Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Lady Astor was the first woman to serve in the British Parliament, the British House of Commons. In 1933, she was asked at a cocktail party: Do you know where Hitler was born? And without missing a beat, she responded: At Versailles. And the point of the response was that harsh reparations from the Treaty of Versailles led to German resentment and the rise of the demagogue Hitler. It had the opposite of the planned effect. The plan was to punish Germany. The plan was to make Germany pay for the war that they had begun, but in the end, it led to the rise of Hitler. I fear many in the Senate, though they are well-intentioned, will repeat the same mistake of meting out punishment without considering the ramifications. If the authors of this bill are successful, they will confiscate Russian sovereign funds and distribute those funds to Ukraine. One could make a good argument for the fairness of making Russia pay for their war of aggression. But first one must consider this currently seized money is an integral part of peace negotiations. Once this money is seized, an important facet of the peace compromise will disappear, and Russia may well be induced to just keep fighting this terrible meat grinder of a war. What a tragedy if, in haste, the result of punishing Russia is to prolong the war. Confiscating Russian sovereign assets is essentially an act of economic war. Seizing and transferring these assets to Ukraine may make people in Washington feel virtuous, but it will not bring peace. Confiscating Russia's sovereign assets will reinforce the view of hard-liners in Moscow that Russia's war lies not with Ukraine but really with the United States and the West. There is no justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but this bill directly undermines President Trump's diplomatic efforts to end the killing in Ukraine. In fact, the Trump administration recently warned the European Union not to give seized Russian funds to Ukraine. Russia's frozen assets could be used as a bargaining chip and are being used as a bargaining chip in negotiations. But confiscating their sovereign assets and giving them to Ukraine will only convince Moscow that there is no negotiated settlement to be had with Kyiv. The result will be the further destruction of Ukraine. More Ukrainian soldiers and civilians will die, and more cities and towns will be turned to rubble. Nicholas Mulder is an associate professor at Cornell. He highlights the danger of the destabilizing precedent that Western countries would set by seizing assets to end a war they are not openly involved in. Professor Mulder writes, that such an action would ``broaden coercive actions that states could take for disputes to which they are not a direct party.'' Elisabeth Braw, a columnist at Foreign Policy and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, also highlights the risk of blowback to Western companies. She states that if Western governments themselves begin confiscating assets without due process, they will expose Western companies to the caprice of undemocratic regimes. In fact, Russia has already threatened to seize $288 billion of Western assets that are in Russia. So we take their money; they take our money. Where does the cycle end? This bill will hand the Russians another tool to fuel resentment against us. American leaders speak of a rules-based international order, but the theory that the United States can confiscate the assets of another country we are not at war with is legally fraud. Professor Mulder argues that economic reprisals are the prerogative of injured states, not of third parties. Rather than compel respect for international law, our actions will demonstrate to our adversaries that we are flouting it. This bill will be used by the Kremlin to show the world that while Washington demands that others follow the rules, we are happy to break them when we see fit. In a multipolar world, Washington can no longer expect to act with impunity, particularly when dealing with a nuclear power. We understood the serious dangers that our country faced during the Cold War, but three decades of hubris and repeated foreign policy disasters prove that Washington's foreign policy establishment is badly broken. A good way to start on the road to fixing that broken foreign policy is rejecting this disastrous bill which will only delay and possibly end the peace negotiations. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is a naive notion to think that we will yell and scream and gnash our teeth and tell China: Quit selling dual-use materiel to Russia and that they will immediately have a sanguine face and say: Oh, of course. What were we thinking? We will quit doing it. That is what the logic of this legislation is. We are going to tell China to quit doing it. Now, there is another way diplomacy could work. We have hundreds and hundreds of sanctions on China. If you want China to do something, you could offer to China to remove some sanctions in exchange for them not selling weapons that have dual-use or parts that have dual-use to Russia. There are ways you can gain things through diplomacy, but they are transactional, and they include carrots and sticks. But just making sort of over-the-top statements about how evil