Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor WHAS Radio on entering its 100th year of service to the city of Louisville and Commonwealth of Kentucky. WHAS started broadcasting on July 18, 1992, and has covered numerous historical moments, including the first live broadcast of the Kentucky Derby, Pearl Harbor, and Presidential interviews. As one of the longest running radio stations in the country, WHAS has won countless awards, including the Associated Press and Peabody Awards. During these past 100 years, WHAS has solidified its reputation as a leader in crisis coverage, specifically severe weather. When an F4 tornado hit Louisville in 1974, WHAS traffic reporter Dick Gilbert followed the tornado in his helicopter, giving listeners live updates of the storm's location and resulting damage. During the Ohio River flood of 1937, WHAS aired 115,000 messages, despite the electrical power shutdown. Since 1954, WHAS has served as the flagship station in the Crusade for Children, which raises millions of dollars for children's charities throughout Kentucky every year. In the 2022 telethon, WHAS helped raise $5,133,684.69, making the Crusade one of America's most successful local telethons. A dedication to informing and enlightening the city of Louisville has defined the first 100 years of broadcasting for WHAS. As we look toward the future, I have no doubt that WHAS will continue to play an integral role in keeping listeners all around the Commonwealth informed.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise today to honor the career of Mike Burress for his dedicated service to better the Commonwealth of Kentucky. In his over 37 years with the Lincoln Trail Area Development District administering and writing grants, Mike has worked tirelessly to better our cities and communities. Mike started his career as a community development adviser, providing direct support and coordination to the regional planning and development process. A few short years later, Mike was promoted to associate director for community and economic development, where he was responsible for the day-to-day supervision and coordination of the community development department. In the summer of 1998, Mike was promoted to the district's deputy director, primarily overseeing community and economic development throughout the eight-county region. In 2018, the Lincoln Trail Area Development District board of directors selected Mike to become the district's fifth executive director. In the last 4 years, his leadership and advocacy as executive director have benefited area development districts throughout the State. Mike's ongoing work with local, State, and Federal delegations as well as nongovernmental organizations highlights the essential work the area development districts do in assisting their constituents. Mike and his wife Judy are Hardin County natives with three children and two grandchildren. I am proud to salute and thank Mike for a remarkable career of dedication to his community.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the Louisville Metro Police Department fields some of the finest officers this Nation has to offer. Nothing could be more true of Officers Noah Cole and Nick Greene. On the evening of Monday, June 27, 2022, Officers Cole and Greene were starting their evening shift like any other night. They stopped at Shorty's Food Mart on 18th Street and Broadway in the Russell neighborhood of West Louisville when they were alerted by an alarmed father. The gentleman told the officers that his daughter needed their help. The officers overcame a language barrier with the father and responded immediately to his plea. They exited Shorty's and ran to the infant, who was in her mother's arms. Officer Greene quickly assessed the situation and determined that the infant was unconscious from choking. He administered back blows to the infant until the blockage was cleared. Simultaneously, Officer Cole contacted fire and EMS support to aid in the care of the infant. EMS personnel arrived on the scene and were able to further care for the infant and calm the parents. The actions of these two officers directly saved the life of our most vulnerable citizen and stopped the worst-case scenario for any parent: burying their child. Officer Cole and Greene are servant leaders, an asset to the residents of Louisville, and a testament to the Louisville Metro Police Department. I am proud to salute officers Noah Cole, Nick Greene, and the entire Louisville Metro Police Department on a job well done.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the courageous actions of a brave and heroic senior member of the Louisville Fire Department. On February 3, 2022, Captain Kody Jones, a 17-year veteran of the department, went above and beyond the call of duty to save the lives of four people: three adults and one small child. Around 2 pm, a fire was reported at a home in the 100 block of Stevenson Avenue. Without hesitation, Captain Jones, who was on his way to work, responded to the scene. Once at the residence, Captain Jones safely rescued the four individuals without injury to them or to himself. Captain Jones then instructed emergency dispatchers on essential details concerning the fire. Using his 17 years of experience, Captain Jones was able to direct responding units to the best position and angle of attack to fight the blaze. He also relayed the fire's size and position and the building's material composition. These details were instrumental in firefighters being able to stop the fire within 1 hour of being on the scene. Following these heroic actions, Captain Jones reported to the fire station to continue to serve on his assigned shift. Captain Jones' actions that day were critical in saving four lives, minimizing structural damage, and containing the blaze. I salute Captain Jones for his actions that day and his selfless service to his Louisville and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, Jon Miltimore, who writes for the Foundation for Economics and Education writes: Red flag laws don't involve precogs seeing into the future. Yet, like precrime, they are designed to prevent a crime before it happens, even if it means violating civil rights in the process. Miltimore asks several important questions: Can people who are flagged as threats be involuntarily committed? Are they appointed legal counsel? Will a Federal database be established to track flagged citizens? These are questions that civil