Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL. I yield back all time on the amendment.

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3352 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL. I yield back. Vote on Amendment No. 3352

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, once again, we are asked to extend the flood program without any reforms to protect the taxpayers. Like many Federal programs, the flood program is well-intentioned, but it may very well be the best real-life example of a moral hazard. The program covers about 5 million policyholders and provides over $1 trillion in coverage. We were told that the program is funded through insurance premiums. But charging below the market price on insurance and capping how much these rates can rise inevitably has led to shortfalls. They are out of money. They are always out of money. A 2014 report by the Government Accountability Office found that the flood program collected as much as $17 billion fewer in premiums than the market would have demanded. So when the program inevitably found itself in need of money, it, in theory, ``borrowed'' from the taxpayers--not that the taxpayers had any choice in the matter. As they often are, they were on the hook regardless of whether we want to be or not. Just a few years ago, the flood program owed over $30 billion to the taxpayers. Congress later just canceled that debt. Poof, it is gone. It disappeared. But the flood program has not made any further repayments to the taxpayers and today still owes over $20 billion in debt. So the taxpayers are expected to cough up money whenever the program needs it, but the program doesn't seem to be in a hurry to pay the taxpayers back. But perhaps the greatest insult to the taxpayers is the lack of true limits on this delinquent program. There are no limits on how many claims can be filed or how much money can be received by a policyholder filing multiple claims. Rather than encourage people to leave flood- prone areas, it encourages people to stay and rebuild where it continues to flood. In thousands of instances, the program encourages people to rebuild and rebuild and rebuild again. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, over 150,000 properties have been rebuilt over and over again. They say the definition of insanity is doing things over and over again and never understanding you are doing the wrong thing. In fact, 25 to 30 percent of flood program claims are made by policyholders whose properties flood time and time again. Over 2,000 properties have flooded over than 10 times. We bail them out every time. One home in Batchelor, LA, flooded 40 times and received a total of $428,000 in flood insurance payments. It doesn't seem like we are learning our lesson. It doesn't seem like that is encouraging good building behavior. It is encouraging the opposite. If you can believe it, that isn't even the most times a house has been paid for. In Virginia, one home flooded 41 times and received more than $600,000 in payments. It is argued, no matter how much a home is worth, that the Federal Government will only cover the first $350,000 in flood insurance coverage--$250,000 for the structure, another $100,000 for the contents. That is true. But the $350,000 limit is only applied per event. That is how you wind up with a home that floods 40 times and gets paid over $400,000. What if the home that flooded 40 times was paid 350,000 times? What if it is a $10 million home, and it has $300,000 worth of damage 40 times? That would mean the policyholder would receive $14 million from the government program. It was also mentioned during previous debates that there really isn't a private flood insurance market. Well, there is a private insurance market that will cover beyond $350,000. Rich people use the government to insure their beach house up to 350, and then they buy private insurance on top of that. So there is a market and would be a market at whatever number we set. The government flood program is a disaster for many reasons, but chief among them is that it crowds out the private market for the first $350,000 in losses. That is why the private flood insurance market is so small. Madam President, $350,000 coverage per event may be enough for most people, but instead of allowing private markets to work, the government has put the primary responsibility of flood losses on taxpayers. Can you imagine having to withstand the ordeal of your home flooding 10, 20, or 40 times? Well, the taxpayers do not have to imagine paying to rebuild the same home time and time again because that is the reality of the current program. Adding insult to injury, the Congressional Budget Office found that the flood program tends to benefit the wealthy and that 23 percent of the subsidized coastal properties were not even the policy's primary residence. So one out of five homes that the taxpayer--people who don't live on the gulf shore, people who don't live on the Atlantic coast, people who don't live on the Pacific Ocean--people who live in Middle America are insuring the second homes of rich people. One in five of the homes being insured are rich people. Ordinary taxpayers in Kansas or Kentucky are asked to pay for the insurance for the second home of rich people. How in the world would that make any sense? The government forces the taxpayers to pay and rebuild the elite summer homes of the rich. It is estimated that the national average replacement cost of homes in government flood insurance programs--that these homes are valued at over $400,000. So the average home of this government program that is supposed to help the poor--the average home that we are insuring, that the government is insuring--is worth over $400,000, and it is people's second house. How in the world is that something we should keep borrowing billions and billions of dollars to insure rich people's homes? In fact, sometimes it seems the flood program caters directly to the wealthy. Nearly 80 percent of the flood program's policies are located in counties that rank within the top 20 percent of income. Enough is enough. It is an insult to rob the taxpayers to give to the wealthy. This is why I offered an amendment that would require the flood program to only cover your primary residence. So if this is your only house and for some misbegotten reason you have to keep building in a flood zone, you would be eligible. If it is your beach house, you are not eligible. If it is your second house, you wouldn't be eligible. We also might put a cap on it. We might say: Well, if you have more than a half-a-million-dollar house, you have to buy your own insurance; the government doesn't pay for that. These are reasonable amendments, reasonable reforms, reasonable changes that have been offered for years and never get done because people come with the song and dance of people needing help and we must help people, but nobody ever says: Are some of these people, people who should be helping themselves? And that is why it is always bankrupt. So what I would recommend is that my amendment be added to this bill. We can reauthorize the program. We can re-fund it. But we would now limit who it goes to. The money would not go to homes over $500,000, and it would have to be your primary home, not your second home. To me, that is a modest proposal. It won't fix the whole thing, but it is very, very reasonable. So I will offer that today. If the Senator from Louisiana wants to pass this tonight, we can pass it tonight. All he has to do is agree to my amendment. No one is here to object. It is a unanimous consent arrangement. He can agree right now. We will pass it. The program will, from now on, exclude people with homes over half a million, and it will exclude people where it is their second beach house. How reasonable is that? He can do it tonight. So, therefore, I ask the Senator to modify his request so that the Paul amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, let the record show that what I have offered is a way to limit government insurance to regular people of modest income but to say rich people with beach houses shouldn't have government-subsidized insurance. The program costs billions of dollars. It is $30, $40, $50 billion in the hole, anyway you want to measure it. Something has got to be done. What would those reforms be? What would the most obvious reform be for a flood program that is billions of dollars in the hole? Why don't you tell rich people: Buy your own insurance. Does that mean I don't like rich people? No. Probably nobody in this body more appreciates success and people who work hard and make a good living--nothing against that, other than we shouldn't give them free stuff. I mean, I am all for them. If you have got a yacht, invite me over. But I am not for buying insurance for your yacht with taxpayer money. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate that you are wealthy and you have got a yacht. I will ride on your yacht. I will come to your party. But I am not going to buy your insurance with the taxpayer money, which is billions of dollars in the hole with this just one program. The whole government is $2 trillion in the hole. So let the record reflect that I offered to amend this program, let it go on, and we exclude only the homes of people who have homes-- second homes--over $500,000. And that was rejected. So I have another offer. This will be the second amendment, and this offer will be, if $500,000 for your second home means you are still poor and you need help from the government, what about if your second home costs $2 million or more, should we buy your insurance? Should the government subsidize your insurance? So I brought along a couple of pictures, and these are pictures of some people that you might have heard of their homes. This is President Biden's home in Rehoboth Beach, DE. It is worth $2,700,000, and, yes, it is eligible for government insurance. Does anybody think we should be buying insurance for President Biden's home? Let's see what else we have. Oh, Nicholas Cage--boy, that is a nice house--4.2 million, in New Orleans, also eligible for government insurance. Look, I love Nicholas Cage. I would go to parties at his house too. I love his movies. I would pay 20 bucks to go to the movies. Actually, I don't want to pay 20 bucks. I would pay to go see his movies, but I don't think we should buy insurance for his home. If he can get a $4.2 million home, I bet you he can buy his own insurance. Let's see who else is eligible for government insurance. Oh, Matt Damon--he has had a lot of good movies. Man, he must be doing great. His place costs $20 million, and it is eligible for government insurance too. Do you think Matt Damon would be embarrassed to find out that the government is subsidizing his first $250,000? Shouldn't we all be embarrassed? The program is $16 billion in the hole, and we want to renew a program without any reforms. Just keep doing it. Keep losing money. Just keep doing the same thing. Maybe Matt Damon can buy his own insurance. Who else has a house that would be eligible for insurance? Oh, Phil Collins--he made some good music. He must have made some great music. His home is worth $40 million, in Biscayne Bay, FL, also eligible for government insurance. So I can't imagine how we couldn't come to a compromise. So if ordinary people have second homes that are $500,000 beach homes, if we just went up to $2 million, then we are only going to be clipping Phil Collins and Nicholas Cage and a few others. Do we have anybody else? Let's see who else we have. Oh, now Cher, she has been doing well for a long time. She has a $42 million place in Miami Beach, also eligible for government insurance. You know, we could go on and on. But the thing is, this doesn't mean we don't like rich people or appreciate their success. I am all for it. I am just not for giving them free stuff. Why would we give them subsidized insurance? So what I will offer now is a second amendment, and this one might be easier to accept. And realize that this could be accepted right now. This entire program could be reauthorized with these amendments tonight if the Senator from Louisiana will accept this amendment. This amendment would say that if your house is worth more than $2 million, and it is your second home, that it wouldn't be eligible for government insurance. That would be pretty easy. You know, it still would have significant savings, because there are quite a few homes out there. And do you think they would figure out a place to buy insurance? Sure, they would. A market would develop immediately. So therefore I ask the Senator to modify his request so that the Paul amendment at the desk, the second Paul amendment, be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the argument is made that this is not a gift; this is not subsidized insurance. Well, if it weren't subsidized insurance and if it were a market price for insurance, it wouldn't lose $16 billion a year. By definition, if you lose $16 billion a year, you are not charging enough in premiums, so you have subsidized premiums. This is a subsidized government insurance program that, even with the subsidized premiums, is woefully inadequate. It is accumulating tens of billions of dollars of debt. It is currently $20 billion in the hole. We have a problem here. I haven't really heard how we are going to fix this, and one obvious, easy way would be that people who can afford to should maybe pay the full price for their insurance and maybe not a subsidized price. So I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, well, we have arrived. We are here at last, another government shutdown averted. The government will remain open. I am not sure if that is good news or bad news. People need to know, yes, the government will stay open, and it will not be chaotic. Congress can adjourn, which is probably a good thing when Congress adjourns. But the thing about government staying open is we will pass something called a continued resolution. What does that mean? It means we are resolved to continue, continue as we have for, really, decades. We will continue to spend money, regardless of whether we have it or not. We will continue to spend money at a pace such that we will accumulate about $2 trillion in debt each year; the deficit will be about $2 trillion. Now, the spending is comprised of a lot of different areas. It is about $6.8 trillion in spending, and we bring in about $4.8 trillion in revenue. So it is about a $2 trillion mismatch. A lot of the spending is entitlements, probably two-thirds of the spending is entitlements, but this body refuses to address entitlements, so as part of the continuing spending tonight, keeping government open, all of the entitlements will be taken off board, and there will be no reforms to entitlements, no reduction in spending in entitlements. They will continue growing; some will be about 5 and 6 percent per year. Almost everybody on both sides of the aisle acknowledges that entitlements are the problem; entitlements are driving the debt. What we vote on, people call it a budget, or another word they call it is ``discretionary'' spending. It is about $1.7 trillion or so, about $2 trillion. Of that $2 trillion, about half is military, half is nonmilitary. Well, the military has been taken off the table also, primarily by Republicans, but Democrats are complicit as well. No military spending will be addressed; no waste in the military will be addressed; and the Pentagon will not be audited. They have said for decades the Pentagon needs to be audited, and the Pentagon says: We are too big to be audited. Leave us alone. We are too big. Occasionally, we will find some things, $500 toilet seats or $800 hammers, things like that, but overall, we have no idea where the money is going and neither do they. They sometimes talk about hundreds of millions of dollars really literally missing that they have no idea. But it is taken off the table because the powers that be say that military is sacrosanct, cannot be looked at, and must have increased spending. So all the entitlements are going up. That is two-thirds of $6.8 trillion. The remaining $2 trillion is half military. It is going up, and nobody is looking at it either. So we have discretionary. Nonmilitary discretionary spending is part of the budget also. And we couldn't come to an agreement, other than we are going to be