Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the author of ``The Case Against Socialism,'' I take a backseat to no one in my opposition of socialism, communism, or any other form of collectivism. In ``The Case Against Socialism,'' I wrote: This is the story of an evil well documented and yet still somehow enticing, even in America. This is the story of socialism in all its drab and dreary machinelike destruction of individual thought, creativity, and ambition. This is the story of socialism in all its violence, bloodshed, and tyranny. It is a cautionary tale of how America has so far eluded the siren call of something for nothing, of an equality determined and enforced by government--but also of how close we still are to succumbing to socialism. My concern is far greater that America will succumb to socialism by choice than by foreign invasion. The question is, Will this next generation follow the path of previous generations? Will today's youth emerge from their parents' basements and begin to earn a living, discover that their success depends on their merit and hard work or will they succumb to the allure of something for nothing? In ``The Case Against Socialism,'' I pull no punches about the tyranny and violence of Mao and the panopticon of China's surveillance state today. But I draw a distinction between articulating the horrors of Chinese authoritarianism and Senate resolutions intended to embarrass Chinese leaders who are visiting our country. The art of diplomacy is the art of pulling punches, avoiding insult, attempting to find common ground. Diplomacy creates a space to refer to someone as ``President'' even though the world knows they were elected by a small group in a single-party state. The leadership between the United States and China is the most consequential of the 21st century. As such, we should strive to at least have decent working relations with one another. That is why I fully support President Trump's overture to meet with President Xi. We should not advance symbolic condemnation that unnecessarily undermines United States-China diplomacy with no tangible benefit to United States' interests. Instead, we should encourage more United States-China dialogue given the consequences of a hostile relationship, not symbolically poke them in the eye before the first state visit in 10 years. Diplomacy is fast becoming a lost art. I, for one, hope that President Trump's diplomacy will lessen the tensions between the United States and China. I, therefore, object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, as a member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I seek to recognize outstanding Kentucky small businesses that exemplify the American entrepreneurial spirit. It is my privilege to recognize Copperhead Gun & Range of Prestonsburg, KY, as a Senate Small Business of the Week. Founded in 2014 by Bill Conley, Copperhead Gun & Range began in Martin, KY, with a mission to provide eastern Kentucky with a locally owned source for firearms, ammunition, and shooting accessories while promoting responsible firearm ownership. What began as a small firearms retailer has since grown into one of the region's premier destinations for shooting sports, firearms education, and training. The business later transitioned to Brian Nelson, who saw an opportunity to expand Copperhead. In 2016, Copperhead opened a larger facility in Prestonsburg featuring an indoor shooting range and expanded retail operations. Aaron Scott took responsibility for managing the new location and overseeing its day-to-day operations, beginning nearly a decade of leadership and growth. Under Aaron's management, Copperhead expanded its customer base, products, and services while developing a reputation for knowledgeable service and expertise. In 2025, after years of helping build the business, Aaron purchased Copperhead from Brian and became its owner and CEO. Today, Copperhead's business has grown to approximately three times its earlier size while remaining locally and family owned. Copperhead is now a full-service firearms retailer and indoor shooting range serving customers throughout eastern Kentucky. In addition to firearms, ammunition, optics, accessories, and related products, Copperhead emphasizes education and responsible firearm ownership. The business provides concealed carry certification classes, firearms safety instruction, hunter education, and specialized training opportunities. Following the devastating floods that struck eastern Kentucky in July 2022, Copperhead became an official Floyd County donation collection site, helping gather essential supplies for families who had lost homes and belongings. When flooding again struck Floyd County in February 2025, Copperhead did more than collect donations. The business provided specialized military-style vehicles and personnel to assist the Floyd County Sheriff's Office with emergency response efforts. Working alongside local first responders, Copperhead's team helped evacuate more than 100 residents from flooded areas and transported critical emergency equipment where conventional vehicles could not safely travel. Copperhead's commitment to its customers and community has not gone unnoticed. The business has been recognized as ``Best in the Mountains'' by the Floyd County Chronicle, reflecting the reputation Aaron and his team have built among the people they serve. Small businesses like Copperhead Gun & Range demonstrate the important role locally owned businesses play in their communities. They create jobs, develop expertise, invest locally, and, when their neighbors are in need, answer the call. Congratulations to Aaron Scott and the entire team at Copperhead Gun & Range. I wish them continued success.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, as a member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I seek to recognize outstanding Kentucky small businesses that exemplify the American entrepreneurial spirit. Therefore, it is my privilege to recognize Dueling Barrels Brewery & Distillery of Pikeville, KY, as a Senate Small Business of the Week. Located in the heart of downtown Pikeville, Dueling Barrels Brewery & Distillery was founded through the vision of the late Dr. Pearse Lyons and his wife Deirdre Lyons. Natives of Ireland, the Lyonses saw similarities between the mountains and people of their homeland and those of eastern Kentucky. Their appreciation for the region inspired an investment in downtown Pikeville intended to create jobs, attract visitors, and celebrate Appalachian culture through Kentucky's longstanding traditions of brewing and distilling. Although Dr. Lyons passed away before Dueling Barrels opened its doors in 2018, the business became an important part of downtown Pikeville and the region's growing tourism economy. In 2025, Kendall and Shannon Wright, owners of Brothers Wright Distilling Company, acquired Dueling Barrels. Already established in Kentucky's bourbon industry, the Wrights saw an opportunity to preserve what had been created in Pikeville while building upon it. Since acquiring the business, they have expanded its offerings, added a stage showcasing local musicians, enhanced the kitchen and food menu, and renovated the upstairs into a private event venue. Today, Dueling Barrels combines handcrafted spirits and locally brewed beer with a full-service restaurant, live entertainment, events, and Kentucky hospitality. It draws visitors to Pikeville while providing residents with a gathering place in the heart of their community. The Wrights' commitment to eastern Kentucky extends beyond Dueling Barrels. Brothers Wright Distilling is bringing together two industries deeply connected to Kentucky's identity: coal and bourbon. The company ages bourbon underground in a former eastern Kentucky coal mine, where the naturally stable environment provides distinctive conditions for barrel aging. The Wrights are working to transform the abandoned mine into a tourist destination where visitors can experience Appalachia's coal history while learning about Kentucky bourbon. Their work has earned recognition within the craft spirits industry. Brothers Wright Distilling's Mary's Coal Mine Moonshine received a silver medal at the 2024 American Craft Spirits Association Judging of American Craft Spirits. They are also a craft member of the Kentucky Distillers' Association. Small businesses like Dueling Barrels Brewery & Distillery embody the determination, creativity, and community spirit that make Kentucky special. Kendall and Shannon Wright are investing in the future of eastern Kentucky, supporting their neighbors, and finding innovative ways to celebrate Appalachia's heritage while creating new economic opportunities. Congratulations to the entire team at Dueling Barrels Brewery & Distillery. I wish them continued success, and I am proud to recognize this great Kentucky business.