libertarians should be asking, especially since many people who are red-flagged will have committed no crime. There will simply be, like Philip Dick's ``Anderton,'' people who might commit or might be a danger to someone. Miltimore reminds us that the idea of precrime didn't originate with ``The Minority Report.'' In ``1984,'' Orwell writes that Big Brother's ``endless purges, arrests, tortures, imprisonments, and vaporizations'' are not the result of people breaking laws, for there are no laws in Oceania. These punishments, readers learn, are merely the wiping out of persons who perhaps might commit a crime at some time in the future. Red flag laws are well-intentioned. Everyone is searching for a way to prevent the senseless massacres of school mass shootings. I think accessing the violent criminal records of juveniles is a reasonable way to try to prevent these killings. Though, really, most States have already laws on the books that criminalize threats of violence. The problem isn't a lack of laws to stop these killers, it is a lack of persistent application of existing laws. The shooters at Parkland and Buffalo both committed criminal threats in advance of their killing sprees, and yet law enforcement did not vigilantly prosecute them. Instead of seeking to enforce existing laws, States have, one after another, instituted red flag laws to use gun confiscation orders to try to predict crime in advance. The problem comes in trying to create such laws and still protect the constitutional right to bear arms for the innocent. Basic aspects of the Constitution should not be abandoned, such as the right to confront your accuser. Some red flag laws allow anonymous accusers to initiate a gun confiscation order. That is not just, and that is not constitutional. We should not abandon the right to legal counsel, the right to confront the evidence. Many State red flag laws allow gun confiscation orders without the defendant even knowing they have been accused of anything. Many State red flag laws allow guns to be confiscated without hearing evidence from both sides. Jacob Sullum, in Reason, writes of Colorado's red flag law that the standard of proof for the initial gun confiscation order when the accused does not have an opportunity to respond--see, for the initial order, the accused is not present or doesn't need to be present, and the evidence comes from one side. But the standard that is used is called the preponderance of the evidence, meaning the standard used is that the accused is more likely than not to pose a significant risk. Historically, gun rights were only removed when the defendant was convicted of a crime using a constitutional standard of ``beyond a reasonable doubt.'' As Philip Mulivor writes at PJ Media: Because ``reasonable doubt'' has been long established as the standard of proof for criminal cases, it must naturally apply to judicial proceedings in which an individual, who has not even been charged with a crime, can be stripped of a constitutional right. Nevertheless, red-flag laws often rely on ``a preponderance of the evidence,'' a radically diminished standard of proof. This, above all other injuries-- According to Philip Mulivor-- to due process, offends our system of liberty and [a] fair trial. Colorado's red flag law, as well as many other States', confiscates guns using a less-than-constitutional standard. Using a preponderance-of-evidence standard, which is a standard lower than the Constitution uses for criminal cases, allows a gun confiscation order when a judge decides that it is a better than 50-50 chance of a person being a ``significant risk.'' Think about that. It is a little better than 50-50 that the person who has come before me, whom I have heard evidence only from the person who doesn't like that person--it is 50-50, maybe it is 51-49, but I am going to take away a constitutional right, whereas in a court proceeding where you are convicted of a crime, where you lose your gun rights because of a felony, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice, the other problem with the red flag laws is that judges will be inclined to err on the side of caution. When the only evidence comes from someone who believes the respondent poses a threat, judges will rarely, if ever, decline to issue a temporary gun confiscation order. One might ask if our laws should allow the abridgement of a constitutional right when only one side of the evidence is presented. Imagine if the proceeding is a complaint filed by an unhappy spouse in the midst of a divorce. Most cases of divorce involve one side cheating or at least one side lying. It is exceedingly difficult to ascertain the truth in a divorce proceeding even when both sides are heard. One can just imagine what mischief might occur if divorce proceedings only allowed testimony from one side. If you think red flag laws will be easy to adjudicate, just imagine the case involving Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. As Sullum points out, there is--from the judge's point of view, ``The possible downside of rejecting a petition''--a serious downside--``the death of a respondent or someone else--will weigh heavily on the judge's mind, while the temporary deprivation of the subject's constitutional rights will seem trivial by comparison.'' The presumption will be, if the temporary order, where you only heard evidence from one side, was granted, that the judge is taking a real risk by overturning or not granting the permanent order when evidence is actually heard on both sides. So you begin with a temporary order--it is ex parte; you don't have legal counsel; evidence is only heard from one side--but then you get to the next stage and you say: Well, the person gets justice later. They are going to get a lawyer. There will be a proceeding. There will be due process at a later date. Yet the cards are stacked because think of the perspective of the judge, think of the predicament of the judge. He now has before him an emergency order that says this person is a dangerous person. For him or her to rule otherwise, they are taking a big risk because the first judge or the first ruling said this person is dangerous. Now the judge has to say and has to somehow attest and prove and live with themselves that he is now attesting this person is not a danger. But the first hearing was only one side of the evidence. The first hearing may have been an aggrieved party in a divorce. It may have been an unhappy person who doesn't