Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Implementation of the Fast Act.''

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The H-2B Temporary Foreign Worker Program: Examining the Effects of Americas' Job Opportunities and Wages.''

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2016, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2016, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. PAUL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PAUL

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, Milton Friedman once said that if you give the Federal Government control of the Sahara Desert, within 5 years there will be a shortage of sand. I tend to agree, and it worries me anytime a consensus builds to federalize anything. I have spent the last week reading this bill, this sweeping Federal takeover of chemical regulations, and I am now more worried than I was before I read the bill. Most worrisome, beyond the specifics, is the creeping infestation of the business community with the idea that the argument is no longer about minimizing regulations but about making regulations regular. Businesses seem to just want uniformity of regulation as opposed to minimization of regulation. A good analogy is that of how businesses respond to malingerers who fake slip-and-fall injuries. Some businesses choose to limit expenses by just paying out small amounts, but some brave businesses choose to legally defend themselves against all nuisance claims. Federalizing the chemical regulations is like settling with the slip-and-fall malingerers and hoping he or she will keep their extortion at a reasonable level. In the process, though, we have abandoned principle. We will have given up the State laboratories where economic success and regulatory restraint are aligned. It is no accident that regulatory restraint occurs in States that host chemical companies and ensures that State legislatures will be well aware that the economic impact of overbearing regulation will be felt in their State. As a consequence, there is a back-and-forth and consideration both of the environment and health of the economy. Federalization of regulations separates the people who benefit from a successful chemical industry from the unelected bureaucrats who will write the regulations. Once you sever the ties, once there is no incentive, once nobody cares about the jobs anymore, the tendency is to regulate and to overregulate. Once that tie is severed, the joint incentive to minimize regulation is lost. In fact, this legislation explicitly bans the consideration of a regulation's economic cost when deciding whether chemicals will be put into a high-risk category. Once a chemical has been labeled ``high risk,'' the legal liability and stigma that will attach will effectively ban the substance without the effect on the economy ever being considered. Regardless of what the final regulations actually say, the subsequent public reaction and lawsuits will have the effect of driving the chemical out of the market if it is considered to be a high-risk chemical. If we are to ignore the cost of regulations, if we are to ignore the relationship between regulations and job loss, there is basically no limit to the fervor and ferocity that will be unleashed by bureaucrats whose perpetual mandate is to regulate. I always thought we needed more balance, not less, in deciding on new regulations. I always thought we should balance the environment and the economy. Instead of balancing the economic effects and the environmental effects, this bill explicitly says to regulators that their goal is to regulate, period. This bill explicitly states that the economic impact of regulations is only considered after the EPA has decided to regulate, after a substance has been categorized as high risk. Is this really the best we can do? Sometimes I wonder if we deserve the government we get. When the business community gets together and seeks Federal regulations, I wonder: Have they not paid any attention to what is going on in Washington? Are they unaware of the devastating explosion of Federal regulations? Are they unaware that today's overbearing regulations were yesterday's benign advisories? Everything starts out nice and easy: We are not going to overregulate you. But it never goes down; it always ratchets up. Are they unaware that the most benign and well-intended regulations of the 1970s are now written and rewritten by a President mad with regulatory zeal? For those who are unaware of the devastation the EPA has wreaked upon our people, I request that you come and visit us in Eastern Kentucky. Come and visit us in West Virginia. The EPA's War on Coal has spread a trail of despair amongst a proud people. Many of these counties have unemployment over twice the national average. The regulations that are crippling and destroying our jobs in Kentucky were not passed by Congress; these job-killing regulations are monsters that emerged from the toxic swamp of Big Government bureaucrats at the EPA. The Obama-Clinton War on Coal largely came from regulations that were extensions of seemingly bland, well-intended laws in the early 1970s, laws like the Clean Water Act that were well- intended, legislating that you can't discharge pollutants into a navigable stream. I am for that, but somehow the courts and the bureaucrats came to decide that dirt was a pollutant and your backyard might have a nexus to a puddle that has a nexus to a ditch that was frequented by a migratory bird that once flew from the Great Lakes, so your backyard is the same as the Great Lakes now. It has become obscene and absurd, but it was all from well-intentioned, reasonable regulations that have gotten out of control. Now the EPA can jail you for putting dirt on your own land. Robert Lucas was given 10 years in prison for putting dirt on his own land. Now, since that craziness has infected the EPA, we now have the Feds asserting regulatory control over the majority of the land in the States. Will