[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14774-14778]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         SPORTSMEN'S ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                              Foreign Aid

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, seeing the distinguished chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee in the chair, I have a feeling I may be 
preaching to the converted, but let me say we, all of us, were outraged 
by the video denigrating the Muslim faith but then by the mob 
violence--some of it encouraged by al-Qaida or other extremist groups--
against our embassies and diplomats in Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and 
other countries around the world. Secretary of State Clinton said it 
well: ``The United States rejects both the content and message of that 
video . . . and deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the 
religious beliefs of others.''
  The Secretary and President Obama have also said, repeatedly, that 
there is never any justification for the violent

[[Page 14775]]

acts that have been perpetrated against our diplomats, and they have 
called on the governments of those countries to protect our embassies 
and consulates. And of course, they are right.
  As far as I am aware we have received the condolences and support of 
the governments of these countries, as well as scores of other 
governments around the world.
  The support and sympathy expressed, not only by foreign officials but 
by countless citizens of these countries who have denounced the attacks 
on United States personnel, needs to be recognized.
  There is no evidence, that I am aware of, that any of these 
governments were responsible for, or had any involvement in, these 
violent demonstrations. They neither ordered nor condoned them. To the 
contrary, they have since taken steps to protect our facilities and 
personnel.
  That is why I am mystified by the legislation offered by the junior 
Senator from Kentucky, Senator Paul, which would cut off aid to key 
U.S. allies like Israel, Indonesia and Jordan where such protests have 
occurred, even peaceful demonstrations, as well as security partners 
like Egypt, Libya, and Pakistan.
  On the one hand, there are some affirmations of our policy goals in 
the legislation that I agree with--for example, we all want those 
responsible for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the other 
Americans in Benghazi, as well as the destruction of property there and 
in Cairo and elsewhere, to be brought to justice. And already, dozens 
of people are under arrest in those countries.
  But anyone who is inclined to support this legislation should read 
the fine print, because the way it is drafted is not only unworkable, 
it would serve to inflame an already dangerous situation, harming 
America's national security interests.
  For example, all aid would be cut off to governments in countries 
where a demonstration occurred, even a peaceful demonstration, until 
the government arrests everyone who participated, and until the FBI has 
identified everyone involved and they are all in the custody of the 
United States, even if we do not have extradition treaties with those 
countries.
  In other words, we would cut off aid to the governments of Egypt, 
Israel, Jordan, Libya, Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Nigeria, Turkey, 
Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Yemen, and India, among others, 
until every one of the thousands of people who participated in 
demonstrations in those countries has been identified by name, 
arrested, and brought to the United States and imprisoned.
  I have seen unworkable, unwise legislation before, but this may win 
the prize. Not only would this be a colossal waste of FBI resources, it 
would be impossible to implement.
  How is the FBI going to determine the identity of everyone who joined 
in these protests? Is that really what we want the FBI doing?
  Are we, who believe in freedom of speech, really going to fill up our 
prisons with thousands of foreigners, including those who have engaged 
in peaceful demonstrations?
  Does the author of this amendment have any idea how much that would 
cost U.S. taxpayers?
  Are we really going to cut off aid to the Government of Egypt, which 
has reaffirmed its peace agreement with Israel, sent troops against 
Egyptian extremists in the Sinai, deployed police to protect the U.S. 
embassy, and is in the process of negotiating an agreement with the 
