[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 170 (Tuesday, October 17, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5029-S5031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3041
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, 10 days ago, as Israeli families
celebrated the Sabbath and the Jewish holiday, Iran's terrorist Hamas
launched a barbaric surprise attack against Israel, killing at least
1,400 Israelis and 30 Americans. Hamas fired thousands of rockets at
Israeli cities and infiltrated communities to massacre mothers,
fathers, children, and grandparents. It was the deadliest day for the
Jewish people since American GIs liberated the final
[[Page S5030]]
concentration camp of the Third Reich. Hamas terrorists raped women,
paraded corpses through the streets, and posted their crimes on social
media. They burned families alive, and they murdered babies.
In this time of horror and grief, my prayers are with the people of
Israel, and I know I am not alone. Upon hearing the dark news last
Saturday, God-fearing Americans across the country knelt in prayer for
the people of Israel. I believe all of Israel is uplifted by the
prayers of our people for theirs that day.
But like Israelis, Americans don't remain on bended knee for long.
And let me remind you again that Hamas also massacred 30 Americans and
may hold as many as 13 hostage, making it one of the worst terror
attacks against America in recent times. We have to avenge those deaths
and do everything possible to bring those missing Americans home. We
stand squarely with Israel and its objective to destroy Hamas, not only
as a terror group but as a governing entity and a social movement.
But Hamas did not act alone, and it shouldn't pay the price alone.
Hamas wouldn't exist at its scale and savagery that it does without
Iran. Iran funds Hamas's political organization in Gaza. Iran assisted
Hamas in the manufacturing of rockets and drones it used on the October
7 attacks. And Iran trained many of the Hamas terrorists who organized
and executed these attacks.
Most damning, according to the Wall Street Journal, Iran's Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps helped plot the attack against Israel, and
Iran's Foreign Minister even attended meetings with Hamas and the IRGC
to discuss the attacks. Yet President Biden could soon hand the
terrorist regime in Tehran another $6 billion in cash.
Joe Biden has already given the ayatollahs $90 billion through his
lax enforcement of oil sanctions and his unfreezing of Iranian assets.
Tehran has predictably used this Biden bonus to strengthen its military
and arm its proxies. Just last year, Iran doubled the budget of the
Revolutionary Guard Corps, the shock troops of its terror regime, and
it more than tripled its support for Hamas's military brigades.
Worse, since President Biden took office, Iran and its proxies have
attacked American troops more than 83 times, it has armed Russia in its
war in Ukraine, and it has helped orchestrate the worst terrorist
attack since September 11. The last thing we should do is give Iran
another $6 billion in a dangerous ransom payment for American hostages.
Under public and congressional pressure, the Biden administration
purported to delay the release of the $6 billion in concert with Qatar,
where the money is now located. But color me skeptical of a ``quiet
understanding'' between a soft-on-Iran Joe Biden and a soft-on-Hamas
Government of Qatar, especially since the administration refuses to
freeze the funds and reserves the right to release the $6 billion at
any time without notifying Congress or the public, and, even more
especially, since the Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister stood
on a stage last week with the Secretary of State and said in Arabic
that there were no changes to the agreement under which Iran could
access the $6 billion.
That is why Senator McConnell and I have introduced a simple bill to
prevent President Biden from making this $6 billion payment to Iran. It
rescinds the sanctions waiver issued by Joe Biden and Tony Blinken,
locking down those funds and preventing the Iranian regime from
withdrawing them.
Like Barack Obama before him, President Biden simply can't be trusted
when it comes to Iran. Appeasement and accommodation are instinctual
for them. Whether it takes days, weeks, or months, Joe Biden will
revert to form. In fact, he already seems to be doing so.
This legislation would stop such a predictable reversal.
I am pleased to report that many of my Democratic colleagues have
joined Senator McConnell and me to call for the freezing of this $6
billion--understandably so, since it means Iran will have an extra $6
billion to support Hamas, to expand the Revolutionary Guard Corps, and
to accelerate its nuclear program.
So will they allow this bill to pass today or are they all talk on
the campaign trail and no action here in the Senate? Let's find out.
Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged
from further consideration of S. 3041 and the Senate proceed to its
immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read
a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to
make a few comments.