the Federal takeover of the chemical regulations eventually morph into a war on chemical companies, similar to what happened to the coal industry? I don't know, but it concerns me enough to examine the bill closely. Anytime we are told that everyone is for something, anytime we are told that we should stand aside and not challenge the status quo, I become suspicious that it is precisely the time someone needs to look very closely at what is happening. I also worry about Federal laws that preempt State laws. Admittedly, sometimes States, such as California, go overboard and they regulate businesses out of existence or at least chase them to another State. However, California's excess is Texas's benefit. I grew up along the Texas coast. Many of my family members work in the chemical industry. Texas has become a haven because of its location and its reasonable regulations. Because Texas and Louisiana have such a mutually beneficial relationship with the chemical industry, it is hard to imagine a time when the Texas or the Louisiana Legislature would vote to overregulate or to ignore the cost of new regulations. It is not in their best interest. But it is much easier to imagine a time when 47 other States gang up on Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma to ratchet up a Federal regulatory regime to the point at which it chokes and suffocates businesses and their jobs. Think it can't happen? Come and visit me in Kentucky. Come and see the devastation. Come and see the unemployment that has come from EPA's overzealous regulation. How can it be that the very businesses that face this threat support this bill, support the federalization of regulation? I am sure they are sincere. They want uniformity and predictability--admirable desires. They don't want the national standard of regulations to devolve to the worst standard of regulations. California regulators--yes, I am talking about you. Yet the bill before us grandfathers in California's overbearing regulations. It only prevents them from getting worse. But everyone must realize that this bill also preempts friendly States, such as Texas and Louisiana, from continuing to be friendly States. As Federal regulations gradually or quickly grow, Texas and Louisiana will no longer be able to veto the excesses of Washington. Regulations that would never pass the Texas or Louisiana State Legislature will see limited opposition in Washington. Don't believe me? Come and see me in Kentucky and see the devastation the EPA has wrought in my State. So why in the world would businesses come to Washington and want to be regulated? Nothing perplexes me more or makes me madder than when businesses come to Washington to lobby for regulations. Unfortunately, it is becoming the norm, not the exception. Lately, the call to federalize regulations has become a cottage industry for companies to come to Washington and beg for Federal regulations to supersede troublesome State regulations. It seems like every day businesses come to my office to complain about regulatory abuse, and then they come back later in the day and say: Oh, and by the way, can you vote for Federal regulations on my business because the State regulations are killing me? But then a few years later, they come back--the same businesses--and they complain that the regulatory agencies are ratcheting up the regulations. Food distributors clamor for Federal regulations on labeling. Restaurants advocate for national menu standards. Now that we have Federal standards, lo and behold, we also have Federal menu crimes. You can be imprisoned in America for posting the wrong calorie count on your menu. I am not making this up. You can be put in prison for putting down the wrong calorie count. We have to be wary of giving more power to the Federal legislature. With this bill, chemical companies lobby for Federal regulations to preempt State legislation. None of them seem concerned that the Federal regulations will preempt not only aggressive regulatory States, such as California, but also market-oriented States, friendly States, such as Texas and Louisiana. So the less onerous Federal regulations may initially preempt overly zealous regulatory States, but when the Federal regulations evolve into a more onerous standard, which they always have, there will no longer be any State laboratories left to exercise freedom. Texas and Louisiana will no longer be free to host chemical companies as the Federal agencies ratchet higher. Proponents of the bill will say: Well, Texas and Louisiana can opt out; there is a waiver. Guess who has to approve the waiver. The head of the EPA. Anybody know of a recent head of the EPA friendly to business who will give them a waiver on a Federal regulation? It won't work. The pro-regulation business community argues that they are being overwhelmed by State regulations, and I don't disagree. But what can be done short of federalizing regulations? What about charging more in the States that have the costly regulations? In Vermont, they have mandated GMO labeling, which will cost a fortune. Either quit selling to them or jack up the price to make them pay for the labeling. Do you think the Socialists in Vermont might reconsider their laws if they have to pay $2 more for a Coke or for a Pepsi to pay for the absurd labeling? What could chemical companies do to fight overzealous regulatory States? What they already do--move to friendly States. If California inappropriately regulates your chemicals, charge them more and by all means, move. Get the heck out of California. Come to Kentucky. We would love to have your business. What these businesses that favor federalization of regulation fail to understand is that the history of Federal regulations is a dismal one. Well-intended, limited regulations morph into ill-willed, expansive, and intrusive regulations. What these businesses fail to grasp is that while States like California and Vermont may pass burdensome, expensive regulations, other States, like Texas, Tennessee, and