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mathias ``Matth'' Toebben, a respected northern Kentucky developer, businessman, community leader, and friend to countless people throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky who passed away on August 3, 2026. His passing marks the end of a long and distinguished life dedicated to his family, his work, and the continued growth and prosperity of the community he called home. Throughout his 95 years, Matth demonstrated the values that have long defined northern Kentucky: hard work, perseverance, entrepreneurship, and a commitment to building something better for the generations that would follow. As a developer, he understood that building a community meant far more than constructing buildings or developing property. It meant creating places where families could live, businesses could grow, and future generations could prosper. His vision and investment helped contribute to the growth and transformation of northern Kentucky over the course of many decades. For those fortunate enough to know Matth, he will be remembered as a man of character and determination--a man who understood the value of a handshake, the importance of keeping one's word, and the responsibility that comes with success. His life serves as an example of what can be accomplished through vision, hard work, and an unwavering commitment to one's community. Northern Kentucky today is a thriving region with a growing economy and a strong sense of community. Matth played an important role in making that possible. His contributions are woven into the story of northern Kentucky's development, and his influence will continue to be felt long after his passing. At the age of 95, Matth leaves behind a legacy measured not only in what he built, but in the people and communities that were strengthened by his life's work. His passing is a profound loss to his family, his friends, his colleagues, and the many people throughout northern Kentucky who had the privilege of knowing him. I extend my deepest condolences to the Toebben family. May they find comfort in the memories of a life well lived and in knowing that Mathias' contributions to northern Kentucky will endure for generations to come.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise today to honor the life and memory of James Edward Joseph Brueggemann, a devoted husband, father, grandfather, businessman, and man of deep faith who passed away on August 15, 2026. James, known affectionately as ``Jim'' to those who knew him, was born on February 22, 1960, to Bernard and Rita Brueggemann. He was the third of their six children. Jim was raised in a family that instilled in him a strong Catholic faith, a profound sense of responsibility, and an enduring commitment to family and hard work. Those values became hallmarks of Jim's life. He devoted himself to his family and to the family business Bavarian Trucking, where he carried forward the work ethic and sense of duty that had been passed down to him by his parents. Jim's life was defined not simply by his work, but by the people he loved. He was a devoted husband to his wife Maria, a loving father, and a proud grandfather. He is survived by Maria, their 16 children, 46 grandchildren and counting, and his siblings. His faith was central to the way Jim lived his life. Even as his health declined, he remained devoted to the Catholic faith. His family recounts that shortly before his passing, Jim went to Confession, received Holy Communion, the Apostolic Blessing, and Extreme Unction. Later, he told his wife, ``I am ready to go.'' Jim passed away the following morning, surrounded by his wife, children, siblings, and loved ones. The story of Jim Brueggemann is ultimately a story of faith, family, perseverance, and service. He leaves behind a large and loving family whose lives were shaped by his example and whose memories of him will endure for generations. Northern Kentucky has lost a respected member of its community, but Jim's greatest legacy will not be measured by a business or an accomplishment. It will be measured by the family he loved, the values he lived, the faith he cherished, and the example he provided to those who had the privilege of knowing him. I extend my deepest condolences to Maria Brueggemann, Jim's children and grandchildren, his brothers and sister, and all of his extended family and friends.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, this legislation is well- intended but also misguided. It doesn't address the root problem and, in all likelihood, will not lower any healthcare prices. Congress has spent almost a decade pondering price transparency, regulations, and implementing them to some extent. Even with all this effort, current price transparency tools are only used by less than 20 percent of patients. Patients in general ignore prices. Why? Because they are disconnected from the price. They don't pay. Someone else pays the bill. Prices are opaque because the patient is separated from the direct payment by a third party. For almost all patients, prices are fixed by a third party--either insurance or government, Medicare, Medicaid. Mandated transparency, when an insurance company is in the middle, has actually no effect on prices. Imagine it this way: About half of the country has Medicare, the other 10 or 20 percent has Medicaid, and then there is private insurance. There are about 5 percent of Americans who have no insurance. Now, transparency might make a difference there, but it actually already does. If you have to pay cash, everybody knows the price. Nobody will go in anywhere. If you are paying for something out of pocket, the prices are completely transparent and everywhere. An example is LASIK surgery. LASIK surgery is done to correct vision so you don't have to wear glasses. The prices are on billboards all around town. If you call the receptionist or anybody where you have to pay cash for an elective procedure, the receptionist will tell you on the phone what the price is. The one they won't tell you the price on is the gallbladder, if you have your gallbladder removed, because that has been negotiated with a third party, the insurance company. There is a price, and you are not going to, if you know the price, go get a better price. If they tell you at the hospital that the price is $500 but your insurance pays for the gallbladder, that is what it pays at the other hospital. If it pays $600 and you know the price and you go one versus the other--you don't get to negotiate the price. The price is already fixed. The government sets the prices, too, so if you know what the price is that Medicare is going to pay, it doesn't do anything. Nobody can change the price; it is actually mandated by law. So the problem really is that prices are fixed almost all the time. It is not lack of transparency; it is that prices are fixed. Now, there is a part of the market that actually does work. It is called elective, which means not covered by insurance. It also works to a certain extent if you are willing to pay at that time. I go to a local HCA hospital on occasion, and when I pay, they say: If you will pay now, we will give you a 25-percent discount by immediate pay. So there are parts of the system that do work. But the opaqueness is because you are not paying. The opaqueness is because a third party is paying, and that really is where the system is broken. So there is almost nobody choosing any healthcare based on price other than the 5 percent or those who are in the elective market, the 5 percent who don't have insurance or in the elective market. Even if you have a high deductible but you still have insurance, all your prices under the deductible have already been negotiated. You may not know what it is going to cost, that it is going to be $500 for the gallbladder or whatever the surgery is going to cost you--you don't know those prices, but they have already been negotiated. If we tell you, if we mandate that they tell you and then they tell you, you aren't going to be able to go to another hospital and get a cheaper price because it has already been negotiated. The insurance company has already negotiated this with the hospitals. So this is well-intended, but it is just not going to work, and it just adds one more government mandate and is not a good idea. I would argue that the mandated transparency regulations will actually have limited effect even in the best-case scenario because over 95 percent of the healthcare market involves insurance or government middlemen already. Healthcare prices have continued to rise 5 to 10 percent annually because of the root cause of the problem: insurance and third-party payments. We also don't seem to have enough leverage as patients to get a better price. There is something that we could do, and it is a bill that I have had out there for years and that I would be happy to get