China is and communist this, communist that, will not get you anything. If you want something from China, you have to offer them something in exchange. If you want them to quit selling dual-use parts to Russia that they are using in the war, offer them some relief from the hundreds and hundreds of sanctions we have put on them. Instead, what this body and the same people who are for this bill have advocated is, we are going to go one step further. Anybody who sells oil to Russia, we are going to put a 500-percent tariff on them. How do you think China will respond to a 500-percent tariff? You think China is going to say: ``Oh, we are so sorry. Our bad. We should not trade with Russia, and we will do whatever the U.S. tells us''? No. They will react like anybody else that is a sovereign nation, and they will push back and they will say: ``Hell no. We are not going to stop buying oil and gas from Russia.'' Then there will be a 500-percent tariff on China, which means what? An embargo. We have got an embargo the President has already declared on Venezuela. Do we want an embargo on goods with China? Do we want to defeat China by not trading with them? In fact, I think it is the opposite. I think you defeat and influence China by trading with them. The moment we have no trade with China, is the moment, in all likelihood, they will say: We have got nothing to lose in going into Taiwan. The moment they go into Taiwan will be when we have absolutely no trade with China. So it is the opposite. These people want to isolate us--isolate us from trade. They want a trade isolationism throughout the world. It is a mistake and won't work. It is not that some of the goals or things that they advocate for aren't desirable. I agree, we should try to get China to quit selling dual-use parts to Russia. But guess what. When Secretary Yellen and Secretary Blinken went over there, what did they do? They went over there and publicly chastised China in their country. Do you think that worked? No. That made China mad. They did the opposite. This is the opposite of diplomacy. If you want diplomacy, you don't call people names, you don't treat them like a stepchild, you don't treat them like a rebellious teenager and say: I am wagging my finger. You better quit selling dual-use parts to Russia. No. You have to offer them something they want, and in exchange, they do something we want. That is the way diplomacy works. But in Washington, diplomacy works by ``We will have a resolution, and this resolution will say how evil China is.'' It doesn't have any effect. The sanctions haven't worked, taking Russia's money is not going to work, and chastising China is not going to work. If you want to have better relations, you have to have relations where it is a give-and-get relationship. That is what diplomacy is all about. I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism is a colossally bad idea, a dangerous provocation, and a roundabout way of allowing military strikes on Russian targets. If you doubt this, ask the Venezuelans. All of the ``kinetic strikes'' on Venezuelan boats are justified because they are designated as a terrorist sponsor. They have these fancy names. We call them designated terrorist organizations. Therefore, it is like a war but not quite a war, but they justify their attacks, and they justify acting like there is a war with Venezuela by designating them as terrorists. Never underestimate Washington's ability to make things worse. In its insistence that Moscow be a permanent enemy of the United States, the foreign policy establishment is pushing to impose more punitive measures on Russia--measures that may make globalists in Washington feel virtuous but that in reality will do nothing to help Ukraine, do nothing to bring peace in Europe, and do nothing to make Americans safer or more prosperous. In fact, if there is one thing more likely to disrupt the peace talks and make it less likely to find peace, it is simply that of labeling Russia a terrorist nation. If you want to destroy the peace process, you should pass this legislation and shout it from the rooftops that you are calling Russia a terrorist nation--if you want to disrupt the peace talks. This bill, which would designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, directly undermines President Trump's diplomatic efforts to end the 4-year war in Ukraine. If you like the war in Ukraine, vote for this bill because this bill will do everything possible to drive Russia away from the table. Our goal should be to seek deescalation and stability in Europe, which will only come about by establishing working relations with the Russians. None of this says that Russia isn't the aggressor. None of this says that Russia isn't doing bad things. They are in the middle of a war. Yes, they are the aggressors. But simply standing forth and showing how virtuous we are by calling them terrorists will do nothing to end the war and may well allow the war to continue. The hardliners in Moscow already believe they are at war with the United States, and designating them as a state sponsor of terrorism will only throw further fuel on that fire. This misguided legislation would destroy any semblance of U.S.