like you at work. It may have been someone who doesn't like your political views and is reading online and says, that so-and-so had a picture of a gun, or that so-and-so made some sort of violent innuendo. Read Twitter. Find out how much of that is going on. There is a danger to this. It is not that anyone is downplaying the sad, awful nature of these massacres and that we don't want to stop them, but we should do it in a fashion consistent with the Constitution. With the red flag law, the initial hearing has evidence only from those who accuse you of something. That cannot be justice. The bedrock aspect of justice in our country is that you get legal counsel, that there is a debate back and forth. Go to family court--and you think some of this won't originate from family court? You think there is not going to be an angry spouse who says: My husband cheated on me. My husband is a hunter. I am going to accuse him of something so I can get his guns taken away from him. You have to hear both sides. How could you only hear from the angry spouse? In divorce, we don't hear from one side. How could we have a hearing where you take away an amendment--or take away a constitutional right from the Bill of Rights without hearing evidence on both sides? You say: Well, we will hear it at the second hearing 14 days later. The problem with the second hearing is you now have a judge who feels the incumbent pressure of not changing an initial ruling, a feeling of, well, we have already decided this person is a threat, and now I have to take the responsibility of guaranteeing they are not a threat. See, if you had the jurisprudence, if you had the due process in the first hearing, then you wouldn't have to worry so much about it being fair in the second hearing. If you have time to go before a judge, I see no reason why you don't have time to have your attorney present. They have time enough to have a hearing. They have time enough to hear the person accusing you. Shouldn't they have time enough to have someone defending you? In Colorado, a temporary gun confiscation order lasts for about 14 days, at which point the judge has to schedule a hearing where the accused finally has a chance to challenge the claims. At this second proceeding, the legal standard is a little greater--at least in Colorado. It goes from preponderance or 50-50--slightly better than 50-50--it goes from a standard of that to a standard that is ``clear and convincing evidence.'' Under Colorado's red flag law, though, the first gun confiscation order needs to show imminent risk, but when you get to the second order, interestingly--the order that is going to last a year--you don't have to prove that the person is an imminent risk; all you have to say is that they might be a risk at some point in time. So we have lost sort of the imminence to it. In 14 days, the imminence is gone, and now we have a proceeding where we are going to hear evidence on both sides, and you can have counsel-- not always guaranteed counsel, but you at least can have a lawyer present. In order to remove a gun confiscation order, though, and recover one's Second Amendment rights, the burden, though, is now placed on the accused. So there is something that is very, very common and is throughout all of our jurisprudence: that you are innocent until proven guilty; the burden is on the government. But now, once you have gone through one of these gun-restraining orders, in order to get your rights back, you have to prove that you are not a risk. The burden is now on the accused to prove that either you are sane or that you are not a risk. It is proving a negative. If you never were a risk, how do you prove that you are no longer a risk? How do you prove you are the negative of something? How do you prove that you are not a risk? This turns typical jurisprudence on its head. Instead of innocent until proven guilty, the burden is for the accused to prove his or her innocence. This is the opposite of what our jurisprudence system was founded upon. Sullum writes: If the judge issues a [gun confiscation order], it lasts for 364 days unless the subject seeks early termination and shows by clear and convincing evidence that he [or she] does not pose a significant risk. Rhode Island's red flag law is similar, remaining in effect for about a year before the accused can challenge it. For the accused to restore his Second Amendment rights, once again, the burden is on the accused to prove they are innocent. The ACLU of Rhode Island asks an important question: How does one prove this negative, and how does one do it with such a high burden of proof? The ACLU concludes that in ending a gun confiscation order, ``the burden should be on the GOVERNMENT to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in effect, not on the accused to halt the continued imposition.'' This is the ACLU of Rhode Island saying the burden should be on the government the same way the burden is traditionally in any other court proceeding in our country. You don't have to prove you are innocent; the government must prove you are guilty. If the government is going to take away your Second Amendment right, shouldn't the government have to prove that you are either a threat or that you are guilty of something? Eagle County Sheriff James Van Beek notes that when the subject of a gun confiscation order tries to have it terminated, ``the burden of proof is not on the [government], as it is in every other legal case, but instead, is placed on the [accused] to prove that the accusations are wrong.'' Sheriff Van Beek explains that ``proving one's sanity could be very difficult, as it is highly subjective.'' But proof of one's sanity is not enough to remove a valid gun confiscation order since the accused can be a threat even if determined to be sane. Van Beek also worries that ``if a person is truly in a mental crisis, this aggressive approach will create even greater stress, possibly resulting in a violent overreaction, as their personal property has been taken without a crime ever having been committed.'' In Maryland, this is precisely what happened. When police attempted to serve a gun confiscation order, a fight ensued. The person was startled by it. He had never heard there was a problem. They showed up at his house, and he ended up dying in the ensuing altercation. When police seize guns from the subject of a gun confiscation order, Sheriff Van Beek notes, ``[t]here is no warning or ability to defend themselves