IMF--with U.S. and European support--to reform its economy?
  Are we going to also cut off aid to Israel--which we would not do, of 
course?
  Do we really want to cut off aid to the Government of Indonesia, the 
largest Muslim country in the world and a key U.S. ally in South East 
Asia?
  And Libya, which we helped to liberate, and which has just emerged 
from a bloody revolution to overthrow a tyrant who posed a real threat 
to regional peace and security?
  As I said before, we are all outraged and saddened by the tragic 
events in Benghazi, Cairo, and elsewhere. There is no justification for 
it. We expect to see those responsible for the violence to be brought 
to justice, and we have insisted that these governments fulfill their 
obligation to protect our embassies, as we protect theirs.
  But this is no way to honor the patriotism and sacrifice of 
Ambassador Stevens and the others who lost their lives.
  We are not talking about brutal kleptocracies like the Mobutu 
Government of the 1980s who the junior Senator from Kentucky spoke of 
today.
  These are fledgling democracies whose people have been ruled and 
brutalized by corrupt dictators for decades. They are struggling to 
draft new constitutions, elect parliaments, reform their police, 
restructure their stagnant economies, and manage competing ethnic, 
religious and political factions, some of which have been in conflict 
with each other for centuries.
  We can punish them by cutting off our aid, even though these 
governments had no more to do with organizing the protests than our 
government had to do with producing the anti-Muslim video that is 
inciting the protests.
  That might score political points for some back home.
  Or we can support them in making decisions that will improve our 
relations and strengthen our security.
  Withdrawal is not an option for the United States. Isolationism is 
not an option. Overreacting in ways that embolden violent extremists is 
not an option.
  This amendment is poorly conceived, poorly drafted, and would have 
all sorts of unintended and dangerous consequences. The best message 
the United States Congress could send to the forces of democracy in 
these countries is to defeat it overwhelmingly.
  I believe, like so many both Democrats and Republicans who have 
spoken against this, it makes no sense.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? The Senator from 
South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, Americans are crying out for us to stop 
giving away hard-earned tax dollars to countries that are not our 
friends. I agree. We need to review all our foreign aid and make any 
aid conditional on the protection of Americans and of our interests. 
But when it comes to the bill offered by Senator Paul, I have to say I 
do not like how some parts of it are worded. It has some flaws and 
Members on both sides of the aisle have some legitimate concerns. I 
have been working all day with Senator Paul to improve the language to 
address concerns on our side.
  Senator Paul has been more than accommodating on this. He was willing 
to limit the scope of the bill to Libya, Pakistan, and Egypt. With 
respect to Libya and Egypt, he agreed to loosen restrictions so the 
funds would not turn off for 60 days, and only turn off if it was clear 
their governments were not cooperating with the investigation into the 
attacks and efforts to find the perpetrators. In short, he was willing 
to accept the legitimate concerns that have been raised by colleagues 
with respect to the potential unintended consequences of the bill.
  Then Senator Paul asked the majority leader if he could modify the 
bill. Senators do this all the time--or at least we used to. We work 
together, we have managers' amendments, we allow Senators to modify 
their legislation to fix issues raised by other Senators. So after all 
this work and this good faith accommodation by Senator Paul who, to 
address the concerns of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, was 
agreeing to changes that narrowed the scope of the legislation far 
beyond what he personally wanted--after all this, the other side of the 
aisle decided to play gotcha. They would not let him modify his own 
amendment. His request was made 8 to 10 hours before the vote--plenty 
of time for Members to review the changes--but the normal rules of 
comity apparently do not apply anymore in the Senate.
  This Senator is ashamed of the way the Senate is being run. We have 
had an entire Congress of gag rules, limited

