congress records
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
[Page: S1423]
GPO's PDF
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 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
[Page: S1424]
GPO's PDF
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
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.
Congressional Record - 114th Congress - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
now have bodybuilding Bumps on arms 