against the charges.'' In addition, if troubled individuals understand that seeking care exposes them to the risk of a gun confiscation order, some may be inclined to avoid psychiatric help. With the large universe of people who can initiate a gun confiscation complaint, from ex-girlfriends, to former roommates, to grandparents, to in-laws, to second cousins, Sullum concludes that ``the opportunities for malice or honest error are multiplied.'' In some ways, the process really is biased throughout because of the risk aversion on the part of the judge. Once a gun confiscation order is issued and the accused has been labeled a threat, many judges will simply not want the responsibility of judging otherwise because of the deadly consequences if they are wrong. Sullum concludes: Given that bias, the indeterminacy of ``significant risk,'' and the difficulty of predicting [an accused's] behavior, it seems inevitable that the vast majority of people who lose their constitutional rights under this sort of law will [in actuality] pose no real threat to themselves or others. Philip Mulivor, writing at PJ Media on the constitutional deficiencies of gun confiscation orders, points out another deficiency. He says: The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine, a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, requires laws to be written ``in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.'' He goes on to say: By forcing a judge to predict a person's future criminal behavior in the absence of any violation of law, red-flag statutes descend to the most disreputable level of ``arbitrary and discriminatory'' legislation. Mulivor concludes that ``due process is always denied when a law fails to comport with the Vagueness Doctrine's imperative for clear and consistent standards.'' Fortunately, the Vagueness Doctrine-- This is also Mulivor's point-- is most likely to prevail when an ambiguous law threatens a constitutional right, such as free speech or the right to keep and bear arms. The ACLU of Rhode Island has written perhaps one of the best reasoned critiques of red flag laws. The ACLU of Rhode Island writes: We are deeply concerned about [the red flag law's] breadth, its impact on civil liberties, and the precedent it sets for the use of coercive measures against individuals not because they are alleged to have committed any crime, but because somebody believes they might someday commit one. The ACLU of Rhode Island writes that the court order authorized by this legislation would be issued without any indication that the person poses an imminent threat to others. The order would be issued without any evidence that the person ever committed, or has even threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm. The ACLU continues: The Rhode Island red flag law--that the standard for seeking and issuing an order is so broad it could routinely be used against people who engage in overblown political rhetoric on social media. Realize what we are talking about here. We are talking about red flag laws being used against people for overblown political rhetoric. If you have been on social media, that is 90 percent of what is on social media. This is, once again, the ACLU of Rhode Island: Without the presence of counsel, individuals who have no intent to commit violent crimes could nonetheless unwittingly incriminate themselves regardless of lesser offenses because, when they are brought in without a lawyer, they can be questioned as to other things that could possibly be illegal. ``The heart of the legislation''--Rhode Island's gun confiscation orders--``requires speculation--on the part of both the petitioner''-- the accuser--``and judges--about an individual's risk of possible violence.'' Mulivor writes: But psychiatry and the medical sciences have not succeeded in this realm, and there is no basis for believing courts will do any better. He concludes that the potential impact on individuals subject to these gun confiscation orders involves much more than a long-term seizure of lawfully owned firearms. This is once again from the Rhode Island ACLU. They point out that without a right to appointed counsel, respondents can be forced to submit to a mental health evaluation, be subject to fairly widespread notifications even before a court order has been used against them, face contempt proceedings and prison for failing to abide by any part of the order and unwittingly place themselves in danger. So the Rhode Island red flag law actually requires that people be notified that you are a risk to them, that they are a potential victim, before the order is issued. So we are not talking just about the lack of due process in the sense that you don't have a lawyer there, you may not have been accused of a crime or informed that you might be potentially going to commit a crime, but, also, in advance of the judge even making the judgment, the police are told that if this accusation is being made, they must inform people. So you have to imagine the innocent. We can all imagine the guilty. We say: Lock `em up. Take away their guns. But imagine the innocent. Imagine someone who is innocent and he is in a divorce proceeding and his angry spouse calls up and says, He's a threat. They go, and even before the judge makes the court order, the judge and the police say: We must inform those who he might be a threat to. What if that involves his business place? Are we going to inform his boss? Are we going to inform his friends? We are going to call all the schools in the area. What if they are innocent? You haven't even heard the evidence that is only coming from one side. What if they are innocent? Can you imagine a person's life--entire life--being ruined? How do you ever get employment again? Do you think he could be fired if the boss has now been called by the police and they say: We have a gun order against this guy because we think he's a threat. He might be a threat to his fellow employees; he might be a threat to his wife; he might be a threat to schools. We are going to do this, and we are letting you know so you can be aware. Who wants that person to work with them? If you are doing a background check years later and they have had a gun confiscation order in their background, who ever wants to work with this person? So you have to imagine what happens to the innocent. We can all imagine the terrible, horrible murdering psychopaths who committed these massacres and how we want them locked up, how we