[[Page 14776]]

debate, limited votes, limited amendments, and the result has been no 
accomplishments. Over the last 2 years, the Senate has become a 
laughingstock. I may not like the way Senator Paul's bill is worded, 
his unmodified bill. I do not agree with the scope of the conditions in 
some cases, but I support the goals of providing accountability in our 
foreign aid, of freeing Dr. Afridi, and of ensuring that those we 
support with our precious dollars are defending our interests and our 
diplomats overseas.
  I will vote yes on this bill in support of these principles. The bill 
will not pass, but the other side cannot hide from this issue forever. 
Senator Paul will be back and I will be back with him. We will get the 
votes the American people are demanding.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DeMINT. Certainly.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask the Senator this question. We all understand the 
normal rules of the Senate. This is a big policy, cutting off four 
countries' aid with a set of circumstances that is so rigid it may 
encompass countries such as Israel and others. The normal rules of 
comity are that something such as this would go through the appropriate 
committee. That is why we have committees.
  The Senator from South Carolina is a member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee. This has never been to the Foreign Relations Committee. Does 
the Senator believe some policy as important as this doesn't deserve a 
hearing, doesn't deserve a process? I think the Senator knows that as 
the chairman I have never slowed down a process of our committee. The 
normal rules of comity ought to require this to go through the 
committee.
  Mr. DeMINT. I say to the Senator, if that were true, I think he has 
to admit Senator Tester has one that his side pushed this night that 
has not been through committee, violates the budget, and a number of 
other things.
  The point is this. Senator Paul has been working on this legislation 
for several months and has been working to try to get a vote on this 
floor for several months and he could not get it. He was turned down 
time and time again. This legislation has been out there. The issue of 
foreign aid has been out there. We have not taken it up as a committee 
as we should have. The fact that he is not given the opportunity to get 
a vote on the amendment of his choice, to modify his own amendment, 
does break the precedent of the Senate and does break the comity we 
should enjoy here. When a Member offers an amendment, they should be 
able to modify it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand tonight in support of the amendment 
of Senator Paul to provide limitations on the amount and scope of 
foreign aid the United States sends abroad. This is not a decision I 
have reached quickly, nor is it an issue I take lightly.
  I appreciate that, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, 
conditions already exist on some of the foreign aid we send to 
Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. I respectfully submit, however, that 
these conditions are not producing the desired result nor are they yet 
fully enforced.
  For example, is Pakistan cooperating with the United States on 
countering terrorism efforts and preventing terrorists from basing or 
operating in Pakistan, as is already required in section 7046 of Public 
Law 112-74? Are the programs and activities we support in Afghanistan 
sustainable, as is also required by section 7046? If the answer to 
these and to other questions regarding this aid could possibly be no, 
then we have an obligation to the American people to at least review 
this aid and inspect every single dollar we send abroad to ensure that 
the billions of dollars we send to Pakistan, to Egypt, and to Libya are 
well spent.
  I support this amendment, if for no other reason than to begin the 
debate on the merit of sending billions of American dollars abroad each 
