Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, today we will be considering the nomination of Antony Blinken to be President Biden's Secretary of State. The problem I have with this nomination is that, for decades now, we have been at war in Afghanistan. The war is now called ``the forever war.'' People lament that it goes on so long, and people say: How could it possibly keep going on? Sixty-five to seventy percent of the American people, 65 to 70 percent of American veterans--veterans who served in the theater--say the war is enough. We should end the war in Afghanistan. How does it go on? We have got a new President. Are things going to change? Here is the problem: Why do the wars continue? Why do the wars in Syria and Libya and Somalia and Afghanistan continue? Because the more things change, the more they stay the same. Mr. Blinken has been a full-throated advocate of military intervention in the Middle East for 20 years. We are fooling ourselves if we think we are going to get a new policy. We are going to get more of the same. In his hearing, I said to him: ``The problem isn't that we don't compromise or that we don't have bipartisan consensus; the problem is we have too much bipartisan consensus for war.'' For 20 years, he has advocated for military intervention. He advocated for the Iraq war, as did the President. President Biden was also an advocate of the Iraq war. Now, later on they said: Well, the war wasn't that great of an idea, but we were lied to by George Bush and the intelligence, and I am willing to admit there is some truth to that. But there is a bigger lesson here. The lesson is that regime change doesn't work. They often get unintended consequences, and you often get the opposite of what you think you are getting. They said: We must go to Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein because he is a terrible dictator. Well, yes, he was a despot, a dictator, an autocrat. You know, he wreaked havoc on his people, probably gassed the Kurds--many different horrible things. And yet, when he was gone, what did we get? We got a power vacuum. We got more terrorism. We are back in there 10 years later because the government is nonfunctional. And what is the final result? Iran is stronger. What does everybody talk about? Iran, Iran, Iran. Why do we worry about Iran? Well, because we toppled their biggest adversary. We used to have a balance of power between Iraq and Iran--despot on one side, despot on the other but at least a balance of power. But who is Iran's best ally now? Iraq. Think about it. Iraq is allied with Iran. Iraq is also allied, in many ways, with Russia, as well as us, but they have also asked us to leave. They are like: Oh, thanks for our freedom, but you all can take off now. But who supported the war? President Biden, Antony Blinken. We are back where we were 20 years ago. Now, like I say, there is some retrenchment, there is some backing off of the position, but I don't hear from either President Biden, Candidate Biden, or from Antony Blinken that regime change is wrong. Now, if it were wrong, you would expect there was a learning from the Iraq war, and they would say: OK. Now that we are in charge, we won't do the same. But it turns out, when we had an Obama administration, with Blinken and the other military interventionists, in a supposedly progressive administration, we got more war. They went into Libya. Once again, the same sort of idea--the idea that regime change works, and that we will topple this terrible dictator, Qadhafi, and out of the mist, out of the embers, out of the fire will arise Thomas Jefferson. The Thomas Jefferson of Libya will take over and freedom will reign. It didn't work out so much. So Mr. Blinken, in his hearing, admitted as much. He said: Well, maybe we overestimated the possibility that there would be rivals to replace him. Do you think? But, see, this is sort of the expected pattern of the Middle East. The Middle East doesn't have this 1,000-year English tradition of trying to control central power, dating back to even before the Magna Carta. But even 350 years ago, the English had a revolution trying to restrain the power of the King; 250 years ago we had our revolution to further restrain the power of the King. We have this longstanding tradition. But in the Middle East, there is more of this tradition of tribalism, and so you have an iron fist, but when you get rid of the iron fist, it is replaced by another iron fist or nothing--by chaos. So in Libya you get rid of Qadhafi--supported by President Obama Vice President Biden, Antony Blinken. You have the toppling of Qadhafi, but what did you get? Chaos. More terrorism. It is unclear even whom we support--whether we support the current government, the U.N. government, or General Haftar, or whom we support. The Middle East is divided, arms are flowing in on both sides, and like we always do, we fan the flames by shipping arms to everybody in the region as well. It didn't work. So Mr. Blinken acknowledges: Yes, we underestimated the possibility there would be a rival government or a rival faction strong enough to rule Libya. Well, yeah. So did they learn their lesson? No. About this time or a little bit later, they decided: We must go into Syria. So they spent about $500 million--$500 million--to train about 60 fighters. They did it in a remote area of Syria and they got them trained and they spent their $500 million and they sent 10 of them into battle. They were all captured or killed in the first 20 minutes. Five hundred million to train sixty of the so-called moderates. But guess what. The same holds for Syria that held for Iraq, that held for Libya, that now holds for Syria. Guess what. Another despot. But who are the people fighting against the despot? The most fierce fighters in Syria all along were al-Nusra and al-Qaida. The more jihadists, the more vicious and violent and the better the fighters were. Were there doctors and lawyers and academics and people who want a secular form of government? Sure. But the people out there fighting and the people winning the battles were the jihadists. So there was always the danger, if you get rid of Assad, we get another jihadist regime. So we have to think through the policy of this. But Blinken and Biden both supported the Iraq war. It was an utter failure. They admit as much. They supported the Libyan deposing of Qadhafi and war. Then they acknowledge: Well, maybe it wasn't the best--but then they don't take any learning or knowledge from that and say: Maybe we shouldn't go into the next one--Syria. And yet, they went into Syria. And what Blinken's response is should tell you a little bit about the danger of what we may get from Blinken as Secretary of State. He said the problem in Syria was not doing too much but doing too little. He said: What we really should have done is gone in with full might. If we had put 100,000 troops in there, like we did in Afghanistan and like we did in Iraq, if we would have used sufficient enough force, we could have toppled Assad. But in the end, he said: We didn't do enough. So the lesson to Blinken and Biden and this administration isn't that regime change doesn't work; it is that if we are going to do it, we need to go bigger. We need to go all in. I would posit that regime change doesn't work; that we should not support evil regimes. If they are despots or dictators, we shouldn't arm them. But I am not for toppling every one of them either because I am not so sure what you get next. So how would this be in the real world? Saudi Arabia has shown themselves to be an autocratic, anti-woman, anti-modern administration that would actually kill a journalist and dismember him. They were rewarded by the previous administration with arms. Terrible idea. But what would we do if there was a rational, realistic--more realism in foreign policy? We would not topple the Government of Saudi Arabia, but we might not sell them arms. I think that would be a reasonable thing. We also might not sell them arms because they were committing atrocities and killing civilians in the war in Yemen. But if you look back at the war in Yemen, the Obama-Biden administration did not have very strong opposition to the war in Yemen. They do now, but in the beginning, they didn't. And so the supplying of weaponry and bombs and smart bombs to Saudi Arabia occurred under the Obama-Biden administration and then continued under the Trump administration. So we have to ask ourselves: We have so many unintended consequences; how will we ever make things different? Now, our Founding Fathers envisioned something different. Our Founding Fathers envisioned that war should be difficult. It was James Madison who said that the executive branch is most prone to war and, therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature. To declare war was to be split between the House and the Senate and by a majority vote to declare war. We don't do that. It is passe. Oh, that is an anachronism, some say. And when Antony Blinken was asked about this, when he was asked about a use of authorization of force--he was asked: Do you need it? And this was when he was working for the Obama-Biden administration. And he said: Oh, we would welcome discussion and debate and advice from the Senate, but, you know, we don't really need it. Now, he is not alone in this. This isn't a Democratic or Republican thing. This is most of the foreign policy establishment in both parties, particularly once they work for a President. They will tell you, yes, they will listen to your advice. Oh, we really welcome your coming down. Please come down. We would love to sit down and have tea. But, really, don't tell us what to do. We can do whatever we want under article II. And you think, well gosh, that sounds harsh. It sounds like you are describing Blinken as some sort of John Bolton. Yeah. There are similarities, but there are similarities between both parties when they get to the executive branch that they don't think they need Congress's permission. This is a real problem. So some in the Senate have tried to narrow the definition of where a war would be, and I looked at their narrower definition last time and I said: Well, yeah, you would narrow it from the whole world to 24 countries. I don't want to be at war in those 24 countries either. Think about it. We have more military action in Africa right now than we do in the Middle East. Somalia, Mali, all throughout Africa we have got troops. We had four soldiers die a little over a year ago in Mali, and people were like: We have 800 soldiers in Mali? No one even knew. People on the Armed Services Committee were like: We have 800 soldiers in Mali? And yet that goes on without our permission. Without a vote of the people's representatives, without consulting the people at all, it just goes on and on and on. So my opposition of Mr. Blinken to be Secretary of State is not so much because I oppose the administration; it is because I oppose the bipartisan consensus for war. If we are ever to end these wars, we are going to need to not keep nominating the same retreads who have gotten us into these wars. So I will vote against Mr. Blinken because I am against war. I am against war that is not declared by Congress. I am against war that is executed primarily by the President. I am against them doing it without the permission of the people. So I will oppose Mr. Blinken's nomination. I don't think I will get many people from the other side. It is difficult to vote against nominees of one's own party, but I will say that if we are ever to end war, we need to have a real discussion in this body about when we go to war, whether or not we have to declare war, and we have to talk about whether our involvements have worked in the Middle East, whether or not there are unintended consequences. Instead of saying ``Oh, it was all George Bush's fault. It was faulty intelligence''--yeah, yeah, there is some truth to that, but it is really about regime change. It is about the idea that we know what is best for everyone else and that by putting a new regime involved in a country in the Middle East, somehow it is going to be better. It usually turns out worse. So I hope my colleagues will today consider voting against Mr. Blinken because I think he is more of the same.