want to prevent the killings. But you have to imagine when you have sweeping laws, what are the potential abuses of the law. You have to imagine what it would be like to be an innocent person accused of something in a divorce proceeding where it escalates and they ask for a gun confiscation order and it is based on malice and it is based on lies and deceit and anger over a broken marriage. This can and will happen. It happens in family court every day. The difference between a divorce and a gun confiscation order is that in a divorce, if it is very messy, you hear both sides. In a gun confiscation order, the initial order to take away a gun, in almost every red flag law, involves only the judge and the accuser. Nobody believes that to be justice. It has never been justice. I mean, when people point out the injustice of systems in legal systems, they go back to Venice, and they point out the doge. They had a lion's mouth, and you could put your complaint in the mouth, and it was anonymous, and they would make people walk the Bridge of Sighs to prison or to death. That wasn't justice. We point that out as the height of injustice-- anonymous accusations, hearing only one side. There are some people who argue that the bedrock of our jurisprudence is the adversarial process of the legal system. The adversarial process is: You get a lawyer, the other side gets a lawyer. And you know what? We go one step further in our system. The government has a lawyer. You have a lawyer. But you know what? The presumption is that you are innocent. We start out with the presumption of the individual being innocent, and we add the hurdle to the government--the burden of proof that they must prove your guilt. And in the Constitution we say for a criminal offense, we must prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And yet we are talking about taking away fundamental constitutional rights with only hearing the evidence from one side and the standard would be a preponderance of the evidence. What is a preponderance? It is 50-50. And if it is 51-49, we think the person may be a threat. But we have only heard from their spouse, and we didn't hear from them. We only heard from their estranged spouse or we only heard from the person who is angry with them from work or we heard only from the person from the opposite political persuasion that read their writings on the internet. We can see. We can all see the mischief for this. So I wish, in the middle of this, in the middle of these tragedies, that we would think of what we could do. New York has already got these red flag laws. New York has got lots of them. New York has got a lot of gun control, and yet the shooting happened in Buffalo. But the kid in Buffalo had made a threat. It is a felony to make a threat to kill others. He could have been prosecuted. So I fear, even with this law, if we don't pay attention to the laws we already have, if we don't persist and persevere in prosecuting these kids that show this danger--we already had--it is not that we just had the signals they might; they are committing crimes. Why don't we prosecute them? Why don't we use the laws on the books? But I would say that there is a big risk today to encouraging, across the country, jurisprudence where you don't have legal representation, where the adjudication is based on evidence only from one side, and then you finally get your day in court and you get your lawyer, and everybody is petrified of reversing a decision where you have been named a threat. I think we want the same thing in the end. My hope, though, is that people would be very careful because I would not want to see a day where we change and reverse justice in our system such that people are guilty until proven innocent. The bedrock of American jurisprudence is ``innocent until proven guilty.'' The burden is on the government. And until we can make red flag laws consistent with innocent until proven guilty, we should reject them.

Mr. PAUL. No. Go ahead.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize Simon's Shoes of Henderson, KY, as the Senate Small Business of the Week. Operating a small business requires unparalleled commitment and perseverance, traits that have been inherited to each successive generation of the Simon Family. Jacob Simon immigrated to Henderson, KY, from Lithuania in 1910, following his two brothers who made Henderson their new home years prior. He began as a peddler selling merchandise across the county, but at times found it difficult to attract clients due to his lack of English. Insistent on improving his craft, Jacob developed a sense of trust with the locals as his career as a peddler led him to become a steadfast member of the community. As such, it did not take long for Jacob to embrace Henderson as his home. In the following years, Jacob mastered English, became an American citizen, and opened Simon's Shoes in January 1919. In addition to footwear, Simon's Shoes offered a diverse array of clothing, and the store quickly became known for carrying any type of garment one could desire, from suits to base layers. His childhood in Lithuania and initial years in America had taught Jacob key principles of saving and being conservative with money, which were integral to the success of his business and the store's ability to survive the Great Depression. When Jacob's son, Larry, became involved in the family business, they decided to narrow the focus of the store to specialize in shoes. As the store continued to flourish, Larry, who eventually took ownership of the business, was able to purchase the former J.C. Penny building next door and use this space for the store's inventory. The decades of success made Simon's Shoes a destination for people across the State and beyond. To this day, residents from Evansville, Owensboro, Louisville, St. Louis, as well as tourists traveling along the Ohio River make the journey to visit Simon's Shoes. Customers are continuously attracted by their wide range of shoes, inclusive of varying sizes and widths, and their benefits as a full-service store. Three generations of the Simon family have been involved in the operations of Simon's Shoes, the latest Simon to take the reins being Larry's son Bruce Simon. Even as the store passes down through the successive generations, the Simons remain active members of the business for as long as possible. In 1975, then 85-year-old Jake Simon told local newspaper ``The Gleaner'', ``When I draw my last breath, that store will be in my consciousness.'' Likewise, Larry continues to visit Simon's Shoes often, stating that he would be in the store up to 6 days a week for several hours each day at 84 years of age. The Simons' passion for their business has grown into a now-century long catalyst for its success, as the store that once occupied a fraction of the building on First and Main Street now consists of three buildings on the same corner. Congratulations to the entire Simon family and to the whole team at Simon's Shoes. I look forward to seeing their continued growth and success in Kentucky.