-Russia bilateral relations, and it is not going to achieve its desired intention. It is absurd to think that applying more economic pressure on Russia will get them to change their objectives. They have fought for 4 years. They have lost tens of thousands of soldiers, and they have killed tens of thousands of soldiers. Some say there are up to 1 million casualties of this war. We have already imposed 16,000 sanctions on them. Do we really think 16,001 is going to do the trick? We think: Oh, we are going to call them a terrorist. What a terrible thing. They are going to lay down their arms and give back the land they have taken. No, that is not what is going to happen. This will not work, but it might drive them away from the process of coming to a negotiated settlement. If this bill is enacted, Russia will likely conclude that negotiations are futile, and they will continue the grinding war of attrition on the battlefield. It should come as no surprise, given the disparity between Russia and Ukraine in terms of economic strength and population, that a war of attrition does not favor Kyiv. President Trump has repeatedly made clear that this is not our war and that his primary desire is to end the killing. He is 100 percent right. Congress should fully support the President's efforts to end the needless slaughter of a generation of young people in Ukraine and Russia, but this legislation will do the opposite of his intentions. This legislation will put peace further away. It may well drive a wedge in negotiations and end the negotiations. The way to do this, the way to achieve peace, is to pursue realistic negotiations--negotiations that, whether you like it or not, will require that Russia's security interests are taken into consideration, not by ratcheting up tensions with Moscow or by designating them as a state sponsor of terrorism. The Washington establishment already succeeded in its foolish designation of drug cartels in the Western Hemisphere as terrorist organizations. Now we are conducting extrajudicial killings of individuals seemingly every day, with no congressional authorization or oversight. What is next? Are we going to commit extrajudicial executions of Russians once they are designated as state sponsors of terrorism? That is exactly what we are doing in Venezuela. They say: Oh, we are just not killing any drug dealers; we are killing drug dealers who are terrorists. That sort of begs the question: When they release a narcoterrorist who has been in prison for 45 years--former President of Honduras Hernandez--oh, well, why is he not a narcoterrorist? Oh, because we name who the narcoterrorists are. The guys we are killing in the boats, they are the narcoterrorists. The guy who was convicted and sent to prison for 45 years--the former President of Honduras--is not a narcoterrorist. As to the justification for killing the people in the boats who are not armed--there has been no evidence presented that anybody in these boats has been armed. We are killing unarmed people because we are calling them narcoterrorists, and now we are going to call the Russians terrorists. What does that mean? Are we setting up the predicate for bombing Russian boats? They say they don't need authority for war. They say they can do it. But you are helping them by designating Russians as terrorists. When you do and when they begin to blow up Russian boats, what will we say? The Washington establishment has succeeded in this foolish designation. We now have drug cartels. We are conducting these killings. What is next? Will we allow the killings of Russians? Will we allow the bombings of Russian boats? Designating countries or cartels as terrorists essentially becomes an end run around congressional war-making powers. The Constitution says we declare war. They say: Well, it is not quite war; it is somewhere in between war, but it is not drug smuggling anymore. We don't kill drug smugglers on sight, but we do kill them if they are designated as terrorists. So it is just game-playing with these labels. It is circular reasoning, but everything about it leads to more war and leads to less restraint. Once they are designated as terrorists, attacks on the country are argued to be sanctioned. This is an argument for saying that bombing Russian boats will be sanctioned. The terrorists, the Venezuelans, are said to be terrorists. Their boats are targets, and we can bomb them like it is a war but not a war because we haven't voted on it. If we label Russians as terrorists, is that the same conclusion? So while we are not at war with Russia, designating them as a state sponsor of terrorism implies that no further vote of Congress is necessary before letting the bombs fly. To think that the risk of escalation must no longer concern us because a war has gone on for years is folly. There is still danger to escalating the war with Russia. We must still take great care to ensure that the United States is not foolishly dragged into a kinetic conflict through stupidity or miscalculation. Americans supported President Trump because they resonated with his message of ``America first.'' Outside of the globalist elites in Washington, everyday Americans do not want to be further entangled in a war 5,000 miles from our shores. Congress should reject this bill and instead focus its efforts on advancing realistic peace negotiations in Ukraine and in pursuing policies that advance America's national interests. I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Bragdon nomination.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask that we commence with the previously scheduled vote.

Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, instead of a clean CR, this bill contains language that has been air-dropped in that will destroy hemp farming in Kentucky and across the United States. Tucked away on page 163, title VII, division B of this spending package is a provision that will shut down the hemp industry across the United States. My amendment would strip the provision designed to regulate the hemp industry to death. The bill as it now stands overrides the regulatory frameworks of several States, cancels the collective decisions of hemp consumers, and destroys the livelihoods of hemp farmers. And it couldn't come at a worse time for America farmers. Times are tough for our farmers. Farmers' costs have increased as the price of fertilizer and machinery have jumped, while prices for their crops, like soybean, corn, and wheat, have declined. For many farmers, hemp has proved to be a lifeline, a new cash crop. Farmers turn to growing hemp to mitigate the losses they endured during this season of hardship. But that lifeline may soon be extinguished by this very legislation. The effective hemp ban included in this spending package is a result, we are told, of bad actors skirting the legal limits by overly enhancing the concentration of THC in their products. The hemp industry, myself, and others have come together, and we have been willing to negotiate to get rid of the bad actors. Yet, instead, we are met with legislation that would be prohibition. Members of the industry, myself, and others who are advocates of this have been willing to get rid of synthetic cannabinoids, willing to compromise at every turn, but we are met with the numbers in this bill, which will eradicate the hemp industry. For the last several weeks, we have offered proposals with the goal of creating an environment in which the hemp industry could thrive and sell products, and we have been met with those who want to prohibit the industry from continuing. This bill's per-serving THC content limit would make illegal any hemp product that contains more than 0.4 milligrams. That would be nearly 100 percent of the existing market. The numbers put forward in this bill will eliminate 100 percent of the hemp products in our country. That amounts to an effective ban because the limit is so low that the products intended to manage pain or anxiety will lose their effect. The States have done what they are supposed to. The States have instituted laws. Twenty-three States have instituted laws on hemp. None of them have limits anywhere close to what is being proposed in this bill. So what will happen is most of the things that your States have regulated, are regulating, and have made legal will be made illegal by this bill. This bill will effectively preempt and nullify all State laws concerning hemp. Currently, Maine limits THC to 3 milligrams per serving; that will be overruled. My home State limits THC to 5 milligrams in beverages; that will be overruled. Minnesota, Utah, and Louisiana also have 5 milligrams per serving. Alabama and Georgia have 10 milligrams. Tennessee has 15 milligrams. The bill before us nullifies all these State laws and makes the hemp industry kaput. The language in this bill will outlaw all current hemp plants and seeds. It changes the definition of what a hemp plant is. It makes it so low that there may not even be an existing plant that can meet the parameters. But every plant in the country will have to be destroyed. Every hemp seed in the country will have to be destroyed. This is the most thoughtless, ignorant proposal to an industry that I have seen in a long, long time. The States have made progress, and more progress is coming. Most States have age limits. To add insult to injury, we are given this legislation in an appropriations bill. We have Senate rules against this. So I would recommend that we vote for this amendment, and my amendment would strip out the language. I would transfer the remainder of my time to Senator Merkley.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think it is time that instead of closing the government down further, we begin to open up government. What I will offer is legislation that instead of closing government down further, begins to pay those who are working. It pays our soldiers, pays our air traffic controllers, pays everyone who is showing up for work. I think this should become a permanent feature of our government. I think it is disruptive, I think it is unfair, and I think it is wrong that we don't pay the workers that show up. A better way than isolating different groups and punishing different groups is actually to pay those who are working. I think, if we do this, pass this legislation, this would never be a problem again. We are going to run into disagreements in the future. We are going to have times when the government shuts down. There is no reason we shouldn't be paying our government workers. I ask the Senator to modify his request, so, instead, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 191, S. 3012; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I think it is actually not clear at all that the President wouldn't sign a bill to continue paying Federal workers. I think it is actually a universal sentiment among both parties and among the American people, particularly among the soldiers, that we ought to continue to pay the soldiers and continue to pay the workers. I am, perhaps, the most conservative Member of the Senate. I vote to cut spending on everything--I think we spend way too much--but I am not for cutting the salaries of people who have a contract and who are doing their work. Now, I probably would not hire new people, and I would probably let the Federal Government shrink gradually through attrition because I think we need to be smaller, but if you work for the government and you are doing your job and you have a contract, I think you ought to be paid. So I don't think it is clear that the President wouldn't support this. I think it is actually quite confusing that this is being objected to by the Democrats, and I think, actually, it would be nice to let the Democrats, you know, have a round at this and explain to us why they don't want to pay the air traffic controllers. Look, we can have a dispute over spending. I think the Republican proposal spends too much, and I think the Democrat proposal spends too much, but I think we ought to pay the workers while we are working out the debate over what the spending level ought to be. I think it is actually an untenable position of Democrats to come before this body and say: Oh, we want to give subsidies to people who make $225,000 a year. That is what they are arguing for. The ObamaCare subsidies are not the basic subsidies. These are add-on subsidies that started 2 years ago. If you make $100,000 a year, the Democrats want to give you $13,000. Meanwhile, people who make $20,000 and are on food stamps are not going to get food stamps, but somebody making $100,000 is going to get $13,000. That doesn't sound like the Democrats are for the working class or for the poor. It sounds like the Democrats are for the people making $200,000 a year to get a subsidy. But in the midst of all this, with pressure, I think the Democrats could be made to understand and support paying the government workers. I mean, I just think it is something eminently reasonable, and I think it is something very passable. I don't see the President objecting to this. I think the President would sign this in a heartbeat. So I object.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I think the answer is to pay more people and not fewer people and to try to get through shutdowns without having people go without pay who are doing their jobs. Now, the proposal was made, and I just simply made a proposal that would pay everybody. So the Senator from Louisiana has objected to paying everyone, and I don't quite understand this. We could pay everyone. We could have paid everyone had he agreed to my motion. My motion was to pay everyone--to pay the soldiers; to pay the air traffic controllers; to pay the staff; to pay everybody who is working. Yet there was an objection. So I don't understand what is going on here. Should the emphasis be to pay fewer people or more people? Why would we try to punish certain groups of people instead of paying all of the people who are working? Why would we not do that? So I don't understand the process we have gone through here. We just had a chance to pay all of the people. We had a chance to pay the air traffic controllers; we had a chance to pay the soldiers; we had a chance to pay all of the government workers--and then there was an objection. So I don't understand what we are going through here. I, for one, believe that the workers should be paid. I, for one, believe that we should fix this permanently. The bill that I have presented is not just to pay them one time; it is to pay all workers all the time who are under contract and who show up for work whether there is a shutdown or not. It is a permanent payday for those who do their jobs. That was the fix. It is not a niche bill. It is not to punish one group or the other group. It is to say, if you are working and there is a disagreement on the spending levels, that all workers are paid. I don't understand the objection, and I will continue to support paying all the workers all the time they are at work whether there is a shutdown or not. I object.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, for decades, the globalists in Washington have led our country into one disastrous foreign war after another. Whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now potentially Venezuela, the formula is always the same: Proclaim that the regime of the targeted country poses such a threat to the American way of life that the only thing we can do is go to war. Tell them that our intervention is a noble effort, one that would bring security at home and liberty to foreign lands. Topple the government and declare a new age of freedom. The warmongers have recycled these experiments in regime change again and again. And what has it brought? Instability, chaos, suffering, and resentment. It is the height of arrogance to think we can forcibly remove the dictatorship in Venezuela and expect a different result. We should learn from history. Liberty cannot be imposed at the point of a foreign