Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, my amendment reasserts that article 5 of the NATO treaty does not supersede Congress's power under article I, section 8, clause 11 of our Constitution to declare war. According to our Constitution, we resort to war only after the people's elected representatives deliberate and determine that it is in our best interest. My amendment is also consistent with the NATO treaty. Article 5 of the treaty commits allies to respond to an attack, but it allows each ally to determine whether to engage in military hostilities. Article 11 of the NATO treaty states that its provisions are to be carried out by each country's constitutional process. We cannot delegate our responsibility to NATO, nor are we expected to. Let's reaffirm that article 5 does not supersede Congress's responsibility to declare war.

Mr. PAUL. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. PAUL. I think it should be an easy vote to affirm the Constitution. To vote against affirming the Constitution actually places doubt in the Constitution. The power to declare war is the most important power and the most important vote that any legislator will ever entertain. Why is this important? Because in 2001, people voted to go to war, and this body still thinks that vote binds us to war with no further vote. We do need to reaffirm the power and the necessity of declaring war because we are ignoring it by continuing to be involved in military activity and war around the globe without ever having voted on it as we are mandated by the Constitution.

Mr. PAUL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the previously scheduled 1:45 p.m. vote now.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to the remarkable life and enduring legacy of Maxwell ``Max'' Emerson, a cherished teacher, coach, mentor, and dear friend to many whose compassion, kindness, and dedication touched the hearts of all who knew him. Over the recent Fourth of July weekend, Max, a vibrant 25-year-old teacher and coach at his alma mater Oldham County High School, traveled to Washington, DC, for his upcoming professional development hours at the Library of Congress. He was assigned these hours to fulfill the requirements for a grant he had been awarded, which would afford him the opportunity to immerse himself in Vietnam's educational system. With both his father, a retired principal of South Oldham High School, and his mother, a dedicated teacher at Oldham County Middle School, education was truly in his blood. On the morning of July 5 in Washington, DC, Max set out for his professional development hours, but he never reached his destination. Instead, his light was tragically extinguished. Max fell victim to a senseless act of violence, robbed at gunpoint on the campus of Catholic University, ultimately losing his life. Max was the true representation of a champion to the Oldham County community. He was a beacon of inspiration and led his very accomplished life through kindness, dedication, and faith. Max was a natural-born leader and a talented athlete who was admired by all who had the privilege of crossing paths with him. His unwavering dedication and genuine care for his students, athletes, friends, and community were evident in every action he took. Countless individuals can testify to Max's willingness to lend a helping hand a put a smile on their face. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Max took on the responsibility of overseeing the credit recovery program, ensuring that no student fell behind and that everyone remained on track academically despite the school closures. It is worth noting that Max achieved an outstanding 100 percent pass rate. Max devoted his life to serving others, and his extraordinary impact will forever remain etched in the Oldham County community. Anyone who had the privilege of meeting Max can attest to the profound positive influence he had on their lives. His legacy will be remembered by the very phrase he lived his own life by: ``Champions Find a Way!'' While his untimely departure has left an immense void that will be challenging to fill, his students and athletes carry his memories and legacy forward. Today I stand in solidarity with his grieving family, friends, and the entire Oldham County community as we mourn the tragic loss of a remarkable soul.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the Kentucky Chapter of the National Association of Women Business Owners--NAWBO--connects women to resources, people, information, and organizations that can help them achieve their personal, business, or political goals. It is composed of women of all ages and levels of experience from all sectors of the marketplace. Each year, NAWBO Kentucky recognizes women for their achievements in business and this year is no exception. In addition to their annual recognitions, they have added a new award, the Legacy Award, which will be presented at this year's ceremony. The Legacy Award is to be given to a woman who is a role model to other women, has achieved excellence in her field, has promoted other women, has broken barriers for women in her field, and has held leadership roles in her community. The inaugural recipient of this award is Ann B. Bakhaus, former president of Kentucky Eagle, Inc. Ann Bakhaus served as the president of Kentucky Eagle, Inc., a total beverage and spirit distributor based in Lexington, and ran day-to-day operations for the company for 20 years before passing the business to her daughter. She still owns the company and serves as the chairman of the corporation board. This company has been in the Bakhaus family since 1948, and Ann is glad to be able to carry on the family legacy. In her role with Kentucky Eagle, Inc., Bakhaus achieved many goals including the expansion of product distribution and the construction of the company's new headquarters which was the first official Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Anheuser Busch distributorship in the country. Beyond serving on the board for Kentucky Eagle, Bakhaus is also heavily invested in community development. One of her biggest passions currently is the addition of Town Branch Park to downtown Lexington and the benefits it will provide to the community. Her desire is to see the Lexington community continue to flourish and is committed to being a part of that progress. I am proud to recognize the Kentucky Chapter of the National Association of Women Business Owners and to honor Ms. Bakhaus for her many achievements.