and every year. When will we stop sending this kind of money to nations 
that harbor terrorists and imprison those who, like Dr. Afridi, would 
defend our interests?
  To be clear, I don't think the amendment of Senator Paul is perfect. 
Many of my colleagues have legitimate concerns about this amendment's 
potential effect on some of our allies outside the Middle East. That is 
why I and several other Senators have asked our staffs to work with 
Senator Paul and his office to narrow the scope of this amendment. 
Senator Paul was responsive to our concerns and was willing to make the 
requested changes.
  Unfortunately, the majority leader refused to allow Senator Paul to 
modify his own amendment. I don't yet have 2 full years under my belt 
as a Member of this body, but I have been around just long enough to 
see that managers' amendments and modifications are routinely applied 
to their own legislation, and I am very sorry Senator Paul was not 
given the courtesy that apparently is reserved only for other Members 
of this distinguished body.
  In a Senate where the majority leader has recently announced ``the 
amendment days are over,'' I guess I should not be surprised.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I will just take 1 minute before I yield back. With 
respect to the question, first of all--I obviously do not run the 
Senate so I cannot speak about what happened with respect to these 
other pieces of legislation, but I am responsible for the Foreign 
Relations Committee. This particular amendment was filed at the desk on 
September 19. We are here under rule XIV. That is not months of work. 
The first time I heard of it was when it came to the desk. So this 
could well have been a policy we amended in the committee, that we 
worked on appropriately, came up with some appropriate way of dealing 
with legitimate issues.
  I am not denigrating the legitimacy of some of the issues the Senator 
from Kentucky raises. We had a very profound conversation with the 
Foreign Minister of Pakistan the other day. The Foreign Relations 
Committee met with her. We went into Dr. Afridi's situation in some 
detail, and there are other issues raised here. But just to come in out 
of the whole blue and file it at the desk and say let's change years of 
policy with a country that we, in the case of Egypt, desperately rely 
on with respect to the peace process in the Middle East, sustaining the 
peace agreement with Israel--it just defies rationale about how you 
make good foreign policy.
  I will have more to say about it in a moment, but I just want to make 
it clear this did not come to the floor until September 19 at the desk 
and it is here under rule XIV.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KERRY. I don't know how much time we have.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Nine minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. We will hold off and come back.
  Mr. LEE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. Not on my time, no. I will do it on the Senator's time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Whose time is 
being----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If no one yields time, time will be 
charged equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise to respond to my friend and 
distinguished colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts.
  In the first place, it is significant. Dr. Afridi has been in prison 
for more than a year. It is significant that this amount of time has 
elapsed. It is appropriate that we respond in some fashion. I don't 
know why exactly legislation has not emerged from the Foreign Relations 
Committee, on which I sit. The fact is it has not.
  I respect the junior Senator from Kentucky for having the courage to 
bring forward this legislation. Regardless, the fact is that this 
legislation is now before us. We can argue about how it got here and 
about whether it should