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, article II, section 4 of the Constitution says: ``The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Article I, section 3, clause 6 states: ``When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.'' As of noon last Wednesday, Donald Trump holds none of the positions listed in the Constitution. He is a private citizen. The Presiding Officer is not the Chief Justice, nor does he claim to be. His presence in the Chief Justice's absence demonstrates that this is not a trial of the President but of a private citizen. Point of Order Therefore, I make a point of order that this proceeding, which would try a private citizen and not a President, a Vice President, or civil officer, violates the Constitution and is not in order.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I voted against the confirmation of Janet Yellen to be Treasury Secretary. Dr. Yellen is well known as an academic, as an economic policy adviser to President Clinton, and as Chair of the Federal Reserve. In all of these positions, she has proven herself to be wrong on fiscal, monetary, and economic policy. At her confirmation hearing, she vigorously supported the additional $2 trillion stimulus package President Biden has put forward. Her argument is that this time is different--but since the great recession, big spenders have not receded from that argument, even during the times of unprecedented spending growth in the Trump administration. Moreover, we know what the problem is in our economy today: government-mandated business closures. The economy contracted by nearly one-third in the second quarter of 2020 when lockdowns were in full force, but in the third quarter, the summer, when restrictions were relaxed, the economy made nearly a full recovery. This clearly indicates that our economy is not in need of stimulus; it needs fewer tin pot dictators in Governors' mansions. Much more troubling than Dr. Yellen's call for more spending is her dismissal of the harms of continued borrowing. She has said that borrowing and spending is not a problem because interest rates are low. And the key part of her argument is that stimulus will generate more growth than interest will cost to borrow. That is the definition of ``modern monetary theory.'' She did not use that phrase because it is so obviously wrong-headed. Modern monetary theory is self-conflicted because proponents of it, like Dr. Yellen, say we can borrow in good time, but they never say we need to be austere in bad times. In fact, bad times are when they call for even more borrowing and spending. Modern monetary theory is nothing more than window dressing on a deep-seeded desire to always spend more, no matter what, and its proponents hope to reap electoral benefits now and to leave office before the bill comes due. Well, the bill is coming due. The Congressional Budget Office already estimates that interest on our current debt will begin growing at nearly 22 percent annually in just 6 years. What does that mean? Higher taxes or Venezuela-style inflation-- Probably both. I simply cannot support a candidate who seeks to inflict such pain on the American people in just a few short years for an entirely unneeded stimulus today. We know what works--opening the economy. We know what does not work--modern monetary theory.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this impeachment is nothing more than a partisan exercise designed to further divide the country. Democrats claim to want to unify the country, but impeaching a former President, a private citizen, is the antithesis of unity. Democrats brazenly appointing a pro-impeachment Democrat to preside over the trial is not fair or impartial and hardly encourages any kind of unity in our country. No, unity is the opposite of this travesty we are about to witness. If we are about to try to impeach a President, where is the Chief Justice? If the accused is no longer President, where is the constitutional power to impeach him? Private citizens don't get impeached. Impeachment is for removal from office, and the accused here has already left office. Hyperpartisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol, the likes of which has never been seen in our Nation's history. Instead of doing the Nation's work, with their new majorities in the House, the Senate, and the executive branch, Democrats are wasting the Nation's time on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office. It is almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump. Without him as their boogeyman, they might have to legislate and to actually convince Americans that their policy prescriptions are the right ones. Democrats are about to do something no self-respecting Senator has ever stooped to. Democrats are insisting the election is actually not over, and so they insist on regurgitating the bitterness of the election. This acrimony they are about to unleash has never before been tried. Why? Because calmer heads have typically prevailed in our history and allowed public opinion to cast blame where blame is deserved. This sham of an impeachment will ostensibly ask whether the President incited the reprehensible behavior and violence of January 6, when he said: ``I know everyone here will soon march to the Capitol to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.'' ``Peacefully and patriotically''--hardly words of violence. But what of Democrat words? What of Democrat incitement to violence? No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise and a volunteer coach. The shooter nearly pulled off a massacre--I was there--because he fervently believed the false and inflammatory rhetoric spewed by Bernie and other Democrats, such as: ``The Republican healthcare plan for the uninsured is that you die.'' As this avowed Bernie supporter shot Steve Scalise, nearly killing him, and shot one of our coaches and two or three of our staff, he screamed: ``This is for healthcare!'' Ask me or anyone if that is incitement. No Democrat will ask whether Cory Booker incited violence when he called for his supporters to get ``up in the face of Congress people''--a very visual and specific incitement. No Democrat will ask whether Maxine Waters incited violence when she literally told her supporters: ``If you see a member of the Trump [administration] at a restaurant, [at] a department store, [at] a gas station, or any place, you create a crowd and you push back on them.'' Is that not incitement? My wife and I were pushed and surrounded and screamed at by this same type of mob that Maxine likes to inspire. It is terrifying to have a swarm of people threatening to kill you, cursing at you, and literally holding you hostage until police come to your rescue. That night we were assaulted by the crowd, I wasn't sure if we would survive even with the police protection. But no Democrat has ever considered impeaching Maxine for her violent rhetoric. In fact, Republicans, to our credit, have never once thought it legitimate to censure or impeach these Democrats. No Republican has sought to use a government to hold these Democrats responsible for Antifa and Black Lives Matter violence that has consumed our cities all summer, resulting in over $1 billion of destruction, looting, and property damage. Not one Republican said, ``Oh, let's impeach the Democrats who are inciting this'' because it would be ridiculous. Many on the Democrat side of the aisle cheered them on. Kamala Harris famously offered to pay the bill for those who were arrested. I wonder if she will be brought up on charges of inciting violence for that now that she is Vice President. Should Kamala Harris be impeached for offering to pay for violent people to get out of jail who have been burning our cities down? No. No Republican has offered that because we are not going down the road the Democrats have decided, this low road of impeaching people for political speech. Should Republicans impeach the Democratic mayor of Seattle who incited and condoned violence by calling the armed takeover of part of her city ``a summer of love''? Did any Republicans try to impeach her? Then on June 8, the New York Post, citing U.S. Justice Department statistics, reported that more than 700 law enforcement officers were injured during the Antifa-Black Lives Matter riots. There were at least 19 murders, including 77-year-old retired police officer David Dorn. Yet Democrats insist on applying a test of incitement to a Republican that they refuse to apply to themselves. I want the Democrats to raise their hands if they have ever given a speech that says ``Take back; fight for your country.'' Who hasn't used the word ``fight'' figuratively? And are we going to put every politician in jail? Are we going to impeach every politician who has used the word ``fight'' figuratively in a speech? Shame. Shame on these angry, unhinged partisans who are putting forth this sham impeachment, deranged by their hatred of the former President. Shame on those who seek blame and revenge and who choose to pervert a constitutional process while doing so. I want this body on record, every last person here: Is this how you think politics should be? Look, we have now got crazy partisans on the other side of the aisle trying to censor and remove two of the Republican Senators for their political position. Look, I disagreed. I don't think Congress should overturn the electoral college. But impeaching or censoring or expelling a Member of Congress you disagree with--is the truth so narrow that only you know the truth? We now have the media on your side saying there is only one set of facts, one set of truths, and you can only interpret it this way. Now we have seven Senators on the other side trying to expel, censor, or impugn two Senators on this side. I defend them, not because I defend their position--I disagreed with their position--but you can't impeach, censor, or expel people you disagree with. What is this coming to? In a few minutes, I will insist on a vote to affirm that this proceeding we are about to enter is unconstitutional, that impeachment of a private citizen is illegal and essentially a bill of attainder, and that no sense of fairness or due process would allow the judge in the proceeding to be a partisan Democrat already in favor of the impeachment. A sham this is. A travesty. A dark blot on the history of our country. I urge my colleagues to reconsider this kangaroo court and move forward to debate the great issues of our day. With that, I would like to relinquish the last moment or two of my time to the Senator of Wisconsin.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, today we honor the life and legacy of a great Kentuckian, James ``Jim'' Milliman. Jim was born October 29, 1942, in Norwalk, OH. He led a life of faith, passion for the law, and an unmatched enthusiasm for Notre Dame football. Jim attended Notre Dame, then earned his law degree from the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law, which is where he would embark on a brilliant career as a lawyer. Jim began his legal career at Middleton-Reutlinger Law firm, where he most notably appeared in the U.S. Supreme Court confirming his defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. He would continue his work fighting for the little guy always advocating for equal justice under the law. After a long successful tenure practicing law, Jim shifted to being my State director. With Jim's guidance, my staff and I have been able to fight for Kentuckians in Washington and throughout the State. The feats we have accomplished would not have been possible without the mentorship of Jim Milliman. Jim passed January 5, 2021. A true testament to his impact on people, Jim's eulogy was not given by any of his law partners, business, or political friends--he had plenty--but by Muhammed Lasege, a former University of Louisville basketball star from Nigeria whose college career was cut short due to eligibility issues. A successful businessman himself, he told the story of how Jim provided guidance and hope when his basketball dreams were crushed. He described their relationship of a father-son bond, despite the fact that Jim never had a son and Muhammed never knew his father. While our hearts are heavy acknowledging Jim's passing, we reminisce with great joy remembering all our accomplishments, but most of all our friendship. May Jim Milliman rest in peace.