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, far too often, Congress operates under the delusion that we know what is best for the American consumer. Instead of allowing market participants to determine the information they want, we seek to manipulate the free market to impose our preferences on private actors. As I am sure my colleague will readily agree, the Federal Government is far too large in size and scope. In this case, the additional Federal regulation and the associated potential penalties and costs are not appropriate. This is not a case of industry committing fraud or making willful misrepresentations about their products. This bill simply mandates what manufacturers must tell consumers because it assumes that consumers are not sophisticated enough to make the judgment themselves. If American consumers want more information about a product, they can be sure they will make it known. If a manufacturer wants to sell more of their products, you can be sure they will listen to the consumers. Congress doesn't need to insert itself into every equation. I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, across our Nation, thousands of law enforcement officers make great sacrifices to preserve our freedoms and keep the peace. These law enforcement officers not only serve at great risk but also start every shift with a sense of uncertainty. On April 10, 2023, Louisville, KY, was fortunate to have two heroes respond to the call of duty. A gunman began shooting innocent citizens at the Old National Bank and took the lives of five individuals. Within minutes of being dispatched, Officer Nickolas Wilt and his training officer Officer Cory Galloway were the first to arrive on the scene. Officer Wilt was on his 10th day of patrol following his graduation from the academy. But the actions of Officer Wilt were that of a seasoned veteran. Without hesitation, the two officers left the cover of their patrol car and approached the bank while the shooter fired at them with a rifle. Body camera video shows the officers acted with remarkable heroism, bravery, and dedication to save innocent lives. Knowing that each passing second could result in further loss of innocent lives, Officers Wilt and Galloway proceeded toward the gunman. Officer Galloway was struck by rifle rounds in his ballistic vest, causing him to be knocked to the ground and seek cover from further gunshots. During this time, Officer Wilt was struck in the head by one of the assailant's rounds. At this point, disregarding his own safety, Officer Galloway proceeded back toward the gunman and was able to eliminate the threat as he continued taking fire. Officer Galloway continued into the bank through the shot-out windows and told other responding officers to care for Officer Wilt, who was critically injured. Today, I stand to honor Officer Nickolas Wilt and Officer Cory Galloway, as well as a multitude of fellow officers, fire, and emergency medical personnel who responded to this chaotic scene. Each of them displayed the true meaning of service before self. The actions of these individuals as well as the dispatchers taking the frantic calls, saved countless lives, including the life of Officer Wilt. May the actions of each responder be forever remembered as a clear display of heroism in action.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 107 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL. The Biden-McCarthy debt deal will do nothing to avert the looming debt crisis. A debt deal that creates no limits to the debt accumulation over 2 years is not fiscally responsible and should be rejected. My amendment replaces the spending caps with caps that balance the budget in 5 years and limits the extension of debt to $500 billion, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, our national debt now stands at about $32 trillion. How did we get here? Whose fault is it? Republicans? Democrats? Well, the answer is, yes, both parties are at fault for different reasons. Republicans come to this floor and will come to this floor today saying: We need unlimited military spending. And Democrats will come to this floor and say: We need unlimited welfare spending. And guess what happens. They compromise. People say Washington doesn't compromise. They compromise all the time. That is what this debt deal that is before us is, a compromise. But the compromise is always to spend more money. How do we know that? The debt deal that has been crafted by Biden and McCarthy is an unlimited increase in the debt ceiling. Historically, when we raise the debt ceiling, it would be $100 billion or $200 billion or--God forbid--$1 trillion. It was a dollar amount. This debt ceiling will go up until January 2025. How many dollars will be borrowed? As many as they can possibly shovel out the door. It will be how much money can you shovel out the door until January 2025. That is how much we will spend. Is there a dollar amount? No. How much can you shovel it out and how fast can you shovel it out? There will be no restraint from this debt deal. There is a pretense. There is a playing around the edges as if, oh, there might be a cut here or there might be a cut there. There are no cuts. Why? Two-thirds of your spending is entitlement spending. The on-budget entitlement spending is Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and other programs. They are called mandatory, and no one ever looks at them. They go on in perpetuity. This is what drives the deficit. Who took them off the table? How come there is no discussion of this? Actually, Republicans took them off the table because they feared being criticized by the Democrats. It is being used in the Presidential campaign: Let's not talk about the entitlements. But that is two-thirds of what gets spent every year. If you don't talk about the entitlements, if you don't talk about mandatory spending, you, frankly, are not a serious person, and you will not make a serious dent in this problem. So we have taken off the table all mandatory spending--no discussion of it. Does this mean they are in good shape? Is Medicare and Social Security and all these programs in good shape? Heck no, they are not in good shape. They are all running out of money. They are headed toward bankruptcy. Is anybody brave enough to reform them? No, not a damn thing is going to be done for any of them. But when you take them off the table--take all the entitlement spending off the table and do nothing about it, now we are down to one-third of the budget. So now you are going to try to do budgetary reform, while excluding two-thirds of the spending, on one-third. But it is worse than that. The one-third they call discretionary spending. It is about $1.6 trillion. Half of that is military. So they took that off the table. So mandatory spending--entitlements--is going up 5 percent under this deal because that is what it has been doing for years and years. It is going up 5 percent. The military is going up 3 percent. So what is left? What are we left looking at? We are looking at one- sixth of the budget, somewhere between 15 and 20 percent--a small sliver of the budget. It is called nonmilitary discretionary, and they think we are going to do some type of fiscal reform on that small sliver of government. Well, guess what. You can't do it. You can eliminate all of the nonmilitary discretionary money. Leave the mandatory in place. Leave the military in place. Increase them. Eliminate all this other chunk of money, and you still never balance the budget. There was a time when there was a conservative movement, and the conservative movement had a voice in Washington. There is still some voice but not much. But there was a time when people on the conservative side of this said: Well, in order to be a thoughtful, rational, realistic, strong response to the budget deficit, you would have to balance your budget in 5 years. In fact, we voted on a constitutional amendment in this body, and every Republican voted for it. But it said you had to balance in 5 years. Why 5 years? Well, because