Kentucky, are relative havens for business. When businesses plead for Federal regulations to supersede ill-conceived regulations in California and Vermont, they fail to understand that once regulations are centralized, the history of regulations in Washington is only to grow. Just witness regulations in banking and health care. Does anyone remember ever seeing a limited, reasonable Federal standard that stayed limited and reasonable? It is not new in Washington for businesses to lobby to be regulated. Some hospitals advocated for ObamaCare and now complain that it is bankrupting them. Some small banks advocated for Dodd-Frank regulations, and now they complain the regulators are assaulting them as well. The bill before us gives the Administrator of the EPA the power to decide at a later date how to and to what extent he or she will regulate the chemical industry. In fact, more than 100 times this bill leaves the discretionary authority to the EPA to make decisions on creating new rules; 100 times it says the Administrator of the EPA shall at a later date decide how to regulate. That is a blank check to the EPA. It is a mistake. Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to how many pages of regulations will come from this bill? The current Code of Federal Regulations is 237 volumes and more than 178,000 pages. If ObamaCare is any guide, it will be at least 20 pages of regulations for every page of legislation. Using the ObamaCare standard, this bill will give us nearly 2,000 pages of regulations. ObamaCare was about 1,000 pages. The regulations from ObamaCare have morphed into nearly 20,000 pages. It is not hard to see how this bill, which requires review of more than 85,000 chemicals now on the market, could quickly eclipse that lofty total. No one disputes that this bill increases the power of the EPA. This is an important point. No one disputes that this bill increases the power of the EPA. No one disputes that this bill transfers power from the States to the Federal Government. The National Journal recognizes and describes this bill as granting extensive new authority to the EPA. If you don't think that is a problem, come to Kentucky and meet the 16,000 people in my State who have lost their jobs because of the overregulatory nature of the EPA. Ask them what they think of Hillary Clinton's plan to continue putting coal miners out of business in my State. Ask them what they think of granting extensive new authority to the EPA. Look these coal miners in the face and tell them to trust you and that your bill will not increase EPA's power. Tell them to trust you. Is there anything in the recent history of regulatory onslaught that indicates a reasonable Federal standard will remain reasonable? When starting out, everybody says that they are going to preempt these terrible States like California. It is going to preempt California and Vermont and all of these terrible liberal States, and it will be a low level. Business was involved so business has made it a low and easy standard for chemicals. It will be ratcheted up because regulations never get better; they always get worse. I rise today to oppose granting new power to the EPA. I wish we were here today to do the opposite--to vote to restrain the EPA and make sure that they balance regulations and jobs. I wish we were here today to vote for the REINS Act that requires new regulations to be voted on by Congress before they become enforceable. Instead, this legislation will inevitably add hundreds of new regulations. I rise today to oppose this bill because it preempts the Constitution's intentions for the Federal Government. I rise today to oppose this bill because the recent history of the EPA is one that has shown no balance, no quarter, and no concern for thousands of Kentuckians they have put out of work. I rise today to oppose this bill because I can't in good conscience, as a Kentuckian, vote to make the Federal EPA stronger. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield my time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, one of the pledges I made to the people of Kentucky when I came here is that I would read the bills. This bill came here on Tuesday. It is 180 pages long. It involves new criminalization--new crimes that will be created at the Federal level. It includes preemption of States. It includes a new Federal regime which would basically supersede regulations--or lack of regulations--in Louisiana or Texas or Oklahoma. I think it deserves to be read, to be understood, and to be debated, so I object to just rushing this through and saying: Oh, you can't read the bill. I told people--everybody involved in this--I just want to read the bill. We have been working on it now for 2 days, looking at the bill. We have been talking to people who worked on the bill. Is it not unreasonable to ask that we have time to read a bill? Here is the other problem: Every day in my office, business comes into my office. And what do they say? We are regulated to death. We are sick and tired of regulators from the executive branch who are out of control. So what does this bill do? It takes the power away from the States and creates a new Federal regulatory regime. Here is the whole problem: People are now saying ``Please regulate us,'' and when they get overregulated, they say ``Please stop overregulating us.'' We should think through how we are going to do things around here. We should take the time to read the bills. We should take the time to understand the bills. I will continue to object until we have had time to look at the bill thoroughly. With that, I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise today to offer the largest, most sweeping anti-poverty legislation since LBJ began the War on Poverty. This legislation, if passed, would return $100 billion to areas of poverty and high unemployment in our country--areas that have been devastated by chronic unemployment and poverty. Communities like Eastern Kentucky that have been devastated