[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 2911-2913]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J.
                                RES. 31

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act of 
1976, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from 
further consideration of S.J. Res. 31, relating to the disapproval of 
the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Pakistan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is debatable for up to 1 hour.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the American 
taxpayers being forced to pay for fighter jets for Pakistan. Over $300 
million from the American taxpayers will be designated to go to 
Pakistan to pay for eight new F-16s for Pakistan. We have a lot of 
problems here in our country, my friends. We have a lot of things going 
on in our country that need to be taken care of, and we don't have 
enough money to be sending it to Pakistan. I can't in good conscience 
look away as America crumbles at home and politicians tax us to send 
the money
to corrupt and duplicitous regimes abroad.
  When I travel across Kentucky and I see the look of despair in the 
eyes of out-of-work coal miners, when I see the anguish in the faces of 
those who live in constant poverty, I wonder why the establishment of 
both parties continues to send our money overseas to countries that 
take our money, take our arms, and laugh in our faces.
  We have given $15 billion to Pakistan--$15 billion over the last 
decade--yet their previous President admits that Pakistan armed, aided, 
and abetted the Taliban. You remember the Taliban in Afghanistan that 
harbored and hosted bin Laden for a decade? Pakistan helped them. 
Pakistan was one of only two countries that recognized the Taliban. Why 
in the world would we be taxing the American people to send this money 
to Pakistan?
  Remember when bin Laden escaped? We chased him and he escaped. Where 
did he go? To Pakistan. He lived for a decade in Pakistan. Where? About 
a mile away from their military academy. Somehow they missed him. There 
in a 15-foot-high walled compound, bin Laden stayed in Pakistan while 
we funneled billions upon billions of dollars to them.
  Pakistan to this day is said to look away, to not look at the Haqqani 
network. In fact, it is accused that many members of their government 
are complicit with the Haqqani network. Who is the Haqqani network? It 
is a network of terrorists who kill Americans. We have American 
soldiers dying at the hands of Pakistani terrorists while that 
government looks the other way.
  GEN John F. Campbell testified before Congress that the Haqqani 
network remains the most capable threat to U.S. forces in Afghanistan. 
Yet we are asked to send F-16s and good money after bad to a government 
in Pakistan that looks the other way.
  Pakistan is, at best, a frenemy--part friend and a lot enemy. If 
Pakistan truly wants to be our ally, if Pakistan truly wants to help in 
the war on radical Islam, it should not require a bribe; it should not 
require the American taxpayer to subsidize arms sales. They already 
have 70 F-16s. They have an air force of F-16s. What would happen if we 
didn't send them eight more that we are being asked to pay for? Maybe 
they would listen. Maybe they would help us. Maybe they would be an 
honest broker in the fight against terrorism.
  We are $19 trillion in debt. We borrow $1 million a minute. We don't 
have any money to send to Pakistan to bribe them to buy planes from us. 
We don't have the money. We have problems at home. Our infrastructure 
crumbles at home. We have longstanding poverty at home. We have 
problems in America, and we can't afford to borrow the money from China 
to send it to Pakistan.
  In my State, in Kentucky, we have a dozen counties with unemployment 
nearly double the national rate. In Magoffin County, KY, 12.5 percent 
of people are out of work. Today, those who will vote to send money to 
Pakistan need to come with me to Kentucky. They need to come to 
Magoffin County, and they need to look people in the face who are out 
of work in America and explain to them why we should send money to 
Pakistan. We have people hurting here at home.
  In Harlan, the President's war on coal has led to longstanding 
double-digit unemployment. In Harlan, KY, people are out of work. 
People live in poverty, and they don't understand why Congress is 
sending money to Pakistan.
  In Leslie County, high unemployment prompts their citizens to ask: 
Why? Why is the government spending billions of dollars for advanced 
fighter jets for foreigners? They don't understand it. They can't 
understand, when they live from day to day, why their government is 
sending money to Pakistan.
  As I travel around Kentucky, I ask my constituents: Should America 
send money and arms to a country that persecutes Christians? I have yet 
to meet a single voter who wants their tax dollars going to countries 
that persecute Christians.
  In Pakistan, it is the law; it is in their Constitution that if you 
criticize the state religion, you can be put to death. Asia Bibi has 
been on death row for nearly 5 years. Asia Bibi is a Christian. Her 
crime? She went to the well to draw water, and the villagers began to 
stone her. They beat her with sticks until she was bleeding. They 
continued to stone her as they chanted ``Death, death to the 
Christian.''
  The police finally arrived, and she thought she had been saved, only 
to be arrested by the Pakistani police. There she sits on death row for 
5 years. Is it an ally? Is it a civilized nation that puts Christians 
to death for criticizing the state religion? I defy any Member of this 
body to go home and talk to the first voter. Go outside the Beltway. 
Leave Congress and drive outside the Beltway and stop at the first gas 
station or stop at the first grocery store and ask anybody--Republican, 
Democrat, or Independent: Should we be sending money to a country that 
persecutes Christians?
  Asia Bibi sits on death row for criticizing the state religion, and 
your money goes to support her government. What will happen to Pakistan 
if they don't get eight more F-16s? They will have only 70 F-16s.
  Most of the politicians here simply don't care. They don't care 
whether Pakistan persecutes Christians. They know only one way. The one 
way is to open our wallet and bleed us dry and hope that someday 
Pakistan will change its behavior. Guess what. If you are not strong 
enough to vote for this resolution, if you think some kind of

