[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 153 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4951-S4953]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4924
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, the No. 1 job of our Commander in Chief is
to
[[Page S4952]]
protect the homeland. The constitutional oath we all take as Members of
Congress, similar to the one I swore when I joined the military, is to
protect our citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I want everyone in this Chamber, the American people, our allies, and
our adversaries to all hear me today. Iran, the world's most deadly
state sponsor of terrorism, announced its intentions to track, target,
and kill American citizens here on our shores. The radical Islamists of
Iran and their terrorist proxies across the Middle East are seeking to
destroy America, and they are coming here to our soil.
As you can see, the Iranian regime promises to ``bring the
orchestrators and perpetrators to justice.'' This is an undeniable
death threat, one that they have already attempted to follow through
on.
Iran isn't making this threat from Tehran, over 6,000 miles away.
They made it here, for example, in New York City. Yesterday, at U.N.
headquarters, the Butcher of Tehran, Ebrahim Raisi, was flanked by his
personal security force, IRGC terrorists, tagged by our Justice
Department as the entity responsible for attempting to kill Mike
Pompeo, John Bolton, Brian Hook, and others who ordered and executed
the strike on Qassem Suleimani.
This President's obligation is to safeguard and protect the life,
liberty, and prosperity of our people and to deter, defeat, and, when
necessary, destroy our enemies.
The Biden administration's desire to bring the 2015 Iran nuclear
agreement back to life is delusional. Continued renegotiation with
Russia as our proxy--no joke--ignores our men and women in uniform, the
Iranian dissident community, our allies and partners in the Persian
Gulf, and American citizens on the homeland who have bounties on their
heads today.
Our Middle Eastern partners, in particular, are begging the Biden
administration not to reenter this so-called nuclear agreement. They
plead with us not to give Iran access to $1 trillion in capital by
2030. Don't fund their military support of Russia's aggression against
Ukraine, and don't fund their acts of terrorism against our own people,
they ask.
I am demanding that America does not fund or support a regime trying
to kill our own people. The President's ongoing negotiations pacify
rather than hold Iran accountable for targeting American citizens. The
Biden administration's foolish pursuit of peace through appeasement
must be stopped, and we can start today. Yesterday, with 26 of my
colleagues, I introduced the PUNISH Act, or the Preventing Underhanded
and Nefarious Iranian Supported Homicides Act. My bill would enforce
U.S. sanctions on Iran until the Secretary of State certifies to
Congress that Iran has not supported any attempt or activity to kill a
U.S. citizen, former or current U.S. official, or Iranian living within
the United States. Specifically, it would codify the Trump
administration's ``maximum pressure'' sanctions as well as preserve
sanctions put in place by the Obama and Carter administrations.
It is hard to believe that, after countless attacks on Americans and
multiple confirmed--confirmed--plots against U.S. officials, the Biden
administration continues with these negotiations. President Biden
should not provide a dime of sanctions relief to the largest state
sponsor of terrorism which is actively trying to kill U.S. officials
and citizens at home and abroad. I will remain committed to protecting
the homeland, our troops, and officials abroad from the violent Islamic
regime in Iran.
Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4924,
which is at the desk. I further ask 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. First, this
is a pretty long piece of legislation and impactful in the policy it
makes. It was introduced yesterday.
It is probably not a great idea for the Senate to short circuit any
process of reviewing this legislation and speed to its passage today,
but Senator Ernst is a serious thinker on matters of national security,
and so I do want to engage for 2 minutes on the merits because I think
it is important to have this conversation.
Senator Ernst is right. At the heart, at the center of U.S. foreign
policy has to be the protection of our citizens. We have to be
coldblooded about making sure that our policy keeps our people safe,
both here in the United States and abroad.
The good news, when it comes to Iran policy, is that we have tried
both a policy of engagement and diplomacy and a policy of escalating
sanction, and we can judge from those two periods of time which one
better protected American security and the specific security of
Americans here and in the region.
During the period of time that the United States and Iran were in an
agreement regarding nuclear weapons together, there were not credible
plots being hatched against U.S. persons inside the United States.
There were not Iranian proxies firing at U.S. forces inside the Middle
East. But as soon as the United States removed itself from that
agreement and started this process of escalating sanction, all of a
sudden, Americans and American assets were at risk all over the world.
The plots started against U.S. persons here. The Iranians and their
proxies started regularly shooting at Americans in the region.
And so the facts are the facts--less threat to the United States when
we were in a diplomatic agreement and more threats to the United States
when we weren't in a diplomatic agreement. I think that speaks to the
question of whether engagement or maximum pressure actually--actually--
in the end protects Americans best.