First of all, the Senator from Arkansas speaks for 100 Members of the
Senate when he expresses his outrage at the horrendous killings and
terrorist acts by Hamas against innocent people in Israel--the worst
attack and suffering in Israel since the Holocaust. So the Senator from
Arkansas speaks for every single one of us. Second, in his
characterization of Iran as a malign actor, their association with
Hamas, Hezbollah, the attacks they had on our soldiers when they were
in Iraq, I believe the Senator from Arkansas speaks for all 100 of us.
He certainly speaks for me. I want to salute the Senator for the time
he has spent during his service in the Senate alerting America to the
threat that Iran poses. But I object for the following reasons:
First of all, this President, President Biden, made a tough decision
that Presidents before him had to make--including President Trump--
about using the power of the office to bring back hostages who were
viciously detained, cruelly detained, in this case by Iran. He made
that decision, and, with the help of Qatar, we were able to bring five
American hostages home.
That is a tough decision, but I would disagree with my colleague when
he says that decision in any way indicates weakness or lack of resolve
on behalf of President Biden towards what is happening and has happened
in Israel. There is no better friend to Israel than President Joe
Biden. He has been an ally and supporter of Israel throughout his time
of service in the U.S. Senate, as Vice President, and as President of
the United States.
I do disagree, but this is not the time to get into a debate about
the Senator from Arkansas's characterization of some of the
intelligence about what was the role of Iran in what just happened.
That is a debate for a separate time.
I also want to disagree with the characterization that this is more
money that is going to go to Iran. When this was being negotiated,
there was great care given to the fact that this money had to be fenced
off so that it could only be used essentially for humanitarian
purposes. I am talking about medicine, medical devices, food, and
agricultural products.
Let's keep in mind that, yes, we have an adversary in Iran with the
ayatollahs, with Iran's Revolutionary Guard, but there are Iranians who
are suffering and who do need medicine. And our beef is not with the
people; it is with that government.
How are these funds limited? No bank can approve any one of the
transactions. This money is not in the hands of Iran. For any money to
be released, we have the backup of Qatar, where the funds are
deposited. The money cannot be approved for any expenditure to any
vendor unless it gets approval from the U.S. Government first. There is
constant--constant--monitoring to make certain that the purpose--that
it be for humanitarian use only--is met. The United States completely
controls the valve of these funds, with the backup of Qatar.
Finally, this would be somewhat insulting to the confidence we placed
in Qatar. What diplomatic efforts they may be involved in now for other
hostages, I don't know, but we want to express confidence in Qatar,
which has assisted us in bringing five Americans home.
Finally, there is the basic proposition--the United States made an
agreement here. We got the benefit of that agreement with five
Americans back home with their families. Mr. President, we keep our
word. We keep our word.
For these reasons, I object to the unanimous consent request.
[[Page S5031]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I just want to respond briefly to my
friend from Vermont, and he is my friend from Vermont. I don't mean
that in the way that Senators usually say that when they say ``friend
from another State'' but they are not actually friends and they
oftentimes can't stand each other. He is my friend from Vermont, and he
has been so since we served together in the House some time ago.
First, I will note, as I said, that nine Democratic Senators have
joined my call to freeze this money. Those would be Senator Rosen,
Senator Manchin, Senator Baldwin, Senator Casey, Senator Sinema,
Senator Cortez Masto, Senator Brown, Senator Kelly, and Senator Tester.
I will observe from that list that seven of those nine are up for
reelection in difficult campaigns next year, unlike my friend from
Vermont, who just won his election in one of the most Democratic States
in the country. So I wonder why these seven Democratic Senators who are
at risk on the campaign trail next year weren't willing to join my
bill. We offered them all an opportunity to join the bill, but it was
radio silence. Could it be that they want to say one thing on the
campaign trail and do another thing here in the Senate?
A few points that the Senator from Vermont made--that this was a
tough decision to free hostages and that we have to keep our word. It
is always tough decisions when we face hostage situations overseas;
however, paying $6 billion for five American hostages--$1.2 billion per
hostage--simply encourages more hostage taking. We saw this the last
time we paid ransom to Iran under the Obama administration. They
immediately took more of the hostages whom we just freed by paying
ransom. Just to note, just a few weeks after we paid that ransom, Hamas
perpetrated this attack and took over 200 hostages. Maybe they took a
lesson from what President Biden did with the hostages held by Iran.
