuclear negotiation 4 years ago. After
that happened, Iran's exports of crude oil declined by more than 2
million barrels a day, cutting off a major supply of money into the
regime. Iran's defense budget was then cut 28 percent because of those
revenue shortfalls. Iran's currency lost 70 percent of its value as the
pressure was applied to Iran to actually join into nations around the
world, to actually become a nation like the rest of the world.
I am bringing this into the Senate today. It is an issue that I have
brought multiple times. We should have ongoing dialogue with Iran. They
are ambitious to become a nuclear weapons-capable nation. They are the
single largest State sponsor of terrorism in the world. They are the
destabilizing force in all of the Middle East. Every nation in that
entire region has to prepare themselves for an inevitable, erratic,
irrational attack from Iran; and every nation fears the day that they
gain a nuclear-capable weapon.
But the gaps in the nuclear negotiations are large. Let me list some
of them. The nuclear negotiation excludes any conversation about their
terrorist activities. It is just simply not limiting their terrorist
activities, just limiting their nuclear capability. They are building
long-range weapons capable of carrying a nuclear weapon. Why would you
need to build a long-range heavy missile unless you are carrying a
nuclear tip? The two are connected--their terrorist activities, their
missile ambitions, and their nuclear ambitions. We should connect those
in all of our relationships.
My amendment in my sense of the Senate that I bring is very clear
today. One is to acknowledge what we all know is actually happening.
The second is to say, we can't have any kind of sanctions relief,
especially preemptively in negotiations on lifting energy petroleum
sales coming out of Iran. The next section of it, the third section of
it, is simply not releasing any of the sanctions on the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps. They are the core of the terrorist
activities in the area. They are the trainers for those who actually
attacked Americans in Iraq. We should not lift sanctions on them. The
fourth on this is not providing relief to the financial institutions in
Iran so they can't continue to extend their terrorist activities and
their financial activities behind the scenes. The goal of this is to be
able to put pressure on the regime but to protect the Iranian people as
much as possible.
The final statement that is in this sense of the Senate is to affirm
our long-term friendship with the people of Iran and our understanding
that they are living under the thumb of this regime.
My friend that I had mentioned before who is from Iran has reached
out to me in the last 24 hours with this simple question. The Iranian
people are on the streets, trying to gain their freedom, trying to be
able to speak and live their faith as they choose to. And here is this
question: What are the Americans going to do to stand with us? That is
a fair question for this body.
The Iranian people who are begging for their own freedom do not want
the American response to be sending cash to the regime so they can
oppress their people more or lifting the sanctions at this moment so
that the regime can continue to advance its terrorist activities or
just disengaging from its missile ambitions that destabilizes the
region or to continue to be able to use Russia as a proxy for the
United States of America while Russia is literally using Iranian drones
to attack the Ukrainians.
Let's speak with a clear voice to the Iranian people on the streets.
They want to hear the United States say: We stand with your passion for
freedom, and not: We stand with the regime in what they are trying to
do to you.
So saying all that: As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be
discharged from further consideration of S. 1950 and the Senate proceed
to its immediate consideration; I ask further that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I have such
respect for my colleague from Oklahoma. We are often on the same side
of issues related to matters of national security and the Middle East,
but I disagree with his analysis that he has presented here today. Let
me make just a remark or two about his immediate request and then make
a few remarks about the broader work to try to protect the world from a
nuclear weapons-armed Iran.
First, as I understand it--and I just had a few days to take a look
at the underlying legislation--it would significantly remove the
administration's discretion to waive sanctions or to enter into certain
oil sales or authorize business with Iranian financial institutions in
that only a treaty entered into by the United States would provide that
authority to the administration.
I think that is generally bad policy.
We can imagine a whole set of diplomatic engagements with any nation,
including Iran, in which an executive may wish to toggle sanctions or
licenses in order to provoke some behavior beneficial to the United
States.
[[Page S4901]]
That is, in fact, why we regularly build waivers into our sanctions
statutes. So to suggest that on Iran policy, the President is going to
have no ability to impact sanctions or licenses until a treaty is
entered into ties the administration's hands--both Republican and
Democratic administrations--in a way that I simply don't think is
helpful.
I understand my friend's argument.
He is not a supporter of the JCPOA, and he does not desire for the
United States to enter back into a nuclear agreement with Iran. And at
the heart of this request is the essence of President Trump's Iran
policy--the idea that if we just keep hammering Iran with sanctions
that either their behavior will get better or they will at some point
choose to come to the table and do a comprehensive deal--the nuclear
program, their ballistic missile program, their support for terrorism.
Now, I think that was a credible argument back during the Obama
administration. Many people said Obama shouldn't give Iran anything
until Iran comes to the table on everything.
This Congress went a different way. We ended up taking a vote that,
by our rules, allowed for the nuclear agreement to go forward. But we
now have the benefit of the opposition's argument to the JCPOA having
been tested for 4 years. Trump basically took that philosophy--keep
sanctioning Iran; don't worry about the fact that it is unilateral, and
eventually Iran will come to the table on everything. He tested that
for 4 years, and it was an unmitigated disaster--an unmitigated
disaster. Not only did Iran not come to the table on everything, they
came to the table on nothing. Their behavior in the region got much
worse and much more adversarial to U.S. interests.
