The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
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.
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 216
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up