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, our Founding Fathers believed strongly in the civilian control of our military. Having escaped from the tyranny of the British crown, they did not want the powers of government and military to be fused. In America, the people would control their Armed Forces. This standard has endured, and was enshrined in law in 1947. Congress had to pass a waiver to the 1947 law in 2017, and we are being asked to do it again in 2021. I hope that this is the last time Congress will be asked to pass such a waiver. Civilian control of the military goes beyond the basic question of how long ago a nominee wore the uniform. It is also a question of whether the nominee is enmeshed in the interests of our vast defense contracting industry, an industry whose bottom line depends on an expansive American military posture and, with it, an ever-growing defense budget. Going from firing the missiles to selling the missiles is technically a move into a civilian role, but nothing more. It is every bit as corrosive to the principle of civilian rule for the head of the Pentagon to churn from the military to the boardroom to the Pentagon, working with many of the same people at every step along the way. General Austin retired from the Army in 2016, and he immediately joined the board of United Technologies, which was acquired by Raytheon. He was very well-compensated for his work there, and is reportedly due a buy-out of up to $1.7 million when he leaves Raytheon and his other work and returns to the Pentagon. All we are doing by confirming these types of nominees, no matter their other qualifications, is tightening the ever-increasing bonds between the military and the contractors who serve it. It is getting hard to see where one stops and the other begins. No pledge of recusal from a nominee will solve this larger problem. We are not limited to selecting our Secretary of Defense from the world of defense contractors, and our country would be better off if we stopped. However, with regard to experience and expertise, I do not question General Austin's qualifications and will vote to allow the President his choice.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the Director of National Intelligence must demonstrate commitment to restraining the vast power of our intelligence agencies. They should not view themselves as an enabler or facilitator of agencies that already operate without public scrutiny. We do not need another Washington insider in this position, someone who will go along to get along, helping to further the expansion of secret government powers. What we need is someone who is a skeptic of these powers. After years of revelations of government spying on Americans and the exposure of the unconstitutional applications of these powers, I had hoped that the President would submit a nominee that understands the importance of regaining the public's trust, to pledge transparency and accountability. The President's nominee, Avril Haines, does not meet that profile. She played a key role in formulating the government's legal authority to conduct summary executions by drone and was reportedly summoned in the middle of the night to approve lethal drone strikes. As Deputy Director of the CIA, she declined to punish any of the CIA employees who spied on the Senate as it was investigating the CIA's torture programs. Her record is that of an insider, someone who will defend the broken status quo. I will not support more of the same unconstitutional policies, and I oppose her confirmation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I wrote a speech for today. I was planning to say that I fear the chaos of establishing a precedent that Congress can overturn elections. Boy, was I right. Chaos, anarchy--the violence today was wrong and un-American. The vote we are about to cast is incredibly important. Now more than ever, the question is, Should Congress override the certified results from the States and nullify the States' rights to conduct elections? The vote today is not a protest; the vote today is literally to overturn elections. We have been told that this is a protest, that this is about an electoral commission. No, it is not. It is about whether to seat the electors certified by a State. It is not about an electoral commission. It is not about a protest. You can go outside if you want to protest. This is about overturning a State-certified election. If you vote to overturn these elections, wouldn't it be the opposite of States' rights Republicans have always advocated for? This would doom the electoral college forever. It was never intended by our Founders that Congress have the power to overturn State- certified elections. My oath to the Constitution doesn't allow me to disobey the law. I can't vote to overturn the verdict of States. Such a vote would be to overturn everything held dear by those of us who support the rights of States in this great system of federalism that was bequeathed to us by our Founders. The electoral college was created to devolve the power of selecting Presidential electors to the States. The electoral college is, without question, an inseparable friend to those who believe that every American across our vast country deserves to be heard. If Congress were given the power to overturn the States' elections, what terrible chaos would ensue every 4 years. Imagine the furor against the electoral college if Congress becomes a forum to overturn States' electoral college slates. It is one thing to be angry. It is another to focus one's anger in constructive ways. That hasn't happened today, to say the least. We simply cannot destroy the Constitution, our laws, and the electoral college in the process. I hope, as the Nation's anger cools, we can channel that energy into essential electoral reforms at the State level. America is admired around the world for our free elections. We must--we absolutely must fix this mess and restore confidence and integrity to our elections. We must.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the time has come to declare victory and come home from the war in Afghanistan--the longest war in the history of our country. Over 4,000 Americans have died fighting in Afghanistan, and over 20,000 have been wounded. It is time to bring our soldiers home. After the 9/11 attacks, I supported going into Afghanistan. We were absolutely justified in rooting out the Taliban who harbored al-Qaida. Had I been in Congress at that time, I would have voted in favor of going into Afghanistan. But the people who attacked us on 9/11 have all been killed or captured. They are long gone. But we are still there. Most of the people fighting us in Afghanistan today are the successors or children or the children of their children. The cycle shows no sign of ending. The war shows no sign of ending. It is not sustainable to keep fighting in Afghanistan generation after generation. Here is some perspective: We have been fighting in Afghanistan for so long that when the 9/11 attacks happened, our youngest soldiers fighting there today weren't even born yet. American fathers who fought in Afghanistan are now watching as their sons fight in Afghanistan. We have spent about $1 trillion to establish an Afghan government--a government that is rife with corruption and dysfunction. It is a government that cannot perform much of any government function on its own. So we spend more to do for them what they still cannot do for themselves. A trillion dollars and we have hardly progressed from where we started. Yet instead of outrage--which is how most Americans feel--the reaction from Congress is, gosh, maybe let's spend a trillion more. After World War II, much of Europe was reduced to rubble. It was utterly destroyed. So we rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan. We have now spent many times more to rebuild Afghanistan than we did under the Marshall Plan. What has that money gotten us? We have built infrastructure in Afghanistan and then watched it deteriorate and watched the Afghans be unable to even maintain the infrastructure we built for them, and then they ask us for more money to maintain the structure. So we rebuild the infrastructure we just built for them. Meanwhile, our roads and our bridges here at home crumble as we spend millions upon millions to rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan. I want to walk through some examples of how our money has been used in Afghanistan. Several years ago, we reportedly hired a local security consultant to help secure road construction projects, at a cost of $1 million per year. But according to the report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, American officials came to suspect that the money was being funneled to insurgents to stage attacks on our infrastructure, which could be used to justify the security contract. So our money was going to a guy who was apparently paying insurgents to stage attacks against him so he could justify his security contract. It is crazy. We spent $43 million on a natural gas, gas station. Guess how many vehicles in Afghanistan run on natural gas. Zero. You can't even find the gas station. My staff actually went there to see how the money had been spent, and they were told they couldn't go there because it was too unsafe. Now the report is that the gas station has been abandoned-- and with it $43 million flushed away. We spent nearly $80 million on a luxury hotel. Why is the American taxpayer building luxury hotels in Kabul? Guess what. It was abandoned halfway through. It is a skeleton. The Taliban are now said to climb up into the structure and shoot down at our Embassy. We spent about $400 million on equipment and other things to create an Afghan Army Corps of Engineers. Except all the equipment we bought was lost. Gone. We spent hundreds of millions on electrification projects in Afghanistan, but the system wasn't working. Afghans didn't understand that you had to pay for electricity and that you couldn't climb up utility poles. So, we spent almost $2 million on a public awareness campaign to tell Afghans that they did, in fact, have to pay for electricity and to please stop climbing on the electrical wires. There was a multimillion-dollar highway project that also required $32 million in community outreach. This is basically an attempt to help locals understand what is happening, since they have no experience with a giant highway or what it is for. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction examined this ``community outreach'' and found that one Regional Coordinator was given cash--$75,000--to help with outreach with locals, but SIGAR found that they could not account for the $75,000 which had been filed as used for ``goat distribution.'' Now, I don't know a lot about goats, but that seems like a lot of ``goat'' money. The guy giving out the goat money mysteriously disappeared. The inspector general reports that the money is unrecoverable. My subcommittee held an oversight hearing on Afghan war spending, and Ambassador Boucher, one of the witnesses, recounted that the Afghan Finance Minister told him 80 to 90 percent of the money Congress approves disappears before it gets to Afghanistan. It is not just corruption. He said: You know, we hire a contractor who hires a subcontractor, who hires a bunch of consultants, who hires a bunch of security personnel, who flies in airplanes, etc. And by the time you get somebody on the ground in Afghanistan receiving a benefit, it is a very small portion of all those billions and billions of dollars that Congress allocated for whatever that purpose was. We continue to pour good money after bad into Afghanistan, hoping that the outcome will somehow change, hoping that maybe the next 20 years will produce better results than the last 20 years did. The American people say ``Come home,'' and now is the time. A Pew poll from last year found that 59 percent of Americans--and 58 percent of veterans--thought the Afghanistan war has not been worth fighting. One poll from this year shows far more Americans support withdrawal from Afghanistan than support continuing the war, and almost three- quarters of veterans support ending the war. We should be listening to those who have been on the ground in Afghanistan. There are so many veterans who have witnessed firsthand the rudderless direction of the war. We should listen to Army combat medic Shane Reynolds, who served in Iraq: ``For all of us that went over there and worked so hard, and put our families through so much, and there was never a strategy. We were just going through motions, chasing ghosts through mountains . . . We felt that there was no plan, there was no strategy and there was no will to change anything about that.'' Maybe the Senate should listen to Infantryman Jay O'Brien, who served