Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 216 (Wednesday, December 15, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 216 (Wednesday, December 15, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9186-S9188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Kentucky

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Kentucky on
the floor, and I want to take this opportunity to express to him and to
Senator McConnell my condolences for what the people of Kentucky have
endured with this catastrophic devastation. I know he has been a strong
advocate for his State, and I fully support a swift, strong Federal
response to alleviating the suffering and assisting in rebuilding. In
times of tragedy, our Nation comes together to support all who are in
this kind of need.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5323

Mr. President, I also express my strong support--and it is the reason
I am here--for $1 billion of supplemental security assistance to
replenish Israel's Iron Dome Supplemental Appropriations Act. The
Senate must pass H.R. 5323 as quickly as possible. The Iron Dome has
widespread, bipartisan support in Congress--as well it should. It has
the administration's support, which it richly deserves.
During the May 2021 conflict between Israel and Hamas, the Iron Dome
defense system intercepted about 90 percent of the missiles that were
targeting populated civilians in Israel. In total, 4,400 rockets were
launched by Hamas. If the Iron Dome had failed, countless Israeli
civilians would have been killed. The system performed exceptionally
well, and it showed its necessity for both humanitarian and strategic
defensive purposes.
I am very concerned that one of my colleagues previously blocked the
passage of this bill in the Senate. I hope provisions of this year's
Defense Authorization Act, specifically sections

[[Page S9187]]

1213 and 1214 and section 9021 of last year's Defense appropriations
bill, assuage any ongoing concern about transferring funds to the
Taliban. No funds--none--zero--will be used to help or support or
enable, in any way, the Taliban. Funds previously appropriated for the
Afghanistan National Security Forces are deeply needed to terminate
contracts that are already in place. These funds will not go to the
Taliban but to those who supported the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
If any Pentagon employee breaks the law--if any one of them makes
funds available to the Taliban--that individual could and should face
criminal penalties, including jail time under the Antideficiency Act.
We cannot continue to use the U.S.-Israeli relationship as a political
football. It is against our own strategic interests; it violates our
humanitarian values; and it is a security problem.
I am a strong, strong supporter of Israel, but I often say that
friends can disagree, and friends can criticize each other. I have been
critical at times of my friends in the Israeli Government. I am
standing again on the floor of the U.S. Senate, being, arguably,
critical of one of my colleagues, and I ask: Where are my colleagues
across the aisle when one of their own Members is actively impeding
Israel's ability to defend itself from Hamas? It is a cause they say
they support. Where is their concern? Where is the outrage?

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this critical funding.
So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader,
following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed
to the consideration of Calendar No. 140, H.R. 5323; that there be up
to 2 hours of debate; and that upon the use or yielding back of time,
the bill be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on
passage of the bill without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have
consistently opposed spending outside of the budget unless it is offset
by spending cuts elsewhere. It is not only an opinion I hold, it is
actually the law. It is called pay as you go.
We passed the law many years ago--more than a decade ago--to try to
balance our books by having people come forward with things that sound
good, want to spend it but not offset it by spending cuts elsewhere.
There is no question that the United States has been a very good ally
of Israel. Over time, probably funds exceeding $80 to $100 billion have
been expended to Israel over the last four decades. Just on missile
defense, the United States has given Israel $7 billion: $1.6 billion
for Iron Dome, $2 billion for David's Sling, and $3.7 billion for
Arrow. In fact, the NDAA that just passed this week gives them another
$100 million for this.
I am not disputing whether or not the extra billion dollars would
help them. I will vote for the extra billion dollars, and that is what
I will propose today. But it should be offset with spending cuts
elsewhere.
There is a $3 billion fund that is left over from money we were
giving to the Afghan national government. There is no Afghan national
government. There is a bunch of hoodlums, the Taliban, who have taken
over.
I asked Secretary Blinken: Can you assure me you are not going to
give these funds to the Taliban?
He says: It depends on how they behave.
So it isn't so certain that this money is not going to go to the
Taliban. The current law may say future money goes, but this old money,
and we don't want it going to the Taliban. We think it should be better
spent.
It is money that can be reclaimed. Why wouldn't it be a good thing to
take money that might go to our enemy and actually give it to our ally?
It makes perfect sense. Why would we be so obstinate that we are
unwilling to take a pay-for? It is a pay-for that is sitting there
waiting for us to use.
Three billion dollars is supposed to be given to the Afghan national
government. It no longer exists. Let's take a billion of that, let's
give it for Iron Dome; let's give $2 billion back to the Treasury. It
sounds like a win-win-win all around.
Why can't we, for once in our lives, spend money on something good
and take away money from something where we shouldn't be spending it?
This money was never intended to go to anything but the Afghan national
government. They don't exist anymore. We should reclaim that money,
spend a billion on the Iron Dome, and put $2 billion back in the
Treasury. It might be the first time in decades that we actually did
something fiscally responsible around here. But that is a problem. I
don't understand why we can't do it.
So I would--rather than just give another billion dollars out of the
Treasury that actually makes us weaker, makes us more in debt, let's
offset it by taking money that is in a fund for an entity that no
longer exists.
So, Mr. President, I, therefore, ask the Senator to modify his
request so that instead of his proposal, the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 140, H.R. 5323; further, that
the only amendment in order be my substitute amendment, which is at the
desk. I further ask that there be 2 hours of debate, equally divided
between the two leaders or their designees; and that upon the use or
yielding back of that time, the Paul substitute amendment at the desk
be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered
read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as
amended, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, my
colleague from Kentucky talks about money as though it were going to go
to the Taliban, as if it were going to an entity that no longer exists.
In fact, that money is necessary to terminate contracts, to fulfill
obligations, not only under the contracts but to our allies, the Afghan
at-risk allies who sought to fulfill our mission. We have a moral
imperative, and we have, arguably, a legal obligation.
That money is not just sitting there. It is not fungible. But put
aside the merits of that argument, we have also a moral and strategic
interest to our ally Israel to replenish its defenses at a time when it
depends on our assistance to defend itself, to provide that Iron Dome
that saves lives of innocent civilians who otherwise would have
perished as a result of those 4,400 rockets launched by Hamas and
possibly led to escalating contention and conflict in that region.
So it is a win-win, in fact, for us to replenish the Iron Dome
without conditioning it in any way on other funds. Therefore, I will
not modify my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection to the modification is heard.
Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, I think it is very important
that the American people know and those who support Israel know that we
can get this done today. We can get a billion dollars additional, in
addition to the $100 million, in addition to the $7 billion we have
already given to Israel, in addition to the $80 to $100 billion we have
given to them over the decades--we can do an extra billion today. All I
am asking is that it is paid for.
The objections coming from Democrats is that they are unwilling to
pay for the Iron Dome spending so, in reality, the funding won't happen
today because of Democrat opposition to Iron Dome being paid for. It
can happen right now. All you got to do is agree to take money from a
defunct fund to a defunct entity. Three billion dollars is in a fund to
an entity that no longer exists. The Afghan national government no
longer exists. This is such an easy pay-for. This one is dangling low
fruit that we can pay for. You can get exactly what we want to do, that
is a billion dollars extra, in addition to the money we already have
given Israel for Iron Dome, but pay for it. That is a responsible way.
So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

[[Page S9188]]

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, if I may just finish.
We are here again. I will come back again to the floor to seek this
Iron Dome money.
Many of us are absolutely determined that the United States fulfill
this moral, humanitarian, and foreign policy obligation. It is in our
strategic interest.
This obligation is paid for; it is not debt; and it will incur no
obligations that are unpaid for. So I regret that my colleague, again,
has blocked this from proceeding.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.