behind a unanimous consent effort, and this is something called association healthcare or health association. The way they would work is this: Instead of an accountant and three employees trying to get insurance for four people, you join a buying group--this would be like Amazon, Sam's Club, Costco--and then a large group would negotiate, not for individual policies but for a group policy. It takes a change in our labor laws. We change the ERISA law to let you do this. Then you would be able to dial up Amazon, get on Amazon, and if Amazon had 40 million members that wanted to buy insurance, 1 person at Amazon would call up probably the CEO of UnitedHealthcare and negotiate a rate. So what we would do is grant you leverage. It doesn't cost anything, doesn't mandate anything, and lets you do what you want. It gets rid of aspects of our labor law that prevent this. It would let anybody join a buying group or co-op to buy their insurance. Now, understandably, the insurance companies are opposed to this. We haven't been able to get it out of committee. And one of the reasons is the Democrats largely oppose this because they say: Well, we are kind of for it, but we have to mandate what the insurance is. This has been the thing going all the way back to ObamaCare. When you mandate what is in insurance, you elevate the cost of it. So if we let the market take care of it, let people come together in co-ops to buy insurance, you could drive prices down. This window dressing won't work because the prices are already fixed, and knowing what the prices are won't bring the prices down. Employers already do some of this negotiation for you. There are examples. Lowe's Home Improvement has negotiated a $325 MRI at facilities in the highest tier. There are websites that will help you out if you don't have insurance. The only people who really benefit by some of these price transparencies would be people without insurance, but there are some. For example, there is a website you can go to where you can get an MRI on Sundays. If you live in a big city and you will drive an hour outside the big city and you want to get your MRI and you will spend an hour driving and do it on Sunday afternoon at 3 o'clock when the volume is really low, you can get a discount. There are websites that will direct you there. But until Congress is serious about reducing the Federal Government's role in healthcare, reducing the subsidization, allowing people to join co-ops--that is when we will actually get the price down. But this bill actually won't do it. I think it adds mandates, and it ultimately actually might increase the price of healthcare as we add one more cost to the insurance companies and those who have to provide healthcare. So, therefore, I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the people who oversee the post office now want to run college sports. What could go wrong? The U.S. Congress has been called upon during one of the more important times in our history to make difficult decisions about the future of our country. We have navigated wars, economic downturns, and natural disasters. These are the kinds of nationwide issues the Federal Government should address. The Founders never intended for the Federal Government, though, to usurp the authority of your local school board or your homeowners association. I don't think it ever occurred to them that Congress would one day be in charge of dictating the rules for college sports. Yet, with gas at over $4 a gallon, a persistent war with Iran, $40 trillion in debt, the Senate has decided that the most urgent thing now is to dictate how college sports are run from Washington. It came to this decision, of course, after acknowledging that government caused the very problems this bill purports to fix. This is the exact scenario the great Harry Brown described when he said: Government--you know, they know how to break your legs and then hand you a crutch and say, see, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk. I come to the floor today to offer an amendment that would avoid the Federal takeover of college sports. Unlike the underlying bill, my amendment rejects the idea that politicians should run college sports. My amendment would put the trust in the schools, the students, the coaches, and the conferences to run their own sports. You see, the whole problem originated because the government, through the courts, took the power away from the NCAA. My amendment accomplishes this goal simply by granting an antitrust exemption so that the NCAA, the conferences, the college students, and the schools can make their own deals without unelected judges or politicians micromanaging every detail of compensation and eligibility. Jason Russell, a journalist with Reason magazine, perhaps summed up this bill's Federal takeover of college sports best when he wrote: The backers of the bill believe politicians, not the NCAA, should decide how many transfers are allowed. They think politicians, not conferences, should set a compensation cap on how much schools can pay athletes. They think politicians, not athletes and businesses, should get to decide [what a legitimate private contract does]. They think politicians, not the colleges, should decide how many schools are in the Big Ten and SEC. They think politicians, not coaches, should decide when a coach is allowed to leave a job. This is not the job of the Federal Government. These decisions should be made privately by an association. The NCAA always did this until the courts interfered with them, calling them a monopoly and taking away their just power to govern themselves. Jason Russell goes on to write: [This bill presumes that] politicians, not athletes or agents, should get to decide what agent fees are. They think politicians should empower medical personnel, not athletes or coaches, to have ``autonomous, unchallengeable'' power to decide if an athlete plays or sits. They even think politicians, not the NFL or broadcasters, should get to decide when professional football games are on TV. They think politicians should have a say in the length of the college football season. This bill is the culmination of a slow march toward Federal control of college sports that began almost 140 years ago in the courts. In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It is a piece of antitrust legislation, but quite quickly, antitrust became a weapon against businesses of all sizes. A brief review of the antitrust cases shows you the ridiculous nature of antitrust law. One of the most ridiculous examples of antitrust as a weapon of government came in 1967. In Utah Pie Company v. Continental Baking Company, the Court determined that a bakery violated antitrust laws by selling its pies too cheaply. Now, you would be forgiven for being confused if you thought monopolies were where someone controlled the market and raised your price. The government sued Utah Pie Company for selling its pies too cheaply. Not long after that, in 1969, the government sued IBM for dominating the computer market by innovating too quickly. Now, I thought monopolies were going to prevent competition. There would be no innovation. They would block new innovation because they didn't want someone to get into their territory. Instead, they accused IBM of innovating too frequently. So antitrust law is full of the government going after people for charging too little and innovating too much. The world is upside down, and antitrust law is a perfect example of the illogic of the government. The logic of antitrust became so contorted that the FTC accused cereal makers of maintaining a shared monopoly on the theory that the brands blocked competition by being so popular, they flooded the store shelves with their product. After 10 years of litigation, the FTC dismissed the case, ruling the staff failed to prove the shared monopoly charges. They were being accused of being too competitive. They were putting too many products on the store shelves. So you had like six or eight cereal makers making so many cereals that they said: You are blocking competition by introducing too many products. These are the absurdities of antitrust laws. This is the antitrust law that ended up destroying college sports. When you see the mess that is college sports, don't think it just happened and now government has to come in and fix it. Government created the problem. Government took antitrust law, used it against NCAA, neutered them, and said: You can no longer make your rules. So when it is the government's fault, maybe we should get rid of the government problem, not add more government to try to solve the problems. Antitrust laws granted the courts the ability to intrude on private contracts and dictate how people should run their businesses or their associations, like the NCAA, and courts have grown increasingly comfortable using that power, increasing the scope of