in Kandahar: ``Now I realize that no one above us knew what the hell was going on either. It's systemic willful ignorance all the way up to the top.'' Army Intelligence Officer Gregg Frostrom, who served four deployments overseas over an 11-year period, captures the perspective of those who served: ``There's a lot of feeling like you're Sisyphus, like you're just pushing the rock up the hill, and you go home for six months, and you come back and the rock's at the bottom of the hill and you're like, well, now I've got to start pushing it again.'' President Trump ran for the President promising to end these forever wars. The American people want to end the Afghanistan war. Yet the establishment powers in Washington and Congress have fought him at every turn. This bill explicitly tries to tie the hands of all Presidents and make it difficult if not impossible to declare victory and come home. Not only does this bill make it harder for any President to end a war, we already have high-ranking officials of our government directly defying the President's orders to deescalate war. Take Syria for example. President Trump ordered troop levels to decline from around 2,000 to approximately 200. Former Ambassador Jim Jeffrey not only defied this order, he lampooned it later by saying, ``What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal.'' According to Defense One, ``outgoing Ambassador Jim Jeffrey, the U.S. special envoy for Syria acknowledges that he routinely misled senior leaders about troop levels in Syria.'' Jeffrey's admitted to ``playing shell games'' to obscure from the President and his generals how many troops were really left in Syria. In reality, Trump's order to reduce the troops was countermanded by an unelected bureaucrat. As Becket Adams explains, ``Obscure federal workers have reportedly been in control of the U.S. military presence in northern Syria, and all in direct violation of explicit orders from the President.'' Adams continues: ``Nothing to worry about here, folks. Just some nameless federal drones allegedly misleading the commander of the U.S. military in order to keep troops stationed overseas in conflicts that said drones believe are necessary and winnable. People laugh when they hear the term ``deep state,'' but it is no joke.'' President Trump has ordered troop levels to be reduced in Afghanistan, so Congress responded by passing an NDAA which actually restricts his ability to withdraw troops. That is right. Congress, which has spent decades lecturing any and every one that we don't need 535 generals and that there is only one Commander in Chief who has absolute powers to wage war however he sees fit, has now reversed course and decided that we actually do need 535 generals in order to stop the Commander in Chief from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. President Trump vetoed that NDAA, and now we are here today in an attempt to override that veto, to add a 20th year to this war. This is a mistake. But Congress has had it wrong for a long time, so this is nothing new. They just passed a $1.4 trillion omnibus bill that no one saw until hours before it was to be voted on, and they paired it with a $900 billion coronavirus bailout, paid for with money borrowed from our children. We are told all the time that there is simply no more fat left to cut in the budget, that we have to borrow because we can't cut our high priorities. What are those high priorities, you may ask? Let's start with a look at this bill that just passed. There is $25 million for Pakistan in there. Pakistan puts Christians on death row when they are accused of blasphemy, except that allegations of blasphemy are often based on petty disputes among neighbors or coworkers. There are reportedly 80 people on death row in Pakistan for blasphemy-related charges. There is $700 million for Sudan in the bill, where freedom of expression is restricted. There is another $500 million to address the root causes of migration from Central America. I doubt the report mentions the allure of all the free stuff you can get after you break in to America. How about $575 million for ``family planning'' in the third world? How many businesses, struggling to make payroll because their Governor closed them down, could have used that $575 million? Congress is borrowing a trillion dollars a year so that they can keep spending money on these kinds of things. They don't want to set priorities. This is hardly new. I have been watching this for years and called out the big spenders in Congress for approving: $250,000 to send kids from Pakistan to Space Camp in Alabama and Dollywood in Tennessee; $1.8 million to improve the international perception of Afghan artisans and craftsman; $10,000 to improve Pakistan's film industry. Really? U.S. taxpayer money to subsidize Pakistan's version of Hollywood; a $2 million venture capital fund in Bosnia for businesses that couldn't get their own financing; almost $8 million for foreign dance residencies. Really? Ballet for Bolivia; more than $9 million to ease medical debt in Cambodia. What about Americans' with medical debt; more than $23 million to help college graduates in Morocco find jobs. How about college grads in Kentucky; $273 million in grants to help people learn how to apply for grants. Really? U.S. taxpayers are being fleeced to teach people how to get more of our money; $20 million to teach Laotians how to speak Laotian. Makes me want to utter Laotian profanities. But I will likely need a government grant in order to learn to swear in Laotian; $1 million to produce a comedic variety TV show in Afghanistan. I don't know about you but I don't find that funny at all; almost $15 million to produce foreign versions of ``Sesame Street'' that would teach children in other countries about climate change. Next year, I am sure the taxpayer will be sending Muppets in Masks to Madagascar; and $153 million in development assistance that included subsidies for low-income mortgages in Nigeria. So Americans are losing their homes, but Congress has already spent the money buying Nigerian mortgages. Americans are losing their livelihoods, but Congress has already spent the money on economic support funds in places like Bosnia. American infrastructure is crumbling, but Congress spends billions on roads in Afghanistan. We could have rebuilt the Brent-Spence Bridge in my State, which has been a priority for some time, but Congress can't stop spending the money overseas. Again, the war in Afghanistan costs $50 billion per year. Our mission is complete. Al-Qaida is diminished. Osama bin Laden is dead. It is time to declare victory. The American people want the war to end. So many of our veterans want the war to end. The President is trying to bring it to an end. But Congress is standing in the way. Today we have the chance to act as the people's representatives instead of acting like 535 generals. We should not override the veto. We should remove the language that tries to block the President's drawdown of troops. I urge a vote against the veto override.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, Republicans like to mock modern monetary theory--the idea that government can print money with impunity and that government can spend whatever it wants without the need to tax. Modern monetary theory is basically the Dick Cheney ``deficits don't matter'' crowd, trussed up with a new fancy title. Most Republicans rightly lampoon this quackery; that is, when they are not practicing the quackery themselves. Today, many of these same Republicans will vote for a bill that makes modern monetary theory look like child's play in comparison. The monster spending bill presented today is not just a ``deficits don't matter'' disaster, it is everything Republicans say they don't believe in. This bill is free money for everyone. Proponents don't care if you are fully employed or own your own house or own your own business. ``Free money for everyone,'' they cry. And yet, if free money were the answer and if money really grew on trees, why not give more free money? Why not give it out all the time? Why stop at $600 a person? Why not $1,000? Why not $2,000? Maybe these new free-money Republicans should join the ``everybody gets a guaranteed income'' caucus. Why not $20,000 a year for everybody? Why not $30,000? If we can print up money with impunity, why not do it? The Treasury could just keep printing the money; that is, until someone points out that the Emperor has no clothes and that the dollar no longer has value. To so-called conservatives who are quick to identify the socialism of Democrats, if you vote for this spending monstrosity, you are no better. When you vote to pass out free money, you lose your soul, and you abandon forever any semblance of moral or fiscal integrity. So the next time you see Republicans in high moral dudgeon, claiming and complaining about spending of Democrats and socialism, remind them--remind them if they supported this monstrous bill, that really the difference between the parties is less Adam Smith versus Marx and more Marx versus Engels. How bad is our fiscal situation? Well, the Federal Government brought in $3.3 trillion last year and spent $6.6 trillion. The deficit last year, a record-busting $3.3 trillion. If you are looking for more COVID bailout money, we don't have any. The coffers are bare. We have no rainy day fund. We have no savings account. Congress has spent all the money long ago. The economic damage from this pandemic is not the reason for this runaway spending. This spending has been going on for decades. Every year, even before we get to all the extra COVID-free money, we have been spending $1 trillion we don't have. Today's money is gone, so Congress is spending tomorrow's money. The spending chart is a red line of red ink that goes on forever. When we talk about spending tomorrow's money, it is not just the money that we need next month. It is the money we might need in a decade. It is the money we will need in one, two, three generations from now--for national defense and for infrastructure. This is the money that your children and your grandchildren will pay back with interest. The deficit doubling and tripling--under George Bush, it went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. Under President Obama, it went from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. We are now at $27 trillion, but we are adding it at $1 trillion a year before we get to this COVID budget-busting bailout. Every tax-paying American already owes over $136,000, and they are staring at projections into the future that show no end. We are $27 trillion in debt today. How do we expect a child to have the economic opportunity when this crushing debt is their inheritance from Congress? The numbers are mind-boggling. It is hard to conceive of what $1 billion is, much less $1 trillion. How big is $1 billion? Well, a billion seconds ago was 1988 and Reagan was President. A billion minutes ago, Jesus walked the shore of the Sea of Galilee. A billion hours ago, man still lived in caves. But $1 billion ago, was just 80 minutes ago--$1 billion ago, at the rate Congress spends money, was just 80 minutes ago. All of this should be setting off alarm bells. But the only alarm bells in Congress are sounding the alarm for more spending and more debt. No cuts, no offsets, no pay-fors, and no prioritization. Just print it up. Print up more money and give it out to everybody because it is free money. Come and get yours while the getting is good. But it leads to a mountain of debt. Spend all this money and leave the future to figure itself out. John Maynard Keynes was once asked: What about the long run? He said: In the short run, you can make a stimulus. You can print money, and you can give it to everybody. And Maynard Keynes, his response was: In the long run, we will all be dead; no concern for the future, only for the immediate. Our budget deficit for 2020 was $3.3 trillion, but this new spending package will also give us another $2 trillion in the next fiscal year. By refusing to acknowledge the debt crisis, we are only hastening the day of economic reckoning. Total debt was 55 percent of GDP just 20 years ago. Today, it is 128 percent of GDP. So our annual or our total debt is more than our GDP-- 128 percent of our GDP. The World Bank estimates there is a tipping point of debt to GDP at about 77 percent. Every percentage point costs another 10th or so of economic growth. So every year, we are giving out somewhere between 