most of the plans that lasted longer than that, most of the plans that balanced in years 9 and 10 were basically somebody fudging the numbers and hoping something good would happen in year 9 or 10, but the only years they actually had any power over were the first year or two, and there weren't very many cuts. And they always had unrealistic expectations in year 10. So what I have done? I said: Let's look at 5 years. What would it take? So about 5 or 6 years ago, I began introducing something called the penny plan. And what would it do? It would cut one penny out of every dollar. It actually would balance. Actually, the first year I did it, I didn't even cut 1 percent. I froze spending for 5 years, and the budget would have balanced. But the trick is--or not the trick but the truth is that you have to cut all spending or freeze all spending. You can't just freeze a sliver of spending. So people talked about: Oh, there is a 1-percent trigger on the discretionary spending. That is $16 billion. They are going to add $4 trillion in debt over the next 2 years, and they say: ``But by golly, we might save $16 billion,'' which even that is not going to happen because the trigger isn't real, doesn't have muscle, and will be evaded. But the thing is that if we were to balance the budget over 5 years, what would happen is there now needs to be about a 5-percent cut of all the spending each year for 5 years and then the budget would balance. You say: Well, isn't that just a number? What would that mean to real people? Why do I care whether the budget is balanced? Well, go to the grocery store, go to buy gas, go to buy anything, go to pay your rent, look at your cost of living and look at what inflation is doing to you. Who does inflation hurt the worst? Those on fixed incomes and those of the working class because they don't have extra expendable income. Most of their income goes to things that they have to purchase each month. But where does inflation come from? The Senator from Indiana described it accurately. We run a debt. This place spends money we don't have, and where is the deficit made up for? We sell that debt to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve buys it. And it is like: Wow, this is a great system. We spend money we don't have. We print up these things called Treasury bills. The Federal Reserve comes over and buys them. Wow. We can just do anything we want. We have the printing press. But when they create new money and that new money enters into circulation, that is inflation. Inflation is an increase in the money supply, and when you increase the money supply and you chase the same amount of goods, you are going to chase the prices right up. That is where inflation comes from. So the debt is not just a number. The debt is about the value of your paycheck. It is about how far your paycheck goes. So right now we are in a bit of a spiral. We have had 9 percent inflation. It is a little lower now, but we have had as high as 9 percent, and I think the cost of living increase for Social Security went up 9 to match that. But you will actually find people who say: You know, even with the 9-percent increase, I still can't buy everything I need. I am actually still being squeezed. But it is a bait and switch. It is because your government isn't honest with you. If your government wanted to be honest with you, and they say: We are going to be everything to everyone, and we are going to give you stuff--it is funny because we have this comparison sometimes with Sweden. People say and many Democrats will say: We want to be Sweden. We want to be Sweden, and we are going to give you everything. And we are going to have a big government that coddles you from cradle to grave. But do you know how they do it in Sweden? With a balanced budget. I am not advocating we become Sweden, but they balance their annual budget every year. Do you know how they got to have all that free stuff to give everybody, how they have a safety net that includes everything including college, free healthcare, everything? They tax everybody an enormous amount of tax. Over here the bait and switch is they will say: We are just going to tax the rich people. It is easy. Just tax the rich people. They don't do that in Sweden, though. In Sweden, they tax everybody. It is a 60-percent income tax beginning at $60,000 a year. Everybody pays. The middle class pays. So if we wanted to be to honest and we were to say, ``We are going to give you this massive safety net. You don't have to work. Everybody can have a basic income, and do all this,'' we would be honest or we should be honest and say it would take massive taxes. Instead, there is a dishonesty, but the dishonesty is on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats say that welfare is free and the safety net is free and Social Security is free and all these things are free. What do the Republicans say? The military industrial complex is free. You can have all the weapons you want. You can give hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine, and it won't cost anything because we will just print it up. See, there were times in our history when you went through a war or with the devastation of war in World War II, the people actually suffered, and you could see the suffering and people felt like they had to pay something. But now we just put it on the tab. But there is a point at which the tab gets so large that there can be something precipitous happening. The question has always been, Is this a gradual problem where we will just have to deal with a little inflation, 5 or 10 percent here, or is there a point at which there is a calamity? If you look at the stock market for the last 100 years, some people will point to 7 different days in which like 80 or 90 percent of the downturn occurred in 7 days in the last century. Is there a possibility of calamity when we are so destructive to our dollar, when we are so destructive to good sense? I think the American people want more from us. Recent polls have said 60 percent of Americans say don't raise the debt ceiling without significant reform. Forty-three Republicans--forty-four of us, actually, said: We want significant reforms before we raise the debt ceiling. But then the devil is in the details. The devil is in concluding what is significant and what is not significant. So what will end up happening--my prediction here--is almost every Democrat will vote to raise the debt ceiling and about half the Republicans will vote. It will be a 75-25 vote, and in the end, the debt ceiling will go up. The people will say: It is good. We didn't have a calamity. The stock market didn't crash because we didn't pay our debt. But you might want to ask yourself: Is this really a contrived controversy? Is there really a reason in which we would ever default? Is there a reason why we wouldn't make our interest payment? We bring in $5 trillion, and our interest payment is $500 billion. So that would be like you make $100,000, and your mortgage payment is $10,000. If you made $100,000 and your mortgage payment is $10,000, is there any chance you would ever default? Is there any reason you wouldn't cut your other expenditures to prioritize your interest so you don't get kicked out of your house? That is what every