by the President's war on coal would be rescued. Communities like Flint, MI, where the water is unsafe to drink, would be restored. Communities like Ferguson, the South Side of Chicago, and the West End of Louisville would be given a chance to find the American dream if this legislation is passed. My legislation is not a gift or a grant; my legislation simply allows $100 billion to remain in the hands of those who earned it. My legislation will provide incentive for businesses and capital to return to areas overwhelmed by chronic poverty and unemployment. We are just past the 50-year mark on the War on Poverty. Sadly, 50 years later, we are still fighting that war, and every one of our States still has areas of high unemployment and poverty. I think it is time we try something different: an approach that harnesses the ingenuity and the hard work of individuals, families, and businesses in our most afflicted communities; an approach that invites new investment to these communities; an approach that is free from government bailouts and bureaucrats picking winners and losers; an approach that provides hope and opportunity. Economic freedom zones will be the largest anti-poverty program since the War on Poverty. Economic freedom zones are areas of reduced taxes and reduced regulations that increase incentives for business to come into these poor communities. This is about much more than a government stimulus or a handout. This legislation will empower communities by leveraging the human capital, natural resources, and business investment opportunities that already exist. Reducing taxes in economically distressed areas is a stimulus that will work because the money is returned to businesses and individuals who have already proved they can succeed. This isn't government picking whom to give the money to; this is returning the money to those who have earned it and trying to get those businesses to expand. Cities and counties will be designated as ``economic freedom zones'' if local unemployment is 50 percent above the national average or if poverty is 30 percent above the national average. Localities that are bankrupt--such as Detroit or Flint--or are in danger of bankruptcy are also eligible in order to attract new investment and economic activity that will help shore up the local finances without the need for a bailout. By slashing the Federal tax rate to 5 percent for a 10-year period, we can finally incentivize more businesses to locate in our struggling communities and provide more jobs and opportunities. My plan leaves the hard-earned dollars of those of the community right there in the community. Instead of sending your money to Washington and begging to get some back, we leave it in your community to stimulate job production and economic growth in your community. It doesn't come to Washington, where politicians often pick the winners and losers; it stays with the community, where the consumers decide who succeeds. Economic freedom zones will work where Big Government has failed because the money will remain in the hands of people whom local consumers have voted most able to run a business. Whereas big government programs often send money to people who are unable to run a business, who have no proven track record--think of Solyndra; we gave $500 million to people who didn't have a good business plan--economic freedom zones return the money to businesses and the individuals who have already proved they can run a successful business. The President's big government stimulus plan was funded by debt. It didn't work because government always fails to identify profitable uses for capital, whereas returning capital to those who originally earned it will provide a stimulus that is exponentially bigger. In the eastern part of Kentucky, this legislation would provide over half a billion dollars each year in much needed capital. In West Louisville, this legislation would provide an annual infusion of over $200 million. More importantly, this legislation will provide hope and opportunity where very little optimism currently exists. For Detroit, it would mean that an extra $368 million stays in Detroit, in the hands of the families who earned it, and it will be spent locally. Businesses that have demonstrated success will be able to hire new employees. Businesses that move to the area and hire employees will be able to take advantage of these low tax rates and will be welcomed and encouraged to come to the community by the attraction of these low tax rates. Flint--a city you see in the news every day--which is struggling even to keep clean water, will see an immediate cash infusion of $124 million if my bill were to pass. As business returns to Flint, as the local economy begins to grow, so too will the ability of local government to finance their infrastructure. This legislation will help the city's economy recover and its families have more of their own money to spend on their own needs. We skip the middleman. Don't send the money to Washington. If you want to help poor communities in our country, leave the money there. Skip the middleman; don't send to it Washington. Economic freedom zones will mean an extra $452 million a year left in Baltimore and $1.5 billion left in Chicago. These economic effects will be real and will be felt immediately. Economic freedom zones will also provide other reforms that set the stage for medium- and long-term growth. We will lift some of the most anti-growth regulatory burdens. We will allow Federal permitting for construction projects. We will allow this permitting process to be streamlined so we can rebuild our cities. Regulations that artificially drive up labor costs so public projects cost 20 percent, 30 percent more than private projects--we will eliminate these rules to allow your tax dollars to go further. We will also encourage foreign investment to bring jobs back to these chronic areas of poverty and unemployment. Outside investment into local education and social services will be encouraged. To set the stage for continuous growth and opportunity for the next generation, educational reforms will allow parents to move their children out of failing schools and into the school of their choice. The War on Poverty has been going on for over 50 years, and it often seems as though poverty is winning. They say the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Big government programs have not cured poverty. In fact, some would argue they have made it worse. Isn't it time we tried something different? Today the Senate will have a chance to try something different. Today the Senate will have an opportunity to begin the rebuilding of America. I urge my colleagues to vote for economic freedom zones. I yield the floor.