Really, we can't be so naive as to think that, well, we made this
deal, we got the hostages back, so we have to give Iran the benefit of
the bargain, as if you can deal in good faith with a terror regime like
Iran.
Second, the Senator from Vermont said there has been no better friend
than President Biden to Israel over his long, long career in public
office. I have to say, I find it hard to believe that Israel can have
no better friend than a man who has spent decades, including 11 years
as Vice President and President, empowering Iran--the worst enemy of
Israel; a regime that still chants ``Death to America'' and ``Death to
Israel''--by giving them hundreds of billions of dollars of sanction
relief; by putting them on the path to get a nuclear weapon; by, for
instance, not insisting that we continue the multilateral sanctions on
Iran's missile program that expire under the nuclear deal tomorrow--
that is right, tomorrow, October 18, the 8-year anniversary of the part
of the nuclear deal with Iran that says that multilateral sanctions on
their missile and drones will expire--at a time when Iran is providing
missiles and drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians.
Joe Biden also, when he came to office, didn't just empower Iran; he
empowered the exact terror proxies we are talking about. U.S. law
prohibits the payment of aid to Palestinians that engage in so-called
martyr payments--the grotesque practice of paying the families of
suicide bombers and murderers of Jews or paying them if they survive.
Congress stopped that practice with something called the Taylor Force
Act. The administration has refused to enforce that law. To my
knowledge, they continue to say they will make aid payments to
Palestinian entities, which, in the end, inevitably free up more
resources to attack Israel.
Which gets to another point the Senator from Vermont made--that this
$6 billion is sitting in Qatar in kind of an escrow account and is only
going to be used for humanitarian purposes, things like food, medicine,
and so forth. I understand that is the argument. I get that. But, of
course, money is fungible. Iran now has $6 billion free to do other
things.
If a family in Arkansas is struggling to pay the bill for the
groceries and they don't know if they can buy Christmas presents for
their kids and they win a $500 gift card to a grocery store at a Friday
Night Football Booster Club event, guess what--it may not pay for the
Christmas gifts, but they now have $500 freed up to buy Christmas
gifts. The exact same principle applies here.
I know the Iranian Government doesn't care for its people. That is
why they oppress them and murder them. I grant you that. But they also
need some kind of social stability to maintain their grip on power.
So, yes, it is a direct benefit to the terror regime in Tehran. If
they get $6 billion for things like food and medicine, that frees up
their finances for other activities, like supporting Hamas and
supporting Hezbollah and supporting the proxies in Syria and Iraq that
have attacked Americans more than 83 times.
The Senator from Vermont also mentioned the suffering Iranians. They
are indeed suffering. They have for more than 40 years under the yoke
of the ayatollahs.
They have occasionally risen up in opposition--in 2009, during the
green revolution, when Barack Obama stood idly by and did nothing to
support these brave Iranians, with Joe Biden sitting by his side. Where
was he? Was he caught flat-footed? Was he naive? Was he an
inexperienced President his fifth month in office? No. He didn't
support the Iranian people when they were rising up against the
ayatollahs in the summer of 2009 because he prioritized, above all
else, atoning for America's sins against Iran in his mind and procuring
a nuclear deal that would elevate Iran to a regional power that would
balance off against our friends in Israel and the Arab nations so we
could exit the region. That is the exact policy that Joe Biden has
pursued in his nearly 3 years in office as well. There have been
uprisings in Iran for over a year. Where has the administration been to
support them?
I would just say finally on the point about the intelligence on
whether Iran had foreknowledge of these attacks, was involved at all in
planning them, I think there are disputes about that. I find it very
skeptical that an organization that gets more than 90 percent of its
funding from Tehran would launch an attack like this against Israel
without Iran at least tacitly blessing it. But I also say as a point of
analogy that you cannot breed pit bulls, feed them, house them, train
them to attack and kill, and then let them off the leash and claim no
responsibility when they maul your neighbors. That is exactly what Iran
has done with terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and militias in
Syria and Iraq.
So I regret that my friend from Vermont drew the short straw to come
down here and object on behalf of his vulnerable Democratic colleagues.
I will continue to work with my colleagues--hopefully, some of those
Democrats who claim they want to stop the $6 billion from being
released because the last thing we should be doing, after these
atrocious attacks on Israel and on America, I remind you, is enriching
the Ayatollah any further.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Welch). The Senator from Tennessee.