American family would do, but we don't do it up here. So we threaten default. We scare the markets and say: Oh, no, we will default if the debt ceiling doesn't come up. No, we would default only if we refused to cut spending. So we spend a trillion dollars more than comes in every year. That is the problem. If we simply said: We are going to pay the $500 billion, 10 percent of our revenue for next year. We are going to pay the interest no matter what. And guess what. We will tell the marketplace we are never going to default. We are never going to default. We will always do that. That would be great. The market would go gangbusters and say: We no longer have to worry about those knuckleheads. They finally decided they would pay their interest, and they always will. Then what would happen? Well, we wouldn't have enough money for everything. So then we should look at where we can save money. The problem has always been this. Republicans point at Democrats and say: We don't like your programs. Let's cut your programs. Democrats look at Republicans and say: No, no, no. Don't cut our programs. Cut yours. Everybody is ``Don't cut mine, cut yours.'' That is why I have taken the approach and continue to take the approach that we cut everything across the board. In the past, there were always conservatives who said: Let's get rid of Public Television. Let's get rid of ``Sesame Street'' and Big Bird, and they would get so much grief over that. It is like, why do that? You are not balancing the budget over Big Bird. Take 1 percent of Big Bird's budget. Take 1 percent of everybody's budget. What would that bring about? It would bring about more conservation of the dollar. It would bring about more restraint and more reform. I will end with this. People ask: Where would you cut? I would say everywhere. But I can give you on the tip of my hand, ridiculous stuff that should have a 100 percent cut, but it is never cut, and it goes on and on. In the early 1970s, William Proxmire, a conservative Democrat, pointed out that the National Science Foundation was spending $50,000 to study what makes people fall in love. Now that is a better, I think, topic for Cosmopolitan magazine than it is for a government study. Nowadays, it has gone up. We spent a million dollars having young people take selfies of themselves while smiling and then looking at it later in the day to see if looking at pictures of yourself smiling makes you a happier person. That cost you a million bucks. We spent $1\1/2\ million studying the mating call of the Panamanian frog to see if the mating call of the country frogs is different from the city frogs. We spent nearly a million dollars studying the Japanese quail to see if they are more sexually promiscuous when they are on cocaine. I think we could have just polled the audience on that one. This is the kind of ridiculous stuff--but does it get better? I complain about this every year and all the time and everybody shakes their head and says: No way. Why are we doing that? For the National Science Foundation, we increased their budget 50 percent last year. People said: Oh, we have to compete with China. So let's give the National Science Foundation more money. We almost increased their budget by 50 percent--the people who are studying why you go on dates, why you are happy, what the male frog's mating call is. This is the craziness, but it never gets better because we always spend more money. So my amendment would do this: My amendment would reduce the spending in real terms. We would actually spend less money next year than last year. It would be a 5-percent reduction in money. You would spend less each year, and, over 5 years, you would balance your budget. Then it would be on course to balance. People ask: Who can do this? Half of Europe does it. Sweden balances their budget. Germany balances their budget. Over half of the countries in Europe run on an annual balanced budget. Our profligacy and our spending are catching up to us. I say we act now. I recommend a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns from my office be granted floor privileges until June 30, 2023: Maddie Jackson, Joseph Thoburn, Maddalena Wasinger, Brett Logsdon, and Mary Kate Barbee.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote on my amendment No. 79.

Mr. PAUL. Firefighting and emergency medical services are some of the most important and most inherently local services that people rely on. The men and women who show up when the call for help goes out are everyday heroes in communities across America. City governments have predominantly decided to provide fire services at taxpayer expense with local taxes, while in rural areas, volunteer fire departments are still prevalent. Many localities have decided to provide medical services as well. Although hospitals still are the primary EMS providers in a lot of locations, private companies are playing an increasing role in this space as well. But no matter who provides the services--government employees, volunteers, or private entities, these are local needs best met by local providers and best paid for with local taxes. For the first 225 years of our country's history, this is just what happened, until 2000, when the Federal Government had its first budget surplus in almost 50 years--a surplus that disappeared the very next year, by the way. Congress, in the year 2000, decided to spend a bit of that surplus to create a new subsidy for local firefighters. This first year, the program was authorized at a total of $110 million for government and volunteer fire departments; however, the bill before us today now authorizes $2.3 billion per year for these subsidies. That's right, in the 30 years for this program, Federal subsidies for these important, but inherently local, programs have increased 18-fold. In that same time, our government has gone from an annual surplus of about $86 billion to perpetual deficits of over $1 trillion a year. The national debt has grown from less than $6 trillion to over $32 trillion. Despite the reality of our fiscal condition, this bill makes no reforms. It doesn't limit the grants to departments that can't raise money on their own. It doesn't ask local governments to invest more of their own funds. The only thing this bill accomplishes, really, is to increase spending by 25 percent. The unsustainable increases in spending with no attempt to rein-in future costs or make offsetting cuts elsewhere in the budget is concerning. I am glad to see we have an amendment, though, to pay for the bill by reallocating unspent COVID funds that are still in existence and haven't already been allocated and could be used for this program. So we will have an amendment to pay for this program. We will see if anyone on the other side is actually interested in paying for a program. The other major problem with this bill is it rewards governments-- local governments that chose to trample on the freedom of firefighters and medics to speak their own minds and make their own medical decisions. One purpose of the grant in this bill is to increase staffing for fire departments. Over the last few years, even as these grants were awarded, firefighters around the country found themselves with a choice: submit to COVID vaccine mandates or lose your livelihood. This