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, Jack Kemp and others who have looked at and examined the issue of poverty have often found that we have not done a great job alleviating poverty. We have tried government programs. In my State, we tried them in rural Appalachia for 40 years. Yet we still have persistent poverty. Many of us believe we would have a better chance with poverty if we would lower taxes in these areas, lessen regulation, and instead of sending the money to Washington, leave it where the poverty is. My amendment alone would leave half a billion dollars in Eastern Kentucky, $200 million in Louisville. We have had much discussion of Flint, MI, and the water problem there. My amendment would leave $124 million in Flint, MI, next week. My amendment would leave over $1 billion in Detroit. If there are those in this body who can come together and say we have a unified presence and a unified ability and desire to combat poverty, this is the amendment to do it. It is called economic freedom zones. I hope we will get bipartisan support in favor of leaving money in these impoverished communities to help them get started again. Thank you.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment, No. 3787, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3787.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the American taxpayers being forced to pay for fighter jets for Pakistan. Over $300 million from the American taxpayers will be designated to go to Pakistan to pay for eight new F-16s for Pakistan. We have a lot of problems here in our country, my friends. We have a lot of things going on in our country that need to be taken care of, and we don't have enough money to be sending it to Pakistan. I can't in good conscience look away as America crumbles at home and politicians tax us to send the money to corrupt and duplicitous regimes abroad. When I travel across Kentucky and I see the look of despair in the eyes of out-of-work coal miners, when I see the anguish in the faces of those who live in constant poverty, I wonder why the establishment of both parties continues to send our money overseas to countries that take our money, take our arms, and laugh in our faces. We have given $15 billion to Pakistan--$15 billion over the last decade--yet their previous President admits that Pakistan armed, aided, and abetted the Taliban. You remember the Taliban in Afghanistan that harbored and hosted bin Laden for a decade? Pakistan helped them. Pakistan was one of only two countries that recognized the Taliban. Why in the world would we be taxing the American people to send this money to Pakistan? Remember when bin Laden escaped? We chased him and he escaped. Where did he go? To Pakistan. He lived for a decade in Pakistan. Where? About a mile away from their military academy. Somehow they missed him. There in a 15-foot-high walled compound, bin Laden stayed in Pakistan while we funneled billions upon billions of dollars to them. Pakistan to this day is said to look away, to not look at the Haqqani network. In fact, it is accused that many members of their government are complicit with the Haqqani network. Who is the Haqqani network? It is a network of terrorists who kill Americans. We have American soldiers dying at the hands of Pakistani terrorists while that government looks the other way. GEN John F. Campbell testified before Congress that the Haqqani network remains the most capable threat to U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Yet we are asked to send F-16s and good money after bad to a government in Pakistan that looks the other way. Pakistan is, at best, a frenemy--part friend and a lot enemy. If Pakistan truly wants to be our ally, if Pakistan truly wants to help in the war on radical Islam, it should not require a bribe; it should not require the American taxpayer to subsidize arms sales. They already have 70 F-16s. They have an air force of F-16s. What would happen if we didn't send them eight more that we are being asked to pay for? Maybe they would listen. Maybe they would help us. Maybe they would be an honest broker in the fight against terrorism. We are $19 trillion in debt. We borrow $1 million a minute. We don't have any money to send to Pakistan to bribe them to buy planes from us. We don't have the money. We have problems at home. Our infrastructure crumbles at home. We have longstanding poverty at home. We have problems in America, and we can't afford to borrow the money from China to send it to Pakistan. In my State, in Kentucky, we have a dozen counties with unemployment nearly double the national rate. In Magoffin County, KY, 12.5 percent of people are out of work. Today, those who will vote to send money to Pakistan need to come with me to Kentucky. They need to come to Magoffin County, and they need to look people in the face who are out of work in America and explain to them why we should send money to Pakistan. We have people hurting here at home. In Harlan, the President's war on coal has led to longstanding double-digit unemployment. In Harlan, KY, people are out of work. People live in poverty, and they don't understand why Congress is sending money to Pakistan. In Leslie County, high unemployment prompts their citizens to ask: Why? Why is the