bad act. The United States maintains the most formidable military in human history. Of course, we have the capability of overthrowing the Maduro regime, just like we had the power to overthrow Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qadhafi. But what comes next? Is anyone thinking about the potential blowback that such a campaign could entail? Overthrowing the Maduro regime risks creating more regional instability, not less. The breakdown of state authority may create a power vacuum that the very drug cartels the administration is ostensibly trying to destroy could exploit. Just as our misguided interventions in the Middle East led to the proliferation of terrorist organizations, this could happen in Venezuela, but this time with the proliferation of organized crime. We could swell the ranks of the cartels with new recruits. Remember what happened in Iraq, the de-Baathification of Iraq. Removing all of the previous government soldiers, they had no place to go. They were used to being paid, they wanted money, and they went and worked and became terrorists. Where do you think the tens of thousands of Venezuelan soldiers and desperate civilians will turn when their livelihood suddenly disappears? It may be the drug cartels. In its hubris, Washington may very well empower the cartels and make the drug problem in our hemisphere worse. Certainly, any war will exacerbate the already precarious humanitarian crisis in Venezuela and lead to mass migration into neighboring countries already struggling under the strain of millions of refugees. And rest assured, many of those who flee the disaster of the war that will come will make their way to the United States. Most consequentially, any military operation comes with the risk that American servicemembers will be killed or wounded. We owe it to our servicemembers to only send them into harm's way when vital American interests are at stake. Who is in charge of Venezuela does not constitute such an interest. We have seen chaos emerge from our misguided wars before. We overthrew Saddam Hussein thinking Iraq will be transformed into this great Jeffersonian democracy. Instead, what occurred was an insurgency that led to some of the most brutal sectarian violence in living memory. Washington's foolish invasion empowered radical jihadists and ultimately led to the rise of ISIS, which posed a much greater threat to Americans than Saddam Hussein ever did. A similar story unfolded in Libya. In 2011, our forces aided the rebels to oust Muammar Qadhafi. The result was a brutal 6-year war that saw the proliferation of jihadist groups and widespread human rights violations, including the resurgence of slavery. Weapons were spread throughout Africa. Our intervention helped spur mass migration into Europe and contributed to widespread instability across Africa as weapons flowed from Libya into the Sahel and Sub-Sahara, where they continued to fuel conflicts and terrorism to this day. Libya is still highly unstable, and the conflict constantly threatens to reignite. Like Saddam and Qadhafi, Maduro is unmistakably a dictator. He is a bad guy. He suppresses freedom of speech. He controls his people. There is no free voting. He treats people poorly, and that is an understatement. But there are a lot of bad guys in the world. There are a lot of dictators. There is a lot of socialism leading to starvation. It doesn't mean that the United States should carelessly risk its blood and treasure to go and topple every one of them. As we have seen all too well in recent decades, foreign military interventions often end up making things worse. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Imagine the anarchy that followed our wars in the Middle East. Do we really want to risk creating similar conditions in our own backyard? With over 10,000 U.S. troops, 8 warships, a Virginia-class submarine, and dozens of F-35s already in the Caribbean, the USS Gerald Ford strike group surging toward the region, the stage for folly is set. We are told that only drug dealers are the target of U.S. operations, but the consolidation of the largest U.S. force in the Caribbean in 35 years suggests that regime change may very well be the intended goal. The use of lethal force and our massive military buildup is an invitation to retaliation. Attacked countries often attack back. It is our soldiers in the field of battle--not the Senators on this floor-- who will bear the brunt of the retaliation. By then, the time for debate will have passed. The Senate will have once again excused itself from the responsibility of governing, and the United States will once again be at war. Those who argue that small boats in the Caribbean are so dangerous that they warrant being blown out of the water must explain why, when some of the individuals happen to survive, they are not detained. The drugs are not scooped up and tested. The survivors are simply sent back to their country of origin. Wouldn't we ask whom they work for? Wouldn't we detain them? Wouldn't we present evidence to a court and say what should be done with these survivors? We summarily shoot them when we don't know who they are. But once we pick them up, we don't summarily kill them. We don't even try them. The United States has now repatriated two survivors to Colombia and Ecuador. If, as