[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.