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, today I want to honor the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Daviess County Farm Bureau. Established in 1922 by a handful of people, the Daviess County Farm Bureau quickly grew to include approximately 100 farmers. With membership dues of only $2, the organization was forced to meet wherever it could: the courthouse, the rural electric office, and even members' homes. It was in these early meetings that the Daviess County Farm Bureau first dedicated itself to advocacy on behalf of farmers, and soon after, the organization began lobbying in the Commonwealth's capital for the electrification of rural Daviess County. In its early years, the Daviess County Farm Bureau supported the community through disaster and development. In response to the flood of 1937, the organization provided support to the local hospital, fire department, and Red Cross. The organization took on local issues; this included conducting a study to establish a tobacco warehouse and assessing warehouse charges related to the sale of tobacco. Daviess County Farm Bureau also established a food locker refrigerating and processing plant, formed a committee to head a funding drive--which ultimately raised a total of $23,669--for Kentucky Wesleyan College, and started a successful newsletter in the ``Messenger Inquirer''. In response to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Daviess County Farm Bureau partnered with River Valley Behavioral Health to create the ``You're Not Alone'' campaign, which sought to bring mental health awareness to rural communities. Today, after a century of service to Daviess County, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and farmers everywhere, the Daviess County Farm Bureau continues to serve as ``The Voice for Agriculture.'' By lobbying the county, State, and Federal governments, the Daviess County Farm Bureau ensures that the needs of its membership are communicated to and considered by elected officials. Daviess County Farm Bureau is also active in the Kentucky Farm Bureau and American Farm Bureau. In addition to its advocacy efforts, the Daviess County Farm Bureau still supports a number of local programs and organizations. These include 4-H clubs, Future Farmers of America chapters, and local schools and teachers that incorporate agriculture education in the classroom. The organization also sponsors the Annual Farm Expo, the Farm-City Breakfast, and the annual Rooster Booster Breakfast hosted by the Greater Owensboro Chamber of Commerce. Daviess County Farm Bureau is also responsible for administering several programs offered by the Kentucky Farm Bureau, including the Institute for Future Agricultural Leaders--IFAL--the Leadership Enhancement for Agricultural Development program, and college scholarship programs. A dedication to advocating on behalf of farmers and a love of community have defined the first 100 years of the Daviess County Farm Bureau's history. In celebrating this momentous milestone, we also cast a hopeful eye toward the future. I have no doubt that the Daviess County Farm Bureau will play an integral role in shaping that future.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, it is important to honor key leaders who have made a positive impact in their communities. Pastor William ``Bill'' Wade is the shepherding and care pastor at Living Hope Baptist Church in Bowling Green, KY. He has been married to Dianne Harbin of Vicksburg, MS for 41 years. They are blessed with two grown children, Joey Wade and Katy Owen. They also have two grandchildren, Clare and Judson Owen. Pastor Bill received his master of religious education degree in December 1981 from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Pastor Bill is a leader who cares deeply for those within his sphere of influence. It is this caring heart that motivated him to establish a counseling center in Bowling Green in 2016. His vision was to provide anyone who is hurting in the community the opportunity to receive free biblical counseling. His leadership has provided counselors who are prepared to help those struggling with addiction, those with marriage difficulties, those caught in debilitating conflict, and those contemplating suicide. As an extension of his love for the community, he served alongside first responders as a chaplain during the search and rescue efforts following the December 2021 devastating tornados in Bowling Green, in which 18 individuals lost their lives and hundreds lost their homes. Pastor Bill's primary goal that individuals will begin to experience God every day and live out a God-honoring life. In addition, he led efforts to open a pregnancy support center in 2019 in Bowling Green to care for those mothers and fathers who feel overwhelmed by unexpected news that a baby is on the way. Much-needed care is provided during the pregnancy and after delivery. Many mothers have since decided to continue their pregnancy, bringing forth the joy of new life to celebrate. These two organizations are known collectively as the Centers for Hope. Through Bill's wise and caring efforts, his dream has become a reality, and lives have been forever changed for the better. Pastor Bill's legacy will remain strong for many generations to come.