Just look at the reality on the ground in a place like Lebanon or
Yemen or Iraq or Syria. At the end of Trump's term, did Iran have more
or less influence in those places? Unquestionably more. More integrated
with the Houthis--by the end of Trump's term, they were in charge of
the Lebanese government. There was less separation between the Iraqi
power structure and Tehran.
At the end of that 4-year period of time, testing maximum pressure,
Iran was more deeply involved with its proxies than ever before. They
were not negotiating with the United States on any of the conditions
that the Trump administration laid down for us, and they were shooting
at us.
There was not a single attack on U.S. servicemembers by Iranian
proxies while the United States was in the JCPOA. Let me say it again:
Not a single attack on U.S. servicemembers by Iranian proxies when the
United States was in the JCPOA. They occur with regularity today.
Attacks against U.S. forces in housing and on bases in Iraq and Syria
restarted once we withdrew from the deal. In this year alone, there
have been attacks in February, March, April, May, June, July, and
August.
And so, I am not sure why we have to do a lot of guessing now as to
whether we are better off with or without a nuclear agreement with
Iran, because here's what we got for maximum pressure: American troops
under fire, more support for proxies, no hopes of negotiation, and--the
icing on the cake--an Iranian nuclear program that is now weeks away
from having enough fissile material to produce a nuclear weapon.
Compare that with a year away during the time of the agreement.
So we tested this theory that we just hit them with sanctions, hit
them with sanctions, and, eventually, they capitulate. It didn't work
by, I think, all objective measures. It didn't work. And so it makes
sense that the Biden administration wants to engage and try to put back
together a deal that was good for the United States and our allies.
And, lastly, I will say this. The Senator from Oklahoma is right. The
Iranians are bad people. You can just see what they are doing right now
in the streets of Tehran in brutally repressing another wave of
protests. Listen to what the President said on TV just this week--
denying the Holocaust. These are our adversaries. This is an enemy. But
all throughout American history, we have understood there are times
when it makes sense to sit down across the table with your enemy and
adversary and engage in diplomatic conversation that is good for you
and good for the world. It is true that if Iran was further away from a
nuclear weapon, it would be good for us and it would be good for other
countries in the world, including Russia, which is why Russia is
sometimes part of these negotiations. But I don't know that because
something is good for everybody, it shouldn't be acceptable to the U.S.
Congress.
And so I am going to object to this request because I believe that
the JCPOA is the right thing for the security of this Nation; because I
believe in diplomacy even with your adversaries; because I think we
have tested the proposition that maximum pressure will work better than
a nuclear agreement, and we now know the results; and I also believe
that some of the details of this resolution would ultimately bind the
hands of American Presidents in a way that, you know, probably isn't
good precedent for the long-term security of the Nation.
So, again, I think my colleague comes to the floor with good faith
objections and longstanding objections. I come down in a different
place, and for that reason, I would object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague. We have a lot
of agreement in areas in Lebanon and other areas in the region that we
work diligently together to be able to resolve--very, very difficult
areas in this region.
But I do want to say: Facts are stubborn things. When my colleague
makes a statement that we can see what happens during the time of the
JCPOA and we can see what happens during the time of sanctions, I am
welcome to be able to look at those facts. During the time of the
JCPOA, as I mentioned before, from 2015 to 2017, munitions fired
against American troops in Iraq increased 341 percent. Many of those
munitions were Iranian-provided. So to be able to say that there were
no attacks on Americans during the JCPOA is just factually not correct.
I can take you to a multitude of members of the U.S. military that
will speak specifically of munitions that were fired on them and all
kinds of improvised explosive devices created by the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps and shipped into Iraq to be able to attack
them specifically during that time period. So it is not factually
correct there were no attacks on Americans during the time of the
JCPOA. In fact, all the folks that look at these issues saw that
terrorism increased 183 percent during that time period.
During the time of the sanctions, Iran suffered real consequences in
their economy, including a dramatic drop in their own defense spending
by 28 percent during that time period. I received a personal outreach
from an individual who is a leader in Lebanon, who my colleague and I
both know well, who reached out to me personally and said whatever the
United States is doing right now to cut off funding to Iran, keep doing
it because it is also cutting off funding to Hezbollah and to Lebanon.
They are not getting their paychecks right now, and that is helping the
stability of our government.
So there was a real effect during that time period. We can discuss
strategic aspects of which one is more effective, the agreement or the
heavier sanctions, but we can't just ignore it and say there was no
benefit during that time period in the last several years on the
pressure that was put on Iran during this time period.
The fact still remains, the people of Iran are asking the question.
They are on the streets chanting for freedom. What is the Senate going
to do to stand with them? And, currently, it is nothing. I would like
for it to be something, to stand with the people of Iran as they speak
out against the repressive regime that they are under the thumb of.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse.