>> we will leave this event now and take you live to the use senate as we continue our over for your commitment to bring you live coverage of congress. the senate about to gavel in for the weekly party caucus lunches. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: ■5

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 42. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion is reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 658, david augustin ruiz of ohio to be united states district judge for the northern district of ohio, signed by 18 senators. officer by -- the presiding officer: the question is, is it the sense the

senate that the nomination of david augustin ruiz of ohio shall be brought to a close. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 589. the nays are 38. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, david augustine ruiz of ohio to be

united states district judge for the northern district of ohio. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you. everybody knows that violent crime is rising in america. killings of police are at a 20-year high. the world's worst record since 9/11. homicides, carjackings, and retail crime are all very high. criminals are pushing people in front of the subways, looting entire trains filled with packages, and stealing so much from stores that the stores can't afford to stay open. i've already come to this senate floor many times to describe the horrors of increase attacks on police and the surge in murders.

these tragedies cry out for action. these are the results of campaigns to defund the police. our streets are lawless because blue cities have pulled the police back. the consequences of depolicing extend far beyond that defund the police rhetoric inspires. they extend beyond criminals embolden to commit crimes like murder and armed carjackings. we've all seen the images of a california trade yard -- train yard littered with open boxes as far as the eye can see. train robberies are up by 160% in los angeles county, and

that's just over the past year. the governor of california compared the scenes to a third world country. and i've seen them and i agree with the governor of california. organized retail crime is out of control. criminals rely on the lack of active policing to commit large-scale theft. according to the national retail federation, 69% of the retailers say that they've had an increase in theft in the last year. and 78% say more law enforcement would help stop the crimes of retail theft. why would people not expect more from law enforcement. everybody knows that governments

establish for public safety among other reasons but that's foremost. it still isn't a secret what liberal cities need to do to keep crime out of their cities, out of their railways, out of their subways, out of their streets, and out of their stores. send police where the crime happens. tell the police to arrest criminals, prosecute those criminals, do not release dangerous criminals out on bail. it is a very simple and effective way to reduce the amount of crime. you know what won't work? some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think the solution is gun control, but

here's the issue. gun control won't stop a criminal from pushing an innocent victim in front of a subway, let alone keep a criminal from obtaining an illegal gun. the real problem is enforcement by the police. the crime spike began in june 2020 when blue cities nationwide pulled the police off their streets, progressive prosecutors at that time stopped prosecuting, and these blue cities started bail reform policies that released violent criminals into the streets. no police on the streets but a lot of criminals on the streets. it's no surprise that crime has

risen. the problems are depolicing, political prosecution -- progressive prosecution, and ineffective bail policies. blue-city mayors depoliced until some released that was a bad, bad decision to make. this liberal attitude towards criminality may now light at the end of the tunnel seems to be changing for the better. just two or three examples -- new york city's new mayor, eric adams,announced that he would revive a plain-clothed anticrime unit to combat the violence, and he's also suggesting better bail

policies. a couple months ago we heard san francisco mayor london breed declare a state of emergency over crime in her city. and then maybe a month ago, we saw chicago mayor lori lightfoot ask for federal resources to fight crime. the nation's crime spike is the result of less law enforcement. criminals are feeling bold, very bold, because they know they will go uncaught and, if uncaught, unpunished. far-left mayors need to use a simple solution with a very proven record of success. they need to bring police back to our streets and keep the criminals off of our streets. on another matter, madam

president -- or, mr. president, i want to talk about high drug prices. three years ago i began a bipartisan effort to lower prescription drug costs, and that isn't just a chuck grassley issue. that's a bipartisan issue. following, first, finance committee hearings that i chaired, bipartisan negotiations, and a bill markup, i introduced with the senior senator from oregon a bill that we call grassley-wyden -- but i don't care if it's called wyden-grassley. but the point is the prescription drug pricing act will go a long ways to stop the massive increase we have in drug prices.

we passed this bill out of the finance committee on a bipartisan vote of 19- 9. i have never stopped working to advance bipartisan, negotiated, and balanced drug pricing bill. drug prices are rising. more americans are having a harder time paying these high costs for prescription drugs. aarp says, brand-name drugs that seniors use are going up more than twice the rate of inflation. new data from another source, the national health review survey, estimates 3.5 million seniors had difficulty affording their medication. i hear stories about rising drug costs all the time at my 9-9

county meetings and we have a q & a at those hearings and always prescription drug pricing is on that agenda. because the people probably asking the questions, what are we going to do about prescription drug pricing are probably the very same ones being hit by these high prices, and they notice the big increase in in prices from year to year. for example, iowans tell me about the rising cost of other insulin or how they worry about paying for out-of-pocket costs in the doughnut hole. no matter how you look at it, drug costs are going up and americans are paying more. for 12 months, president biden and the democrat majority has focused on a partisan, reckless

tax-and-spending spree, and they have not made any progress in passing drug pricing reform as part of their partisan proposal. i compliment them for trying to do something about drug pricing, but it hasn't happened yet, and the way you get things done in the united states senate is by doing it in a bipartisan way. by every public account, the talks in the other party on their agenda have stalled. in fact, as best evidence of this, just this very day, the senior senator from west virginia said that the democrat bill is -- this is his word -- dead. so instead of spending more time on bills that do not have votes,

we could pass bipartisan legislation to lower drug costs this very day. it would have a meaningful impact on lowering prescription drug costs. let's not wait another minute. so the grassley-wyden bill -- or the wyden-grassley bill -- remains our best chance to lower prescription drug costs in a bipartisan manner. and i urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this bill. i'll give you just some examples, probably only a half a dozen out of 27 major pieces it has in it. number one, it caps out-of-pocket costs at $3,100. i'll have to give to the democrat proposal. they have reduced that down to $2,000. i'm willing to negotiate $3,100 or $2,000.

secondly, it eliminates the doughnut hole. third, it caps rising drug prices in medicare at inflation price index. four, the bill ends uncapped taxpayer-funded subsidies for big pharma. five, it brings more sunshine, more competition, and more oversight to how big pharma prices drugs in the first place. lastly out of 2,700 sections in this bill, i want to say it saves $72 billion for seniors and $95 billion for taxpayers. in addition to this bill, i have four prescription drug bills that have passed the judiciary

committee with unanimous support. so, obviously, all four of those are bipartisan bills. these four bills bring more competition, let more affordable drugs come to the market, and end anticompetitive behavior by big pharma. i urge my colleagues to work with me to pass bipartisan drug drug-pricing reform today. i will end by saying that maybe early in the new administration i had a telephone conversation with president biden on the subject of drugs. he sent his legislative staff up here to meet with me on the subject, and i pointed out what they were trying to do, as i just pointed out to my colleagues today. they wanted to do it a different

way. it doesn't seem to be getting traction, so i send to the president's staff, and i said to the president himself, you might want to take a look at this bipartisan bill, probably move it. the other thing is, on another subject but just a short statement, i had a chance within the last three hours to meet with another senator on -- with the president of the united states down at the white house on another subject. but at the end of that meeting, i complimented the president on his executive order, i think, of last june in which he mandated to all agencies of government, do everything you can to make sure there's competition working

in our free marketplace. and at that point, he suggested a bipartisan bill that i have dealing with meatpacking and animal -- beef slaughter. and so i told him today, maybe we can work on that piece of legislation as well in a bipartisan way. so i could point out three issues that i have moving with democrats that could be brought up now. i'll bet every one of the 99 senators in here have bipartisan bills that they could be working on, and we ought to start that process going if we're going to have success for the year 2020. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i have eight

requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate with the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent notwithstanding rule 2,at 5:00 p.m. today, all postcloture time on the ruiz nomination expire and following the confirmation vote, the senate vote on motions to invoke cloture on the puttagunta, lopez, and staples nominations in the order listed without intervening action or debate. further, that if cloture is invoked on any of the nominations, the confirmation votes be at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the republican leader. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: i want to notify all senators that they should expect four roll call votes beginning at 5:00 p.m. mr. president, there's a photograph that we've all seen. six battle-weary victorious marines raising the american

flag on iwo jima. it's one of the most iconic photos of world war ii. it is taken 77 years ago this month. among those six brave marines was a coal miner's son from western pennsylvania. his name was sergeant michael strenk. at 25 years ofagers he was the oldest of the six flag raisers. the men in his rival squad idolized him. one of them said he was the kind of marine you read about the kind they make movies about. sergeant strenk used to tell his men, follow me and i'll try to bring you home safely to your mom. one week after he raised the flag, he was killed in the battle of iwo jima. he was the first of the six flag raisers to die. today he's buried among america's heroes in arlington national cemetery. but that's not the end of the story. in 2008, a marine security guard

based at the u.s. embassy new england slovakia discovered that he was not a natural-born u.s. citizen. he received his citizenship through his father when his father became a u.s. citizen in 1935. so where was this marine's marine born? he was the first child born into an ethnic ukrainian family in what is now slovakia. like my own mother, michael strenk came to america with his mom as a toddler. those who were there that day on iwo jima remember that a loud cheer went up from thousands of marines when they saw finally that red, white, and blue of the u.s. flag flying over the highest peak on that island.& they knew that day in the war between freedom and tyranny, freedom had won. today, almost 80 years later, the battle between freedom and tyranny continues, and one of its new flash points is the