was no idle threat. In New York, L.A., and Seattle, among other places, firefighters lost their jobs simply because they insisted upon living according to their own conscience. One of those firefighters who was terminated is Joseph Kimball, who served in Salt River, AZ, and has six children. His wife is a stay-at- home mom, but this didn't stop local officials from firing him for not getting a COVID vaccine. It seems bizarre and contradictory to provide financial support to increase fire department staffing to departments that are firing people for not being vaccinated--firefighters that were trained and effective and there was no good reason to fire them, particularly when we had shortages of firefighters as reported throughout the country. Firefighters tend to be young and fit. They are the very people who have the least to worry about with COVID-19. They also tend to be male, and young males are the group most likely to suffer the vaccine-related injury of myocarditis. Firemen and EMTs who chose not to be vaccinated were never a threat to anyone, never a threat to their communities. On the contrary, these firefighters served their communities bravely and made their neighbors safe. They served throughout an entire year when there was no vaccine. Many of these firefighters contracted COVID and have naturally acquired immunity. What was being done to them? What was done to them through firing them for making their own medical decisions, what was done to the police and to doctors and to nurses, what was done to first responders was shameful. And we should stand together to make sure it never happens again. To that end, I offer an amendment that will restore sanity and compassion to this government program. My amendment would make grants provided for by this bill unavailable to fire departments that dismissed firefighters for not getting a vaccine. This would bring some sense of justice to this program. And fire departments would only be eligible for these grants if they reinstated the firefighters. So this amendment would actually serve to allow some of the firefighters that were unfairly dismissed to get their jobs back. It turns out--and we all know this now--the vaccine didn't protect anybody from getting infected. It showed some efficacy of increasing your immunity to resist infection, but there was never any medical reason to mandate people to be vaccinated. And no one ever offered to these firefighters: Well, you can be tested. If you have had COVID and we know you have immunity, you don't have to be vaccinated. There was never any alternatives. Many of them weren't even given religious or philosophical or medical alternatives to being forced to be vaccinated. So if you want to support firefighters, if you want to support your communities, if you want to support safety, you should support my amendment that says that fire departments are eligible only if they reinstate the firefighters they unfairly dismissed. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 79 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President.

Mr. PAUL. There is a longstanding tradition in our country when we dispense Federal money to localities to have rules. We don't let you discriminate based on your sex or race or ethnicity. We also should not let localities discriminate against people who refuse to be vaccinated, particularly people who have already had COVID. There is no science behind saying you need to be vaccinated if you already had it. In fact, the studies show this: They show that if had you had the disease you are 57 times less likely to contract it again, whereas the vaccine makes you about 19 times less. So infection does work and it should be part of the criteria, and we should restrict funds to any agency that fired people unfairly for not getting a vaccine. Vote on Amendment No. 79

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, there are two main reasons why we might not want to do this. The one would be the First Amendment to the Constitution. Speech is protected, whether you like it or not. The second reason would be that the Constitution actually prohibits bills of attainder. You are not allowed to have a specific bill against a person or a company. So this fails on two egregious points, pretty obvious points. I think we ought to think about that. I think we should be aware of those who peddle fear. I think we should be aware of those who use fear to coax Americans to relinquish our liberties, to regulate and limit our First Amendment rights. Every accusation of data-gathering that has been attributed to TikTok could also be attributed to domestic big tech companies. In fact, one of the bills they are looking at doing is broad enough that the President will be given the power to designate whatever country he sees fit to be an adversary and whatever company underneath that definition. It would basically be a limitless authority for the President to ban speech. If Republicans want to continuously lose elections for a generation, they should pass this bill to ban TikTok, a social media app used by 150 million people, primarily young Americans. This brilliant strategy comes while polls indicate that 71 percent of young women and 53 percent of young men voted for a Democrat candidate for Congress. Admittedly, many Democrats have joined Republicans in calling for this ban, but, like most issues, the blame will stick to Republicans more. The Republican strategy to ban TikTok comes simultaneously with GOP complaints of domestic social media companies canceling and censoring conservatives. Without a hint of irony, many of these same conservatives now rail against censorship while advocating for censorship against social media apps they worry are influenced by the Chinese. Before banning TikTok, these censors might want to discover that China already bans TikTok. Do we really want to emulate Chinese speech bans? Aren't we the ones who say it is wrong for China to ban speech? So we are going to be just like China and ban speech we are afraid of? The vice president of FreedomWorks, John Tamny, perhaps described this situation best: Nauseating Harassment of TikTok Presumes Americans Will Be Saved From Chinese Authoritarianism If U.S. Politicians Act Like Chinese Authoritarians. We are going to be saved from speech if we ban it in our country. My goodness. Could we think of anything more antithetical to the freedom of speech? Go to the app. They say the app is full of propaganda, and your young people will be dancing into communism. Go to the app and search for Falun Gong, the anti-communist religious sect that is persecuted in China. Go to TikTok and search for videos advocating Taiwan's independence; criticism of Chinese President Xi Jinping. Videos are all over TikTok that are critical of official Chinese positions. That is why TikTok is banned in China. Do we want to follow China's lead in banning speech? We should not let fear of communism cause us to ignore our First Amendment protections of free speech. This legislation violates not only the First Amendment rights of those who own TikTok--many of whom are actually Americans, not Chinese--but it also violates the First Amendment rights of the millions of young Americans who use this social media app. I ask the American people: Do you want Joe Biden to be your censor? Do you want to give unlimited power to any President, regardless of party, to decide who is our adversary and which countries and then which companies? There is not even a list of what percentage. What if the Chinese own 1 percent of a company or 10 percent of a company? One of the bills before us would allow the Department of Commerce to decide--there are five countries they list that are adversaries; these are big countries that have a lot of interactions with our country already--decide which country in addition to the five. The Department of Commerce can designate a country as an adversary, but then they can designate a company. But there are no specifics. Do the new people who are designated to be an adversary have to own 100 percent of the company? 