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, for a year and a half, we have been offering my colleague a compromise in the passage of this bill. We could pass this bill today, immediately. All we have been asking is that it not only protect Federal judges but protect Members of Congress as well. I haven't heard a cogent or even any argument for why it couldn't. It is a very simple compromise. To pass things unanimously takes compromise. It takes people coming together and people agreeing. But there hasn't been any movement; there hasn't been any compromise; and I am still open. We can pass this today to include Members of Congress. If recent years have taught us anything, it is that members of the legislative branch need protection as well as those in the judiciary. That was clear in 2011 when Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was tragically shot while she was doing the most important part of her job--meeting with constituents. Words cannot express how happy and inspired I was to see that Congresswoman Giffords was in the Chamber with her husband, Senator Kelly, when he was sworn in as a Member of this body. Well, words also cannot express the pain felt by the families of the people who were killed that day and wounded. That should have been a wake-up call to protect Members of Congress and, in doing so, to better protect the people around them. Yet, just a few years later, a shooter nearly killed Congressman Steve Scalise during a practice for the charity baseball game. I was there. A young man was shot 10 feet from me. I said at the time that our lives were saved by the Capitol Police. Had they not been there, things could have been much worse. Extending the provisions of this bill to Members of Congress would better protect us and our families and our constituents. I have been offering this for 2 years. My amendment, which I will offer through unanimous consent, simply extends the same protections that it would offer to the judicial branch to the legislative branch. This is not a new request. In December of 2020, when we discussed this bill on the floor, I offered this compromise. I said I would work together with the other side to try to get a bill that we could pass. But we haven't gotten anywhere. If we want this to pass, let's compromise. Let's come together and figure out a way that we can get this to pass. I know of no argument or no constituency that is coming to Washington, saying: We don't want Members of Congress to be protected. There is no such constituency. There is no such argument, and there is no reason we couldn't pass this today. It has been almost 2 years. Let's pass this bill today. As I have said over and over again, I support this bill and the provisions, and I don't believe it ought to be blocked merely because Members of Congress also need protection. With that being said, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his request to include my amendment to the Menendez substitute amendment, which is at the desk; that the amendments be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, we have been trying for a year and a half. Our staff has offered to meet with the opposition's staffs. We have not had one meeting. They have not accepted a meeting much less a compromise--a year and a half. This could pass today by simply accepting this. There is a promise to do it at a later date when we have waited a year and a half? A year and a half went by because no one would meet with us. We have not had one meeting. We have offered to meet with the staffs of both of the authors of this, and we have not been granted a meeting. There has been no discussion of this between staff and no discussion of a compromise. We would take a compromise. I don't understand. There has been no argument made today as to why Congress couldn't be added to this bill. They could have added this to the bill or talked to us over a year and a half. No one has talked to us. Other than to come for the public theater, no one has tried to get this thing passed. I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize Beans Cafe and Bakery of Dry Ridge, KY, as the Senate Small Business of the Week. The road to entrepreneurial success is rarely a straight and narrow path, as Richard Hayhoe and his wife could tell you. The couple moved to northern Kentucky from Canada in 2010, intent on flipping houses for a living. However, their dream of entering the housing market did not turn out as imagined and in 2011, opportunity presented itself. As Richard looked around his adopted hometown, he saw a struggling doughnut shop with a big ``For Sale'' sign posted, and decided to act. Thus, Richard Hayhoe's Beans Cafe and Bakery was born. Opened in late 2011, Beans Cafe and Bakery offers some of the finest confections available in Kentucky. Between fresh donuts, muffins, and a variety of other pastries, customers are not left wanting, as his store provides just about any morning pick-me-up one could hope for. In addition to keeping their ovens busy, Beans Cafe of course keeps their coffee pots full so that their regular customers can enjoy a fresh cup on their morning commute. Despite their name, Beans Cafe and Bakery is not just a popular breakfast site; it is a one-stop shop for any meal: breakfast, lunch, dinner, and dessert. Beans Cafe boasts a delicious menu of sandwiches on their signature bread, wraps, soups, and salads. Beans Cafe and Bakery also has plenty of options for dessert, including ice cream and hand-spun milkshakes perfect for a warm summer evening spent with family and friends. Soon after Beans Cafe and Bakery opened their doors, residents of Dry Ridge came in droves. Oftentimes, Richard found their reputation preceded them, as local hotel and bed-and-breakfast owners insisted their travelers make time for Beans Cafe. When the Ark Encounter exhibit opened nearby in 2016, that new flood of visitors helped to propel an already growing business into a new phase of expansion, moving to a different location right off the highway. Beans Cafe and Bakery has only continued to grow since then, even opening up a separate kitchen space in order to meet the ever-growing demand for their delicious baked goods. In addition to their excellence in the kitchen, Richard Hayhoe has made Beans Cafe and Bakery a place for community involvement, hosting a monthly get-together for Christians wanting to engage in the realm of public policy and local government. Beans Cafe and Bakery also offers classes for junior bakers, providing a fun and educational atmosphere for young children to learn about the baking craft. When Richard Hayhoe came to Kentucky, he ventured south from his native land to pursue a career that he soon realized was not all that it was chalked up to be. Instead of giving up on Dry Ridge or Kentucky entirely, he stayed and made his home by opening a business that caters to its residents. Richard Hayhoe is the embodiment of the type of perseverance inherent to small business owners. That is why Beans Cafe and Bakery has seen such success; it is led by a dedicated and hard- working team who know how to treat their customers right. Congratulations to Richard and the entire team at Beans Cafe and Bakery. I look forward to seeing their continued growth and success in Kentucky.