5 to 8 percent of growth every year because of this burden of debt. This is thousands of jobs, every year-- tens of thousands of jobs that we lose because of this burden of debt. We are borrowing and worsening this debt crisis in part because too many Governors and mayors have imposed heavyhanded restrictions that crush business. It isn't the pandemic that is killing the economy; it is the government's overzealous response that is killing the economy. The pandemic itself was disruptive, but Congress is being asked to help to perpetuate these lockdowns. The more money we give to the States, the more they keep us in lockdown. Every bailout dollar printed and passed out to the Governors only allows these tin-pot dictators to perpetuate the lockdowns. Their rules are arbitrary and unscientific. Governors and mayors across the country are picking winners and losers. Businesses, some that have been in families for generations, are being wiped out because they are not allowed to open. Restaurants have to close their doors for indoor dining, but then they are told they can open at limited capacity, but then they are told they have to close again. Then they are told they can open outside, and then they are told they can't open outside. Confusing doesn't even explain the half of it. Bars are told they can only serve alcohol if people are sitting and not standing and only if they have heavy foods on their menus. Restaurants are told they can serve outdoors, and then they have their permission revoked after they have sunk time and money converting their restaurant to outdoor services, but a caterer is told they can still serve outside. Businesses are told they have to close at an arbitrary time determined by government officials, as though the virus only comes out late at night. A business in one ZIP Code can open, but one in an adjoining ZIP Code across the street has to close, as if the virus can't cross an imaginary line. Airlines are allowed to fly, but hotels have to limit their occupancy, so you may not have anywhere to stay when you get there. Mom-and-pop stores and specialty stores are forced to close, but big- box store competitors are allowed to stay open. How is any business expected to survive with this kind of arbitrary regulation that changes from day to day? Meanwhile, many schools remain closed--despite overwhelming evidence showing kids can learn safely in person--which means parents can't go to work, which forces parents to leave their jobs and take care of homebound kids. Now they have no income because the government forced them to leave their jobs to take care of their kids. And many kids are struggling with this improvised virtual school. The need for help is real. I hear it every day from Kentuckians and across the country. But it is clear that government has worsened the economic damage and acted as the biggest obstacle to economic recovery. There is no free money that can get us out of this situation. The only thing that can save us is to open the economy. If we give these tin-pot dictators--these Governors--more money, they are less likely to open the economy. The answer is not printing up and distributing ``free money''; it is opening the economy. We are not even debating the real answer to this. We are like, just print up the money and shovel it out the door, the deficit be damned, the threat of the destruction of our currency be damned. We can choose to let our economies open with guidance and precautions but not obstruction. Let people rebuild their livelihoods. Reopen our schools so our kids can return and parents can go back to work. Congress should do away with automatic spending increases and scrutinize where in the budget we can find savings to pay for the pressing needs arising from the pandemic, but we shouldn't simply print up money and pass it out to everyone. Or Congress can follow the status quo. Congress can continue to borrow from our kids--the same children we have locked out of our schools. Congress can keep enabling and shutting down businesses by force, spend all of today's money and all of tomorrow's money, and then good luck. Good luck figuring out how to pay for all of this massive debt. It doesn't have to be this way. There is another alternative that won't be debated, and that alternative is to open the economy. It is not too late to change our course. Cut unnecessary spending. Eliminate waste. Stop fighting a $50-billion-a-year war in Afghanistan that hasn't had a military mission in at least a decade. Make the hard decisions now. We can't keep pretending that more debt is a sustainable policy course. ``Leadership'' is not passing on the problem to someone who can't protest; ``leadership'' is making the hard choices now. This is what we have to do. I will oppose this new debt, and I will continue to sound the alarm until we change our course. Our country can be saved. We can survive this if we pull together. But adding more debt is a mistake. It is not the solution, and we should resist it. Thank you.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise to honor the passing of a great Kentuckian, Richard Ronald Knock, or Dick, as he was known to his friends and family. He died December 8, 2020, at the age of 82. Dick was born June 28, 1938 in Cold Spring, KY. Dick's name was always mentioned with high praise. He was valued in his community, as he was known to lend a helping hand when needed and provided a thoughtful ear when spoken to. Mr. Knock came from a humble upbringing, but through his own deeds, he rose to the pinnacle of his profession, being a respected member of many institutions, including as CEO of Knock Investments; CEO of Omaha Enterprises; through his service on the Board of Trustees at University of the Cumberlands; and as chairman of Board of Commissioners for the Boone County Water District. Dick was also an active political pundit within his community. His commitment to freedom was unmatched, and he often proved to be a great source of wisdom for elected leaders such as myself. Dick worked tirelessly in bringing Republicans throughout the Commonwealth together in the name of freedom. I can recall during my first election he opened his house for an event that featured my predecessor, Senator Jim Bunning, that helped unify Republicans in a critical area of our State. A picture from that event hangs in my Washington office to this day. With his passing, we have lost one of our brightest and loudest freedom fighters, but, as Dick would want, the voices of liberty will remain loud and clear. While we share in the great sadness of his passing, it with great joy we look back at his life, his many accopmlishments, and the positive impact he had on his community and Kentuckians across the Commonwealth. We honor Dick and his family, and may he rest in peace.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the Federal Government brought in $3.3 trillion in revenue last year and spent $6.6 trillion for a record- setting $3.3 trillion deficit. If you are looking for more COVID bailout money, we don't have any. The coffers are bare. We have no rainy day fund. We have no savings account. Congress has spent all of the money. Congress spent all of the money a long time ago. The economic damage from the pandemic is not the reason for this runaway spending. This has gone on for decades. Today's money is gone, so Congress is spending tomorrow's money. When you look at a graph of our projected spending, you see a big spike this year. The spike is a mountain of money doled out to pay for the economic ruin of the government mandates. When we talk about spending tomorrow's money, this is not just money we will need next month; this is money we will need in a decade--money we will need in one, two, and three generations from now. For national defense. For infrastructure. This is money that your children and grandchildren will pay back with interest, and it is going up by more than a trillion dollars every year. Instead of enjoying the same wealth and opportunity that we have enjoyed in this country, our children will be stuck paying our bills-- with interest. Every taxpaying American already owes $136,754 today, and they are staring at a red-ink projection into the future. We are $27 trillion in total debt today. How do we expect a child to have economic opportunity when crushing debt is their inheritance from Congress? The numbers are mind-boggling. It is hard to conceive of a billion dollars, much less a trillion dollars. How big is a billion? Well, a billion seconds ago was 1988 and Reagan was still President. A billion minutes ago, Jesus walked the shore of the Sea of Galilee. A billion hours ago, man still lived in caves. But a billion dollars ago--as spent by the Federal Government--that was just 80 minutes ago. That is right, the Federal Government spends a billion dollars every 80 minutes. All of this should be setting off alarm bells, but the only alarm bells in Congress are sounding the alarm for more spending, more debt. No cuts. No offsets. No pay-fors. No prioritization. Just debt. Spend all the money and leave the future to figure itself out. Our budget deficit for 2020 was $3.3 trillion, and we are projected to have a deficit of nearly $2 trillion in 2021. And that was before any additional spending on another round of coronavirus bailout money. By refusing to acknowledge the debt crisis, we are only hastening the day of economic reckoning. Total debt was 55 percent of GDP 20 years ago; today it is 128 percent. The World Bank estimates there is a tipping point of debt to GDP at about 77 percent. Every percentage point after that costs about one-tenth of 1 percent of economic growth. We are at 128 percent, which means Congress's continued borrowing is costing the U.S. economy about 8 percent growth each year. We are borrowing and worsening this debt crisis, in part, because too many Governors and mayors have imposed heavyhanded restrictions that crush businesses. The pandemic itself was disruptive, but Congress is being asked to help perpetuate lockdowns and shutdowns through bailouts and debt. Every bailout dollar printed and passed out to Governors only allows these tin pot dictators to perpetuate the lockdowns. Their rules are arbitrary, and Governors and mayors across the country are picking winners and losers. Businesses, some that have been in families for generations, are being wiped out because they are not not allowed to offer their services. Restaurants have to close for indoor dining, but then they are told they can stay open at limited capacity, but then they are told they have to close again, but then they are told that they can reopen but bars have to close. Confusing doesn't explain the half of it. Bars are told they can only serve alcohol if people are sitting and not standing and only if they have heavy foods on their menus. Restaurants are told they can serve outdoors, then have that permission revoked after they have sunk time and money converting their restaurant to outdoor service. But a caterer can still serve outdoors. Businesses are told they have to close at an arbitrary time determined by government officials, as though the virus only comes out late at night. A business in one Zip Code can be open but one in the adjoining Zip Code has to close, as if the virus can't cross an imaginary line. Airlines are allowed to fly but hotels have to limit their occupancy, so you may not have anywhere to stay when you get there. Mom-and-pop stores and specialty stores are forced to close, but big box competitors are allowed to stay open because they have a grocery aisle. But then other States roped off random sections of stores. How is any business expected to survive that kind of regulation? Meanwhile, many schools remain closed despite overwhelming evidence showing kids can safely learn in-person with basic precautions, which means parents can't go to work, which has forced many parents to leave their jobs to take care of home-bound kids. Now they have no income because the government forced them to leave their jobs to take care of their kids, and many kids are struggling with an improvised virtual school. The need for help is real. I hear it every day from Kentuckians and across the country. But it is clear that government has worsened the economic damage and acted as the biggest obstacle to economic recovery. There is no free money to get us out of this situation. In fact, there is no more money at all. The answer is not printing up and distributing ``free money'' to everyone. The answer is immediately opening the economy. We can choose to let our economies open, with guidance and precautions but not obstruction. Let people rebuild their livelihoods. Reopen our schools so kids can learn and parents can go back to working and earning a living. Congress should do away with automatic spending increases and scrutinize where in our budget we can find savings to pay for the pressing needs arising from the pandemic. This is what I prefer and what I have proposed. Or Congress can follow the status quo: Congress can continue to borrow from our kids--the same ones whom we have locked out of schools. Congress can keep enabling the shutting down of business by force, spend all of today's money and all of tomorrow's money. Then good luck figuring out how to pay for all of this massive debt. It doesn't have to be this way. This debt crisis is a preventable crisis. It is not too late to change our course. Cut unnecessary spending, eliminate waste, stop fighting a $50 billion per year forever war in Afghanistan. Make the hard decisions now. We can't keep pretending that more debt is a sustainable policy course. Leadership is not passing on the problem to someone who can't protest, leadership is making the hard choices now. That is what we have to do. I will oppose this new debt, and I will continue to sound the alarm until we change our course here in Congress.