50 percent of the company? 1 percent of the company? This is a crazy gift of power to one person. I don't care which party they are in; it is a huge mistake. Doctors Mueller and Farhat of Georgia Tech write: If nationalist fears about Chinese influence operations lead to a departure from American constitutional principles supporting free and open political discourse, we will have succeeded in undermining our system of government more effectively than any Chinese propaganda. Throughout the 20th century, millions of people were fed communist propaganda every day for their entire lives. When the regimes collapsed, the people celebrated. They danced on the Berlin Wall and on the grave of communism. Have faith. Have faith that Americans are smart enough to hear bad ideas and reject those ideas. Have faith that our desire for freedom is strong enough to survive a few dance videos. Have some faith in freedom. We don't ban things that are unpopular in the United States. Our Constitution even allows a Communist Party. The previous speaker said, and I quote, ``There is no . . . First Amendment carve-out for communists.'' Well, actually, there is. In our society, you can be a communist. I don't advocate it. I think it is a terrible idea, and almost no Americans choose it. But there is a Communist Party here. We actually had a former CIA Director who said he voted for the Communist candidate in 1976--someone I don't advise you appoint to be the head of your CIA. But this is a free country. You can actually have terrible ideas, and you can broadcast them. That is what freedom of speech is about. It is not about saying: You know, I love Mother Teresa. It is not about saying things uncontroversial. It is about the ability to say things that people don't like. Have some faith in freedom. Our Constitution does protect even despicable speech, even the Communist Party. It operates today. Nobody wants to join the Communist Party, but you still can if you wish. America is a country that celebrates free expression, that cherishes free association, that is confident in the cause of liberty. If you want to address the evils of Big Tech, it is not the Chinese Government you have to fear but your own. In June 2021, Newsweek reported that Big Tech complied with 85 percent of government requests to hand over your personal data. So you are worried about the Chinese Government? Your government has all of your data, and they are sucking it up from all of Big Tech. So the thing is, is your next step to ban Big Tech in our country? There are some people who are promoting banning TikTok, and their next step is Facebook. This is on both sides of the aisle. This contagion is infecting the whole country--both parties. Realize that this means--with 85 percent of government requests to Big Tech being honored, this means that Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, once presented with a subpoena or a warrant, routinely hand over the contents of emails, text messages, photos, documents, calendars, contact lists, and more to your government. Big Tech puts up virtually no legal fight to protect your privacy. They could go to court to stop this. Instead, there is a big cable that runs from Big Tech to the government, and they snoop on every bit of our information. If you want to protect privacy, why don't we start by protecting our own privacy in this country? To those who are worried that the Chinese Government might somehow now have access to millions of American teenagers' information, realize that all social media sucks up personal data that people voluntarily provide. If you are going to ban TikTok, what is next? Arguably, several domestic apps censor conservatives more than TikTok. I know this because I have been censored and I have been banned. I have had speeches on the Senate floor that are protected by the Constitution banned and kicked off of YouTube. I despise these people, but I am not going to vote to ban them because I realize that intellectually, in a free country, I don't have the right to tell the New York Times to publish my op-ed or YouTube to publish my speech. I don't like what they do. Quit using them. That is what happens in a free country. If you don't like TikTok, quit using them. But don't disenfranchise 150 million Americans who are using a social media app and just say it is no big deal. This is the First Amendment right of 150 million Americans. I have a host of complaints about domestic social media platforms. They cancel conservatives. But I am not in favor of banning one of them or regulating their speech or telling them who can post and who can't post. That is what the First Amendment is about. If you don't like TikTok or Facebook or YouTube, don't use them, but don't think that any interpretation of the Constitution gives you the right to ban them. TikTok's mission appears to be like most other companies: to make money and lots of it. TikTok is actually cooperating with our government. There is something called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--CFIUS--and TikTok has agreed to put all their data in Oracle's Cloud, and they have agreed to work with the U.S. Government. Because they so much want to make money, they will do anything to try to get rid of this accusation that they are somehow part of the Communist Party, which is not true. It is a company that is owned--probably the majority of it--by Americans and Europeans and other Asians outside of China. Less than 50 percent of it is owned by any Chinese. There is no Chinese Government of the American TikTok. Even that being said, they are willing to put all of it under the Oracle Cloud. They are willing to have U.S. regulators be given access to it, all because they want to continue to make money. They don't want to be shut down by the censors. The First Amendment isn't necessary to protect speech that everybody accepts. The First Amendment exists to protect speech that might be unpopular or might be controversial. U.S. courts have already struck down the Trump ban on TikTok. It amazes me now that the other side that was so horrified by the idea of President Trump banning something has now jumped on board to ban it themselves. I hope saner minds will reflect on which is more dangerous: videos of teenagers dancing or the precedent of the U.S. Government banning speech. For me, it is an easy answer. I will defend the Bill of Rights against all comers--even, if need be, from members of my own party. I object.

Mr. PAUL. I object.

Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object. I am unlikely to take First Amendment advice from someone who believes that the First Amendment doesn't protect the Communist Party. You will find no greater foe of Communism, no greater critic. I have been a longstanding critic of, really, the funding of research in Wuhan that led to the virus. And yet I still want to protect the basic Bill of Rights, the First Amendment that protects speech, whether we like it or not. And if someone doesn't understand that Communism actually is included in the First Amendment, that terrible speech we object to is included under that--this is something we should be very wary of. We should beware of people who peddle fear. We should beware of people who peddle half-truths. Almost everything that has been said about collecting data is, in all likelihood, true. All the social media companies collect data. They devise algorithms. Some of the domestic ones have psychological experiments that might horrify you to see what they have all the young kids thinking and doing and trying to get them to click on different pictures or trying to get them. This is a marketing strategy, and they all do it. And they all want to make money, and they all want to get clicks. The difference is this: Many people on the right--in fact, some on the left--they are horrified by Big Tech in our country; they are consistent in being horrified by the abuses of Big Tech here and also TikTok. But look at their legislative proposals, many of them would actually ban Big Tech here as well or put it under the thumb of government or set up government agencies or panels to determine what speech would be acceptable. And if you are not putting enough conservatives on there, by golly, we are going to have a government commission that is going to determine what kind of content gets on there. These are scary ideas. Don't succumb to fear. Don't give up our freedoms. Don't say that, oh, my goodness, we are going to ban 150 million Americans. This isn't just about the company; this is about the rights of 150 million Americans to get their content. You are restricting what they can do, and you are restricting what they can use, all with innuendo. Everything that has been said about, oh, this is a channel and a funnel to the Chinese Government--these are all conjecture. These are all things they are saying happened. As far as the sale of the company, I don't think we should force them to sell, but I do believe, in a heartbeat, they could be sold. They are located in the Cayman Islands. They are incorporated in the Cayman Islands, and they can be sold at any minute. I don't think we should force them to sell. The majority of the shareholders are not Chinese; the two engineers that developed it are, but to say that the algorithm has to reside in China and is in one tiny place and isn't anywhere else is a simplistic notion of the way technology works. The company has bent over backwards to work with our government to try to set up something that would be reasonable, including more government oversight. So I, for one, will say that I will continue to defend the First Amendment. And those who believe that the First Amendment doesn't protect the speech are in the wrong, and they will find that out when the Supreme Court rules on this. I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until May 5, 2023: Andrew Jarocki, Nicholas Sierco, Leon Kamenev, and Henry Beck.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, today, the Senate debates removing the authority of the President to wage war in Iraq. Momentous as such debate might be, it is largely rendered symbolic by the fact that the war in Iraq has been over for more than a decade. Were this body serious about debating the authority of the President to wage war across Africa and the Middle East, we would today be repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Presidential administrations of both parties have used the 9/11 authorization to justify war in over 20 countries, from Afghanistan to Libya to Syria to Somalia to Yemen. In fact, both parties have essentially argued that the 9/11 AUMF has no temporal or geographic limits at all. Repealing the Iraq war authorization will end no wars and save no lives. The bill before us ignores the pervasive, seemingly limitless 9/11 proclamation, and it seeks, instead, to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations to make war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq--a regime that no longer exists. So we are missing the point here. We are going to repeal the one authorization they no longer use and leave the one in place that authorizes war everywhere, all the time. The public is told to celebrate the boldness of a Senate that will today end a war that has been over for over a decade, while ignoring an authorization of war that is really the only pertinent current authorization. Now, it is true that some unreconstructed neoconservatives still advocate for the 2002 authorization to make war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but no serious scholars believe that the Iraq war resolution has any bearing at all in a world where the current Government of Iraq is an ally, at least ostensibly, of the United States. Even more insensibly, some of these neocon throwbacks argue that a 20-year-old authorization to counter Saddam Hussein's Iraq somehow has something to do with authorizing military force against Iran. It is nonsensical. The very argument is so strained that ordinarily one wouldn't even bother countering such a frivolous case except for the fact that many Senators insist on making it. We voted to go to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He is dead and gone. His government is gone. The new government is an ally. The authorization means absolutely nothing. But yet some people argue on the floor: Oh, we have to have this in case we want to attack Iran. Have they ever heard of coming back here and asking for permission? Have they ever heard of saying we hold this power given to us by the Constitution and that we should be the ones to bestow the declaration of war to the President? The 2002 AUMF doesn't mention Iran. President Bush's March 2003 speech to the Nation announcing his decision to invade Iraq does not mention Iran, and Iran and Iraq were enemies for over two decades prior to the invasion. In fact, the House report accompanying the 2002 AUMF refers to Iran but only as a victim of Saddam Hussein's aggression. Nothing--absolutely nothing--in the Iraq war authorization justifies hostilities against Iran. One would think that these brave ``armchair'' generals would relish the thought of actually debating a war and putting their vote, their imprimatur, their stamp of approval on their very own war. And yet they want to leave it to a previous generation and have no debate should we decide that we need to go to war with Iran. Instead, this plucky crowd of war advocates want a permanent authorization of war on the books so as not to be troubled with the tedium of debating new wars or waiting possibly 24 hours for the consent of Congress. It wasn't always so. While Henry Clay was not always the greatest opponent of war, he did find his voice when his son Henry Junior, was killed in the unnecessary Mexican-American War. In the spring of 1844, after hearing of Henry Junior's death