government spending billions of dollars for advanced fighter jets for foreigners? They don't understand it. They can't understand, when they live from day to day, why their government is sending money to Pakistan. As I travel around Kentucky, I ask my constituents: Should America send money and arms to a country that persecutes Christians? I have yet to meet a single voter who wants their tax dollars going to countries that persecute Christians. In Pakistan, it is the law; it is in their Constitution that if you criticize the state religion, you can be put to death. Asia Bibi has been on death row for nearly 5 years. Asia Bibi is a Christian. Her crime? She went to the well to draw water, and the villagers began to stone her. They beat her with sticks until she was bleeding. They continued to stone her as they chanted ``Death, death to the Christian.'' The police finally arrived, and she thought she had been saved, only to be arrested by the Pakistani police. There she sits on death row for 5 years. Is it an ally? Is it a civilized nation that puts Christians to death for criticizing the state religion? I defy any Member of this body to go home and talk to the first voter. Go outside the Beltway. Leave Congress and drive outside the Beltway and stop at the first gas station or stop at the first grocery store and ask anybody--Republican, Democrat, or Independent: Should we be sending money to a country that persecutes Christians? Asia Bibi sits on death row for criticizing the state religion, and your money goes to support her government. What will happen to Pakistan if they don't get eight more F-16s? They will have only 70 F-16s. Most of the politicians here simply don't care. They don't care whether Pakistan persecutes Christians. They know only one way. The one way is to open our wallet and bleed us dry and hope that someday Pakistan will change its behavior. Guess what. If you are not strong enough to vote for this resolution, if you think some kind of cajoling, flattery, and nice talk with empty words are going to change the behavior of Pakistan, you have another thought coming. It has been going on for decades. When I forced a vote in the Foreign Relations Committee to say that countries which put Christians to death for criticizing the state religion--there are about 34 of these countries, a couple of dozen of them who received money from us, American tax dollars going to countries that persecute Christians. When I introduced the amendment to say: Guess what. Let's not do it anymore. Any country that has a law that compels a Christian and puts a Christian to death, that country would no longer receive our money. Do you know what the vote was? It was 18 to 2 from Washington politicians to keep sending good money after bad because they say: Oh, the moderates there are going to change their minds someday. We have given them $15 billion, and I see no evidence of change in behavior. I see insolence, arrogance, and people who laugh as they cash our checks. Is Pakistan our ally in the War on Terror? Well, not only did they help the Taliban that hosted Bin Laden for a decade, but when they finally got Bin Laden, we got him with evidence that was given to us by a doctor in Pakistan. His name is Shakil Afridi. Where is he now? Pakistan has locked him away in a dark, dank prison from which he will probably never be released. Shakil Afridi has essentially been given a life sentence by Pakistan for the crime of helping the United States and helping all civilized nations get to Bin Laden. He sat under the noses of the Pakistani Government for a decade. We finally got him when Shakil Afridi helped us. People aren't going to continue to help America if we don't help them, if we don't protect our human intelligence, if we don't protect those who are willing to help America. He sits and rots in a prison. What message do we send to Pakistan if we send them eight more F-16s and we tell you, the American taxpayer, you are paying for it? What message does that send to Pakistan? The message to Pakistan is that we will just keep thumbing our nose at America, we will keep cashing their checks, and we will laugh all the way to the bank as we do nothing to release the Christians on death row or to release the doctor who helped us. Should we give planes to a country that imprisons these heroes-- heroes who helped and put their lives on the line for our country? Today we will vote on whether the American taxpayers should foot the bill. I have yet to meet a voter in my State of Kentucky or across America who thinks it is a good idea to send more money to Pakistan. We have a $19-trillion debt. We borrow $1 million a minute. We have no money. It is not even a surplus. They say we are going to influence Pakistan or they may rise up and say: Oh, the resolution will not stop the money. The heck it will not. If my resolution passes, if it becomes law, the eight jets will not go to Pakistan, they will not be subsidized, and not one penny of American tax dollars will go to Pakistan. That is the absolute truth. No matter what they tell you, this stops the sale. It stops the subsidy. We have to borrow money from China to send it to Pakistan. Such a policy is insane and supported by no one outside of Washington. You go anywhere in America and ask them: Should we give money? Should the taxpayer be forced to give money to Pakistan, a country that persecutes Christians? Nobody is for it. Yet the vast and out-of-touch establishment in Washington continues to do it. Is it any wonder that people are unhappy with Washington? Is it any wonder that Americans are sick and tired of the status quo, sick and tired of people not listening to them? We have no money in the Treasury. We are all out of money. This influences nothing, other than to tell the Pakistanis they can continue doing what they want. I urge my colleagues to vote against subsidized sales of fighter jets to Pakistan. I reserve the remainder of my time. Can the Chair tell me how much time I have remaining?