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, today I recognize the tremendous dedication of Jeremy Wayne Harrell, of Louisville, KY, the founder of an all-volunteer organization called the Veterans Club. Already nationally celebrated for its Equine Therapy Program and for efforts to create a recovery center for homeless veterans, this unique Kentucky nonprofit has made veteran isolation its singular focus during the coronavirus pandemic. A veteran himself, Mr. Harrell recognizes that social isolation created by the pandemic can amplify the sense of loneliness already experienced by many veterans as they transition into civilian life following multiple deployments. Mr. Harrell was recently honored by Metro Louisville government with its Distinguished Veteran and Citizen Award and by Humana as the winner of its Boots on the Ground Campaign Award. I am proud to represent veterans like Jeremy Harrell in the U.S. Senate and in particular to recognize him today for his steadfast commitment to our veterans and their families. The great work of the Veterans Club is an inspiration to us all to find and connect with those in our communities who struggle with a sense of isolation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I agree that members of the judicial branch need better protection. In fact, I have been active in this issue for the last couple of years, and each time this has come forward, at the end of the year, with very little time to do the normal process, I have advocated that an amendment be added that would include protection of Members of Congress. I really think that it is important that we protect addresses for our judges, but it is also important that we do this for our elected officials. In recent years, what has happened has taught us that the legislative branch needs better protection as well. That was clear in 2011, when Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was tragically shot while doing the most important part of the job--meeting with constituents. Words cannot express how happy and inspiring it was to see Congresswoman Giffords here in the Chamber as her husband, Senator Kelly, was recently sworn in as a Member of the body. But words also cannot express the pain felt by the family of the people who were killed and wounded that day. That should have been a wakeup call to better protect Members of Congress and, in doing so, better protect the people around them. But just a few years later, a shooter nearly killed Congressman Steve Scalise during baseball practice for the annual charity baseball game. I was there, and I said at the time that our lives were saved by the Capitol Hill police. Had they not been there, things might have gone much worse. But the Capitol Hill police are not stationed at our homes where our families live while we serve in Washington. Extending the provision of this bill to the Members of Congress would better protect all of us-- our families, our neighbors, and our constituents. It is a very minor request that I am asking. It is an amendment that would not change anything or lessen anything about the bill. It is a very reasonable request, and I don't understand exactly why we can't make this bill better by applying it to both judges and Members of Congress. My substitute amendment, which I will offer for unanimous consent, will make simple changes to the legislation. It would extend the same protections it would offer to the judicial branch to the legislative branch. Second, the laudable goal of this legislation is to protect personally identifiable information from being sold and posted online by data brokers. Allowing at-risk individuals to file private action against data brokers for declaratory and injunctive relief, plus reasonable attorney's fees, will achieve that goal. I ask the Senator to modify his request to, instead, include my substitute amendment at the desk, and that my substitute amendment be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, I would like to offer across the aisle that we are willing to compromise with the Senator from New Jersey. We are willing to work with him on getting the bill passed. The only thing that we would like to do is to have it include Congress, as well. The other points you had mentioned that you object to, as far as changing, I would be willing to discuss. I think there would be a middle ground. I think this could be passed. When we pass something unanimously, there has to be a little give and take. No one gets their way. I am not saying that you can't have it. I am for your bill in general. I think it ought to be expanded to Congress. We had at least two people shot. Gabby Giffords was shot. We had Steve Scalise shot. We had other threats. Congress is threatened and families are frightened. I don't know about you, but, routinely, the sheriff and police have to come to our house for threats to my house. I am not alone. This happens to other people. There is no reason why we should do this only for one branch of government. They put the satellite picture of my House on the nightly news, basically pointing out where every crazy person in the world can go to find my house. We do need to do something. This isn't a new request. I requested this a year ago when a very similar bill came up a year ago for special protections for the judiciary. I said, once again: Good idea, we should apply it to Congress. We go forward a whole year, and now we are doing the same thing again, and nobody seems to be listening. I will tell you that I am willing to compromise on this and willing to work with you to pass it, but I think we should extend it. It is not that hard. If we extend it to Congress and flip it back, then, I think it would pass unanimously in the House, as well. But I object to this version.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the best part of any debate is when you see people twisting themselves in knots, going against their own alleged principles to get their desired result. Today, the subject is war powers. The hawks and the neocons somehow want you to believe, in contrast to all logic, that the President of the United States has the unitary power to go to war anytime he wants, anywhere, free from interference from Congress. That is their stated position anytime war comes up. Yet, today, in the NDAA, they say they now want a President that cannot leave a war without their permission. How absurd is that? They believe that a President has the power go to war anywhere, anytime, but when a President tries to remove troops they say: Oh, no, no. What we really want are 535 generals in Congress to tell him he can't leave a war. How absurd is that? It is exactly the opposite of what both the Constitution and logic would dictate. When Congress tried to impose time limits on troop engagements during the Iraq war, the neocons squawked that it would be a mistake to have 535 generals. They said the execution of the war was a prerogative of the President--until a President decided he wanted to leave a war. During the Bush administration, Dick Cheney and a team of legal apologists argued for something they call the unitary executive theory. Professor Edelson at American University describes this theory of an all-powerful Commander-in-Chief concept: This unitary executive theory claimed to justify, effectively, unchecked Presidential power over the use of military force, the detention and interrogation of prisoners, extraordinary rendition, and intelligence gathering. According to the unitary executive theory, since the Constitution assigns the President all of the executive power, he can set aside laws that attempt to limit this power over national security. This is an enormous power. Critics say that it effectively puts the President above the law. But this is the belief of the neocons. They say: ``The President is all-powerful,'' until they say, ``Well, unless the President is trying to stop a war, then we must shackle the President with rules and regulations and make sure that he cannot leave a war unless Congress says so.'' That is what the NDAA will do this year. These same people who advocated for virtually unlimited Commander-in- Chief powers have put forth limits in this bill to restrain a President from removing troops from a country. Effectively, these neocons put forth a belief that the Commander in Chief has virtually unlimited power to initiate war, but they are just fine with hamstringing and preventing the Commander in Chief from ending a war. Hypocrisy, anyone? Without a shred of embarrassment, these neocons happily constrain a President from leaving a war theater while they also simultaneously argue for a President who can start war anytime, anywhere across the globe without congressional authorization. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled. Primary among our Founders' concerns was that the power to initiate war not be in the hands of one person. As Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, the executive is the branch of government most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested the war- making powers in the legislature. To our Founders, initiation of war was the sole prerogative of Congress. But a great deal of discretion was given to the President in article II to execute the war. The neocons forever believed in this discretion. They said the war shouldn't be fought by 535 generals in Congress; we should give the President the freedom and power to execute the war. And, largely, they are correct--until they pop their heads up today and say, unless the President wants to stop a war, then we take it all back. What we really want is a President who can't execute a war or execute the end of a war without the permission of Congress. Likely, our Founders would have agreed with the common complaint that we don't need 535 generals in Congress. In other words, success in war requires most decisions on executing the war to be in the hands of one person--the President. Even I, who have been opposed to most of the recent overseas activities and wars--even I believe that once Congress initiates it, most of the decisions should be made by the President. The decision to go to war requires the consensus, the initiation--the beginning of war requires the consensus of 535 Members of Congress under the Constitution. It is very clear. They debated it over and over, and they said: Initiation, declaration of war, should be done by Congress. But the execution of the war would largely be left up to the President. Many, many current and former Members of Congress have agreed. Representative Liz Cheney has argued that the nature of military and foreign policy demands the unity of the singular executive and that the Founders certainly did not intend, nor does history substantiate, the idea that Congress should legislate specific limits on the President's powers in wartime. Liz Cheney, who is also, ironically, the author of this amendment to the NDAA, said we shouldn't limit the President's powers in times of war and then she authors a limitation on the President removing troops from war. So which is it? I guess she is only for this