antitrust law with each case. For over 100 years, this country has left regulation of sports where it belongs: with the institutions and individuals and voluntary associations that have always run college sports. Until 1984, college athletics were excluded from antitrust law because antitrust law didn't deal with noncommercial amateur pursuits. But in 1984, the Court decided that the NCAA couldn't impose television broadcasting restrictions on college football games. Well, why not? It is a volunteer association. If you don't want to be in the NCAA, don't be in it. Form your own association. Have your own rules. But there is an advantage to being in it because people watch the NCAA, watch the Final Four, and they watch the March Madness. So it is that tradeoff. You get something, but in order to get it, you accepted, voluntarily, the rules--that is, until the Court came in, messed everything up, and neutered the NCAA. Rather than recognizing that there may have been an underlying reason for the restrictions, the Court threw out the restrictions and began the slippery slope we are on today. That case in 1984 established college athletics as a commercial enterprise, but it wasn't until 2015 that the courts really sank their fangs into college athletics. In 2015, the court decided that the NCAA could not require students to maintain their amateur status by refusing payments for the use of their name, image, and likeness. The court decided that eligibility rules for a private association are best decided by the government, not the members of the association. This is a real tragedy, and the reason I bring it up today is not because college sports is so messed up by the government. When you let antitrust law pervade private associations, you get rid of all of the rules that people voluntarily accept. It is no different than your homeowners association. It has all these rules. You voluntarily accept them if you want to be part of that particular neighborhood. It is the same way with the NCAA. But they can't make the rules anymore because the courts said: You are a monopoly. You are no longer allowed to. All of the problems in college sports can be laid at the foot of antitrust law. You can say it is the courts, but it is really Congress. Congress passed these ridiculous laws, and for 150 years, they have been used in a ridiculous way. In fact, to this day, antitrust laws protect Big Business against Small Business. If five doctors get together and they say ``Well, we want to get our annual fee or our exam fee to be $100'' and they are in separate practices that come together, the government will sue them for antitrust even though they are trying to use their leverage to negotiate a higher price with a billion-dollar company. The insurance companies are protected from doctors organizing or nurses organizing or hospitals organizing even though they are the big player. The big bully is the insurance company, but they are protected by antitrust and the small business people are punished. This is the history of antitrust law. In 2015, the court finally decided that the NCAA could not require students to maintain their amateur status. This NIL--name, image, and likeness--you can't have rules against it. You are a monopoly. No more rules. So it is the Wild West, and it is chaos now. Nobody says it is not chaos. But the chaos was created by the antitrust laws. The chaos was created by the government. The court decided that eligibility rules for a private association would be decided by the government, not the members of the association. Since 2015, a flurry of cases has decided issues as parochial as how much individual athletes are paid out of broadcast revenues and how long student-athletes are eligible to play, when they can transfer, who they can play for, how old they are, what injuries they can play with. It is really not the government's business to be involved. Government has shirked its real duties--which are paramount, which are of great national importance--to focus on something it knows nothing about. And mark my words, this won't be the end of it. Sports has commissioners--a commissioner of baseball. Who is going to be the commissioner of college sports? Will we be back here in another year with people lobbying us to tweak the eligibility rules, tweak the transfer rules? As important as college sports are to students and institutions, they aren't something Congress should micromanage. Athletes and institutions should be free to make choices about who they work for, who they play for, and what rules they should be subject to. This bill manages to interfere with college athletics at nearly every level. It limits the ability of certain employees to freely leave one school and accept a job at another. It decides how students may go about licensing their name, image, and likeness. It even decides when the transfer students are eligible to play. The bill actually forbids a return to the historic model of amateur sports where athletes are not paid. I am old enough to remember when amateur sports was lauded. You remember when we beat the Russians. We beat them with amateurs. It was commendable. They put all their professionals out there, and we beat them with amateurs. But people knew what it was to be amateurs. People who remember Bobby Jones remember and respect that Bobby Jones didn't take money. There was something admirable about someone so pure that they didn't. There was always something more admirable--not that money is bad, not that the NFL and NBA are bad. Look, our basketball players go after a year anyway. They are playing 1 year and going to the NBA. Some of them are going directly from high school, and that is their business. There is always this avenue to make money, but now what we have done with this bill is we have micromanaged this, and in the bill, it actually forbids anybody from preventing amateurs from being paid. You will no longer--it was probably a lost dream anyway, but this bill prevents the NCAA from ever going back to having true amateur sports where they aren't paid. The bill would also set up a Commission on the future of college athletics. A legislative Commission--this is where we will get to the commissioner of college sports--will recommend new rule changes to Congress in the future. It seems that we already have an institution that does this; it is called the NCAA. Congress should not mire itself in another endless cycle of solving problems it caused. We should address the root cause, which is the antitrust law, that got us here. I have several bills to get rid of some of these old antitrust laws that I think actually favor Big Business over Small Business. One of the antitrust laws says that if you buy more in bulk from someone--so if you are a hardware store and you buy 5 hammers or you are Walmart that buys 5,000 hammers, there is a law that says you are not allowed to give discounts to big suppliers. Well, that is ridiculous. It goes against all economics. So what I am offering is an amendment that would actually solve the problem faced by college sports. My amendment would not create all the new rules for it. It would simply reverse the previous antitrust interference and prevent future interference by exempting college sports from antitrust laws. Now, the interesting thing is, in order to pass their bill, they actually do a little bit of exemption from antitrust laws. They do a little, though, and then in place of that, they replace it with congressionally dictated laws. What I would do is just get rid of antitrust laws. NCAA would have their power back again, and they would be able to make these rules. It might be that NIL probably still continues, but it would be a negotiated settlement and NCAA would do it. This would ensure conferences, colleges, and athletes are free to negotiate and enter into agreements that benefit everyone without the heavy hand of government dictating what parties could offer or accept. It would also prevent Congress from imposing rules governing such minutiae as eligibility for transfer students as a threshold for reporting name, image, and likeness income. I love college sports as much as anyone, which is why I think the best way we could protect college sports is to stop sticking our nose in where it doesn't belong. Now, we have the bill before us, and you would think, in a country like ours that prizes democracy in a republic, we would have debate, we would be able to present my amendment, and it would either pass or fail on its merits. So what we will do is ask to bring my amendment down for a vote, and it is going to be rejected. And that is disappointing that we are going to do this whole thing where we take over college sports and any dissent will be muted and there will be no attempts to alter the bill. The bill has been written in private, but there will be no ability for anyone to amend this bill. That is a disappointment. So what I will be asking for is permission to have a vote on my amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 6758.