[[Page 14777]]

have gone through committee, but it is before us. The fact that it is 
now before us means the Senator from Kentucky who introduced it ought 
to have certain prerogatives--prerogatives to change it or modify it 
before it gets to the floor. That is the point I was making, and that 
is the point I think bears some mention here. I think that is a point 
which was somehow lost in this discussion today, and that is most 
unfortunate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.


                   Unanimous consent Request--S. 3576

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
business be set side and that S. 3576 be made pending; that the Paul 
substitute amendment No. 2849 to S. 3576 be adopted; and that at the 
appropriate time the Senate consider S. 3576 as amended under the terms 
of the earlier order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. KERRY. Yes, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. It boggles the mind to think that Hillary Clinton was on 
Capitol Hill this week to ask for increasing aid to Egypt. It boggles 
the mind that last month President Obama found an extra $1 billion to 
give to Pakistan.
  Meanwhile, Dr. Shakil Afridi has been in prison for a year. He said 
directly in interviews that he has been tortured by the Pakistani 
Government. Now he has been imprisoned for life. The Foreign Relations 
Committee has had a year to act on this and has not been forthcoming in 
doing anything to address Dr. Afridi or get him freed or to attach any 
restrictions or limitations to foreign aid. The restrictions currently 
in place are for the administration, and they have been waived.
  I say we don't give up the power of the purse. I say we keep the 
power of the purse and the restrictions with the legislature. This bill 
places restrictions on foreign aid to three countries. This bill does 
not end foreign aid, it adds restrictions. Some have argued that 
interrupting foreign aid now could inflame the Arab world. Does anyone 
think they are not already inflamed? They are inflamed because our 
foreign aid has incensed them. Our foreign aid bought Mubarak tear gas 
and police truncheons. We need to understand why the Arabs are angry.
  Some have argued that aid to Israel could be ended by this bill. That 
is ridiculous. The bill requires the Secretary of State to allege that 
a country did not attempt to protect an embassy that was attacked. To 
imply that a Secretary of State, Republican or Democrat, is going to 
allege that Israel is not protecting our embassy is absurd. It boggles 
the mind to think that any Senator wants to send foreign aid without 
conditions to countries that are burning our flag. I, for one, will not 
vote for one more penny to be sent to the people who riot and burn the 
American flag. Enough is enough. We are running a trillion-dollar 
deficit, and Americans are tired of their tax dollars being sent to 
countries that are burning the American flag.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on placing restrictions on foreign aid.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts. I 
yield the time to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say quickly to the Senator from 
Kentucky, whom I asked the other day whether he has ever been to 
Pakistan or Egypt--I think if he had, he would know something more 
about the millions of people in those countries who aspire to democracy 
and who have invested in our values and are trying to have a different 
future.
  I particularly--``resent'' is not a particularly attractive word, but 
to hear him say that the Foreign Relations Committee has done nothing 
on Dr. Afridi does a disservice to the efforts we have been making in 
what is called a quiet and thoughtful diplomacy. Not all diplomacy is 
conducted by passing a fly-by-night amendment on the floor of the 
Senate, pretending that is going to improve relations or change the 
world. When we sit down with people and talk through problems, we can 
work out a resolution.
  We had a long conversation just a day ago with the Foreign Minister 
of Pakistan about Dr. Afridi. That was not the first conversation. For 
months some of us have been talking with Pakistan about how we resolve 
this issue, which does, incidentally, have something to do with the law 
of another country, the politics of another country, and the political 
demands and needs of another country. It is not always the best way to 
resolve those things simply by racing to the floor of the Senate and 
saying: Here, do what we tell you. I am afraid that is not always how 
it works.
  So I think the Senator from Kentucky has a lot to learn about how we 
get things done within the international community.
  I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hope all of my colleagues will take note 
that AIPAC disagrees with the view of the Senator from Kentucky about 
the effect this legislation may have on aid to Israel.
  Every Member of Congress and all Americans should know what happened 
today in Benghazi, Libya. The reports are that as many as 30,000 
Libyans took to the streets in Benghazi, the city in which Ambassador 
Chris Stevens and three of his colleagues were tragically murdered 10 
days ago. These demonstrators marched peacefully to the gates of the 
compound of Ansar al-Sharia, the militia that was responsible for the 
attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues. The 
demonstrators conducted themselves peacefully. According to media 
reports, they carried signs that read ``The Ambassador was Libya's 
friend'' and ``No, no to militias.'' When these brave Libyans arrived 
at the gates of the compound, they told the militia that they and their 
violent, extremist agenda are not welcome in the new Libya. Do we want 
to send a message tonight, after the people of Libya told the militants 
no, that we don't want to have anything to do with them, we won't 
assist them, we won't give them what they need to establish a 
democratic and free society?
  Because of what happened in Benghazi today, somewhere Chris Stevens 
is smiling. He is smiling because this is the real Libya, the Libya he 
knew and loved so well. This is the Libya he wanted America to support 
and remain engaged with, the Libya of which he ultimately gave his 
life. These brave people in Libya are friends of America's. They want 
our help, and they need our help. We must continue to provide it to 
them, which is exactly what Chris Stevens would have wanted.
  If the Senate were to cut off all U.S. assistance to Libya now, as 
this amendment before us would do, it would abandon our friends to our 
terrorist enemies and destroy America's moral standing in the world and 
do egregious harm to our national interests.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Four minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. How much time is remaining altogether?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two minutes 20 seconds on Senator 
Paul's time; 4 minutes left to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator plan to use his time?
  Mr. PAUL. I will reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If no one yields time, time will be 
charged equally to both sides.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may use. I will be 
happy to have the Senator speak last if that is what he wants to do.
  We have heard today from 110 retired generals and admirals that the 
suspension of U.S. aid is not in America's interest and that assistance 
is a critical component of America's national security strategy.
  We have heard from Jewish Americans about the impacts this bill would

[[Page 14778]]