unitary power-- she is only for this all-powerful Commander in Chief when they fight war. But if a President wants to end a war, oh, no, Congress has to stop them at all costs from ending a war. I think what comes out of this is that the neoconservative philosophy isn't so much about a unitary executive, isn't so much about an all- powerful Commander in Chief, the philosophy of these people is about war and substantiating war and making sure that it becomes and is perpetual war. Senator Graham said the one thing he has been consistent on is that ``there is 1 Commander in Chief, not 535'' these are his words ``and I believe this Commander in Chief and all future Commanders in Chief are unique in our Constitution and have an indispensable role to play when it comes to protecting the homeland. If we have 535 commanders in chief, then we are going to be less safe.'' I guess, except for this bill, which actually creates 535 generals in Congress to tell the President, not just this President--and some of it is anger. It is partisan anger. People don't like President Trump--but this will bind all future Presidents. This isn't just about this President. When Lindsey Graham says we don't want 535 Commanders in Chief, if this is his belief, he should vote against this bill because this bill creates 535 Commanders in Chief. The late Senator McCain said: ``It would be a very serious situation where we now have 535 commanders in chief . . . the President of the United States is the only commander.'' Senator Inhofe, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has said: ``We don't need the 535 generals in Congress telling our troops how to win this fight,'' except for we are going to pass a bill that I assume all of these folks will vote for that actually creates 535 generals in Congress to say to the President--to this one or any President--that he can't leave the theater in Afghanistan without their permission. It is a tragedy; it is hypocrisy; and it is a terrible bill. Of course, there is also former Vice President Dick Cheney, who was adamant that the War Powers Resolution, which requires the President to simply report to Congress on matters of war, was unconstitutional as ``an infringement of the president's authority as the commander in chief.'' Senator Alexander also said ``there is a reason why we don't have 535 commanders in chief or 100 commanding generals each saying charge down this street or over that hill.'' I tend to agree, except for it seems to be one-sided. These people seem to believe that we shouldn't have 535 generals in Congress when it is about initiating war. But when it comes to removing troops from the battle, when it comes to finally coming home after America's longest war in Afghanistan, they all say: Oh, no, no, no. You are wrong. We are not going to let you come home. We are going to restrict and restrain the powers of the Commander in Chief because we don't want to end the Afghan war. It seems as if the only thing you can conclude is they really don't care about their theory of an all-powerful Commander in Chief; they care more about perpetuating the Afghan war. Until recently, this chorus of voices sang of nothing but the almighty, endless powers that Presidents have as Commander in Chief. That is, until a President arrived on the scene who wanted to reduce overseas troop levels and end America's longest war in Afghanistan. Then the promoters of a strong Commander in Chief suddenly jumped ship and began advocating the opposite. They began advocating that 535 Members of Congress should, indeed, become generals and should limit the President's ability to remove troops from Afghanistan. Which is it? Are you for this unlimited power of the President to commence and execute war or are you only for it when they are initiating war, when they are continuing war, and against Presidential prerogative if the President chooses to end a war? Shouldn't we call out this hypocrisy? Shouldn't someone stand up and express and expose this rank demagoguery? Shouldn't someone cry foul that the advocates of unlimited Presidential power want it only to apply when that President advocates for war? But the moment a President advocates to end a war or lessen overseas troops and these deployments, he or she must be shackled by 535 generals. This Defense authorization bill could more aptly be called ``A Bill to Prevent the President from Ending the Afghan War.'' We never actually give the real titles to the bill, but that would be an accurate title: ``A Bill to Prevent the President from Ending the Afghan War.'' As such, any serious advocate for ending the Afghan war should vote against this monstrosity. The neocon advocates for Presidential war powers should own up to their hypocrisy and admit that their love of perpetual war trumps their oft-stated unitary executive theory. In reality, the neocons are enamored of their theory of unbounded Presidential power only when that power is used to foment war. The minute a President decides to end war, the neocons' true stripes are exposed as they beat their chest and proclaim--as 535 generals might-- that the President will not be allowed to remove troops without congressional permission. This bill sets a very dangerous precedent for limiting a President's power to end war and should be vigorously opposed.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I yield the floor.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose another massive infusion of arms into the volatile Middle East. Someone must ask the question: Can a lasting peace be purchased with more weapons? Will selling sophisticated fighter jets and weaponized drones bring more stability to the Middle East? Is it wise to pour fuel on the fire that burns in the Middle East? The Senate today is debating with these joint resolutions whether to disapprove of the announced sale of 50 F-35s and 18 Reaper Drones to the United Arab Emirates, a country that has recently taken encouraging steps specifically toward Israel, but with an overall record that should give concern. The primary questions we should be asking ourselves are: To what ends has the UAE deployed its military and its military technology in recent years? Does the UAE have a record that we can trust? What military behavior are we encouraging and rewarding with this sale? Will the U.S. bear responsibility if the UAE misuses these incredibly sophisticated weapons? The answers to these questions are far from clear. In fact, the UAE's record should give us pause. The UAE is not a democracy. Their human rights record is mixed, and their military activities in the region, as a one-time member of the Saudi coalition, contributed to the bloodshed and devastation in Yemen. On human rights, let's look at some recent reported examples. In 2017, Ahmed Monsoor, a human rights activist, was given a 10-year prison sentence based on his speech. Specifically, he was charged for posting ``false information that harms national unity'' on social media. The charges against him were based on a call for the release of another activist who had been put in prison for political speech. Is this the kind of democracy or lack of democracy and lack of speech that should be rewarded with our most sophisticated weaponry? In 2017, the UAE government also handed down a 10-year sentence to Nasser bin-Ghaith, an economist, for his criticism of the UAE and Egyptian Governments. Is this the kind of country that deserves our most sophisticated weaponry? In 2018, the UAE arrested Matthew Hedges, a British citizen and doctoral student, and denied him access to legal counsel for 5 months. They sentenced him to life in prison for spying charges based on a confession that was obtained in an undisclosed location. They were ultimately forced to pardon him after international outrage. Is this the kind of country that we can trust with our most sophisticated weaponry? The fact that the UAE is willing to buy this technology is not in and of itself justification for the sale. This is the time to carefully study the situation in the region and to consider the effects of accelerating the Middle Eastern arms race in the short-term and in the long-term. This is why our government shouldn't be rushing into approving this sale; yet our government is moving at warp speed to approve this sale. It is as if we intentionally don't want to consider all of these issues. The most frequently cited argument in favor of this sale is that the UAE has taken encouraging steps in the last few months. They have normalized relations with Israel, facilitated civilian travel, and more. Great. I am all-in for that. We should be encouraging peaceful relations between countries. I support those efforts. But it is not clear that dropping advanced military technology into the region is, in fact, encouraging peaceful relations, given how these weapons have been used in recent times. The UAE spent years bombing Yemen as part of a coalition with Saudi Arabia to stop the Houthis. This bombing campaign was undisciplined and sloppy. Civilians, residents, and other nonmilitary targets were often destroyed. The U.N. reports approximately 7,000 civilians killed in Yemen and over 10,000 wounded. The Saudi-UAE coalition helped create a humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Amid collapsing public services, the largest cholera epidemic on record has affected at least 2 million people--probably more--and killed almost 4,000. A lot of this is to be blamed on the civil war that had been perpetuated by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. At the height of the destruction, a Yemeni child would die of starvation every 10 minutes. More than 50,000 children have been lost to starvation. I have argued for years that the United States should play no role in worsening the crisis via an arms pipeline to the coalition that perpetuates this war. American technology helped facilitate this crisis and should be a real concern about sending more American bombs and fighter planes into this region. If they weren't used wisely in the most recent years in the Yemeni war, will they be used differently in the future? Can we trust the people who were part of a bombing campaign of civilians in Yemen to do an act more wisely with weapons in the future? Let's also not forget that a media investigation found that weapons that we sent to the coalition--U.S. weapons that were sent to the Saudi-UAE coalition--were lost, and, in some cases, handed over to terrorists. That is right. Military equipment from the United States was sent to the UAE, but it wound up in the hands of terrorists. The Saudi-UAE coalition reportedly used U.S. weapons as currency to win the approval of militias inside Yemen. To be clear, these activities are against the terms of sale. We told them: You can't give away our weapons. You can't use our weapons to purchase the support of Sunni extremists in Yemen. But they did. This should give us cause for concern. This should make us say: Whoa. Let's stop, and let's pause before we send more weapons into this war. Not only that, but Iranian proxies captured some of these weapons, and, predictably, pointed them back at the Saudi-UAE coalition. Guns, missiles, and vehicles ended up in the hands of terrorists--weapons that we put on the ground in the Middle East. The same investigation found Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, MRAPs, in the hands of Sunni allies of the UAE and Saudi Arabia. But guess who some of these Sunni allies were. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. We are talking about the remnants of al-Qaida in Yemen were getting weapons that we were giving to the UAE in Saudi Arabia. Does this sound like the kind of behavior we should reward with more weapons? One of the MRAPs still had the export label on it indicating that it had been sent from Beaumont, TX, to the UAE before ultimately getting illegally transferred to extremists in Yemen. Is this the kind of behavior we should reward with more of our sophisticated technology? The serial number on another MRAP in the possession of the Iranian- backed Houthis was traced back to the 2014 sale of U.S. MRAPs to the UAE. So the UAE not only was trading our weapons for support among Sunni extremists, including al-Qaida-affiliated extremists in Yemen, but they also were having their equipment taken by the Houthis. So on both sides of the war in Yemen, we had U.S. weapons. Is it a good idea to flood the Middle East with more of our weapons? Is it a good idea to keep sending weapons that wind up in the hands of people who don't have our best interests at heart? Now, people say: Well, the UAE is doing better. They have stepped back from the coalition. They are not, you know, fighting as vigorously in the UAE. But there still are reports that UAE is still involved in the civil war in Yemen and that they are still engaged. The UAE has a very conflicted record on human rights. I mentioned a few of those who have been in prison for 10 years to life for speech-- for speech against the government or even just speech the government doesn't like. But flogging is also used as a form of punishment. There is no true freedom of speech or press in the UAE. Is this the kind of country we should give our most sophisticated technology to Activists have been held in secret detention centers in the UAE. Electric shocks have been used as a form of punishment in the UAE. Social media statements against the government are criminalized. You can be put in prison for text messages, and people have been put in prison and/or deported for text messages. The government has used mass trials against dissidents. Statements of support for Qatar were made illegal during the region's diplomatic standoff. Criticisms of government officials were made illegal by decree. This is not an open society; this is not a democracy; and this is decidedly not a country that we should be giving our most sophisticated weaponry to. Do we believe these arms sales will encourage or discourage bad behavior from the UAE? We are clearly communicating to the UAE that human rights take a backseat to arms sales. Part of the consideration for these arms sales is the recent developments from the UAE--most prominently, the UAE's normalizing relations with Israel through the Abraham accords. It is a positive development, without a doubt. I am all in favor of it. I am all in favor of trading with the UAE. I am all in favor of Israel trading with the UAE. I am all in favor of good diplomatic relations, but you can also have diplomatic relations without flooding the region with our most sophisticated armaments. Outwardly, we are told by all involved that the F-35s are not a condition for the Abraham accords, but if you ask whether it is a good idea to send some of our most advanced weaponry to the UAE, we are nonetheless told, if we don't, it might jeopardize the accords. Well, which is it? They are either part of the accords or they are not. I, frankly, think, if the weapons were not to go, that the advantages to Israel-UAE having diplomatic relations in trade are so great that they will continue. The assurance right now is that we will guarantee what is called Israel's qualitative military edge in the region, even after the sale of F-35s and Reaper drones to the UAE. So the message to Israel is: Yes, we are giving the same advanced fighter jets to the UAE, but we will give you even better jets in the future. All I can say is, that is a big maybe. And people who accept, on the face of that, that, oh, yes, we are going to guarantee something, but we are giving this same equipment to people who have been on the other side of virtually every other war in the Middle East, I think, is a hopeful promise but not necessarily a guarantee. The easiest way, if you favor protecting Israel's QME, or military edge, is to stop sending military assets to other countries in the region. We are competing with ourselves right now. We give advanced weaponry to Israel, and then we say we are going to keep your advantage. But then we give the advanced weaponry to the UAE, and so Israel comes back and says we need more. Then we give more to them, and the Saudis want more. And then once we give the weapons to the Saudis, Israel wants more. It is a never-ending arms race between the so-called countries that are actually getting along, not to mention the arms race between those who are opposed to Iran in the region. The easiest way to protect the qualitative military edge of Israel is to quit sending more advanced weaponry into the region. We have committed to protecting Israel's QME in response to these sales, but we continue to obligate ourselves to increasingly large sales to offset the large sales we have already approved to others, like the UAE and Saudi Arabia. There is another aspect to the qualitative military edge that is rarely discussed. It is the QME that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikdoms have over Iran. Saudi Arabia is the third biggest purchaser of weapons and the third biggest spender on military of anyone in the world now, but if you add Saudi Arabia's weapons to the Gulf sheikdoms' weaponry, you find that they spend eight times more on their military than Iran. So what kind of response would we imagine? We may not like what Iran does, but we should at least think about what they will do in response to what we do, and what in response to what the Saudis do and the UAE does and Israel does. Exacerbating the QME inevitably leads to pressure on Iran to further escalate the arms race and becomes a never-ending destructive cycle of more and more weapons. People say--and this administration has said--we want an agreement with Iran but not just a nuclear agreement. So we got out of the nuclear agreement. We want an agreement on conventional weapons. But how will that work? We asked Iran to limit their weapons, but we keep piling weapons on the other side? Do you think Iran is going to agree to limit their weapons if we keep piling more of our sophisticated weapons into the hands of the Saudis and into the hands of the UAE and others? There is great concerns with this sale, and rushing it through is a mistake. What happens if the F-35s are shot down? What if Russia or China is able to access our sensitive stealth technology? How will the need for contractors be handled in a secure fashion? Some supporters of Israel are very worried about this. The Zionist Organization of America, for example, has opposed the sale because it jeopardizes Israel's qualitative military edge. It makes the technologies on which Israel relies less secure. This statement from the Zionist Organization of America is quite clear: ``The security of both the U.S. and Israel is best served by preventing any other countries from acquiring this advanced aircraft.'' They couldn't be clearer. Even many in Israel were initially, and very vocally, opposed to this sale. Their Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz, said absolutely it was a terrible idea. Their Minister of Settlements, same thing. I would urge my colleagues to consider the possible consequences of this sale. We should not accelerate an arms race in the Middle East; we should not jeopardize the security of our military technologies; and we should not reward a decade-plus of undesirable behavior by the UAE. I urge a vote in support of these resolutions of disapproval. Madam President, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Foreign Relations Committee from further consideration of S.J. Res. 78, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed military sale to the United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and services.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until December 18, 2020: Remy Gaines, Callum Case, Lucy Sonsalla, Karen Gupta, and Gabriella Mestre.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise today to honor one of Louisville's finest, Louisville Metro Police Major Aubrey Gregory, who was shot on September 23, 2020, during the protest in Louisville. Fortunately, Major Gregory is expected to make a full recovery. I join my fellow Kentuckians in wishing Major Gregory a speedy recovery. Police work is an unquestionably difficult and dangerous job, but it is among the noblest callings. Each and every day, officers risk their lives to keep our communities safe. Officers such as Louisville Metro Police Major Aubrey Gregory meet the challenges they encounter every day with professionalism, class, and courage. Major Gregory joined the LMPD in 1999 and leads the Louisville Metro Police Special Operations Unit. Serving to keep the peace in Louisville during a time of uncertainty, Major Gregory has led his fellow officers with class and courage during this difficult time. Dedicated service from officers like Major Gregory during times of protest is important to keep protests peaceful instead of a riot. Major Gregory and his fellow officers deserve and have our respect and admiration.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise today to honor one of Louisville's finest, Louisville Metro Police Officer Robinson Desroches, who was shot on September 23, 2020, during the protest in Louisville. Fortunately, he is expected to make a full recovery. I join my fellow Kentuckians in wishing Officer Desroches a speedy recovery. Police work is an unquestionably difficult and dangerous job, but it is among the noblest callings. Each and every day, officers risk their lives to keep our communities safe. Officers such as Louisville Metro Police Officer Robinson Desroches meet the challenges they encounter every day with professionalism, class, and courage. Officer Desroches joined the LMPD in 2019. Serving to keep the peace in Louisville during a time of uncertainty, Officer Desroches has served his community with class and courage during this difficult time. Dedicated service from officers like Officer Desroches during times of protest is important to keep protests peaceful instead of a riot. Officer Desroches and his fellow officers deserve and have our respect and admiration.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, Lynnville is a tiny community in far western Kentucky. Its 200-year history--which will be celebrated this year by the placement of a Kentucky Historical Society marker--has much to teach us as we face the struggles of the year 2020. Lynnville became a settlement even before Graves County was founded and endured the Civil War, the Black Patch Tobacco War of the early 20th century, two town fires that completely destroyed local commerce, and even the fiery destruction of its post office, about which The Courier-Journal wrote that ``nothing remains but the postmaster himself.'' After each bout of catastrophic loss, Lynnville's businesses, farmers, preachers, and neighbors rebuilt structurally and recaptured their beloved community. Their history of resilience and recovery is a refreshing and poignant reminder to us all--from within the tiniest towns to our Nation's finest cities--of the resilience that formed, nurtured, and sustains our country. Thank you, Lynnville, KY, for being a symbol of this important value, and congratulations on the celebration of your 200th anniversary.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, for 100 years, the Rotary Club of Bowling Green, KY, has been committed to the highest standards of humanitarian service. The results of this century of engagement can be seen in successful projects throughout my hometown of Bowling Green, but also abroad, where our local Rotary Club has partnered with Rotary International to globally eradicate polio and to meet other enormous public health and safety needs. I was privileged to participate, along with one of my sons, in a project to bring clean, chlorinated water to an underserved community in Guatemala and to see, firsthand, the impact that the Rotary Club of Bowling Green is having in the lives of families and children in that country. This is a tremendous organization that deserves our recognition. I commend its current president, Alan Palmer, his board, and the current members--who give generously of their time, resources, and talents--for leading this organization into a new century of service.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, 50 years ago--several years before the landmark Roe v. Wade decision--a young mother was so moved by a news story calling for the legalization of abortion in Kentucky that she began to share her concerns with family, friends, and anyone who would listen. Out of her passion, the Kentucky Right to Life was born, and for 50 years, Margie Montgomery has nurtured, grown, and led this organization. Last week, Margie announced her retirement. We celebrate alongside her that countless lives have been saved through the efforts of Kentucky Right to Life over the past five decades. She leaves a strong organization in place that will continue to protect the unborn who are, in Margie's words, ``unique, living human beings, made in the image of God.''