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the Todd family of Todd Family Farm in Carroll County, IN, and an extraordinary milestone in their family's history: 150 consecutive years of stewardship of their farm. Since 1876, generations of the Todd family have cared for the same land, building a legacy rooted in agriculture, hard work, faith, family, and service. What began as a family homestead grew over time to encompass thousands of acres and became home to the Todd Hybrid Seed Company, which developed and distributed seed corn to farmers across the country and was an important part of the agricultural economy of Carroll County for decades. This year, the State of Indiana recognized that remarkable legacy by presenting the Todd Family Farm with the Hoosier Homestead Sesquicentennial Award. The award honors farms that have remained in the same family for 150 years, a distinction that speaks not only to longevity but to the commitment required of generation after generation to preserve and protect a family farm. The Todd family's legacy also extends to my home State of Kentucky. Catherine Todd Bailey, a daughter of John Harvey and Clystia Martell Todd, now makes her home in Louisville. A native of Carroll County, Cathy carried the Todd family's tradition of service with her to Kentucky and later onto the world stage, serving as U.S. Ambassador to Latvia. For a family to maintain its connection to the same land for a century and a half is a remarkable achievement. It represents perseverance through changing times, devotion to family, and a determination to pass something meaningful from one generation to the next. I congratulate Cathy Bailey, Marlene Todd Stout, and the entire Todd family as they celebrate 150 years of the Todd Family Farm and the enduring legacy their family has built in Indiana, Kentucky, and across our Nation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the bill before us contains the largest tax increase ever passed by a Republican Congress. Worse yet, the bill transfers the taxing authority from the legislature to the executive branch, an unconstitutional delegation of power. The Constitution clearly states that ``Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, duties . . . and Excises.'' Madison believed the Republic would survive only if the Constitution divided the power and pitted the executive ambition against legislative ambition. Madison would be horrified by the clamor of so many in Congress to cede the taxing authority. My amendment strips the transfer of the taxing authority from the bill. My amendment--if it passes--will demonstrate that Congress still has a spine, still has ambition, and still supports the separation and limitation of power.

Mr. PAUL. I call up amendment No. 6715 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, increasing taxes on Americans will not end Putin's war in Ukraine. The drafters of this legislation, understandably, wish to punish Vladimir Putin and send Russian invaders back to where they came from, but this bill was written such that the drafters fail to see that it will not bring peace to Ukraine but rather will deliberately make American families poorer by increasing tariffs, which are nothing but a tax on imported goods. To save Americans from what very well could be the largest tax increase imposed by a Republican Congress, I offer an amendment that strikes the authority to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on an ever-changing list of countries. Mark my words, this will be the largest tax increase by a Republican Congress. Why would Republicans, who promise you they want to lower your taxes, be voting to raise your taxes $500 billion? In addition, Congress should not delegate its constitutional duties to the executive branch. Now, my amendment does not touch the broad sanctions that are provided by the bill, nor does it touch the specific tariffs on Russia because I see the strong desire among Members of the Senate to use economic warfare against Putin. But I object to economic warfare against the American consumer. Once upon a time, Republicans were distinguished from Democrats by their persistent chant that the U.S. deficit was the result of a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Yet today, many Republicans have become the cheerleaders for more revenue. The bill before us grants the executive branch the power to raise nearly $500 billion in revenue--in taxes. I hope I am not the only Republican left in Congress who is horrified by a bill that proposes to raise taxes a half a trillion dollars. In addition, there is the constitutional question: Can Congress delegate its article I, section 8 authority to lay taxes and levies-- can they just give it away to the executive branch? For 100 years or more, the Supreme Court has said we can't give away our power. And in what world would we want to give away our power? The power to tax and spend was given to Congress. Why would they give that to the President? What sort of feckless Congress gives away their constitutional power? The power was divided for a reason. Montesquieu said if you bring the legislative powers together with the executive, you will have no liberty. The powers were divided between the legislature and the executive so we could fight for liberty, so it would make it hard to raise taxes. The answer to ``Can Congress give away its power?'' is an unequivocal ``no.'' Embedded within our Constitution is something called the nondelegation principle, which states that Congress cannot delegate its core legislative powers to another branch of government or to private entities. The Supreme Court used to enforce this nondelegation doctrine, most notably in the Schechter Poultry case, but that case was decided in 1935; and for much of the intervening years, the Supreme Court has been a reliable ally to lazy legislators. Up until recently, the Supreme Court effectively relieved Congress from the hard work of legislating, but the tide is turning, frankly, with the help of several of President Trump's nominees. Justice Gorsuch forcefully made the case for reviving the nondelegation principle by arguing that if Congress ``could pass off its legislative power to the executive branch . . . legislation would risk becoming nothing more than the will of the current President.'' The problem with this legislation is that it disobeys the clear command of the Constitution: Taxes and levies must be determined by Congress. Moreover, taxation bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Do not let sympathy for Ukraine blind you to the reality of tariffs. Tariffs are taxes on imports that are paid by Americans. They are paid by parents trying to provide for their families. They are paid by students saving up to buy their first car. Tariffs are paid by anyone who seeks to spend money on any conceivable product. There will be those who will try to pull the wool over your eyes and tell you that despite this persistent sticker shock, despite the feeling that life just keeps getting more and more expensive, that tariffs are always paid by somebody else, by some foreign country. The Members who vote for this tax will tell you: Not to worry--these taxes will only be levied on foreign countries. This absurd claim is provably false. Figuring out who pays tariffs is easy. All you have to do is look at those who are getting refunds. When the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, a whole bunch of people lined up for refunds. Who is not on the list? The Chinese Government is not on the list. Canada is not on the list. Mexico is not on the list. American companies are getting the refunds because Americans pay tariffs. And do you think the company pays the tariffs? No. They pass it along to the consumer. You are all paying higher prices. Every time you get something through retail, you are paying higher prices. The entities that lined up for the rebates after the Supreme Court struck down the emergency tariffs were primarily American retailers such as Walmart, Target, Costco, and Nike. Let me repeat: China is not on the refund list because China doesn't pay the tariffs. American importers and retailers pay the tariffs, and they pass the cost of the tariffs on to the consumer. You don't have to take my word for it. A letter was sent to the Senate Republican and Democrat leaders by two dozen industry associations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Consumer Technology Association, and the National Retail Association, warning about the cost of tariffs imposed by this bill. Here are some quotes from industry concerned about these new taxes: [T]he potential of new, broad, 100% tariffs on imports from secondary countries risks raising costs for American