resolved to continue spending at about the pace we are. It will be short term, and that would be bad enough because the spending will accumulate and is accumulating about a $2 trillion deficit. But that is not enough. This has been a horrendous week for fiscal conservatives because we are not going to just continue as we have been doing, continue loading on the debt, we are also adding to it in a dramatic fashion. This week, there will be $330 billion added on to the spending; $200 billion of it will be for Social Security. You say: Well, we should want to help people. Why wouldn't we give people that are senior citizens more money? Well, if we give new people more money, we have to take it from somewhere. We are going to have to either borrow it or we are going to have to print it, but it has to come from somewhere. Money doesn't grow on trees. So $200 billion increase in spending for Social Security. Where is the money going to come from? Now, I will offer an amendment that would pay for it. My amendment would be to raise the age gradually of Social Security 3 months a year for about 12 years, and that would pay for the expansion of benefits. I think that is the only responsible way to do this. You want more benefits for people? You can't just, you know, push the bankruptcy of Social Security and say: Well, yeah, it will go bankrupt in about 9 years, but maybe I won't be here, or maybe I won't be alive, and maybe it will still exist for people. But shouldn't we care about what is going to happen to the future of Social Security? Shouldn't we care about how this is going to be paid for? But it will be interesting to see how the vote is. I suspect I won't win, but we are going to have a vote on gradually raising the age. But here is the rub of how difficult it is and how far behind the eight ball we have become. I proposed this solution 12 years ago, 13 years ago. When I did, it fixed two-thirds of the shortfall. If you raise the age gradually from 67 to 70, about 2 or 3 months a year, it wiped out most of the shortfall and fixed the problem 13 years ago. If you do it now, it only gives us 1 more year of solvency before bankruptcy comes. So we have taken a problem that was eminently fixable a decade ago, and at this point, if we were to do it and my amendment were to pass, it would pay for the expansion, but still the system is going bankrupt because we just keep adding stuff to it. Most people don't realize this, but Social Security actually will give you money no matter what your income is if you have teenage children and one of the parents is over 65. Now, somebody thought up this program and said: Wow, this would be good. We should help out elderly parents that are taking care of teenagers. You can be a billionaire and--I know people who are wealthy whose kids drive Porsches who are getting $1,500 a month for each of their kids because the dad is 65. Why would we do a program that is not based on income at all? Why would we let anybody join in that? Is that why Social Security is going bankrupt? No. That is just an element, though, of where the money is going. But everything that happens in this city is based on compassion. I feel for people, and I want to help people, but nobody does anything based on math. Nobody really looks at this and says: Well, shouldn't we do something to make sure it is paid for? What about next decade? What is going to happen to Social Security? Not a care. They just expand it, and it is feel-good. You know, the free lunch, the mantra of free lunch is good. Here is stuff. Here is manna. We are going to give you more money. Just be content. Take some soma. Just relax. Here is some more money. But we are destroying the entitlement programs. Social Security is going bankrupt, and we sped up the bankruptcy this week by adding $200 billion. That is going to be concluded tonight. That is $200 billion in brandnew spending to a system that was already $2 trillion short. Now, we also gave $30 billion to farmers. That is going to be in the package tonight, too. Now, why do the farmers say they need money? Many farmers are actually pretty well-off and doing pretty well actually. But they say that the tariffs during the first Trump administration hurt them so badly that they are still having to reduce exports, and they need more money. So we are still paying them for the tariff wars that were begun 4 years ago, and still half the people in the country are jumping up and down and saying they want more tariffs. What are we going to do, pay off everybody that doesn't benefit from the tariffs? Think about it. If you put tariffs on a steel mill and you say: Well, we are not going to let the Chinese sell any steel over here. You have this bright, shiny steel mill and all the thousand workers stand in front of it, and they love you because you are going to help them with their jobs, and they are going to be more secure. But for every person making steel, there are 80 workers working somewhere buying steel. So what you do is you just ignore the other half of the equation. Why? Because it is easy to see the shiny steel factory. It is easy to see those workers. The 80 workers that are working for other industries, car industry, building warehouses, anybody that uses steel, fences, all these people buying stuff are scattered through small industries, and you don't see them. But their economic impact at least equals but probably exceeds the one you are trying to benefit. We do so many crazy things. So $200 billion to expand Social Security that won't be paid for and speeds up the bankruptcy and demise of Social Security; $30 billion for farmers, many of whom have other resources and really are not desperately in need of this. What happens to the borrowing--$230 billion. Well, it is not over. We also are adding $100 billion for disaster. And you say to yourself: Well, you know, we have got to help people in need. They have had storms. They have had flooding. We have got to help them. Well, shouldn't we try to root out the waste and fraud in those systems, the people that are stealing money from these things? If you want to know how people are stealing things and how many people are stealing things, when we did all that COVID stuff, we stopped the economy and gave free money to everybody. We actually had foreign scoundrels, foreign fraudsters come in and take tens of millions of dollars, but we also had U.S. citizens buying Lamborghinis and Bugattis and all kind of fancy cars on their government. We had people signing up for the program. One of them used an ID that had a picture of Barbie on it and got money. Many of them said: I have 500 workers, and they didn't have any workers. They didn't have a business. So just fraud was rampant throughout it. This happens also in the disaster relief programs as well. People claim things they lost in disasters that didn't exist. But let's put that aside, the waste and fraud in the program, and say: We have to help people. We have to do something about disasters. Well, maybe there ought to be a decision-making process where we say: What is more important? Ukraine or Asheville, NC? Do we have enough money to do both? Well, we do if we borrow it. But when we borrow it, we add to the debt. The Fed buys the debt, and you create inflation. It is no mystery why your goods cost more. During the last 4 years, groceries, meat, poultry, gasoline, rent, everything has gone up on average at least 20 percent. Now did it become more precious? Did we all of a sudden lose a supply of things? No. The dollar became weaker; the dollar became diluted because we had to buy all of this debt. So it is a bait-and-switch. What we do is we expand, you know, this week 200 billion for Social Security, hundred billion for disasters-- that is 300 billion--30 billion for farm subsidies. That is $330 billion unpaid for. But the people here are gathered. The vast majority of them who will vote for this will go home, pat themselves on the back, and say: I brought you stuff. Isn't that what you want me to do? Bring you free stuff? Well, it is not free. It has ramifications. They are destroying the dollar. They are destroying the country, and yet it goes on because it seems to be easy just to promise