[[Page 2912]]

cajoling, flattery, and nice talk with empty words are going to change 
the behavior of Pakistan, you have another thought coming. It has been 
going on for decades.
  When I forced a vote in the Foreign Relations Committee to say that 
countries which put Christians to death for criticizing the state 
religion--there are about 34 of these countries, a couple of dozen of 
them who received money from us, American tax dollars going to 
countries that persecute Christians. When I introduced the amendment to 
say: Guess what. Let's not do it anymore. Any country that has a law 
that compels a Christian and puts a Christian to death, that country 
would no longer receive our money. Do you know what the vote was? It 
was 18 to 2 from Washington politicians to keep sending good money 
after bad because they say: Oh, the moderates there are going to change 
their minds someday.
  We have given them $15 billion, and I see no evidence of change in 
behavior. I see insolence, arrogance, and people who laugh as they cash 
our checks.
  Is Pakistan our ally in the War on Terror? Well, not only did they 
help the Taliban that hosted Bin Laden for a decade, but when they 
finally got Bin Laden, we got him with evidence that was given to us by 
a doctor in Pakistan. His name is Shakil Afridi. Where is he now? 
Pakistan has locked him away in a dark, dank prison from which he will 
probably never be released.
  Shakil Afridi has essentially been given a life sentence by Pakistan 
for the crime of helping the United States and helping all civilized 
nations get to Bin Laden. He sat under the noses of the Pakistani 
Government for a decade. We finally got him when Shakil Afridi helped 
us.
  People aren't going to continue to help America if we don't help 
them, if we don't protect our human intelligence, if we don't protect 
those who are willing to help America. He sits and rots in a prison. 
What message do we send to Pakistan if we send them eight more F-16s 
and we tell you, the American taxpayer, you are paying for it? What 
message does that send to Pakistan? The message to Pakistan is that we 
will just keep thumbing our nose at America, we will keep cashing their 
checks, and we will laugh all the way to the bank as we do nothing to 
release the Christians on death row or to release the doctor who helped 
us.
  Should we give planes to a country that imprisons these heroes--
heroes who helped and put their lives on the line for our country?
  Today we will vote on whether the American taxpayers should foot the 
bill. I have yet to meet a voter in my State of Kentucky or across 
America who thinks it is a good idea to send more money to Pakistan. We 
have a $19-trillion debt. We borrow $1 million a minute. We have no 
money. It is not even a surplus. They say we are going to influence 
Pakistan or they may rise up and say: Oh, the resolution will not stop 
the money. The heck it will not. If my resolution passes, if it becomes 
law, the eight jets will not go to Pakistan, they will not be 
subsidized, and not one penny of American tax dollars will go to 
Pakistan. That is the absolute truth. No matter what they tell you, 
this stops the sale. It stops the subsidy.
  We have to borrow money from China to send it to Pakistan. Such a 
policy is insane and supported by no one outside of Washington. You go 
anywhere in America and ask them: Should we give money? Should the 
taxpayer be forced to give money to Pakistan, a country that persecutes 
Christians? Nobody is for it. Yet the vast and out-of-touch 
establishment in Washington continues to do it. Is it any wonder that 
people are unhappy with Washington? Is it any wonder that Americans are 
sick and tired of the status quo, sick and tired of people not 
listening to them?
  We have no money in the Treasury. We are all out of money. This 
influences nothing, other than to tell the Pakistanis they can continue 
doing what they want. I urge my colleagues to vote against subsidized 
sales of fighter jets to Pakistan.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Can the Chair tell me how much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator has used 14 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. So I have 16 remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few remarks about 
this resolution of disapproval.
  While I oppose this measure, I share the junior Senator from 
Kentucky's frustration with some aspects of our relationship with 
Pakistan. Notably, I think the jailing of Dr. Shakil Afridi for 23 
years under highly questionable charges is an outrage.
  For those of you who don't remember, Dr. Afridi helped the United 
States locate Osama bin Laden. His approach may have been debatable, 
but one thing is clear--he doesn't deserve to languish in a Pakistani 
jail for more than two decades on manufactured charges.
  I have also been troubled by the Pakistani military and intelligence 
service's support for militant groups that work against U.S. interests 
in the region. In fact, I would argue that many of these groups are 
also working against the long term interests of our friends in Pakistan 
as well, as evidenced by its own domestic terrorist problem.
  I am also concerned that, despite important foreign aid given to 
Pakistan, there remains a troubling failure to address basic and urgent 
development needs--particularly education and schooling for girls. We 
also see continued cases of extreme religious intolerance, including 
death sentences for dubious charges of blasphemy.
  At the same time, I also want to take a moment to acknowledge that 
Pakistan has suffered horrible losses in taking on militant groups 
within its own borders--something I don't think we always recognize.
  And most importantly, I want to stress the importance of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee--let's allow it to do its work and 
thoroughly consider this resolution first, rather than rush it through 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time 
be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to table the motion to discharge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the 
Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would 
have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan

[[Page 2913]]


     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Ayotte
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Capito
     Collins
     Daines
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Kirk
     Manchin
     Moran
     Murphy
     Paul
     Schatz
     Scott
     Tester
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cruz
     Lee
     McCaskill
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

                          ____________________