businesses, workers, and consumers. That approach would effectively tax U.S. importers and consumers for foreign governments' energy decisions--conduct that is outside the control of American companies. They further say: Tariffs of this scale would increase costs for everyday consumer goods, manufacturing inputs and other products while creating significant uncertainty for companies making sourcing, pricing and inventory decisions months in advance. It could also lead to retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exports. So it doesn't necessarily help exports to tax imports because the other countries then will tax our exports. They say: Tariffs . . . are a blunt tool that can penalize law- abiding U.S. companies importing legitimate goods, invite retaliation, complicate trade negotiations and shift costs onto American families without ensuring that pressure reaches the intended actors. These two dozen associations end their letter by saying: We urge Congress to remove the tariff authority from the bill and instead focus on targeted sanctions, stronger enforcement against sanctions evasion and coordinated diplomacy with countries purchasing Russian energy. Anybody concerned with the economic well-being of American families would come to the same conclusion, but it is not easy to find such common sense in Congress. Imposing a 100-percent tariff on all goods imported from countries like China and India is the economic equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. Middle- and low-income Americans enjoy a higher quality of life when they have more purchasing power for everyday necessities. Recent tariffs are estimated to have already cost the average American family $1,700, so the average American family is already paying $1,700 more because of these taxes that are placed on the things they buy. Now this Republican Congress, after it just gave the American people tax cuts, is going to do the opposite. Which is it? Are we the party of lower taxes or higher taxes? This will be the largest tax increase in recent history, perhaps the largest tax increase that a Republican Congress has put onto the people. What are we going to say to the parents buying their kids new shoes for the school year, the minimum-wage worker who needs to buy a new part to fix their car to get to work, or the single mother buying diapers when they notice their prices have doubled? The cost of the tariffs is not strictly monetary; these tariffs threaten to undermine America's strategic position in the world. Some naively think that the tariffs will get China to distance itself from Russia, but it might be the opposite. Recent history suggests that they will instead push Russia and China together. China is not going to get these 100-percent tariffs and say: Oh, we are sorry. We are no longer going to cooperate with Russia. We have kind of forced Russia to give us this great deal on oil and gas that we pipe into our country, but we are sorry now, and we are going to give up on that. No. It is going to push them closer together. The people we are worried about are going to become more allied. Slapping a 100-percent tariff on China may inadvertently solidify the geopolitical alignment with Russia, as Beijing would become more, not less, reliant on Moscow for economic and diplomatic support. Ryan Young is a senior economist with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He points out that Russia is the junior partner in the alliance with China. Young reminds us that China agreed to a second natural gas pipeline between the two countries on the condition that Russia sell China its gas at a lower than market rate. Do you think China is going to give up on that? No. China will continue to buy oil and gas from Russia after this, and they, in all likelihood, will respond to our tariffs with tariffs of their own. This is what is going to happen. It is not going to solve the situation; it is going to raise American taxes, drive Russia and China together, and then China will actually add tariffs on our goods as well. It is a huge mistake. Imposing tariffs on China will reignite the trade war. Beijing will certainly retaliate with their own tariffs and export controls. Maia Nikoladze, the deputy director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, reminded us that on ``Liberation Day,'' the tariffs placed on China in April of 2025 didn't change Beijing's behavior. Instead, those tariffs prompted China to restrict exports of critical rare earth elements. We already tried this once. They responded by restricting their exports of things we need to make batteries for cars, and then we eventually ended up negotiating lower tariffs. Do we want to go through the same world of that again? Likewise, imposing a 100-percent tariff on India at a time when we are actively trying to court them to help us in our competition with China is completely self-defeating. Ryan Young with the Competitive Enterprise Institute worries that imposing tariffs on India will alienate one of the most important strategic partners in Asia and a potential counterweight to China. So as we try to get India to be more aligned with us instead of with China or Russia--admiral goals--we put tariffs on India, and what does that do? It pushes them more toward China and more toward Russia. It is also unclear whether tariffs could even be imposed on individual members of the European Union, like Slovakia and Hungary, given Europe's common trade policy. In 2025, U.S.-EU bilateral trade was over $1 trillion. That is making both parties rich. We have become extraordinarily rich as a country as international trade has expanded. In fact, prosperity of the individual and prosperity of the country are directly proportional to the amount of trade. Think about that. Trying to tariff individual EU countries directly undermines President Trump's recent U.S.-EU trade agreement. Should the EU retaliate against the United States, the result would be disastrous for both American businesses and consumers. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment that strips the counterproductive tariffs from the legislation. If not adopted, Congress should reject this strategic blunder of a bill that would do nothing to bring peace to Ukraine but, rather, raise American prices for American consumers, further weaken the dollar, destroy U.S. relations around the globe, and drive our adversaries closer together. Mr. President, I recommend a ``yes'' vote on the Paul-Wyden amendment.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Officer Josh McKinley for an extraordinary act of courage, compassion, and public service that saved a life and exemplifies the very best of law enforcement. On March 21, 2026, Officer McKinley responded to a critical incident on the Big Four Walking Bridge in Louisville, KY, involving an individual who had climbed over the bridge railing, was seated on the outside ledge, and was threatening to end his life. The situation demanded extraordinary judgment, patience, and calm under immense pressure. Officer McKinley immediately took the lead in communicating with the individual. Rather than relying on force or haste, he relied on empathy, respect, and genuine human connection. For nearly an hour, Officer McKinley remained engaged in conversation, patiently building trust while demonstrating unwavering professionalism and compassion. Through his calm demeanor and steadfast commitment, he persuaded the individual to safely climb back over the railing, preventing what could have been a tragic loss of life. Officer McKinley's service did not end once the immediate danger had passed. He offered a meal and continued emotional support before ensuring he was transported to a hospital where he could receive the medical treatment and assistance he needed. The actions displayed by Officer McKinley reflect the highest ideals of law enforcement. His courage was measured not only in his willingness to face danger but also in his patience, compassion, and determination to preserve life. His professionalism serves as an example for officers across the Commonwealth of Kentucky and our Nation. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Officer Josh McKinley for his extraordinary service. His selfless actions on March 21, 2026, undoubtedly saved a life, brought hope to a person in despair, and remind us all of the difference one dedicated public servant can make.