ukraine. the ukrainian people have made it clear they want to be free and independent. they want to chart their own future. they want to choose their own leaders and the elections that they conduct. this is the future that more than 92% of ukrainians chose in a referendum in 1991 after ukraine declared independence from the crumbling and corrupt soviet union. but russian president vladimir putin, the old k.g.b. agent, refuses to acknowledge ukraine's right to exist, its right to independence, its right to self-determination. for almost 100 days, from november 2013 to january 2014, the ukrainian people waged a revolution of dignity to force from office a corrupt russian-backed puppet president, and they won. in retaliation, russia invaded

and annexed the crimean peninsula and parts of eastern ukraine and installed a russian-friendly government. this forceful occupation are parts of ukraine by russia mark the first time, the first time since world war ii ended that one nation had redrawn the map of europe by force. for the last eight years, russia has tried relentlessly to destabilize the democratic elected government in ukraine. this is part of the reason that president trump's efforts to withhold congressionally approved military aid for ukraine in order to extract political favors was egregious. and now putin has amassed more than 120,000 russian soldiers on the borders of ukraine. whether putin is driven by megalomania, maniacal dilutions of restoring the soviet union or simply seeking to create chaos

and sow dissension among allies is unclear. but here's what's clear, a russian invasion of ukraine would constitute a grave assault not only on ukraine but the institutions that have kept peace. a russian invasion of ukraine also could be seen as a danger to our nato allies in poland and in the courageous young baltic democracies in lithuania, latvia, and estonia. it would be a catastrophic mistake on putin's part, and senator bide, now our president, has made that point over and over. chicago is home to one of the largest polish communities outside of war saw, the largest ligget wayne -- lithuanian community outside of vilnius. the chicago area has the third largest lithuanian community in

the united states. aweek ago i attended a celebration on chicago avenue in ukrainian village. i also, speaking at that gathering was oxana marikova, ukraine's ambassador to the united states. the polish and lithuanian communities in chicago were there standing in solidarity with the people of ukraine and with the people of poland, lithuania and the baltic to decide their futures. vladimir putin and his men should know the united states, natoened a the entire community of democracies also believe it is the right exclusively of ukraine and other young democracies to protect their territorial boundaries and decide their own fate. the united states made its position clear yesterday in the u.n. security council. ukraine, the united states, nato, the entire community of democracies all want a diplomatic solution to russia's threats on ukraine. that is what we seek.

if vladimir putin wants to avoid a debacle that will cost his nation dearly in lives and treasure, he will agree to the solution. i commend president biden, secretary of state blinken and their teams for their strong support of ukrainian independence and to fight russian aggression. the biden administration has provided significant military equipment for our ukrainian friends to ensure that president putin knows the price that a further invasion will cost. the administration has also bolstered the defense capabilities of our nato partners in poland and the baltics. if putin is counting on partisan division in the senate to weaken america's resolve to defend ukraine and its neighbors, he's mistaken. yesterday senator grassley and i introduced a bipartisan resolution celebrating 100 years of diplomatic relationships between the u.s. and baltic states and reaffirming our close relationship with these young democracies. later this week senator shaheen and i and several of our

colleagues, both parties, will meet with the baltic and polish ambassadors to reaffirm u.s. support for their nations. and i hope that we will also see strong bipartisan support for legislation that's been drafted by senators menendez and risch, the chair and ranking member of the senate foreign relations committee. that bill will impose severe, crippling economic sanctions on russia for any further invasion of ukraine. it would bolster similar bruising sanctions drawn up by the biden administration and it will ensure that any russian aggression against ukraine or its neighbors will be felt in russia by their economy and their people. i mentioned my mom came to this country when stheefs when she was two years old in 1911. at the time lithuania was under the control of disarrist russia, a -- czarist russia.

lithuania became part of the ussv against its will, another brutal and oppressive regime. in 1991 lithuania became the first soviet republic to declare independence. in response soviet tanks under control of gorbachev rolled in to crush the new lithuanian democracy. i was there before those tanks arrived. their parliament is called the samus. they put sandbags around the outside of it to try to stop the soviets and their tanks. they took me in the back in a small room off to the side and showed me their arsenal. it consisted of about ten rifles that had been borrowed from farmers in the countryside to try to defend their capitol in vilnius. kids were assembled outside praying the rosary in the snow. lighting little candles by the sandbags to show their solidarity with the people of lithuania, their determination to survive.

soviet tanks rolled in, killed 13 innocent people and injured dozens more. but then to the world's astonishment, and mine too, prime minister mikhail gorbachev ordered the tanks to withdraw. another russian president, boris yement sin, supported -- yeltsin supported lithuanian independence. years after he was honored with an award for commitment to lithuanian statehood. mikhail gorbachev and yeltsin understood that you can brutalize a people who were determined to be free but you can never defeat them. ultimately freedom will win. it's a tragedy that russian president putin cannot or will not learn that same lesson of history today when it doms ukraine. 77 years ago an american marine born in ukraine raised the american flag on iwo jima. today a generation of younger

ukrainians raise in freedom are holding high the yellow and blue flag of their own nation and saying we too want to be free. our message to them is very simple and straightforward -- you are not alone. like the shipyard workers in ga dancing who helped -- in gdansk, like the two million estonians and lithuanians who physically joined hands to defend freedom across their nations, history and the free world will stand with you. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i'm here to talk about the escalating aggression. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: recognize d. mr. portman: i'm here to talk about the escalating aggression by russia against ukraine. in our generation, this is where the fight for freedom is being held. this is where it's being waged. and it's going to affect not just ukraine and eastern europe, but countries all over the world depending on the outcome. today i'm going to address what i think the appropriate role is

for us as americans, what more we can do to help avoid what could become an international disaster and a humanitarian crisis. russia is the aggressor here, having invaded ukraine twice in the past eight years, legally annexing crime i -- crimea, initiating cyber attacks and using disinformation to try to destabilize the democratically elected government in ukraine. now they've amassed more than 100,000 troops on ukraine's border, it includes rockets, tanks and artillery, it is not just on the eastern border of ukraine, but it's across the border, where russian combat troops have gone into belarus. it's also in crimea and in the

black sea area, where russia is taking advantage of their illegal annexation to move troops into those areas close to ukraine. i will give you a little history about how we got here. eight years ago the people of ukraine made a clear choice. they stood up to a rush-backed corrupt -- russian-backed corrupt government and made a decision to turn to us, the united states of america. i was in ukraine in 2014, shortly after the revolution of dignity, the barricades were still there and in the center of town the midon in kiev was occupied still by ukrainian patriots insisting ukraine chart its own course. ukrainian people embraced freedom, embraced democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to gather, freedom for the respect of law, respect for the judicial

institutions in the country and free markets. now, have they stumbled along the way with regard to reforms, including the judicial system? yes, of course. most democracies do. but they've made tremendous progress and they're on their way toward becoming what they wanted to become at the time eight years ago when, again, this revolution of dignity was called the uro -- euromadon, that is part of the e.u. des spite russia's unrelenting efforts to destable ukraine over the last eight years, the people of ukraine have remained committed to this independent, sovereign and democratic principle, that vision and ukrainians are actually increasingly patriotic and opposed to the russian efforts to destabilize their country, it is especially true to young people because they have tasted

the fruits of freedom, free enterprise, the ability to express them and connect to the rest of the free world. they don't want state control. they don't want repression. they want liberty and prosperity. moscow, russia would have us believe that this is about shoring up its border about threats from ukraine and nato, north atlantic treaty organization. nothing could be further from the truth. this is patently false. their military posture has always been defensive and unlike russia, ukraine has up held its commitments under the minsk agreement. nato, of course, is defensive. it's not an offensive group, and is no threat to russian territorial integrity. my hope is that congress can come together this week, republicans democrats, the senate and house and issue a

strong message to the people of ukraine that we stand with them in their fight for freedom many to russia, if they choose to invade, the armed conflict will carry a heavy cost and the sanctions that would result from that would be devastating and then to the world that the u.s. stands with its allies, not just in eastern europe but throughout the freedom-loving countries of the world. i'm hoping that congress will pass a package including security funding for ukraine and funding for the global engagement center at the u.s. state department to help push back on russian disinformation. i want to say a word about our allies. in many respects i believe that what vladimir putin has done by these aggressive actions we talked about is to strengthen the transatlantic alliance, including those countries part of nato and go beyond that and countries in other parts of the world that understand that this is about the cause of freedom many so many have stepped up,

denmark is providing f-16 threats to lithuania and france is getting ready to send troops to romania, they say, the united kingdom has sent antitank weapons to kiev and supported ukraine in so many ways. when i was in ukraine recently, i was there to see a cargo plane unload antitank weapons from the u.k. to ukraine. and recently the united states has not just increased our military assistance to ukraine to help them depend themselves, but we have placed 2,500 troops on alert to go be with our nato allies in eastern europe. they welcomed that. ukraine has never asked for u.s. troops or nato troops to defend ukraine. they have asked for help to be able to defend themselves, and that's an important distinction. on the russian plien to europe -- pipeline to europe

called nord stream 2, i think it is a bad idea. russia supplies germany with their gas supply. let's not forget that this will multibillion-dollar pipeline is one this body chose not to impose sanctions on just a few weeks ago after we had already done so once before on a bipartisan basis and i will say the vote last week was not 60 votes, but it was a majority of this body voting to impose sanctions because, again, the nord stream 2 pipeline is a bad idea in terms of the dependency of europe on russia. once the pipeline is complete, it will supply a lot of russian gas to germany and the rest of europe and russia will use it as a political weapon. we've seen this. this is no surprise that they will do it. they did it in moldova and ukraine, even today german prices are affected by what

russia decides is appropriate. germany said they will shut down the pipeline if russia invades ukraine. but they should say so publicly. i'm concerned about germany's resistance to supply arms sells to ukraine. a great example of this there are artillery pieces made in east germany, decades ago, those artillery pieces, they are now in the hands of the as stonians, they want them, even though the artillery is older, they need the artillery, because they were made in east germany decades ago under the licensing agreement, germany has to approve estonia sending ukraine these weapons they need. that approval has not been forthcoming. to me, this is outrageous that ukraine is not receiving the

weapons it needs because another country, part of the nato alliance is saying they are are not going to i prove the transfer. i hope that will change. i hope very soon we will see the transfer approved. germany, has said,ern i had -- and i had conversations with them, they don't like to send weapons into hot spots, but they did send weapons to the middle east, testify one of the largest exports to countries like egypt. we need to be sure that we're doing all we can to avoid russia making this terrible mistake, and a big part of this should be all the countries in the region, certainly our nato allies, standing up and providing military assistance to ukraine and making clear that if something happens, that the consequences will be devastating because of sanctions. the cost of freedom in eastern europe is at stake here, but so

is really the stability of all of europe. the ukrainian officials themselves have talked about this. the foreign minister, who i met with recently in ukraine, stated that germany is taking a stance that, and i quote, does not koorpd with the -- correspond the our security relations. end quote. i agree. people listening may be wondering, why should the united states get engaged here and why is this senator from ohio passionate about this? in ohio, we have lots of ukrainians that i have gotten to know. it's about people all over that part of the year, lithuania. the people who i talked to tell me that this is, again, a seminole moment not just in the history of ukraine but in the history of our world. because it is the fight for

freedom being played out before our eyes. the ukrainian americans, of course, are deeply concerned that this continued aggression unchecked will lead to other countries, including the baltics, including poland others being subject to the same kind of pressure from russia. but it's also because i believe what happens in ukraine does affect the cause of freedom more broadly. countries all over the world are watching, authoritarian countries are watching, democratickicly elected -- democratically countries are watching and they are wondering if we're going to allow this to occur, one country looks at another country says, i want that country so i will invade and take that land. until we had the invasion of crimea only eight years ago, this hadn't happened in almost 80 years since world war ii on the continent of europe. this is something that countries are watching to get a message to see what the united states is

going to be the country that joins with others, including our nato alliance and other countries to stand up for freedom and to be stand up for the right of a sovereign country to protect its borders. i joined a bipartisan delegation, led by me and my good friend senator shaheen, senator murphy was on the floor tonight, was also with us. we personally met with president zelensky and four or five other officials, we talked about providing military assistance to be sure that ukraine could deter the threat. and if you talked to these individuals and you talked to the military officials we talked to and the commanders and i've also been to the line of contact where this hot war is going on with russia even today, i've been there, i talked to the troops, you will see that there is a commitment, a strong commitment by the ukrainians to

defend themselves. they get it that this is a critical time in their history. we tried to send a clear message on a bipartisan basis. i believe we did. i believe that this time -- this time, unlike 2014, when, frankly, ukraine and the world wasn't ready, that the situation is very different. the military is prepared, the people of ukraine have a strong sense of nationalism and a patriotism -- and a deep patriotism and they will fight and this is will be a bloody conflict that we all want to avoid. the other thing i will say about ukraine is they are our friends, they are our allies, they share our values. when the united states was looking for help in iraq and afghanistan, some nato partners came through, but so did ukraine, ukrainian troops were shoulder to shoulder with

american troops during some very tough situations in those countries. these were our friends. this is a country that is allied with us because they believe that that is the best future for the ukrainian people. it's time for us to stand with them in response to this unwarranted and unprovoked russian aggression. my hope is that congress will act on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, the house and senate, plunts and -- republicans and democrats and send a strong message to russia that would avoid a bloody conflict, deter them from taking the actions that they are contemplating and making a terrible mistake, but also we would send a strong message to the people of ukraine to give them strength during this time. and, finally, a message to the global community, that the lamp of freedom will not be extinguished. i yield back my time.

mr. reed: mr. president . the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: well, thank you, mr. president. we are four months into the fiscal year and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have still not agreed to that deal to fund the federal government, including the department of defense. in a matter of days, we'll face a prospect of a long-term continuing resolution or a government shutdown if agreement on overall funding levels cannot be reached. from the moment president biden submitted his budget requests, republican leaders said his proposed $12.6 billion increase for defense was not enough. so on a bipartisan basis we worked to raise that number to a level proposed by the ranking member of the armed services committee and supported by every republican on the committee as well as the 88 senators who voted for the vinyl defense authorization act. even with that defense number in

hand, our republican colleagues continued to draw out negotiations on a top-line funding number for the federal government. in doing so, they risk pushing us into a full year of continue -- full-year continuing resolution that would fund defense at a level that is less than president biden's initial request. let me say that again. they were deeply critical of the president's proposal. they worked and we worked with them to get a robust increase in defense spending and now they're prepared to accept a number even below president biden's request. make no mistake, a full year c.r. will shortchange our military and disrupt the operations of the federal government in the midst of international tension, the ongoing covid-19 pandemic and a fragile economic recovery. as my colleague from ohio has

just pointed out, we're in a serious confrontation on the ukranian border between russian forces and ukranian forces, and we've indicated that we want to help. a big part of that help will come from the department of defense, but it will be very difficult with a continuing resolution to marshal the help and support our colleagues and our friends in the ukraine. as i noted the outlines of a reasonable agreement for defense and nondefense funding have been evident for some time. indeed the national authorization act which passed on a bipartisan basis in december said a -- set a funding level for defense that is 5% higher than last year's enacted level. it reflects the level proposed by ranking member inhofe and as chairman of the senate armed services committee, i fully supported that funding level and

cosponsored senator inhofe's amendment to authorize the increase. for his part chairman leahy has adopted the ndaa defense funding levels and the bills that the appropriations committee introduced in november. he accommodated that increase by reducing funding for domestic programs by $22.5 billion from the level in the administration's request. so democrats have agreed to increase defense funding and to reduce nondefense funding from the levels requested by the president. in doing so, democrats propose a budget that funds the defense activities at a level that is higher than nondefense activities. let me underscore that point because g.o.p. leaders often say there should be parity between defense and nondefense spending. senate democrats have proposed spending bills that have $77.75

billion for defense and $753 billion for every other discretionary program. the v.a., education, agriculture, the f.b.i., department of homeland security, and so. democrats have offered our republican colleagues nearly everything they've asked for but they won't take yes for an answer. as we drift towards a full-year c.r., our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are reacting with nonchalance to the impacts on defense. let me remind my colleagues what a full year c.r. will mean for national defense. it will mean that defense spending will be about $37 billion lower than the level set out in the ndaa and lower than the funding levels requested by president biden, yes. those levels they criticize so aggressively are that president

biden suggest, if they pursue this path of a c.r., the numbers of the defense would be less than the president's initial request. it means military personnel accounts would be funded $5 billion below what the department requested. a c.r. means d.o.d. will have to cannibalize other accounts in order to provide the pay raises and other benefit increases that our servicemembers rightfully deserve. it means the pentagon may have to delay or suspend permanent change of station booths and accession of troops, again all of this in the context as my colleague from ohio pointed out, of a major crisis in europe and of growing concerns about chinese activities in the pacific. it means trend -- readiness accounts will fall $5.3 billion short of what the department requested. and the key to the morale of soldiers among one of the most

important keys is that they're well trained and they're prepared. we owe it to them to give them that training and ensure they are prepared. it means that military health care account will be short over $1 billion. a c.r. also means that we will be tied to funding priorities from a year ago, even though circumstances have changed markedly. for example, our military engagements with afghanistan and eastern europe are vastly different from last year. funding will be trapped in the wrong accounts and the defense department will not have the flexibility to move it where it is needed. a c.r. will prevent the defense department from effectively modernizing and reinvesting in new programs because new programs starts are not allowed under a c.r., the department of defense would be forced into funding legacy systems that are outdated and inefficient, meanwhile important new

initiatives and acquisitions would be delayed. we won't be able to fund the three additional ships and seven more joint strike fighters in the navy's 2022 budget. the marines would have to delay procurement of the mq9 reaper, an amphibious combat vehicle. the space force would have to cut two of the national security space launch missions and the air force would have to delay the ground base strategic defense program and the long-range standoff weapon. d.o.d. also wouldn't be able to start over 100 military construction projects, new facilities that our servicemembers need to do their jobs safely and effectively. this includes among others $32 million in air force corrosion and simulator projects in florida. 55 -- $55 million for a joint operation center at fort polk in louisiana. $66 million for projects in

wisconsin, $75 million in total projects for georgia, $94 million in total projects for michigan. $161 million in total projects for texas. $186 million in total projects for california. $251 million for a oneway extension at joint base el mon door of richardson in alaska. $251 million in total projects for south dakota and $321 million in total projects for north carolina. finally, a c.r. will disrupt d.o.d.'s partnership with outside partners in the private sector, in academy ya, and our allies because they inject uncertainty, instability, and additional -- to rrd and acquisition processes. in short, a year-long c.r. would make us less competitive with our adversaries and less able to