at the battle of Buena Vista, Henry Clay put into words what every Founding Father had previously explained. He spoke these words in Lexington, KY: A declaration of war is the highest and most awful exercise of sovereignty. The Convention, which framed our federal constitution, had learned from the pages of history that it had been often and greatly abused. It had seen that war had often been commenced upon the most trifling of pretexts . . . that such a vast and tremendous power ought not to be confided to the perilous exercise of one single man. The Convention, therefore, resolved to guard the war-making power against these great abuses. . . . Whenever called upon to determine upon the solemn question of peace and war, Congress must consider and deliberate and decide upon the motives, objects and causes of the war. That was Henry Clay in 1884. And yet, today, the best the present Congress can muster is to propose to end a war that ended long ago. In fact, we are told precisely that it is OK to repeal this particular authorization because the President isn't really using it. If you ask President Biden if we take away the 9/11 authorization, he would say: Oh, no, no. We are still using that one in about 20 different countries. So we are going to repeal the one authorization he no longer cares about, and we are going to leave into place one that virtually-- Presidents of both parties have virtually said is unlimited in scope. It wasn't intended to be. If you read the authorization from 9/11, you will find that it is very specific. But today don't worry that we actually might rein in Presidential authority for war. Don't worry that today's repeal will actually end any current war anywhere. Don't worry. Don't worry about continuing to send our soldiers to the Middle East. Don't worry about continuing to send our soldiers to Somalia and Syria and Iraq. The argument for repeal is that, like most debates in Congress, the victory will be Pyrrhic and ignored and war will go on. The armament industry spread throughout the United States will continue to prosper. Don't worry. The vote today is easy. The vote today is mere symbolism. I will support that symbolism, but I will not pretend that it is brave or meaningful or that one American soldier's life will be saved. I will support the symbolism because that is all the bravery that this particular Senate considers to be possible. But I won't celebrate today's vote as anything more than symbolism. If there exists any desire to end America's forever wars, Congress should today strike a blow for peace by repealing the 2001 authorization for war. After all, the 9/11 AUMF never intended to authorize worldwide war, all the time, everywhere, forever. The wording of the 9/11 AUMF was debated in 2001, a generation ago, and was precisely worded to authorize the President to make war on those who attacked us on 9/11 and those who harbored them--not a word about making war on associated forces, not a word about making war on their descendants, not a word about making worldwide war on religious extremism. But that is exactly what the 9/11 2001 AUMF has become--a catchall for a permanent war, everywhere, all the time. So if anyone in the Senate is really serious about regaining the power to declare war, about informing Presidents of both parties that the Constitution exclusively gave the power to declare war to Congress, I offer an amendment today that might actually bring an American soldier home, an amendment that might actually save an American soldier's life, an amendment that sends an actual signal to the President that congressional authority and resolve actually lives and breathes and will resist Presidential aggrandizement. Some Senators will argue that a vote to repeal the 9/11 military force proclamation for war--but they say: Well, we could do it, but only if we simultaneously replace it with another sweeping transfer of war-making power to future Presidents. Really? Is there not one defender of Congress's exclusive power to declare war? Is there no one else who will reject the abdication of Congress to constitutional responsibilities? Is there not anyone who will defend the notion that absenting perpetual authorization for war, we could survive on just the Constitution alone? For most of American history, for 225 years, we lived without a perpetual authorization of war. We addressed it as it arose and Congress voted--not a generation ago's Congress, the people currently elected would debate on one of the most important debates we ever have, whether to go to war. But most people here will say, no, we need to keep a proclamation from 9/11 that has nothing to do with the world today and nothing to do with the attack on 9/11. We need to keep it in place just in case so we could have troops everywhere. For most of our history, we survived without such a perpetual authorization. The Republic survived under the notion that America is reticent to make war; that we are a merchant nation conscious of the great prosperity economic freedom has brought us in the world and also conscious of the devastation and famine and brutality and the despair of war but also quite outspoken in our history that America won't be trifled with; that once awakened, once attacked, America can and will bring that mighty economic engine to life--the engine that defeated Hitler, the engine that defeated the Japanese Empire, and the engine that after 9/11 showed that America will not countenance, for any reason, an attack on our people. Couldn't we live under the Constitution again? Couldn't we show the confidence in our people, in our Congress, in our own individual self- worth to let the world know that we don't want perpetual war; we don't want to be the policemen of the world; we don't want our Army stationed across the globe. But provoke us, attack us, and you will discover that we cherish our freedom, and we will fight for it; that our fight will be a constitutional one. When America was attacked at Pearl Harbor, the Congress reacted constitutionally within days to declare war. When America was attacked on 9/11, once again, Congress acted in a nearly unanimous fashion to declare war. Couldn't we obey the Constitution and declare war when necessary and not keep on the books a perpetual authorization of war? Only by eliminating these perpetual authorizations for war will Congress regain its constitutional prerogative to declare war. One generation should not bind another generation to war. The Congress that voted for the war in 2001 is no longer constituted, and many of those Members are no longer even living. Many of our soldiers were not even born when Congress authorized that war. So, today, I will offer the U.S. Senate a chance to repeal the 9/11/ 2001 authorization for war, to reclaim our constitutional power, and send a message to the world that we are a nation of peace; that when provoked to war, the gentle giant that is America will respond lawfully according to the Constitution; that when war is absolutely necessary, America will obey the Constitution, which requires us to debate and vote upon war and not hide beneath another generation's deliberations. Today, we should rise above symbolism and repeal the 9/11 authorization for war and show our respect for the Constitution, our fealty to the rule of law, and our sincere desire that peace, not perpetual war, be our legacy.