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, as a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I would like to recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. It is my privilege to recognize Morgan Smith Industries, LLC of Columbia, KY, as my Senate Small Business of the Week. Morgan Smith Industries, LLC is a family-owned architectural millwork, custom cabinetry, casework, furniture, and interior construction manufacturer whose roots in Kentucky craftsmanship span nearly eight decades. The company's history began in 1948 when Willis D. McCammish and his son Doug McCammish established a small cabinet and countertop business in Winchester, KY. Through hard work, quality craftsmanship, and a commitment to serving their customers, the business expanded into commercial architectural millwork, institutional cabinetry, and contract furniture, earning a reputation for excellence throughout the Commonwealth. In 2012, the company entered a new chapter when J. Andrew ``Andy'' Keith and his nephew Jonathan Keith acquired the business and continued its tradition of family ownership while building upon its legacy of quality and service. Today, Morgan Smith Industries employs approximately 30 skilled Kentuckians and continues to invest in the workforce and economy of Adair County. By combining experienced craftsmanship with modern manufacturing techniques, Morgan Smith Industries has become one of Kentucky's premier producers of architectural millwork and custom interior furnishings. The quality of Morgan Smith Industries' work can be found in some of Kentucky's most significant public and private facilities. The company has completed projects for universities, public schools, courthouses, healthcare facilities, government buildings, and commercial developments across the Commonwealth. Among its notable projects are the new Adair County Middle School, the Lexington Federal Courthouse, and the Kentucky State Capitol. Congratulations to Andy Keith, Jonathan Keith, and the entire team at Morgan Smith Industries, LLC. I look forward to their continued growth and success in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, as a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to recognize Crume Drug Store of Bardstown, KY, as my Senate Small Business of the Week. Crume Drug Store has served Nelson County continuously since 1852. For more than 170 years, the business has adapted to changes in medicine, technology, and the retail pharmacy industry while remaining a trusted presence in downtown Bardstown. In 2019, Derrick Greenwell and Ashley Coomes purchased Crume Drug Store as equal partners. Derrick is a Doctor of Pharmacy and serves as co-owner and pharmacist. Ashley is a certified pharmacy technician and co-owner. Together, they have preserved the store's historic identity while operating it as a modern, locally owned community pharmacy. Derrick and Ashley strive to ensure that every customer feels comfortable being served at their store. This personal attention reflects the best tradition of independent community pharmacies. Crume also helps prepare the next generation of healthcare professionals. The pharmacy has employed students through local cooperative education programs and has provided pharmacy interns with practical experience serving patients and working in a community pharmacy. Derrick, Ashley, and the Crume Drug Store team regularly support local schools, athletic programs, churches, and community fundraisers. Much of Crume's community service is performed quietly and without seeking recognition. Derrick and Ashley prefer to let their work speak for itself. They focus on serving their customers well, remaining approachable, supporting their employees, and helping their neighbors whenever possible. Congratulations to Derrick Greenwell, Ashley Coomes, and the entire Crume Drug Store team. I commend them for their service to Bardstown and Nelson County and wish them continued success in Kentucky.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise today to honor the service of a true American patriot, Terry McIntosh of Paducah, KY. At the age of 17, motivated by a sense of duty to his country during the Vietnam war, Terry enlisted in the United States Army. Despite his youth, he would soon find himself on the frontlines, eventually assigned to Operational Detachment A-414, a Green Beret ``A-team'' operating along the Cambodian border. For his service in combat, which included multiple missions and a February 1969 firefight that earned him the Combat Infantryman Badge, Mr. McIntosh stood shoulder- to-shoulder with the elite of our Armed Forces. For decades, the formal recognition of this service remained elusive. It was not until March 2026, following a review of his personnel records, that the Army retroactively awarded Mr. McIntosh the Special Forces tab--a long-overdue acknowledgment of his status as a Green Beret. Mr. McIntosh's story is a testament to the quiet professionalism of the soldiers who did the job without the need for fanfare or special recognition. As he noted, he sought this recognition not for himself, but so his children would know the nature of his service to this Nation. It is my privilege to recognize Mr. McIntosh today. His dedication at such a young age is an inspiration to all who value the courage of those who wear the uniform. We honor his service, we celebrate his official recognition as a Green Beret, and we thank him for his enduring commitment to this country.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Sheriff Charles ``Chuck'' Korzenborn of Kenton County, KY, upon the occasion of his well-earned retirement from a distinguished career in law enforcement and public service. For 26 years, Sheriff Korzenborn has served the people of Kenton County with integrity, professionalism, and an unwavering commitment to public safety. As sheriff, he has been entrusted with one of the most vital responsibilities in our communities: protecting the lives, rights, and property of the citizens he served. Through his leadership, the Kenton County Sheriff's Office has upheld the highest standards of law enforcement while fostering trust and cooperation between officers and the community. Sheriff Korzenborn's career reflects a deep dedication to service above self. He has led with fairness, accountability, and respect for the rule of law, earning the confidence of his colleagues and the gratitude of the residents of Kenton County. His steady leadership and experience have helped guide his department through both everyday challenges and extraordinary moments, always with the safety and well- being of the community as his top priority. Sheriff Korzenborn's legacy is one of mentorship and example. He has influenced countless deputies and staff members, instilling in them the values of duty, honor, and service that will continue to shape the Kenton County Sheriff's Office for years to come. As Sheriff Korzenborn enters retirement, he leaves behind a record of service that reflects great credit upon himself, his family, the Kenton County Sheriff's Office, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I extend my sincere appreciation for his years of dedicated service and wish him the best in the next chapter of his life.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Dan Caudill, a respected Kentucky business leader and a principled advocate for criminal justice reform, who passed away in December 2025. Dan was not merely a supporter of reform in theory; he lived it through his work and deeds. I was proud to work alongside Dan on the REDEEM Act, legislation rooted in the belief that justice should allow for redemption and that nonviolent mistakes should not necessarily become lifelong barriers to employment and opportunity. Dan brought that belief to life through his leadership at Caudill Seed Company, where he demonstrated that second-chance hiring strengthens both businesses and communities. Dan's testimony before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship in July 2022 was especially impactful. He spoke plainly and persuasively about how outdated and overly broad background check practices harm workers, families, and employers alike and how giving individuals a fair chance after they have paid their debt to society leads to loyalty, productivity, and reduced recidivism. His testimony provided real-world evidence that reform is not only compassionate, but practical and economically sound. Dan Caudill's voice carried the moral clarity of experience, not ideology. His legacy will endure in the lives he lifted up, the reforms he championed, and the enduring reminder that a just society must always leave room for second chances.