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 31, relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Pakistan.

Mr. PAUL. So I have 16 remaining?

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, for some time now power has been gravitating from the legislature to the President. Many in Congress, including myself, have been critical of the President's overreach. However, Congress bears some of the responsibility and some of the blame in that this body continues to abdicate and transfer our power to the President. Nowhere is this more obvious than in foreign policy. During the debate over the Iranian agreement to end sanctions, many congressional voices lamented that these sanctions were enacted by Congress and should not be unilaterally ended by the President without congressional approval. As many observers noted, Congress has only itself to blame. For decades now, Congress has granted the President national security waivers to just about anything. These allow the Executive to do what they want, to terminate sanctions or continue spending without any new vote of Congress. A good example was when Egypt was overtaken by a military regime. This was not a democratic government. This became a military junta. Our laws on foreign aid said Egypt should no longer receive foreign aid if they are not a democratically elected government. Yet the President continues to give foreign aid to Egypt because he simply uses a waiver we wrote into the legislation. It is a mistake to continue to grant so much power to the Presidency, and by doing so, we have abdicated our own power. For decades now, Congress has granted the President national security waivers on just about everything. The waivers are so flimsy and open-ended that all he has to do is write a report, claim that it affects national security, and then he can do whatever he wants. Congress then complains that the President is overreaching. Yet we give him that very power. Looking back at the North Korean sanctions, we find that President Clinton removed sanctions by using the national security waiver that Congress provided him. Furthermore, about a decade later, President George W. Bush did the same thing, relieving sanctions against North Korea by taking advantage of national security waivers. When we jump ahead to the Iran agreement, we find President Obama using national security waivers provided by Congress to unilaterally repeal Iranian sanctions without congressional authority. In fact, President Obama has utilized congressionally provided loopholes 40 times to remove Iranian sanctions. Everybody complains, and now we are going to do the same thing. We are going to write a sanction bill with the exact same boilerplate language that we had in previous sanctions bills, which will allow the President the leeway to end the sanctions if he desires. When we fast-forward to these new North Korean sanctions before us, the new sanctions bill does exactly what previous sanction bills have done; namely, provide the President with the power to simply claim any nonspecific national security claim to waive sanctions. Congressional critics of the President's use of national security waivers to end Iranian sanctions should decide now that they have no leg to stand on should a future President do the exact same thing with North Korean sanctions and decide to remove them without congressional approval. There are two examples of that--Clinton has already done this, and so did George W. Bush. I propose that Congress take back their power. I propose that Congress not cede power to the Presidency, so I therefore ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment numbered 3301, which is at the desk. My amendment would remove national security waivers and give Congress its power back where it belongs.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Well, the unanimous consent would be to have 5 extra minutes and to give the Senator as much time as he needs to conclude.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to secrecy. I rise today in support of auditing the Federal Reserve. I rise in opposition to the lack of accountability at the Reserve, an institution that has for too long been shrouded in secrecy. The objective of the Federal Reserve Transparency Act is simple: to protect the interests of the average American by finding out where hundreds of billions' worth of our dollars are going. The Federal Reserve has the ability to create new money and to spend it on whatever financial assets it wants, whenever it wants, while giving the new money to whichever banks it wants. Yet if the average Joe and Jane from Main Street printed their own money, they would be imprisoned as counterfeiters. Nowhere else but in Washington, DC, would you find an institution with so much unchecked power. Creating new money naturally lowers interest rates, or the price of using money. Put another way, the Federal Reserve's unchecked printing press creates a price control on the cost of using money. Throughout our country's history, price controls have never worked, and the Fed's price control on interest rates has also not worked. Think back to the housing bubble. Artificially low interest rates led to many individuals buying, selling, and investing in the housing industry. This in turn led prices to soar, which ultimately led the economy to spiral down to the great recession of 2008. Since the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed has increased its balance sheet from less than $1 trillion to over $4 trillion. Although the Fed has created trillions of new dollars, it has become apparent that most of this money is not finding its way into the hands of average Americans. From 2009 to 2012, the incomes of the top 1 percent increased by a whopping 31 percent, while everyone else's income increased by only 0.4 percent. The reason for this is simple: Big banks, corporations, and government entities receive the Federal Reserve's money long before anyone else, and they bid up the price of assets before any of the rest of us can get to purchase them. Former Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh once referred to the Fed's easy-money policies as the reverse Robin Hood effect. ``If you have access to credit--if