respond to the rapidly changing global landscape which was illustrated so eloquently by my colleague from ohio. it would be a self-inflicted wound at a dangerous time for the country and our international partners. the impact will not only be felt on the defense side of the -- as the covid-19 pandemic continues to produce new and potentially dangerous strains, we risk losing $5 billion in research at the n.i.h. and $2.4 billion in funding for our public health infrastructure, including funding for the c.d.c., and the national disaster medical system and a c.r. would sacrifice $3 billion in new investments in mental health and one of the obvious outcomes of this pandemic is the mental health challenge that is facing all americans, particularly young americans. we risk losing a proposed $400

increase in the maximum pell grant just as schools and students are trying to finalize financial aid packages. too many students have put off their college education due to economic hardship and uncertainty during the pandemic. this congress should not make matters worse by withholding student aid. a c.r. would also be a slap in the face of the capitol police who have been stretched to their limit in the aftermath of the january 6 assault on the capitol. it would deny the department needed funding to hire new officers for overtime and retention payments as well as resources for officer wellness and mental health support. chairman leahy has been -- bent over backwards to engage our republican colleagues. four months no the fiscal year we need them to reach an agreement. otherwise we risk a full-year c.r. in which everybody loses. most of all the american people. mr. president, with that i would

yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from kansas. a senator: mr. president, thank you very much. first of all i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak for up to seven minutes and senator barrasso be permitted to speak up to ten mines prior to the scheduled roll call votes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, today i want to speak about a piece of bipartisan legislation that chairman tester and i introduced with the unanimous support of every member of the senate committee on veterans affairs.

both republicans and democrats. consensus is often hard to find as we know in this body, but caring for our nation's veterans, our heroes has a way of bringing us together. i tell kansans back home that it's one of the few places left in which the senate on veterans affairs is one of the few places left on which republicans and democrats find common ground. and i hope that continues and i hope that spreads. caring for our nation's veterans is an honor that we all have. and when you reach an agreement between some of the most liberal members of our committee, the most conservative members of our committee, you know that you have a really good deal. i first learned about the issue of toxic exposure years ago while attending an event for vietnam veterans at home in kansas. after hearing about their struggles with exposure to agent orange, i introduced the toxic exposure research act which was signed into law in 2016 and

mandates research on health conditions of children and grandchildren of veterans who are exposed to toxins during their military service. our military veterans and their families and their survivors know expose sure to toxic substances has become commonplace in modern warfare. regrettably, the native long-term health effects are sometimes not identified until long after the time of exposure leaving veterans to face serious medical issues years after their service. toxic exposure during military service has created significant health care concerns for veterans going back to mustard gas exposure in world war i and most notably, the vietnam generation's exposure to agent orange. despite these clear examples of lasting impact of military toxic exposures, struggles with health conditions associated with burn pits continue to plague the latest generation of veterans who served in the global war on

terror. i have spoken with veterans across kansas and held a town hall meeting in my home state on the effects of toxic ec pose surf our veterans -- exposure on our veterans' health. my office continues to receive case work regarding the burden of proof to gain access to health care. this legislation, the one that our committee will consider tomorrow, lessens that burden and creates a pathway for thousands of kansas veterans and many more thousand of american veterans to receive health care for illnesses caused by toxic exposure. for decades toxic-exposed veterans have faced overwhelming barriers to getting v.a. health care and the services that they deserve. post 9/11 veterans are the new estrogen ration of american heroes to suffer from toxic exposures encountered in their military service. these american heroes who put on the uniform and volunteer to go into harm's way on our behalf deserve to have their level of commitment matched by those of

us who serve here in congress. when our government sends troops to war, we make a pledge to care for them when they come home. veterans who are made sick from service deserve medical care for those conditions. the health care for burn pit veterans act is an important first step to make sinner veterans receive the care they need as a result of their service. i appreciate the entire senate veterans' affairs committee working together to craft this consequential legislation to care for our servicemembers who put their lives and health on the line for us. i also appreciate every member of the senate veterans' committee, senators tillis, hassan, sullivan, manchin, sanders, cassidy, brown, blackburn, blumenthal, tuberville, hirono, sinema, and rounds for working together to better the lives of those who served. and additionally i am grateful

for the support of many v.s.o.'s, veteran services organizations, that represent millions of veterans across the nation. this legislation is part of a comprehensive and phased approach, the first phase provides the v.a. with the authority it needs to expand health care for combat veterans. many who are sick and suffering, time is running out and our first priority is to get these veterans health care now, to get them health care now. our bill would mandate training -- would also mandate training for the v.a. health care providers and veterans specialists to obtain aest level of service. our legislation would direct the v.a. to incorporate a clinical screening to inquiry about a veteran's potential exposure and symptoms commonly associated with toxic exposure 00. i've talked with a veterans who said she's been to the v.a. twice and never been asked

whether she encountered any substance that could be damaging to her health during her service. after speaking with these veterans are, i've come to understand that this basic and preventive act of screening is not part of enrollment or basic care provided by the department. that must change. solutions to this complex problem cannot be generated by congress alone and require a coordinated and systematic approach that involves partnering with the v.a. my view is that we make a commitment to those who serve, that we will do our work. this is a step, a significant step, inest going us to a point which we are living up to that commitment. and doing it in a way that is not damaging to any other veteran. i urge my colleagues to read our bill, to grow their understanding of this complex challenge, and to join our committee, every single member of the committee, in passing this bill to get one step closer

to providing care and relief on one of the most pressing challenges facing veterans today. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president -- first i'd like to commend my colleague, the senior senator from kansas, for his incredible ongoing leadership on the issue of the veterans of our nation and his strong commitment to each and every one of those veterans and to the men and women who wear the uniform and bore the battle to keep us safe and free. it is his long history leadership for which i'm most grateful. mr. president, i qom to the

floor today -- i come to the floor today to talk about a different issue. that is the need for more american energy. right now the american people are facing the worst inflation in 40 years. in november, we saw the biggest price increases from energy standpoint in ten years. cnbc reports that one in five american families could not afford to pay an energy bill this past year. roughly the same number of americans have kept their home at an unhealthy temperature because they can't afford the cost of energy to heat it. gas prices have gone up by roughly a dollar a gallon since joe biden took office. i.t. the fastest increase in gas -- it's the fastest increase in gas prices in 40 years. the price of gas affects the price of everything else. it is increasingly expensive in this country to transport goods from the farm and from the factory to the people who need the products.

as a result, the american people aren't just paying more at the pump. they're also paying more at the grocery store. so why are energy prices rising so quickly? well, demand is up and supply is down. it's basic economics. under joe biden, american energy production still hasn't recovered in this country to the levels that we were producing energy prior to the pandemic. why would that be? because this is a direct result of the anti-american energy policies of this white house. on his first day in office, joe biden killed the keystone x.l. pipeline. he blocked new egg leases on -- oil and gas leases on public landsal across the country. he stopped exploration for oil in the arctic. he tried to bang exploration for energy on our coasts and off our coasts. he's threatened to raise taxes on american energy.

so what happened? well, as a result, -- well, as a result of this radical anti-american biden energy agenda, we're failing to produce enough energy in this country and people who have the capacity and ability to do it and have worked shows jobs for a long time are having a hard time keeping a job. america is now producing 1.4 fewer million -- 1 boy 4 million fewer barrels of -- 1.4 million fewer bails of oil a day than before the pandemic. we're now using more oil from russia than we are from alaska. this is specifically a as a result of the biden policies. joe biden is attacking american energy. he's turning into a great salesman for russian energy. and why is it that right now we are importing tweet as much, twice as much crude oil from russia as we did a year ago?

because of joe biden. joe biden has even had his national security advisor plead with russia to produce more oil to sell to the united states. i know, mr. president, you may find that very hard to believe. all you need to do a go to the white house website and read the sad fact. just months after he killed the keystone pipeline, joe biden give gave a big stamp of approval to vladimir putin, to putin for his pipeline, the nord stream 2 pipeline. kill the american pipeline, approve the russian pipeline. joe biden's energy policy is pipelines for putin, no pipeline for the american people, and the american people have been paying the price as a result. it seems that joe biden would rather have us buy energy from our enemies than have us produce the energy in our country and sell it to our friends.

so as a result of the biden policies, vladimir putin has hit the energy financial jackpot. for decades putin has used energy as a geopolitical weapon. how does he use it? well, he uses it to coerce and intimidate. that includes a -- that includes our allies. we saw that when he shut off a flow of natural gas to voldova. president biden gave president putin a new geopolitical weapon. now putin is emboldened, and he is flush with cash. right now today vladimir putin is preparing to do something he has wanted to do for years -- he has amassed over 100,000 troops on the border of ukraine. he expected to invade ukraine. if russia invades, this will only worsen the energy crisis in

that part of the world but also here as well. vladimir putin is cunning, he's opportunistic, and he is aggressive. when he sees an opportunity, he takes it. putin can smell weakness. and he views our president, joe biden, as weak and ineffective. the sledgehammer that we have against putin is to shut down the nord stream 2 pipeline and do it permanently. last month this body had an opportunity to do just that, yet senate democrats filibustered the bill. the same democrats who voted to get rid of the filibuster on the floor of the senate used the filibuster to shut down a bill that am of them have supported for years. -- that many of them have supported for years. hypocrisy at its worst. so democrats last week, based on lobbying from the white house,

refused to sanction putin's pipeline. the nord stream 2 palestine is -- the nord stream 2 palestine will make our allies weaker. behalf when putin gets stronger and wealth yeah, does he do? he tends to become more aggressive. it's not just a threat to europe. tools threat to the whole world. that's why i've introduced legislation called the escape act. my bill imposes mandatory sanctions on russian pipeline projects and it expedites the sales of american natural gas to our nato allies. we have the ability to produce massive amounts to more energy in the united states than joe biden and the democrats are allowing our country to produce. and of course the democrats are killing jobs and hurting paychecks in the process. it's incumbent upon us to give our allies the opportunity to have energy and not be beheeledden to vladimir putin's supply -- behold ton vladimir

putin's supply. we should be producing it here. vladimir putin knows how to turn off the lights. he knows how to raise energy prices in foreign countries. can't let europe become more dependent on vladimir putin for anything, and neither should we become more dependent, although that seems to be the biden policy. buy more crude oil from russia than we were a year ago. joe biden inaction. -- joe biden in action. we need to expand our supports, we need to expand production of american energy and we have it and we have the capacity to do it. want to reduce inflation, and that is at number-one topic that i heard this past week in wyoming, as i traveled around and visited with people, people in diners in many, many communities, why are we just producing more energy at home and that will help bring down the costs at the pump, the cost to heat, the cost to get goods

to market? we need to be producing america in this country, not be behold ton the far-left extremist who want energy costs to go up when the american people are struggling to get by. energy is called the master resource for a reason. it powers our nation. it powers our military. it powers our economy. the same is true for our allies. we should not allow a lies to fall into the clutches of vladimir putin -- our allies to fall into the clutches of vladimir putin even though what's what joe biden's policies are doing today. we need more american energy, not less and we need it now. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 62. the nays are 35. and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will is -- will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in

accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 404, rupa ranga puttagunta of the district of columbia to be associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate of that debate on the nomination of rupa ranga puttagunta of the district of columbia to be associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia for the term of 15 years shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

riewp riewp vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 59, the nays 38, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, rupa ranga puttagunta of the district of columbia to be an associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do here bemove to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 406, kennia seoane lopez of the district of columbia, to be associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of kenya seoane lopez

of the district of columbia to be an associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia for a term of 15 years shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote : vote: vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 59. the nays are 38. and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, kenia seoane lopez of district of columbia to be an associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar 410, sean c. staples of the

district of columbia to be an associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the neejts of sean c. state -- on the nomination of sean c. staples of the district of columbia to be associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia for a term of 15 years shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 55. the nays are 38. and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, sean c. staples of the district of columbia to be an associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, before i begin my remarks, i've been asked to do the wrap-up so i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: madam president, i

ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 26, s. res. 35. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 26, s. res. 35, condemning the military coup that took place february 1, 2021 in burma and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. menendez: i further ask that the committee's reported amendment to the resolution be withdrawn, the amendment to the resolution which is at the desk be considered and agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i know of no further debate on the resolution. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question is on the resolution as amended. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution as amended is

agreed to. mr. menendez: i further ask that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be withdrawn, the amendment to the preamble at the desk be considered and agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, the amendment to the title be considered and agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 167, s. res. 345. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 167, s. res. 345, expressing the sense of the senate on the political situation in belarus. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. menendez: i further ask that the shaheen amendment at the desk to the committee-reported amendment to the resolution be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment as amended be groilt. the presiding officer: -- agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i know of no further debate on the resolution as amended. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the

question is on the resolution as amended. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution as amended is agreed to. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the commerce committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 496. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 496 congratulating the university of georgia bulldogs football team for winning the 2022 national collegiate athletic association college football playoff national championship. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the ossoff

substitute amendment at the desk, the resolution be amended, -- excuse me, the resolution as amended be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 501 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 501 designating the week of january 23 through january 29, 2022, as national school choice week. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 502 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 502 acknowledging and commemorating the world war ii women in the

navy who served in the women accepted for voluntary emergency services, waves. mr. menendez: i further ask the resolution -- the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. menendez: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, for nearly 30 years first as a member of the house foreign affairs committee and to this day as chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, i've had the privilege of engaging in the most pressing foreign policy of national security issues facing our nation. and while we are rightly focused on the crisis unfolding around ukraine, we must not lose sight of how dangerously close iran is

to becoming a nuclear arms state. for we know that a nuclear armed iran would pose an unacceptable threat to u.s. national security interests, to our allies in europe and to overall stability in the middle east. as someone who has followed iran's nuclear ambition for the better part of three decades, i'm here today to raise concerns about the current round of negotiations over the joint comprehensive plan of action and iran's dangerously and rapidly escalating nuclear program that has put it on the brink of having enough material for a nuclear weapon. three to four weeks, a month or less. that's how long most analysts have concluded it would take iran to produce enough material for a nuclear bomb if they chose to do so. that is not a time line we can

accept. that is why i'm calling on the biden administration and our international partners to exert more pressure on iran to counter its nuclear program, its missile program, and it's dangerous behavior around the middle east, including attacks on american personnel and assets. now, before i continue, let me set the record straight. while some have tried to paint me as belligerent to diplomacy, or worse, i've always believed that multilateral, diplomatic negotiations from a position of strength are the best way to address iran's nuclear program. and i've always advocated for a comprehensive, diplomatic agreement that is long lasting, fully verifiable, and with an enforceable snapback system of sanctions, should if iran breach any terms. it was for very specific reasons that i oppose the jcpoa back in 2017. 2015, as well as an underlying

concern that i just could not shake, a sense that the deal at the time itself was a best-case scenario hinging on good-faith actors and overly optimistic outcomes. without enough consideration for the worst-case scenarios that might arise from the behavior of bad actors. today many of the concerns i expressed about the jcpoa back in august of 2015 are coming back to aunt us in the year 2022. first and foremost, my overarching concern with the jcpoa was that it did not require the complete dismantlement of iran's nuclear infrastructure. instead, it mott balled that -- mothballed that struck for 10 years, making it all too easy for iran to resume its illicit nuclear program at a moment of its choosing. the deal did not require iran to destroy or fully decommission a

single uranium enrichment centrifuge. in fact, over half of iran's operating centrifuges at the time were able to continue spinning at its facility. the remainder, more than 5,000 operational centrifuges and nearly 10,000 not yet operational were to be merely disconnected. instead of being completely removed, they were transferred to another hall where they could be quickly reinstalled to enrich uranium, which is exactly what we have seen happen over the past year. nor did the deal shut down or destroy the fordo nuclear facility, which iran constructed underneath a mountain to house its covert uranium enrichment infrastructure. under the jcpoa, it was merely repurposed. now iran is back in business at

fordo, spinning its most advanced sent riff yiewdges and -- centrifuges and enriching uranium to a higher level of purity than before it entered into the jcpoa. in the two years since president trump left the jcpoa, iran has resumed its research and development into a range of centrifuges, making rapid improvements to their effectiveness, huge strides that we will never be able to roll back. today iran has more fissile material, 2,500 kilograms, more advanced centrifuges, and a shorter breakout time, three to four weeks, than it had in 2015. this is exactly why i was so concerned over the jcpoa's frame work of leaving the vast majority of iran's nuclear program intact. this is how iran was able to

rapidly rebuild and advance its enretchment capability -- enrichment capabilities once the agreement fell apart. that was a serious mistake. back in 2015, i also expressed my grave concern that iran only agreed to provisionally, provisionally apply the additional protocol of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. the additional protocol is what allows the international atomic energy administration to go beyond merely verifying that all declared nuclear material and facilities are being used for peaceful purposes. and provides it with a verification mechanism to ensure states do not have undeclared nuclear materials and facilities. the additional protocol was particularly important because iran has never fully come clean about its previous clandestine nuclear activities. for well over two decades,

mounting concerns over iran's secret weaponnization efforts united the world. the goal we have long sought, along with the international community, is to find out exactly what iran plirnd in -- accomplished in its clandestine program, not necessarily to gets iran to declare culpability, but to determine how far they advanced their weaponnization program so that we would know what signatures to look for in the future. david albright, a physicist and former nuclear weapons inspector and founder of the institute for science and international security said, quote, addressing the international atomic energy administration's concerns about the military i did mentions of iran's nuclear program is fundamental to any long-term agreement. an agreement that sidesteps the military issues would risk being unverifiable. the reason that he said that

quote, an agreement that sidesteps the military issues would be unverifiable, is because it makes a difference if you are 90% in terms of enriched material down the road in your weaponization efforts are only 10% advanced. 90% or 10%. makes a big difference. the state of iran's weaponnization efforts significantly impacts the breakout time for the regime to complete an actual deliverable weapon. so, this vare fiebility is critical. and in 2015, i explained the jcpoa did not empower international weapons inspectors to conduct the kind of, quote, anywhere, anytime inspections needed to get to the bottom of iran's previous weaponnization program. and in february of last year,

2021, we saw the consequences of not insisting that iran permanently ratify the additional protocol. iran simply decided they were done with the additional protocol and refused to allow the international atomic energy administration to fully investigate locations, where it found traces of uranium enrichment. it is now obvious that the iaea, what we call the international atomic energy administration, is significantly limited in its able to determine the extent of iran's previous nuclear program and whether further militarization activities have continued all this time. without the complete adoption of the additional protocol, the jcpoa did not empower the iaea to achieve this task. so, that was then, and this is now. and though i had my concerns

with the jcpoa as i've expressed, i am also absolutely clear eyed as everyone else in this chamber should be that the way in which president trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal, with no diplomatic plan for constraining iran's nuclear ambitions, without the support of any of our allies, without any kind of serious alternative, emboldened iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions like never before. now, we can't live in a counterfactual world, where all parties remained in full compliance, but we do know that even for the first couple of years of the jcpoa iran's leaders gave absolutely no, no indication that they were willing to look beyond the scope of these limited terms, and fought vigorously to keep their highly advanced nuclear infrastructure in place, and that was under a more,

quote-unquote, moderate regime. they continued their destabilizing activities and support for terrorism in the greater middle east with abandoned. so today i ask, why would we try to simply go back to the jcpoa, a deal that was not sufficient in the first place, and still doesn't address some of the most serious national security concerns that we have? so, let me lay out specific concerns about the parameters of the jcpoa, which it appears that the biden administration is seeking to reestablish. for decades now, iran has pursued all three elements necessary to create and to deliver a nuclear weapon -- producing nuclear material for a weapon, the fissile material. that's basically what we just

talked about being three to four weeks away. the scientific research and development to build a nuclear warhead. that's why we don't know the full dimensions of what they were doing in terms of how advanced they got to the weaponnization, the ability to have the nuclear warhead that makes the bomb go boom. and then the ballistic missile to deliver them. that they already have. so, if you think about it, they have the missiles capable. i'll talk about that in a few minutes. they have the missiles capable of delivering. they have the fissile material on the verge of having the fissile material necessary to create the ability for an explosion. the only question -- these are checked off -- the only question is the warhead. at what point are they there? and we don't fully know. since the trump administration

exited the deal, iran has installed more than a thousand advanced centrifuges, enabling it to enrich uranium more quickly. while the deal the u.s. and our partners are pursuing in vienna would ostensibly seek to reverse technological advancements, the acquisition of knowledge, that's never reversible. as kelsey davenport of the arms control association has said, iran's nuclear program hit new milestones over the past years, and to quote it, it says as it masters the new capabilities it will change our understanding about how the country, in this case iran, may pursue nuclear weapons down the road. madam president, that is exactly why the united states and our partners' starting position during our original negotiations was the complete dismantlement

of iran's enrichment facilities and capacity. according to the international atomic energy agency, iran has produced uranium enriched to more than 60% purity, more than 60% purity at the natanz facility. why is 60% purity so alarming? well, as.director general of the international atomic energy association, the un international watchdog on these issues, raphael grassi has stated, iran's decision to enrich uranium to 60% to produce uranium metal has no, no justification for civilian purposes. no justification for civilian purposes. iran says, well, we only want nuclear energy for domestic energy consumption.

but as the iaea's head says, it has no justification to enrich uranium to 60% for civilian purposes. in other words, iran has already done most of the heavy lifting. furthermore, the iaea reports that iran's nuclear stockpile has grown to nearly 2500 kilograms. that's nearly 2.5 tons of enriched uranium, and eight times, eight times the cap that was agreed to in the jcpoa. more and more advance centrifuges, a much larger nuclear stockpile, and vastly higher levels of enrichment are a dangerous combination. as i noted before, iran's breakout time is now a mere three to four weeks, but according to a report from david albright and others at the institute for science and

international security, iran could enrich uranium for a second when job in less -- second weapon in less than four months. once they hit this breakout period, which is four weeks away, then to get their second bomb we're talking about four months. so, while the u.s. has recognized iran's right to civilian nuclear power, iran's behavior continues to indicate that it is actively moving towards developing nuclear weapons capabilities. adding to the alarm is the fact that we don't even have the full picture of exactly how far it's gone. again, that's why full access was, and is, such a critical component of any deal. as the original deal was being negotiated, we started from a place of anywhere, anytime inspections that we wanted. anywhere, anytime.

but that's not where the deal landed. and while i recognize that other factors have contributed to iran's efforts to block inspectors, simply put i was not satisfied in 2015 with the level of visibility the agreement afforded. and today the iaea readily states it does not have the necessary level of access. in fact, in september of 2021, the iaea director warned that iran's failure to fully cooperate and communicate with the iaea is seriously compromising the iaea's ability to have full insight into iran's program. iaea inspectors were denied to

insecond the facilities to monitor iranian activities. in addition iran is not cooperating with the iaea's ongoing two-year-old investigation into the presence of nuclear materials found at four locations outside of iran's declared nuclear program sites. iran has access to two of -- allowed access to two of those locations, but denied and delayed access to the other two. the iaea has further warned -- has warned iran multiple times that their lack of substantive engagement in resolving these issues seriously affects the agency's ability to provide assurance -- assurance of the schiews -- of the exclusively peaceful nature of iran's nuclear program.

but this has gone far beyond reneging on the inspection protocols agreed to in the jcpoa. as i mentioned previously in february of last year, iran sus suspended improblemmation of the -- implementation of the protocol. iran agreed to certain surveillance activities, but even though there was an agreement, it refused to transmit any data from that surveillance until it got all the sanctions relief the regime felt entitled to under the jcpoa. never mind their own repeated failures to meet their obligations under the jcpoa. madam president, we're not dealing with a good-faith actor here. iran's consistent obfuscation continued stalling and outlandish demands left us

flying blind, especially when it comes to verifying iran is not engaged in activities related to the weaponization process, activities related to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device, activities which were explicitly banned in section t of the jcpoa. i'm talking about utilizing computer models to simulate nuclear explosions, nuclear testing, research conventional schoasives for triggering a nuclear explosion. the jcpoa banned these activities because substantial evidence indicated that iran had, in fact, pursued them in the past. yet, we cannot verify whether iran is pursuing them again. we cannot know for sure that the iranian government has

repeatedly stated the iaea lacks the authority to inspect the military sites where this took place, the places that the iaea wanted to go to but denied. with iran's breakout time now less than be a month, we must be able to verify the scope of iran's weaponization research and this must include iran's ballistic missle program. we already know that iran has ballistic missles that could carry a warhead to the middle east and parts of europe. indeed, given how far iran's enrichment capabilities research and development have advanced, the only element left is preventing iran from weaponizing its stockpile. all this contributes to why we

have a well-founded deep mistrust of iran to secret liqueur tail its nuclear -- to curtail its nuclear program. and iran reminds our allies that its missile program has its own unique threats outside the nuclear file. i doubt that it will suspend any of its -- developments missiles. even as the united states and the p-5-plus-1 partners convened, iran's leaders took it upon themselves to antagonize all parties and show, in my view, their true intentions. in december they launched a rocket with a satellite carrier into space to remind us all that even as they drag out diplomatic

negotiations, their ambitions remain acquiring the ability to eventually deliver a nuclear warhead. this launch was yet another provocation like those we've seen over the past several years, some of which directly -- directly violate the terlts -- terms of u.n. security council resolution. that resolution codified the jcpoa, our agreement with iran and plenty of others far outside the limited scope of the deal. beyond this failed launch into space, iran's dangerous behavior has hit closer to home. in recent years iran has increased direct threats to u.s. personnel and assets and continued to provide weapons to terrorist proxies throughout the middle east. the u.n. assessed that iran and

military allies continued to plot attacks against u.s. persons and interest. iran has the largest ballistic missle force in the region and is increasingly active in using cyberspace to enable influence operations. the center for strategic and international studies reports that iran not only has the largest and most diverse ballistic missle program in the region, but it has also used those ballistic missiles to attack personnel stationed in iraq, personnel, who, let's be clear, have been there at the invitation of the iraq government. when our last president made light of what he called headaches, the fact is nearly a dozen service members suffered from the attack on the air base

in 2020. this year there have been three rocket and drone attacks, public reports of 14 rockets hitting an iraq air base hosting u.s. forces and wounding two american service members. allow me to share an article in "the new yorker" entitled, the looming threat of a nuclear crisis in iran. she writes about a conversation with centcom general in which he said the following, the lesson of al -- is that iran's missiles have become a more immediate threat than its nuclear program. for decades iran's missiles were inaccurate. in alasad they hit where they wanted to hit. now they can hit effectively through the breadth and depth of the middle east, they can strike

with accuracy and volume. the regime has concentrated on missiles with longer reach, precision accuracy and greater destructive power. iran is one of the world's top missile producers, its arsenal is the largest and most diverse in the middle east, the defense intelligence agency has reported. now, as president biden's special envoy on the question of negotiations on a potential return to the jcpoa, robin malley, has said iran has proven that using its ballistic missile program as a means to coerce or intimidate its neighbors is a real challenge. now, iran can fire more missiles than its adversaries -- more

missiles than its adversaries, including the united states and israel can shoot down or destroy. tehran has achieved what general mckenzie calls overmatch, a level of capability in which a country has weaponry that makes it extremely difficult to check or defeat. iran's strategic capacity is now enormous, mckenzie said. they've got overmatched in the theater the ability to overwhelm. iran now has the largest known underground complexes in the middle east, housing nuclear and missile programs. most of the tunnels are in the west facing israel or on the southern coast across from saudi arabia. this fall satellite imagery tracked -- the new complex, the

tunnels carved out of rock descend more 1,600 feet under ground. iran calls them missile cities. you start the war, but we create the end of it. an underground railroad fairies missiles -- ferries missiles for launches, the missiles can carry a conventional or a nuclear warhead. the islamic republic has thousands of ballistic missles, according to u.s. intelligence assessments. they can reach, and we see on this map, there are different missiles, but how far they can reach, it's further 2,000 kilometers, they can reach as far as 1,300 miles in any

direction, deep into india and to greece and other parts of europe and as far south as ethiopia in the horn of africa and dozens of countries in between. about 100 missiles could reach israel. the biden administration has hoped to use progress on the nuclear deal to eventually broaden diplomacy and include iran's neighbors in talks on reducing regional tensions. the special envoy on iran said, even if we can revive the jcpoa, those problems are going to continue to poison the region and risk destabilizing it. if they continue, the response will be robust. well, it may be too late. tehran has shown no willingness

to barter over its missiles as it has with its nuclear programs. she quote jeffrey lewis who said, quote, once you spent the money to build the facilities and train people and deliver missiles to the military units that were built around these missiles, you have an enormous constituency that wants to keep them. i don't think there's any hope of limiting iran's missile program. close quotes. and president rasi, of iran, told reporters, regional issues or missile issues are nonnegotiable. the united states military is still vastly more powerful than anything built or imagined in iran, yet iran has proven to be an increasingly shrewd rival. it has trained a generation of foreign engineers and scientists

to assemble weaponry, it has fired at saudi arabia. it has provided the older missiles to hamas. the majority of the precision-project hits go to lebanon where hezbollah upgrades its rockets and missiles to hit more accurately and penetrate more deeply inside of israel. hezbollah is estimated to have 14,000 missiles and more than 100,000 rockets, mostly courtesy of iran. as mec kensy say -- as mckenzie says, they have the ability to strike very precisely into israel in a way they have not enjoyed in the past. i share this article on the

floor today because i believe it captures the reality of our present reality and i encourage all of our colleagues to read it. beyond what ms. wright has laid out above with excellent sources and details, let's not forget iran is a steady fighting partner for the murderous regime in syria, all the while expanding its military footprint along israel's northern border. let's not forget all of this belifnlg rant behavior -- beligerant behavior has escalated despite the ballistic restrictions under u.n. council resolution 2231. resolution 2231 of the united nations was the framework that endorsed the jcpoa and imposed other restrictions. so just think of where iran will go when these restrictions

expire next year. they expire under existing law next year. beyond this little alarming aggression throughout the region, within its borders iran continues to remind the world it has no respect for human rights. it is a country where dissidents and activists who want a better future are persecuted and killed. indeed last january, a prominent iranian poet and human rights activist who was jailed for, quote, propaganda against the state, died in a notorious evan prison from covid-19. iran's judicial system is a sham that denies basic human rights like freedom of expression and condones torture and extradition killings. last year -- get this -- the u.s. justice department indicted four iranians for conspiring to kidnap and kill an iranian american journalist masish al

anad surveilling her daily activities in brooklyn new york, here on american soil. and we cannot forget the four american citizens who iran continues to wrongfully detain. namazi, tavaz -- who are suffering in prison and whose family members are desperately seeking their return. it is against this backdrop of bad behavior that iran is ostensibly negotiating a return to the jcpoa or maybe just dragging out the time. it took years of crushing u.s. and international sanctions to bring iran to the negotiating table in the first place. i know because i was the author of many of them. and we had to remain united in order to bring them to the table and now we have to remain united

as well. now, i have been cautiously optimistic about the biden administration's initial efforts. i waited for the last year to see results. before the foreign relations committee, the secretary of state and others, senior members of the administration insisted they would look for a longer and stronger agreement. i have a pretty good sense of what i think longer and stronger means. longer is obvious, more time. stronger dealing with elements that had not been previously dealt with. however, a year later i have yet to hear any parameters of longer or stronger terms or whether that's even a feasible prospect. and even when it seemed that a constructive agreement might be possible last summer, upon taking office the race si government ban -- raisi government abandoned any previous standings and made

clear iran's ballistic missiles and regional proxy networks are not negotiable. his terms. we have to seriously have to ask what exactly are we trying to salvage. iran has moved so far out of compliance with so many of the terms of the jcpoa and of the terms of the u.n. security council resolution 2231. meanwhile the arms embargo we had has already expired and restrictions on iran's missile program are about to expire next year. to quote again rob malley, the president's iran negotiator, trying to revive the deal at this point would be, quote, tantamount to trying to revive a dead corpse. i think he's right. it's time to start thinking out of the box and consider new strategies for rolling back

iran's nuclear program -- dangerous and nefarious activities. these new efforts should include creative diplomatic creations, stricter sanctions enforcement and congress to back up president biden's declaration that iran will, quote, never get a nuclear weapon on my watch. his words. one critical first step is vigorously enforcing the sanctions we have in place. a few weeks ago "the washington post" reported on the iranian revolutionary guard corps' extensive oil smuggling operations throughout the persian gulf. smuggled iranian fuel and secret nighttime transfers, seafarers recount how it is done. now, i was pleased to see the treasury department dispatch a senior official to the united emirates which has been part of this to help stop it. more significantly and despite what it says publicly, numerous reports also suggest that china

continues to buy iranian crude oil at a discount. a lucrative lifeline for the iranian regime that both subverts international oil markets and gives china yet another road to the middle east. using a sophisticated web of shipping, delivery, and tan tanker-flagging techniques, private energy analysts -- and here's where we see their abilities in this space right in here -- to make these transfers that ultimately go to china. through tanker-flagging techniques, private energy estimates -- estimate that china bought an average of 350,000 to 650,000 barrels per day -- per

day last year. and according to united against nuclear iran, this amounted to -- that reality of how many barrels they're buying per day amounted to about $10 billion going to the iranian regime in violation of existing sanctions. we can't turn a blind eye to these violations. the biden administration must rigorously enforce our sanctions, including targeted chinese entities in a way that will impose a serious cost. we must use our sanctions to crush the illicit underground economy of iranian oil shipments throughout the world. the international community must also receiverrage a full range of -- leverage a full range of tools. we have to urge our p5+1 partners to -- we should be

urging the e.u. to reimpose its prejcpoa sanctions on iran. now, of course we have to be realistic here. former president trump's disastrous withdrawal from the jcpoa hampered our ability on the sanctions front. indeed, when former secretary of state mike pompeo went in the center of 2020 and attempted to invoke the snap back mechanism, our european partners and the rest of p5+1 rejected him. they did not have the standing to go so -- to do so having exited the deal. with you that was then. that said i believe the biden administration has diligently worked to build back trust in cooperation with our partners. and i believe the remaining partners must look at the facts and officially invoke the snapback mechanism to send a strong signal to the iranians. we must also be thinking beyond the jcpoa.

it's worth noting that even though president trump's withdrawal from my view was a strategic, serious error, nothing technically constrained his ability to do so. ie -- iranian's leader insist they want a guarantee that the united states will not withdraw from any further agreement. as these negotiations continue, the best guarantee of diplomatic agreement with iran and the international community is to build one that garners bipartisan political support. one such idea that i have been working on with senator graham is a regional nuclear fuel bank that would provide iran with access to fuel on the condition that it foregoes all domestic uranium enrichment and reprocessing. that idea may sound lofty but it's worth noting the iaea already runs a nuclear fuel back that provides access to members in the case of a disruption to their existing fuel

arrangements. iranian leaders have long maintained their nuclear program is for domestic energy development. and yet it belies logic that iran would need to highly enrich uranium or undertake any number of the steps they have been taking over the past few years for a purely peaceful nuclear energy program, to say nothing of the fact that iran was the fifth largest crude oil producer in opec in 2020 and the third largest natural gas producer in the world in 2019. so it has an abundance of natural resources for energy purposes within its own country. it doesn't need nuclear fuel for domestic energy consumption. but if you accept that well, we want to keep our oil and gas to sell and we want nuclear power for the purposes of domestic energy consumption, fine. then why do you bury your

program thousands of featured a mountain? why do you hide what you're doing? why are you enriching to a grade that even the iaea says has no civilian purpose whatsoever? why won't you show us that in fact your previous actions that we believe may lead to weaponization exist? why won't you show us? dispel it. the kind of arrangement we're talking about would surely satisfy the need for a peaceful nuclear program. now, while we understand both political and logistical challenges regarding this kind of proposal in the past, we don't believe we should close any potential doors. we believe actually that our proposal opens new doors because while we're just now talking about iran, we've been having this conversation with our p5+1 allies and iran in a bilateral

arrangement because of our concerns about iran's nuclear program, we could be talking about the entire region. we have successfully negotiated nuclear cooperation agreements with a number of countries in the region on a bilateral basis, including jordan and the iew nighted emirates. in the future, such a fuel bank, a regional fuel bank, could even be expanded to guarantee that any arabian gulf state or further beyond in the middle east for that matter can peacefully fuel its commercial nuclear reactors to the iaea fuel bank. that means you don't enrich but you get the fuel necessary if you want domestic energy consumption. of course regional investment and any diplomatic solution from gulf countries and arab nations and israel is absolutely critical for success. just as we know our sanctions are most effective when we work with our international partners multilateral cooperation is critical to finding a successful outcome. but particularly what would be

attracted to the iranian regime? what is or should be attracted to the iranian regime is this arrangement would decouple the view that the west is only seeking this arrangement from iran. iran would not have to give up its right to enrich but would without a loss of national pride delegate that right to a multilateral nuclear fuel bank. and by including other gulf countries in such a regional fuel bank with the same terms and conditions, iran would not have to worry about other gulf countries attaining nuclear weapons and posing a security threat to them. and finally, if we can succeed at a regional nuclear fuel bank, boy would we stock a nuclear arms race in what is already a tinderbox of the world. because if iran can acquire a

nuclear weapon, you can be sure that the other gulf -- that the countries in the gulf, saudi arabia, emirates, others are going to say under the theory of mutual self-destruction, i have to have nuclear weapons too. now we begin an arms race the part of the world that can ill afford it. i also believe we should revisit a number of proposals i laid out in 2015. first, we should seek the immediate ratification by iran of the additional protocol to ensure that we have a permanent international agreement with iran for access to suspect sites. second, we need a ban on centrifuge r&d for dur raix, research and development, for the duration of such an agreement because it's that advanced r&d that has allowed iran to be four weeks away from crossing the nuclear threshold. so that iran cannot have the capacity to quickly break out. just as the u.n. security

council resolution -- snapback is off the table. third, iran should close the fordow enrichment facility. after all, the sole purpose was to harden the nuclear program to a nuclear attack. if iran has nothing to hide, it's all for peaceful purposes, why to you put it -- do you put it deep underneath a mountain? fourth, the world needs full resolution of the possible military dimensions of iran's program. we need an arrangement not set up to whitewash this issue. the world needs to be able to go to sleep at night saying iran has not achieved the ability to weaponize its desires. iran and the iaea must resolve the issue before permanent sanctions relief takes place. should iran fail to cooperate with a comprehensive review into the military dimensions of their

program, then automatic sanctions must snap back. fifth, rather than extend the duration of the agreement, we need a permanent agreement. one of the single most concerning elements of the original deal is its 10 to 15-year sun set of restrictions on iran's program with off ramps starting after year agent. well, think about it. 2015, 2022, seven years, just shows you how quickly that, in fact, iran can be proceeding in a way that we would not want it to be able to proceed. and sixth, we need an agreement about what penalties will be collectively imposed by the p5+1 for iranian violations, both small and midsize, as well as a clear statement as to the so-called grandfather clause, which exists in paragraph 37 of the jcpoa to ensure that the u.s. position about not shielding contracts entered into

legally upon reimposition of sanctions is shared by our allies. everybody should be in the same boat. we're seeing now that without these elements clearly delineated, there is room for interpretation and mischief. i believe there is space for a deal with iran, and i believe that one that garners bipartisan support would be the best guarantor of the political longevity the iranians insist they want. our goal must be the right deal, not just any deal rchlts we must not agree -- we must not agree to an arrangement that merely delays the inevitable. as we think about broader diplomatic options we must be clear about what a good negotiation entails. getting more obviously requires giving more. if iran were willing to make greater concessions on halting uranium enrichment, destroying nuclear infrastructure and seriously constraining its

nuclear missile program, the united states and international community should consider lifting a broader scope of sanctions, potentially including some primary sanctions. while iran's leaders are scraping by in the resistance economy, the truth is that the whole country would be better off in the regime abandoned their enrichment and weaponization efforts and focus on providing everyday iranians with real economic opportunity. at the same time, iran must also fully under that the united states will not hesitate to take any action necessary to protect our interests and those of our allies, and that includes the use of military force where appropriate and necessary. one of our greatest strengths is our enduring security partnerships with nearly every country in the middle east region. last month, a group of senior bipartisan diplomats, military officers, and former members of congress on both sides of the aisle issued a statement to the

washington institute for near east policy about the importance of a credible military threat, should iran breach certain red lines. let me quote from their statement. they said, indeed the vienna negotiations are in danger of becoming a cover for iran to move towards achieving a threshold nuclear weapons capability. while the united states has recognized iran's right to civilian nuclear power, iran's behavior continues to indicate that it not only wants to preserve a nuclear weapons option but it actively is moving towards developing that capability. indeed, as the director general of the international atomic energy association, raphael grossi stated iran's decision to enrich to 60% and to produce

uranium metal has no justifiable civilian purpose. without convincing iran it will suffer severe consequences if it stays on its current path, there is little reason to hope for the success of diplomacy. therefore, for the sake -- this is all from their statement, therefore, for the sake of our diplomatic effort to resolve this crisis, we believe it is vital to restore iran's fear that its current nuclear path will trigger the use of force against it by the united states. the challenge is how to restore u.s. credibility in the eyes of iran's leaders. words -- including formulations that are more pointed and direct than, quote, all options are on the table -- are also necessary, but not sufficient. in that context, we believe it is important for the biden administration to take steps that lead iran to believe that persisting in its current behavior and rejecting a

reasonable diplomatic resolution will put to risk its entire nuclear infrastructure, one built painstakingly over the last three decades. such steps may include orchestrating high-profile military exercises by the u.s. central command, potentially in concert with allies and partners, that simulate what could be involved in such a significant operation, including rehearsing air-to-ground attacks on hardened targets and the suppression of iranian missile batteries. also important would be to provide both local allies and partners as well as u.s. installations and assets in the region with the enhanced defensive capabilities to counter whatever retaliatory actions iran might choose to make, thereby signaling our readiness to act if necessary. and perhaps most significantly, fulfilling past u.s. promises to act forcefully against other iranian outrageous, such as the drone attack by iran backed

militias against a u.s. base in syria, and iran's illegal capture of merchant ships and killing unarmed seamen might have the saliatory impact of underscoring the seriousness of u.s. commitment to act on the nuclear issue. again, i encourage everyone to read this statement from congressional colleagues, military leaders, diplomats on both sides of the aisle. last year, following years of quiet cooperation in the narrowing of shared security concerns, the united states and our partners and allies welcomed israel into the u.s. central command area of responsibility. we have a number of shared interests, from maritime security, confronting a growing threat of ballistic missiles and uav's and we must strengthen our partnerships to ensure that we have all the means necessary to protect our interests. moreover, we misforcefully and proportionately respond to

iran's ongoing attacks on our diplomatic and military facilities in iraq and syria. we will not fail to respond against direct attacks on the tuns that threatens -- on the united states that threaten our diplomats and servicemembers, full stop. let me close by saying that the iranian nuclear threat is real, and it has grown disproportionately worse by day. it is becoming a clear and present danger. the time is now to reinvigorate our multilateral sanctions efforts and pursue new avenues, new ideas, new solutions for a diplomatic resolution. so today, i call on the biden administration and the international community to vigorously and rigorously enforce sanctions, which have proven to be among the most potent tools for impacting iran's leaders in the irgc. we cannot allow iran to threaten us into a bad deal or an interim

agreement that allows it to continue to build its nuclear capacity. nor should we cling to the scope of an agreement that it seems some are holding on for nostalgia's sake. as i said seven years ago, hope is not a national security strategy. in the words that i spoke in 2015, i said whether or not the supporters of the agreement admit it, this deal is based on hope, hope that when the nuclear sunset clause expires iran will have succumbed to the benefits of commerce and global integration. well, i hate to say, they have not. hope that the hard liners will have lost their power and the revolution will end its hegemonic goals. they have not. hope that the regime will allow the iranian people to decide their own future. the hard hard liners are more

entrenched and they have not allowed the iranian people to decide that future. hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy. the iranian regime, led by the ayatollah, wants above all to preserve the regime and its revolution, unlike the green revolution of 2009. this is still true. so it stretches incredulity to believe they sign on to a deal that would in any way weaken the regime or threaten the geels of the -- the goals of the revolution. they will not. i understand that the deal represented a trade-off, a hope that things might opinion different in iran in 10 or 15 years. maybe iran would desist from its nuclear ambitions, but it has not. maybe they'd stop exporting and supporting terrorism. but it has not. maybe they'll stop holding innocent americans hostage.

but they have not. maybe they'll stop burning american flags. but it has not. maybe their leadership will stop chanting death to america in the streets of terrain. but it has not. or the hope was maybe that they won't do those things. well, they have continued to do all of those things. while there are so many crises brewing across the world, we cannot abandon our efforts to prevent a nuclear armed iran and the arms race it will surely set off in the middle east. we cannot ignore iran's nefarious support for terrorism or accept threats to american interests and lives. we must welcome legitimate and verifiably peaceful uses of nuclear power, but remain true to our nonproliferation principles and our unyielding desire to build a more stable,

safer, prosperous world for the american people and for all peace-loving people to thrive. in order to do so, iran cannot and must not possess a nuclear weapon. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. maz mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i ask that when we complete wis, we adjourn to 10:00 a.m. february 2, following the prayer and pledge, the

morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the rupa ranga puttagunta nomination post-cloture. further, notwithstanding rule 22, all post-cloture time on the nomination expire at 11:00 a.m. and upon disposition of the nomination, the senate vote on the motions to vowrkt on the scott and -- invoke cloture on the scott and tunnage nominations. at 2:15, the senate vote on confirmation of the lopez and staples nomination and on the motion to invoke cloture on the howard nomination. further, if cloture is invoked on any nominations, the votes to be at a time determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader. finally, if any nominations are confirmed during wednesday's session, that the motions to

reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified on these actions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: if no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the the senate confirmed several present by judicial nominees including bridget and charles to the u.s. district court judges for northern ohio. throughout the week, lawmakers will consider more president biden's judicial and executive nominees. as always you can follow the senate life, here on cspan2. online@c-span.org, or on the go with c-span now, our new video app. trixie spent is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television

companies and more, including cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet through the compete program bridging the digital divide at one connected and engaged at a time. cox, bringing us closer. ♪ ♪ cox to support c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. : :