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, when we are told that we need to spend billions of dollars on a new program and yet we are unwilling to cut any spending from anywhere else, we should say: Well, aren't there some areas that we could all agree with? So there is an Agency called the National Science Foundation. They have an $8.6 billion budget. About $8.5 billion is spent on crazy stuff. William Proxmire first started talking about the National Science Foundation in the 1970s, when he would give a Golden Fleece Award. One of the first awards was for a project that was $50,000. This was a while ago. It was only $50,000, but they were going to study what makes people happy. Does anybody think that is a good use of your money: What makes people happy? Why do people fall in love--another 50 grand. Now, that might be a fun or interesting article in Cosmopolitan, but when we have a $40 trillion debt, maybe we should cut some of their money. One of my favorite studies was this: They wanted to determine whether tequila or gin made people more feisty, more cantankerous, more likely to commit violence. So they got codfish, and they guzzled--you know, they poured the tequila down the mouth of a codfish and then the gin. And I will bet you we can just poll the audience: Tequila, of course. But that is the kind of crap your money is going to. And if we are not willing to cut any of that, even for a good cause, why are we here? Why does it get worse every year? Because nobody cuts. For the National Science Foundation, we doubled their budget a couple of years ago. Not more than 2 or 3 years ago, there was a study--it was about a million dollars--and they wanted to know: Are Japanese quail more sexually promiscuous when they are on cocaine? We can probably poll the audience on that one. Another one of my favorites is--this was three-quarters of a million dollars, and they wanted to know: What did Neil Armstrong say when he landed on the Moon? So if you ever remember this from 50-some-odd years ago--the crackly sort of audio and the black-and-white video--and he says, ``One small step for man.'' Or did he say, ``One small step for a man''? So we spent 750 grand to study and listen to the old tape of Neil Armstrong to see: Did he say, ``One small step for man,'' or ``One small step for a man''? To make matters worse, to make it even more insulting, this was $750,000 that had been designated for autism research; and instead of it going to autism research, it was secondarily contracted out to study what Neil Armstrong had to say. Two million dollars was spent studying whether or not, if you go to the cafeteria and the person in front of you sneezes on the food, are you more or less likely to take the food that somebody just sneezed on. This is crazy. It is insulting, and it is ridiculous. Why shouldn't we cut some of that waste and use it for this new veterans program. And this isn't a veterans program where there is or there isn't money. There is money being spent. This is to allow more money for a veterans program. This isn't to supply money to people who aren't getting any money. I am for--we are a rich country. We should do it. But we should cut spending from where we are wasting it, and there are plenty of alternatives. If the Senator has another alternative where he would like to cut spending, I am your guy. I am for cutting spending across the board. There is waste everywhere. But rather than come forward with programs that are feel-good and that have sympathetic people you want to help, come forward with these programs and say: But I am conservative. I worry about the debt. I worry about the trillion dollars in interest. And this is how we will pay for them. Until that day, I will object.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there are 40 trillion reasons why new spending should be offset by cuts elsewhere. We are approaching $40 trillion in debt. The interest is a trillion dollars a year. Interest rates are rising. Likely the biggest threat to our country is our national debt. No one disputes that our veterans deserve to receive the benefits they earned through years of service to our Nation, but we should offset it. There is waste in abundance throughout our budget. There is no reason why we shouldn't cut waste to pay for this. What I proposed is a simple amendment to this legislation that would basically get rid of money that hasn't been spent over the last 10 years in welfare for refugees. They keep allocating a couple billion dollars more every year. The fund now has $26 billion in it. Refugees shouldn't be getting welfare. You should be coming to our country for the American dream. This is not the American dream to come here for welfare. We should not have welfare for refugees or anybody-- legal or illegal--coming into this country. In fact, it is the law of the land that if you come here legally, you are not eligible for welfare for 5 years unless you are a refugee and then we say: Oh, well, they can be on welfare, and many of them continue on welfare. In the Somali population, well over 80 percent of the Somalis are on welfare 10 years after they get here. So what I am proposing is, if we want to do this, if we think this is fair to add the disability spending to the retirement spending and not have any kind of canceling out, pay for it. Why don't we end this refugee program? That is all I am asking. If you want to help and provide more money for soldiers who are retired or disabled, do that, but pay for it by not giving money to refugees. So it is easy. We should do it. But when people say around here: ``Oh, we don't need to do this'' and ``this is too important to offset with a cut,'' that is why we are $40 trillion in the hole. Interest rates over a trillion. That is paying at about 2.5 percent, on average. The latest Treasury sales of 30-year bonds was 5.2 percent. If we roll over the debt and pay all of it at 5 percent, then we are talking about $2 trillion in debt payments each year. So, yes, we have to be responsible. Money doesn't grow on trees. We can't simply say: Well, this is for a good cause; therefore, we are just going to explode the debt. I mean, ADM Mike Mullen was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he said that the biggest threat to our Nation was not from without, but it was from within. It is from the debt we are accumulating. So just saying something is a good cause is not enough. We have to pay for it. There is waste up and down and all throughout our budget. And for goodness' sake, we should use this as an opportunity to say: We have this and it is a good thing and we can go ahead and do this, but we will do it by getting rid of bad spending. You know, we still have nearly a billion dollars that we are doling out to Afghanistan. We wasted trillions of dollars on that war. We were there for 20 years. We have gone. And there is an allegation that money from that reconstruction fund goes to NGOs and that it still winds up in the hands of the Taliban, to this day. There are all kinds of money throughout government. There is said to be $180 billion worth of improper payments in government. Should we let people keep writing checks to people who are ripping off the system? Did you not see what happened in Minnesota? Nine billion dollars is being stolen. They set up a daycare, and nobody really comes. They set up a center for autism. They had a ``Learing Center.'' They left out the ``n'': L-e-a-r-i-n-g. And they were taking your money. Why shouldn't we just cut that out? Why shouldn't we quit doing that? Why shouldn't we save money if there is something better to be done with the money? But just spending money, no matter how good the cause, is not what we should do. I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, there is no money in this bill for a ballroom. In addition, the pending amendment contains matters not within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and is therefore a poison pill that would prevent the Senate from funding border security. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)1(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the DHS funding bill that we just passed in April included $20 million in funding for defense facilities' inspections. For months, Republicans have negotiated with Democrats to fund border security and immigration enforcement. Democrats walked away from these negotiations. Now they want to insist on terms for a bill they will not vote for. Republicans are doing the responsible thing. We are funding our law enforcement officers and making sure our border remains secure. This amendment is a distraction from paying our Border Patrol and a poison pill to the bill. The pending amendment would cause the underlying bill to exceed the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority or outlays. Point of Order Therefore, I raise a point of order against this amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the DHS funding bill we passed in April included $257 million for the inspector general and $20 million specifically for detention facility inspections. Republicans are doing the responsible thing today; we are funding our law enforcement officers and making sure our borders remain secure. This amendment will cause the underlying bill to exceed the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority for ICE and is a poison pill for this bill. Point of Order Therefore, I raise a point of order against this amendment, pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Motion to Waive