we are told, these groups constitute a threat to our security equal to al-Qaida, that they are somehow narcoterrorists, then why are we allowing these individuals to go home? The truth is that these arguments are nonsensical. Drug traffickers aren't equivalent to al-Qaida, and the executive branch does not have the authority to kill at will anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Repatriating survivors of the strikes suggest that the administration's lawyers are not so confident that their arguments about article II authority will survive legal scrutiny--or perhaps they are not confident that they could even bring drug convictions in a court. In addition to the strategic malpractice of pursuing regime change in Venezuela, there is also the inconvenient fact that the President simply does not have the authority to unilaterally launch wars. The Founders had the foresight to recognize that the executive branch is the branch most prone to war, and they therefore made it clear in the Constitution that Congress maintains the exclusive power to declare war. Part of President Trump's broad appeal was his strong contempt for the neocons on the right and the liberal internationalists on the left who never met a war they didn't want someone else's children to fight. He rightfully criticized those in Washington who supported nation- building fantasies throughout the Middle East; yet now certain individuals within the administration seek to lead the President astray. I would advise President Trump to remember the wise words of his inaugural address, when President Trump said: [W]e will measure our success by the wars we never get into. President Trump, do not allow the warmongers in Washington to drag you into an unnecessary war of choice. Washington has spent decades, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives trying to remake other countries in our image. The American people are sick and tired of their elected representatives in Congress standing idly by saying: Nothing to see here; the President can do whatever he wants, while their sons and daughters are sent to fight wars in distant lands. As the administration authorizes covert CIA action in Venezuela and surges U.S. forces to the region, including our most advanced aircraft carrier, the risk of imminent involvement in hostilities is evident. It is time that the first branch of government puts America first. The majority party of this institution should stand by the principles of restraint as espoused by President Trump's promise to the American people. Honor and statesmanship should prevent the Senate from sitting idly by while elements within his administration blunder America into another foreign war. The American soldiers, their families, and the American people deserve a debate and a vote before we send our Armed Forces into war. If you agree that our soldiers and their families deserve at least this much, vote yes on this resolution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, ``Taxation without representation is tyranny.'' This was the rallying cry of our Founding Fathers. This was the rallying cry of American patriots in the years leading up to the American Revolution. It was the rallying cry of militiamen at the Battles of Lexington and Concord. And it still should be the rallying cry of Congress. ``No taxation without representation'' is embedded in our Constitution. The Constitution forbids any one man or woman from raising taxes. Revenue is not only a question for Congress, but the Constitution commands that taxation legislation originate in the House of Representatives. This is the only issue that specifically has to originate not only in Congress but in one specific House. Our Founders thought that the House of Representatives, elected every 2 years, was closer to the people, and the things they feared the most were big taxes and big government. They said taxes must originate in the House. Yet these taxes are originating with the White House. The idea that no one should have taxes imposed on them without their consent is central to the ancient concept of what constitutes a free people. That principle is enshrined in the Magna Carta, that taxation should be imposed only after obtaining the common counsel of the kingdom. It was reaffirmed in the 1689 English Bill of Rights when it declared that there shall be no taxation without the consent of Parliament. In 1765, the American patriot who helped formulate the grievances against the British crown, James Otis, called for a defense of this principle by popularizing the phrase ``Taxation without representation is tyranny.'' This principle was said by many to have been the principle--the spark--that sparked our Revolution. Yet, today, the Senate is compelled to act because one person in our country wishes to raise taxes without the approval of the Senate, without the approval of the House, and without the approval of the Constitution. The idea that one person can raise taxes is contrary to our founding principles. The Constitution forbids it. As Montesquieu wrote in ``The Spirit of the Laws": When the legislative and the executive are combined and united in [one] person . . . there can be no liberty. Our Founders took that lesson to heart and embedded that in the Constitution--the principle of the