have on our relationship with Israel at what they have called ``a time 
of turmoil and uncertainty,'' and ``the U.S. government needs to be 
able to use all available tools to influence events in the region.''
  It would affect Israel's security if the United States were to 
suddenly pull out its assistance and change its relationship with Yemen 
and particularly change its relationship with Egypt.
  I have heard from the State Department, which said this legislation 
``will weaken democracies'' and ``play into the hands of extremists.''
  With respect to Libya, Senator McCain has just spoken eloquently 
about Chris Stevens. He knew Chris Stevens. We knew him on our 
committee. He worked for Senator Lugar, and we knew him as a Pearson 
fellow. There was no more dedicated person. We just confirmed him and 
sent him over this May. I guarantee that the last thing he would want 
is his death being used as an excuse for the United States to cut off 
Libya and to disengage.
  The 30,000 people who marched today marched for America. They marched 
for themselves. They marched for democracy. They marched for what Chris 
Stevens was investing in. I don't think we want to punish those people 
and that government because of what happened.
  With respect to Egypt, the United States derives extraordinarily 
important security benefits from that relationship. Shutting down 
American military assistance to Egypt would jeopardize our 
nonproliferation initiatives. It would undermine efforts to stop the 
smuggling of weapons and interdicting of arms into Gaza, which affects 
the security of Israel. It would undermine the 1979 peace treaty 
between Israel and Egypt. Those of us who have traveled to Israel in 
recent months have heard concern from Israeli officials about the 
prospects of suspension of American military assistance to Egypt. They 
have already talked about it. They are nervous about it, and they think 
it would have a profound negative impact on their security and Israel.
  These are the connections the Paul legislation just doesn't face up 
to. Senator Paul's legislation would essentially shut down our ability 
to work with the new civilian government. And while we are working to 
build the same kind of alliance with them we have had previously, it 
would really interrupt that and say to them that the United States of 
America is not interested in having that kind of an alliance.
  With respect to Pakistan, the reality is the United States has vital 
national security interests in Pakistan, all of which are at stake. 
They have a population of 190 million people, a troubled economy, 
pockets of extremism, and a robust nuclear arsenal. We can't turn our 
backs on any of that, and I think we need to remember that our aid 
plays a critical role in supporting our interests and our values.
  The Paul amendment would make us less secure, and it is in no one's 
interest.
  Whatever time we have, I reserve the remainder.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, nothing in this bill refers to Israel, and 
nothing would apply to Israel. To imagine that any money could be 
removed from Israel, we would have to imagine that Secretary of State 
Hillary Clinton accuses Israel of not protecting the Embassy. It is a 
canard, and it is a typical one that has been used many times.
  Nothing in the bill says we would have no aid to these countries. It 
simply says to these countries that if they protect our Embassy--Libya, 
if you continue to cooperate and send back terrorists and catch the 
assassins, you will continue to get our aid.
  It conditions aid on behavior. Right now, aid is not being 
conditioned on behavior.
  We have Pakistan, which has actually tortured a friend of America's. 
Dr. Shakil Afridi has been tortured for a year by the Pakistani 
Government.
  The Foreign Relations Committee has done nothing to address that, and 
so we have Dr. Shakil Afridi now in prison for years--for the rest of 
his life, essentially. I don't see any action forthcoming from the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  What I would say to my colleagues is this is a bill that places 
restrictions on foreign aid, it does not end foreign aid. It doesn't 
breach the Israel-Egypt treaty or the Camp David Accords. It is a 
canard. It is brought up routinely to try to prevent any changes or 
reform in foreign aid. We always hear it is going to end aid to Israel. 
It is a canard.
  What I would say to my colleagues is this bill does not end foreign 
aid. It places restrictions on foreign aid. Ask the American people: Do 
you think these restrictions are appropriate? Do you think a host 
country should protect our Embassy? Do you think a host country such as 
Libya should be asked to continue to cooperate? Do you think a host 
country such as Pakistan should turn over a friend of America and not 
imprison and torture a friend of America?
  I think these are very reasonable restrictions. I think these are 
restrictions we should have. I think these are restrictions anyone in 
America would say are very reasonable, and I urge adoption of the 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, could we have order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is order in the Senate.
  The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for such time as I have left, let me make 
it clear: The Paul legislation requires all identifiable persons 
associated with organizing, planning, participating in the attacks, 
trespass, breach, or attempted attack, have been identified by the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, or 
other United States law enforcement entity, and are in United States 
custody. We are talking about other countries. That is an absolutely 
impossible-to-fulfill requirement and that is why it would result in 
the cutoff of aid automatically, and that is why it is dangerous.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

                          ____________________