people something for nothing. So I have a couple different solutions. To pay for the Social Security, let's gradually raise the age 3 months each year. And what it does is it actually pays entirely for this $200 billion expansion and then some. It has to be done. It will be done at some point. I offered it 13 years ago. And every year we have waited, we have gotten further behind the eight ball. And every year we have waited, we have gotten to the point where it is much more difficult to dig out of this hole. As far as the shutdowns, I will admit that it is chaotic to go through this every 3 months, every 6 months, every year. There could be a way that we could actually say, when there is an impasse and both parties don't agree, we agree to continue spending but not at the same level. See, the vote today on at least some of the budget, the part that is not going up like this, on a small portion, we will continue at the same level. But realize three-fourths of it is going up. We are not keeping it steady. So if we vote to keep it steady, does that really fix the problem? No. If you keep it steady and even if you didn't increase spending, the budget never balances. Why? Because you are only keeping a very small portion of the budget steady. It is really about 16 percent. Two- thirds, 66 percent, entitlements; the remaining third: half military, half nonmilitary. Military is going up at 3 percent. Oh, that is right. I forgot. Republicans have a great plan. Come spring, the Republicans are, by simple majority, going to bust through the military caps. The military caps are put in place like all other caps to try to restrain spending, and they are ignored. But in the spring, the first reconciliation package the Republicans will pass with a simple majority is to bust through the military caps. Military doesn't have enough money. We spend more on our military than the next eight countries combined, and yet it is never enough. People say: We are going to find waste and fraud. I am all for it. I am a big supporter of looking for waste and fraud. I am a big supporter of getting rid of it. Guess what. If you don't look at the entitlements, you are not a serious person. If you don't look at the military, you are not a serious person. The trouble will go on. In the first Trump administration, $8 trillion were borrowed. I am a fan of Donald Trump. I supported him. I voted for him. But we borrowed $8 trillion. During the Biden administration, coincidentally, we borrowed another $8 trillion. They were equally fiscally irresponsible. Now, at least during the Trump administration, you could argue there was COVID and the pandemic and all of that. But the reaction was too much, and the lockdowns were not necessary. They didn't save any lives through the lockdowns, and we spent a ton of money that we passed out for people not to work. But the bottom line is, when you look at all of this, we have this enormous problem. I am all for eliminating the waste and fraud. It is not enough. You have to look at the entitlements. You have to look at the military. Currently, we look at only about 16 percent of the budget. If you eliminated all of that--it is called nonmilitary discretionary; it is part of the budget. You eliminate all of it--which isn't going to happen--the budget still never balances. You have to look at all the spending. We are not looking at any of the entitlement spending. In fact, it is worse. Entitlements are driving the debt. Almost everybody agrees with it, and we are expanding the entitlements. Social Security--beginning in 2021, Social Security, for the first time, pays out more than it brings in in taxes. It was the opposite for many years; Social Security brought in more than they spent, and they actually developed and had a reserve. For the last 3 years, Social Security has been paying out more than comes in. In 2021, they paid out 50 billion more than came in. In 2022, they paid out 22 billion more than came in. Last year, we paid out 40 billion more than came in. If you had a business or even if you had a social program and you were paying out more than you brought in, wouldn't you try to reverse that trend? No. What we did this week is expand Social Security by $200 billion over 10 years. It is 20 billion a year. So if the debt next year for Social Security is going to be about the same as this year, it would be $40 billion. We added 20 billion to that. What is the math? A 50-percent increase in our debt. So for someone who is fiscally conservative, this isn't a very good Christmas. This is a Christmas of just doing the same old thing. So when you hear ``CR,'' continuing resolution, realize your government is resolved just to continue doing the same thing. They are kicking the can down the road. The debt is going to continue to accumulate, and they are not doing anything to fix it. So don't be pleased with your people. Look closely. Who are my representatives, and are they doing the right thing? So we are going to offer a pay-for for Social Security. That will be one of my amendments tonight. We are also going to offer something called the Government Shutdown Protection Act. And what it will do is it says: When there is an impasse, when Republicans and Democrats don't agree, that the spending would continue at a reduced level. The level we chose was enough to try to bring both sides together to actually form an agreement; but also, we chose a number that would be enough of a cut to actually put us on a path to balance. So if my amendment were to pass, government wouldn't shut down from here on out. But the spending would be at a 6-percent reduced level. This actually balances the budget, and it is a pretty significant cut. Most of them will say, Oh, it is too much. We can't vote for it. But the thing is, is: Even if my cuts were to go into place, even if my amendment were to pass, a 6-percent cut would take 5 years to get to balance in 1 year. Not to get rid of any debt that we have accumulated, but just to get to an annual balance. And they are like, Oh, woe is me. We can never do it. We can't cut people. People deserve money. People deserve stuff. We have to give them more stuff. Do you know that in the European Union, 16 out of 28 countries in the European Union, who many are considered to be socialist, actually balance their budget? I met with a socialist from Sweden. He was more conservative than everybody across the aisle. He was more conservative than half the Republicans up here, because they thought that actual entitlements should be based on the economy. Their entitlements actually go down when the economy goes down. If the economy shrinks, their entitlements shrink. Everyone knows it is going to happen. If it is a bad year, we get a little less. People would go nuts here. We do the opposite. During the last 4 years, they created so much inflation that people's costs went up 20 percent. What do we do? We have to give cost-of-living adjustments to those on Social Security, and we did; but we were short even more money. And it made the problem even worse and sped up the bankruptcy of Social Security. So my amendment would say: We actually have to reduce spending. Now some people say to conservatives--both in my party and the others--they say, Oh, you people are unrealistic. You will never vote to raise the debt ceiling. But even if I had my way and we got cuts significant enough that I think the American people would accept, but most of this body wouldn't, and we balance the budget in 5 years, we would still accumulate debt over those 5 years. And I would vote to raise the debt ceiling during that brief period of time as we were on the way toward balancing our budget. But none of that is going to happen. What we are doing this week and what both parties will be complicit in--and I mean both parties. Every Democrat here will vote for this bill, I assume. Every Democrat will vote to continue to be resolved to spend money at a rate that is $2 trillion more than comes in. And half the Republicans will join them. There will be a minority of Republicans who will say: We are conservative, and we shouldn't spend this much money. But we will offer amendments tonight, and people will get to decide where they are. And people at home will have to decide: Are we going to live this way? How long can we live this way? What causes inflation? Can we not have representatives who believe that balancing our budget is the appropriate thing to do? So the amendments I offer today are such that I think they are necessary. I think they will help us to save Social Security from bankruptcy, but they won't be very popular here. But I offer them in hopes that people will see them across America and say: At least somebody cares about the solvency of Social Security. At least somebody has the guts to say, This is what we would do to try to save and preserve Social Security, rather than just giving free stuff to everybody and saying, No big deal. You can have more. You want more? Here is more. Somebody's got to ask: How are we going to pay for this? Someone has to be responsible up here. And if you watch closely who votes on this amendment, you will see who are the truly fiscally responsible people in the Senate. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, the U.S. Post Office faces drastic financial losses. Last year, they lost $6.5 billion. They are on target this year to lose $9.5 billion. We should return these nominees and give President Trump the opportunity to review the Postal Service, to review the postal picks, to review the current situation, and allow him to determine who is best fit to fix the Postal Service. For that reason, I will be objecting to each of these nominees. I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, no one disputes that drones flying in airspace could be a danger, that drones flying over the Super Bowl could be a danger, that drones flying over military bases could be a danger. That is why it is illegal. It is currently illegal, and the Federal Government has the capacity to investigate and stop drones that are in airspace over our military bases, following our ships. We have that capacity. What is disputed and what the Biden administration is currently telling us is they don't see a problem. So if there is a problem, let the Biden administration be forthcoming. Let us know the extent of the problem. Let us know who is flying the drones. Let us know what is going on. Instead, this bill says: Well, we don't know. The Biden administration doesn't know, but why don't we give the power to the local officials to go after drones. But I rise today to object to this unanimous consent request because, at this time, public trust in government is at historic lows. This body must not rush to grant sweeping surveillance powers without proper consideration and debate by the committees of jurisdiction, which is what I pledge to do beginning in January when we will be in charge of the committees. Yet what is going on is exactly what this legislation seeks to do now: to expand Federal authority to intercept communications and disrupt drone activity, powers that raise serious concerns for Americans' privacy, civil liberties, and Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure. We are being told this legislation is urgent; that it is needed to address an imminent drone threat. Yet the government itself admits no such threats exist. So either there is a threat or there isn't a threat, but the Biden administration keeps saying: Well, it is all normal stuff, and it is just planes. So it is or it isn't. Why don't we try to get to the truth of the matter of what actually exists and what the threat is before we propose legislation. Federal Agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, have stated clearly that there is no current national security risk, no public safety concern, and no unlawful drone activity requiring intervention. So there either is a problem or there isn't a problem. If there is a problem, let's discuss how to do it while protecting the communications of innocent Americans whose communications could be caught up in this legislation. Until the Federal assessment changes--the assessment that it isn't a problem changes to that it is a problem, and these are the malefactors, these are the people that are orchestrating this--let's get that from the Biden administration. Tell us what the problem is. Tell us the extent of the problem. Instead, the Biden administration is saying there is not a problem. So, Madam President, this pattern is all too familiar. History has shown us, time and time again, how fear and manufactured urgency are used as pretexts to expand government power at the expense of freedom. After 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act. In the name of security, Americans were promised that these surveillance powers were necessary; they would only be directed toward foreigners; they would only be directed toward terrorists--until we discovered that these powers were being used on Americans. Americans were promised that these powers were necessary and temporary. Instead, they were abused, misused, and weaponized. Innocent Americans had their privacy violated, their data collected, and their rights trampled. The lesson here is clear: When Congress legislates in haste, without careful scrutiny, without debate, and without accountability, it is the American people who suffer the consequences. Today, we are facing a similar moment. The bill before us would grant law enforcement significant authority to intercept private electronic communications without consent. For example, the bill will allow the government to conduct dragnet surveillance of the phones of innocent Americans traveling through U.S. airports, as long as the government claims they are doing it to neutralize a drone. So in order to look at the information that might be coming to a drone, it may be that you capture all the information of everybody surrounding an airport or everybody who lives near an airport. Once you have all that data, what are the assurances that the government isn't looking at your data in addition to the data that may be related to flying the drone? This is not just about security. It is about unchecked government overreach. It is about capitalizing on fear and media-driven hysteria to jam through sweeping legislation that could violate the civil liberties of American people. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on the Executive power, not as a rubberstamp for it. The Federal Government already has the power to deal with drones. The Federal Government already has the power to stop any drones that are in airspace around airports. The Federal Government already has the power to protect its air bases. So if there is a significant problem here, the Biden administration needs to come forward and let us know: Who are these drones? Who is operating these drones? What is the Federal Government doing to protect either airports or bases from this? Instead, we are told by the Biden administration there is no threat to our national security. Let's first insist on truth and transparency from the Biden administration before offering up legislation that is feel-good, pat somebody on the back, and say: Oh, we have done something about drones. We are strong on drones. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on Executive power, not as a rubberstamp. We owe it to the American people to demand compelling justification, meaningful safeguards, and full transparency before granting new surveillance authorities. We are a Nation of laws, not fear, not panic, and not manufactured urgency. We do not trade away our freedoms, our privacy, and our constitutional protections for vague promises of security. I will object to this bill today, but I am open to talking with the authors of this bill about how we could have enhanced ability to interrupt drone activity, but done while protecting all Americans' constitutional right to privacy. I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we are currently considering the Defense authorization bill. We have considered this most years annually for many decades. Typically, though, we will have a robust debate, we will have amendments offered, and we will try to have participation by Senators from all over the United States geographically represented in the debate. That won't happen this year. There will be no debate. It will be very controlled and circumscribed, and there won't be amendments. This is disappointing to me because I think there are some very important issues that need to be brought up, and one of those is emergency powers. Our Founding Fathers understood that it was very important to divide these powers between the executive branch, the legislative branch, or the judiciary. Over the past hundred years though, we have had a gradual evolution of these powers toward the executive branch. And we now have a very, very strong executive branch that, in many ways, is able to control the narrative and ultimately to control the country. In the 1970s, Frank Church wrote these words, which I think represent a problem that existed then and even more so now. He wrote: Hundreds of statutes clothe the President with virtually unchecked powers with which he can affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing ways. This vast range of powers, taken together, confers enough authority on the President to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the authority delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprises; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens. These words were written by Senator Frank Church in a 1977 law review article, but they are still true to this day and even more worrisome. The Church Committee's investigatory work famously convinced many in Congress that the time had come to reassert congressional checks and balances on the Executive that had become all too powerful. It is ironic that the powers-that-be still conspire to this day to hide the work of the Church Committee. I have been trying for over a year to read the classified version of the Church Committee. All right. This is not some sort of new document; this is a document from 1976. But the powers-that-be have prevented me for over a year from reading the classified report. You got to wonder--does that mean they have something to hide or does that mean they love power so much that they don't want to share it? The National Emergencies Act of 1976 was supposed to be a reform of Presidential emergencies. It was supposed to limit the power of Presidents. In that act, they actually gave a legislative veto. If an emergency were invoked by a President and the majority of Congress voted it, they would be legislatively able to reject that emergency. The Court ultimately ruled, though, that that would have to be signed by the President, effectively meaning that if a President declares an emergency, a majority of us say ``We don't think that should be declared,'' and he vetoes it, it now takes two-thirds of us to overcome a Presidential emergency. This is a very high bar and makes it nearly impossible to stop a Presidential emergency. Essentially, the National Emergency's Act enforcement mechanism became toothless when the Court got rid of the legislative veto. Subsequently, Congress must muster this veto-proof or two-thirds vote. To thwart a rogue President, it currently takes a two-thirds majority vote in both Houses to overturn a veto. This is a very high bar. Consequently, we live in a country Frank Church would barely recognize. In some ways, the United States of America is a monarchy in disguise. The United States maintains the veneer of a constitutional republic but often operates as an elected monarchy in which the President exercises awesome and unchecked power by decree and in perpetuity. If you look at the emergencies on the books, some of them have been on the books for 50 years. If you look at the potential emergencies that could be declared, you would be shocked. This dangerous imbalance of the constitutional separation of powers is not simply aggrandizement by the executive branch; it is something that Congress has actually been complicit with. Congress has essentially made itself a feckless branch of the Federal Government by granting the President so many emergency powers and refusing to regularly vote on the termination of national emergencies, as required by current law. The emergencies go on and on. Our concern should not merely be to restore Congress to its proper role in our Madisonian system of government; rather, our true focus should be to restore the Founders' vision of a government of limited and diffuse powers that is devoted to securing our inalienable rights. A government that disperses power among separate, distinct, and competing branches is a government that is less likely to violate our liberties. We owe the people nothing less than the restoration of the constitutional principles of separation of powers and of checks and balances among the branches of the Federal Government. I have offered a significant step towards revivifying the Founders' vision. I have introduced a bill called the REPUBLIC Act, which is an amendment to this bill but likely will not be considered because the powers-that-be don't want debate or amendments. But this amendment, were it considered, would restore Congress's role in governance by requiring that declarations of national emergency expire after 30 days. The President would still have the power to declare an emergency, but it would expire after 30 days unless approved affirmatively by Congress. What this does is essentially switches the role we currently have. Currently, it takes two-thirds of Congress to stop an emergency; now it would take 50 percent of Congress to affirm an emergency. We did this in my State for our Governor. It is a good reform and goes a long way towards restoring the faith that people have in the separation of powers and the limitation of powers. This simple reform allows the President to respond to genuine crises but ensures that the Executive cannot rule by unchecked perpetual emergency. My bill includes other reforms that are designed to safeguard the country from emergency rule. My bill would repeal the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934--also known as the internet kill switch-- that allow the President, if he declares an emergency, to take over all communications. Now, this emergency fortunately has never been declared, but simply having this on the book for so long is a threat that someday a President might occur who says: I am going to take over all communications, and I will shut them down. That is a power so ominous, no President of either party should ever have that power, and this bill would remove that power. Today, though, with the power still in place, with the stroke of a pen, the President could use this power to monitor emails, restrict access to the internet, control computer systems, television, radio broadcast, and cellphones. Longstanding use of this power would effectively eviscerate the First Amendment. If the REPUBLIC Act, my amendment today, were accepted, the President would no longer be able to utilize this power--at least would have limited power during a limited time, and a majority of Congress would have to affirm the continued use of this emergency. Emergency powers were not the type of rule our Founders anticipated for our country. The other name for emergency rule is ``martial law.'' It is something all of us should object to and say that this should only happen in an exceptional case, be very limited, and have the ability of Congress to overturn. If anyone doubts that emergency powers can be abused, just look to Canada. Gene Healy of the Cato Institute wrote: America's neighbor to the north offers a cautionary tale about the risks that broad emergency powers could be turned inward against political dissent. In early 2022, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faced a mass protest against COVID-19 restrictions, in which Canadian truckers obstructed key border crossings and effectively shut down the capital city with their rigs. Instead of simply clearing out the protesters and punishing them via conventional legal means, Trudeau invoked emergency powers broad enough to permit the financial ``un-personing'' of anyone participating in the protests. He went to their bank accounts and took their money. When people raised money voluntarily through crowd financing to help these truckers, he stole that money as well through martial rule. Without any rule of law, he took the money. No transaction with the protesters; he took their money. People were locked up under martial law. Canada's 1988 Emergencies Act gave the Trudeau government staggering powers to subject individual protesters to ``de- banking'' without due process. This is the danger of Presidential power--of excessive Presidential power. It isn't about any individual President; it is about all Presidents of either party because men and women will succumb to the desire for power. It is inherent in all. That is why we must have checks and balances. Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland put it this way in describing Trudeau's martial law in a February 2022 warning to the truckers: As of today, a bank or other financial service provider will be able to immediately freeze or suspend an account without a court order. The Government of Canada--essentially Trudeau--could freeze a bank account without a court order, without due process of law. We are today serving notice: If your truck is being used in these protests, your corporate accounts will be frozen. The insurance on your vehicle will be suspended. Send your . . . trailers home. While native-born Americans may think that emergency powers are to be used to target others, I would venture to guess that the Canadian truckers protesting COVID-era mandates didn't expect that their government would treat them as foreign adversaries and freeze their accounts. If it can happen in Canada, it can happen in the United States. Expansive emergency powers do not end there. Today in the United States--a country that owes its very existence to tax revolt--the President can unilaterally impose and raise taxes on foreign imports. Now, some of that power, unfortunately, Congress gave to the President, but it was a mistake, and we should take the power back. The rallying cry of our American Revolution--``no taxation without representation''--was not just a protest of the past, it is a core principle of American governance. Yet Congress, in its feckless desire to abscond on all responsibilities, said to the President: You can have it; we don't want it. You can raise taxes anytime you want without a vote of Congress. Terrible idea. Our Constitution was designed to prevent any branch from overstepping its bounds. Unchecked Executive actions--enacting tariffs on our citizens without a vote of Congress threatens our economy, raises prices on everyday goods, and erodes the system of checks and balances that our Founders so carefully crafted. The REPUBLIC Act, the reform of emergency powers, the limitation of emergency powers, would correct this. We end up saying to the President: You can't declare an emergency to raise a tax. Our Founding Fathers were very specific. Not only did taxes have to originate in Congress, they had to originate in the House before coming to the Senate because the House was seen as being closer to the people. Yet here we are talking about vast taxes being levied by one person through emergency powers. We should not let this stand. Finally, the REPUBLIC Act, my reform, requires the President to disclose Presidential emergency action documents to the Congress. What are these? These are Executive orders that are prepared in anticipation of a wide range of emergency scenarios. These documents are kept secret, and Congress has historically had little oversight or insight into how many exist, what they say, and what are the powers that the President anticipates taking in an emergency. Although the documents have never been made public, there have reportedly been emergency orders designed to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus, impose censorship, and seize property without warrants. We don't know for certain because they will not reveal these Executive orders, but we do know that they exist. Congress desperately needs to see these documents to conduct oversight of these secret plans that can threaten basic constitutional rights. We do not have to accept as inevitable or as an inevitability the degeneration of a republic into rule by an all-powerful Executive. We do not have to live in a monarchy disguised as a republic. We would do well to remember Montesquieu, who wrote that ``when the executive and legislative powers are combined into one branch, no liberty will remain.'' It is time to reclaim the authority of Congress and protect the liberties of people by paring back the vast emergency powers delegated to the President. I hope the powers-that-be will change their mind and see fit to allow a vote on this amendment. There is significant bipartisan support. We passed it out of committee I believe 13 to 1. The Democrat chairman is a cosponsor of this bill. I think this is a bill that really should bring both sides together. There used to be pride in our country, pride in the legislative branch to hold firm against usurpation of power by the other branches. This was a pride that went beyond party label and brought legislators together. In recent years, it has been disappointing. Some people are for reform of Presidential emergencies when their party is not in power, and some people are for it until they are against it when their guy or their woman is in power. I can tell you this: I have been for this emergency reform under the previous President. I am for this emergency reform under the next President because this is about power. It is about the dispersion of power. It is about decentralizing power. It is about the constitutional separation of powers. It is about checks and balances. It is important enough that it should be considered. I think it would pass were it considered. But the American people need to know that important debates like this will only occur if the powers-that-be allow the vote to occur. So I would beseech the powers-to-be to allow a vote on this amendment and for my colleagues to vote yes. I yield the floor.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 566, S.J. Res. 117.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, here we go again with the ``Ukraine First, America Last'' policy. Earlier this week, President Biden delivered a report to Congress informing us that he now intends to forgive or cancel $4.65 billion worth of U.S. loans to Ukraine. Now, you might ask yourself: When were these loans issued? Oh, about a month or two ago. Well, when does Ukraine have to pay back these loans that we are forgiving? Well, they made an agreement to start paying them back in 40 years. President Biden is forgiving loans that aren't due for 40 years. This makes a mockery of the entire charade that this is a loan. They should have just said it was a gift. A forgivable loan? It is not even a loan. It is not due for 40 years, and we are forgiving it now. These funds were provided by the American taxpayer in the form of loans with the expectation that they would be repaid. We are not going to wait any period of time. They weren't even going to be repaid for 40 years, and we are forgiving them. That is a sick joke, and a sick joke on every American who has got a loan at the bank for their house, who has to pay their mortgage every month, and yet Ukraine is never going to have to pay their loans. It seems like this is ``Ukraine First, America Last.'' We have got a $36 trillion debt in our country. We are paying a trillion dollars in interest. We can barely keep up. We are not keeping up with all of the things we promised Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps--all of the things that have been promised. We are $2 trillion short. So what do we do? We are just shipping billions to Ukraine. About $200 billion has been sent so far. Such blatant disregard of American citizens is unacceptable. The joint resolution of disapproval that I put forward, today, provides the Senate an opportunity to prevent the President from doing this--from canceling this debt, from making a mockery of the idea that it was ever a loan. We will not stand idly by as the President elevates the interests of a foreign country above our own. And let me remind President Biden that, due to his failed policies over the last 4 years, Americans across this country are struggling with their loans. Today, some 37 million Americans live under the poverty line, including 9 million children. Fifty percent of Americans say they are living paycheck to paycheck, and yet the concern is for the loans of a foreign country that will never be repaid, that were not even going to begin to be repaid for 40 years. This is an insult to every American who has a mortgage that they have to pay. Eight out of 10 Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year are unable to cover their future bills until their next paycheck arrives. Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, and we are shipping this money to a foreign country that will never be asked to repay it. In 40 years, if they were somehow gloriously successful again--40 years from now--they are still not going to be asked to pay this. Americans are working two, sometimes three jobs just to make ends meet, and while millions of Americans work day in and day out to pay off their own personal loans, President Biden wants to forgive Ukraine's economic loans without any debate. This was rushed forward. I was fortunate enough to get 16 colleagues to allow this vote to happen. But they didn't want this vote to happen. They gave us a short window, and, boom, it is going to be gone. They don't want a discussion about how obviously insulting this is to every American to do this. The American people have been more than generous when it comes to supporting Ukraine. In the nearly 3 years of this war, Congress has appropriated nearly $200 billion in aid. For 3 years, the American people have been sold the lie that if we only send tens of billions more of their dollars to Ukraine, Ukraine will be able to push Russians out, secure the 2014 borders, and achieve victory in the battlefield. It won't happen. The President of Ukraine, the generals of Ukraine, the people who have followed this situation all agree: The war is at a stalemate. Trillions of dollars more will only lead to more carnage in the battlefield, and it won't achieve victory. These assertions were always farcical, as they failed to contend with basic battlefield realities. Despite massive assistance provided by the United States and others, Ukraine is no better off now than they were 3 years ago. It is arguable that their ability to negotiate, as they have lost more land to Russia, is actually that their leverage for negotiation with Russia is less than it was when the war began. In fact, Ukraine is now in a worse negotiating position because they have likely incurred hundreds of thousands of casualties and now face a critical manpower shortage. That shortage is becoming impossible to ignore, as Russia consolidates its gains and continues to make progress across eastern Ukraine. Americans may be surprised to discover that their aid has not, in fact, shifted the war in Ukraine's favor. They may also be surprised to learn that much of the money Congress sends to Ukraine isn't actually being used to support Ukraine's military. While American families struggle to put food on the table and keep the lights on, U.S. taxpayers are paying for the salaries of thousands of Ukrainian bureaucrats, their pensions. We are paying for their teachers. Do our teachers make enough money? Probably not. But I am guessing, if you ask an American teacher, should we be paying the salaries of Ukrainian teachers, you might get a debate. We are paying their healthcare workers' salaries, their first responders. We are buying seeds and fertilizer for their farmers. And we are bankrolling Ukrainian small businesses. A report conducted earlier this year found that 43 percent of small businesses in America were unable to pay their rent in full and on time in the month of April. Yet we are sending billions of dollars to Ukraine to subsidize their small businesses. A report by CBS News discovered that U.S. taxpayers are helping a Ukrainian knitwear company find new international customers overseas. Oh boy, we are helping Ukrainian businesses expand overseas. We don't even need independent journalists to highlight such absurdities. USAID bragged on their own website about how they provided funding for six Ukrainian fashion brands to participate in Paris Fashion Week. I am sure they will be glad that they won't be paying back any loans. This is what we are asking the American people to pay for--to send Ukrainian fashion brands to a Paris fashion show? I have never had one constituent in Kentucky come up to me and say: Please, send more money. We are fine in Appalachia. We are fine in rural Kentucky. I don't think there is anybody in Asheville, NC, today that is pleading for more good money to be sent to Ukraine. It is bad enough, but it is also impossible to ensure that this amount of money actually gets to the misguided priorities that have been set. The Government Accountability Office admits that there are a number of ways in which Federal Agencies could improve oversight and aid to Ukraine. It has been 3 years. Why hasn't the government approved the oversight? Well, because it is impossible to send so much aid to a country as quickly as we have and expect that there won't be waste, fraud, and abuse. I forced the Senate to vote on a special inspector general for Ukraine, and the ``Ukraine First uniparty''--both sides of the aisle-- voted it down. Even with a special inspector general, it is nearly impossible to ensure oversight on this vast amount of money in such a short period of time. Adding insult to injury, Ukraine is consistently ranked as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Transparency International ranked Ukraine 104th out of 180 countries in 2023, with respect to honesty and integrity, and also found that 23 percent of the public service users paid a bribe in the previous 12 months in Ukraine. And yet we give billions of dollars, and we have no special inspector general. And now in spite of all of this, President Biden wants to forgive over $4.6 billion in loans that the U.S. taxpayer provided under the auspices that they would be repaid. This lunacy is just another example of how the Washington establishment is completely out of touch with Americans. You ask Americans about this, they have got to pay their loans; they don't understand forgiving Ukrainian loans. The election earlier this month made it eminently clear that the American people are sick and tired of the status quo. They are sick and tired of business as usual in Washington, and they want their elected officials to deliver change. It is fitting that in the final months of this disastrous Presidency, Joe Biden caps off his foreign policy for the middle class by asking to cancel over 4.6 billion in aid, in loans, to Ukraine--once again prioritizing the interest of a foreign country at the expense of our own. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution to disapprove of the President forgiving this billions of dollars' worth of loans to Ukraine and put the American people first.

Mr. PAUL. I will not yield the floor. Mr. President--

Mr. PAUL.--what has been said here is untrue.

Mr. PAUL. There is no more time left on our side.

Mr. PAUL. There is none.

Mr. PAUL. But that is not what happened. I relinquished the time.

Mr. PAUL. Sometimes in Washington, memories get clouded and foggy, even after a week. The Senator from North Carolina will remember that he objected to aid in North Carolina. He objected to small business loans. He objected to them simply because they were paid for. I offered unanimous consent, and it was blocked by the Senator from North Carolina. I offered unanimous consent to immediately infuse more loans through the Small Business Administration for North Carolina that was hit hard by the flooding. The Senator from North Carolina blocked his own bill because I proposed that it be paid for by taking green energy boondoggle loans. So don't be tricked by any flimflammery or any sort of making up of history. The Senator from North Carolina last week blocked his own aid passage that I agreed to let go unanimously as long as it was paid for by taking some extra money from another part of the budget. Don't be fooled.

Mr. PAUL. It is very important that the truth be told about what went on with aid to North Carolina. I agreed to pass it unanimously as long as it was paid for.