you've got a big balance sheet--the Fed has made you richer,'' he said in an interview. ``This is a way to make the well-to-do even more well-to-do.'' The side effect of this uneven distribution of money is painfully apparent to anyone who shops at a grocery store. Over the past 15 years, the price of white bread has increased by over 50 percent, while the price of eggs has more than doubled. The cost of housing has also appreciated significantly in many areas. When adjusting for inflation, the price of housing in San Francisco has increased by 58 percent over just 25 years. Real household income for regular Americans has declined 10 percent over the past 15 years. Higher rent and higher grocery bills cause low- income workers to incur more loans and credit card debt, which involve far higher interest rates than what the banks and Wall Street are currently paying. These low-income workers do not get the luxury of receiving the Fed's newly created money first, nor do they have the luxury of receiving the near-zero interest rates the wealthy do. As a result, one thing is for certain: The Fed's price control on interest rates acts as a hidden tax on the less well-to-do. The Fed also exacerbates income inequality by paying large commercial banks $12 billion in interest. This is a departure from nearly a century of practice. While individual savers earn practically no interest, the big banks are given $12 billion per year in interest. There often is a revolving door between the Fed, the Treasury, and Wall Street. It is a revolving door in a building that is all too eager to enrich big banks and asset holders at the expense of everyone else. I think it is about time we pull back the curtain to uncover this cloak of secrecy once and for all. Who is receiving the loans from the Fed today? To whom is the Fed paying interest? Are there any conflicts of interest about how these payments are determined? Are there any checks and balances on the size of these payments? The Federal Reserve Act actually forbids the Fed from buying some of the troubled assets they bought in 2008; yet they did it anyway. Given all of these unanswered questions and given the sharp increase in the risk of the Fed's balance sheet, it is unquestionably necessary for the Fed to be audited more thoroughly than it has been in the past. Audit the Fed is just 3 pages long, and it simply says that the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, which is a nonpartisan, apolitical agency in charge--that they be allowed to audit the Fed, a full and thorough audit. Currently the GAO is not allowed to audit the Fed's monetary policy deliberations or the Fed's Open Market Committee transactions. The GAO was also forbidden from reviewing agreements with foreign central banks. During the downturn in 2008, trillions of dollars were spent, much of it or quite a bit of it on foreign banks, and we are not allowed to know what occurred, to whom it was given, and for what purpose. The Fed audit in its current form is virtually futile. When these restrictions were added to the audit in the 1970s, the GAO testified before Congress, saying: ``We do not see how we can satisfactorily audit the Federal Reserve System without the authority to examine [its] largest single category of financial transactions and assets. . . . '' To grasp just how limited the current audit is, recall that in 2009 Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson asked then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke which foreign countries received $500 billion in loans from the Fed. Bernanke was unwilling to name which countries or banks received half a trillion dollars' worth of funds. That is right. The Feds swapped half a trillion dollars to foreign countries in secret and did not even have the decency, under testimony before Congress, to report the details. But it gets worse. Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders asked Bernanke: Who received $2.2 trillion that the Fed lent out during the financial crisis? Again, Bernanke refused to give an answer. In the 2011 Dodd-Frank law, Congress ordered a limited, one-time GAO audit of Fed actions. During the financial crisis, that audit uncovered that the Fed lent out over $16 trillion to domestic and foreign banks during the financial crisis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an extra 5 minutes.

Mr. PAUL. I would be happy to ask unanimous consent for equal time.

Mr. PAUL. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that it is absurd that we do not know where hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of our money is going. In fact, last year my audit the Fed bill received the support of nearly every Republican in the House and over 100 Democrats. Some say an audit will politicize the Fed. I find this claim odd given the support of both sides of the aisle for the bill. The GAO is nonpartisan, independent, and works for Congress. It does not lean Republican or Democratic, and it is not interested in influencing policy. I can't seem to understand how a simple check by the GAO to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest will politicize anything. Instead of criticizing a standard audit, though, maybe the individuals who work at the Fed and within our central bank should begin curbing their own actions. Unlike the actions of current Fed officials, my bipartisan bill will not politicize anything. I simply want the Fed overseen to ensure that our central bank isn't picking favorites, and I want to ensure that it remains solvent. Like every agency, the Federal Reserve was created by Congress and is supposed to be overseen by Congress. Auditing the Fed should not be a partisan issue. Regardless of one's monetary policy views, regardless of whether one thinks interest rates should be higher or lower, everyone can and should agree that for the sake of the country's economic well-being, we need to know what has been going on behind the Federal Reserve's cloak of secrecy. It is time we quit this guessing game. It is time we audit the Federal Reserve once and for all to restore transparency to our Nation's checkbook.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2915.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.