But, second, I want to make this point, and I think it is an
important one. This is called the PUNISH Act. And I understand why. It
speaks to a view of sanctions as simply a mechanism of punishment. And
there is an element of sanctions that is sending a moral message, a
moral signal, about our values and how they differ from the values of
those that we are sanctioning. But sanctions are also used to
influence. In fact, most of the sanctions that we are passing are not
just merely punitive. They are actually designed to try to change the
behavior of a regime.
So that is why, if we entered into a nuclear agreement, the only
sanctions that I think we should remove are the sanctions that were
specifically put in place to influence the Iranians to give up their
nuclear weapons program.
In fact, I would argue--and I think President Biden would argue; I am
sure President Biden would argue--that we should keep in place the
sanctions that have been levied against Iran to try to influence their
ballistic missile program or their support for terrorists.
And so I think it is just important for us all to come to the
conclusion that, although there is a punishment element of sanctions,
if we don't use sanctions to influence behavior, then I am not sure
that the policy of sanctions matters as effectively as it should.
And, lastly, this: Iran, they are malevolent actors. They are not
good people. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't enter into
negotiations when we can take steps to protect our interests, the
security of our people.
The nuclear bombs that we dropped on Japan were 15-kiloton weapons.
Modern nuclear weapons range from 100 to 800 kilotons. So, yes,
unapologetically, we should have a policy as a component of our
national security to do whatever is possible to make sure that more
countries--especially, more wildly irresponsible regimes--don't get
their hands on nuclear weapons. And, yes, that should be more important
than many of our other priorities.
Yes, in fact, we should elevate the conversation about stopping a
regime like Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. They are bad actors.
They are targeting U.S. forces. They are targeting U.S. persons. They
are supporting terrorism. That, to me, is the reason, is the rationale
why we should make sure that that regime--so dangerous, so destructive,
so malevolent--doesn't get its hands on a nuclear weapon.
Their bad action in the region is a reason to engage in diplomacy to
stop
[[Page S4953]]
them from getting a nuclear weapon, not a reason not to engage in that
diplomacy. And so I understand that it is sometimes incredibly hard and
distasteful to get your arms wrapped around engagement with an enemy.
But I will leave you with this. The Soviet Union, through their
proxies, killed tens of thousands of Americans during the Cold War.
There was no doubt that they possessed on a daily basis the existential
ability to wipe out the United States. But we did, at the very least,
four bilateral nuclear deals with the Soviet Union, seven multilateral
nuclear deals with the Soviet Union, not because we misunderstood their
aims and desires but because we thought it was so important to limit
the scope of their nuclear program given their intentions to wipe out
democracy all around the world.
I agree that it is apples to oranges comparing the Soviet Union to
Iran, but the same principle applies. We need to elevate our work when
it comes to nonproliferation. That just needs to matter more, and
we shouldn't be afraid to engage with enemies and adversaries,
especially on this question of making sure that their bad behavior
doesn't end up having, amongst its tools, a nuclear weapon that could
kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.
For that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Iowa.
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, blocking the passage of the bill today, it
is not just disappointing, but it is endangering. We do have to act
now. I mean, you can read the tweet. It is right here. They are seeking
justice. They are looking for retribution and revenge.
Again, it was sent from U.S. soil--this tweet was. If that doesn't
constitute a clear and present danger demanding immediate attention,
then I honestly don't know what does.
If a nuclear agreement is reached, folks, it is not going to change.
Iran's aggression was not curbed by the Obama-Biden administration's
failures. In fact, it invigorated Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
Their mythical deal effectively financed the world's best organized,
most capable terror group to rain down attacks on the United States,
Israel, and even the Arab Gulf States.
After the deal was signed, Iran went on the offensive, and I can give
you some statistics to actually show that activities increased. Attacks
against the United States and our partners increased from roughly 8
incidents per every 100 days in 2015 to 28 incidents in 100 days during
the 3.5 years that the JCPOA was in effect.
So arguing that the nuclear deal is a credible deterrent against
Iranian terror doesn't actually hold water. Thousands of folks have
died fighting the global war on terrorism, including 600 U.S.
servicemembers. They have been killed at the hands of Iranian proxies
in Iraq and in Syria.
I was there on the ground in 2003, in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The
leader of that initial surge was a name whom we all know well, Gen. Jim
Mattis. The men and women in uniform, then and today, know that Iran is
an enemy. We have no common cause with the ayatollahs or anyone who
chants ``Death to America.'' Jim Mattis told our enemies, and I will
quote the good general:
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I am
pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: if you [screw] with
me--
And he used a different word--
I'll kill you all.
Folks, Iran is killing our people overseas, and they are trying to
kill our people right here, right here in the United States of America.
We cannot appease, and we cannot back down.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.