separation of powers as well as a system of checks and balances. They knew that combining the legislative and executive powers would lead the country down a path to tyranny. Allowing taxes to be levied, doubled, tripled, and then one day perhaps forgiven is a recipe for chaos. The tariffs are implemented. The tariffs are canceled. The tariffs are delayed. The tariff rate changes daily. Just this week, the President added a special 10-percent import tax on Canada because he was mad about the nation's Ronald Reagan ad--an ad, by the way, which was showing Ronald Reagan verbatim speaking. News flash to the administration: Reagan was a free trader. Reagan believed ``that protectionism costs consumers billions of dollars, damages the overall economy, and destroys jobs.'' Ronald Reagan's vision for America can be seen in our trading relationship with Canada. In 1986, President Reagan said that ``our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets.'' Further, he said, ``I recognize . . . the inescapable conclusion that all of history is taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations.'' It was Bastiat, who wrote: When trade and when goods don't cross borders, armies will. It is not a guarantee of peace, but one way to achieve peace is to attempt to have good relations and trade with all nations. No country, no business, no family can plan a budget when the tax rates--the import tax rates--and the costs of every commodity are determined by the whims of one man. There are now tariffs on steel; there are tariffs on aluminum; there are tariffs on lumber, and they change day to day. But not one of these tariffs was voted on by the people's elected representatives in Congress. These tariffs are simply announced by Presidential proclamation. Perhaps more fundamental than a debate over what these tariffs are, what the rates are, and what they do to our economy is the question of whether Americans ought to perpetually live under emergency rule. This administration has declared emergencies with over 100 nations. With these emergency declarations, the President claims the unilateral right to levy import taxes. Think about this. What do you think of when you think of an emergency? You think of a war, a tornado, a famine. You don't think of trade policy that all of a sudden we have to give up on all of our constitutional prerogatives, all the separation of powers, all that is embedded in the Constitution because there is an emergency in trade policy. If that were true, imagine what emergencies might come forward; imagine where we would be and what lack of restraint would happen. And for Republicans, imagine what it is going to be like when someone from the other party is elected and they declare an emergency over the climate and ban cars and whatever might happen. We shouldn't be living this way. People say Congress is messy; Congress goes to gridlock. It is called debate. It is called discussion. The only way we typically get somewhere is we have to agree with some people on the other side. That is one of the things we are trying to overcome now. Our Founding Fathers anticipated a President might attempt someday to usurp the powers--the constitutional powers--of the legislature. Madison wrote that our constitutional government would pit ambition against ambition; the ambition of a President or ambition of a Congress to usurp power be checked by the other guarding their power; that we would limit the power of any one branch through checks and balances and prevent abuses of power. Madison, if he were here today, would be aghast to witness today's Congress that seems to lack any ambition to defend the constitutional separation of power. Emergency rule rejects the premise of a constitutional republic with limited powers and full accountability. Emergency rule is rule by one person. We will perpetuate emergency rule that provides the President extraordinary powers to tax us without our consent. Is that what we are going to allow or will we restore constitutional government in which taxes are debated and voted on by the people's representatives? I, for one, still believe in the principle of no taxation without representation and will vote to terminate this contrived emergency and end these unconstitutional import taxes.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled vote occur immediately.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 168, H.R. 5371.

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 2:20 p.m. tomorrow, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Moe nomination and if cloture is invoked on the Moe nomination, all postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Mercer nomination; further, that if cloture is invoked on the Mercer nomination, all postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Moe nomination at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Mercer nomination at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, no earlier than Wednesday, October 22; further, that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions; finally, that the remaining clotures filed on October 16 ripen at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, on Wednesday, October 22.

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled rollcall begin immediately. Cloture Motion