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the United States has the largest economy in the world and also has the largest government apparatus in the world. This year, we will bring in $4.8 trillion and will spend about $5.8 trillion, and yet we will have no budget this year. How inexcusable, how embarrassing it is for a country--the largest country in the world, the largest government in the world, the largest bureaucracy in the world--to have no budget. Is it any wonder that we are $30 trillion in debt? Most small businesses have a budget. Most businesses in our country have a budget and a prediction for what will come in and what will go out for the year, and this year there will be no budget. Not only will there be no Democratic presentation about it, there will be no Republican presentation as a party. So today I will introduce my budget. This is a budget that balances in 5 years. The reason we chose 5 years is that the constitutional amendment to the budget amendment--the constitutional amendment that would balance the budget--balances in 5 years. We voted on that amendment previously in this body, and the Democrats, in unison, opposed it. They were opposed to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The Republicans were unanimous in voting for the balanced budget amendment, constitutional amendment. In that amendment, the text of it would balance the budget in 5 years. So you would think, if all 50 Republicans are on record as being for a balanced budget amendment that balances in 5 years, that all 50 Republicans would be for a balanced budget, a budget that actually balances in 5 years. Now, why is it important to have a budget? Well, you ought to have a blueprint or a plan for what your government is going to do, so it is inexcusable not to have any budget at all. But also we have another problem that we are facing in our country: We are facing the problem of inflation. Every American is seeing it. You are seeing your gas prices go through the roof. You are seeing your prices at the grocery store going through the roof. Why do we have inflation? Well, inflation comes from debt. When the United States runs up a debt, it is sold. Foreign countries buy the debt, Americans buy the debt, but the biggest purchaser of our debt is the Federal Reserve. When the Federal Reserve buys the debt, do they buy it with money that they have sort of laying around? Do you go to the Federal Reserve, and some guy opens a big safe, and here is the money to buy the debt? No. The Federal Reserve doesn't have any money, so the Federal Reserve simply prints up the money and buys the American debt. But what does that mean? When the Federal Reserve prints the money to buy the debt, this floods the system with money. So we are flooded with money right now. In the last 2 years, we borrowed $6 trillion, so $6 trillion is entered into the system. When you look at the amount of money that is being created, there is a measurement of money supply called the M2. If you look at it on an annualized basis, it has been going up at 15 percent a year. So inflation is an increase in the money supply. It is an increase in the money supply because they are buying the debt. So it is all related to spending. It is inexcusable that we will have no budget this year. It is inexcusable that the projection is for a trillion-dollar deficit in 1 year and yet there won't even be a budget plan. There will be no plan to try to make the deficit less or to try to manage our money. But with this debt comes inflation. We are suffering from the worst inflation we have had in 40 years. Who suffers the most from inflation? The working class, those who are on fixed income, those who are retired, they are getting creamed by this. People are spending over $100 filling up their gas tank now. This is a real problem. So a balanced budget is not an academic exercise. It is not something that is theoretical. Our deficit has real impacts. Our deficit is leading to inflation. So what I have proposed for the last several years is a balanced budget, a budget that balances gradually over 5 years by having across-the-board cuts. When I started introducing this budget several years ago, you could simply freeze spending, and if you froze spending, we would grow out of the deficit. By 5 years, by not increasing spending, you would have a balanced budget. That was rejected by all the Democrats and about half of the Republicans. So then we went another year or two, and spending increased. As spending increased and got worse, a freeze would no longer balance the budget in 5 years, so we introduced the Penny Plan. The Penny Plan was to cut 1 percent a year for 5 years, and it would balance. But still the Congress ignored my admonition on this, and the spending got worse. In the last couple of years, it has had to have been increased by a two-penny plan, meaning a 2-percent reduction in spending each year for 5 years would still lead to balance in 5 years. But Congress once again has ignored that. So last year when we introduced the 5-year plan to balance the budget, it was called the Five Penny Plan. You had to reduce spending by 5 percent each year for 5 years. This year, it has gotten even worse. The $6 trillion spending spree of the last 2 years when they locked down the economy and basically bankrupted almost every business in the country--when that occurred, there was massive spending, massive debts, and now, this year, in order to balance the budget, it would take a 6-percent cut. But I would like to put this in perspective. If you ask people in Washington, their heads explode because they could never conceive of ever reducing spending. In fact, spending hasn't gone down really ever in real terms in recent history because the government grows and grows and grows. Your economy may shrink, your income may shrink, you may be unemployed, but the government gets bigger and bigger and bigger. So if we want to tame government, if we want to get government to live within its means, if we want government to balance its budget, it would take some work. People in Washington seem to think, oh, it could never happen, but if you talk to a business man or woman who has ever been through a recession or ever been through tough times, they will tell you that sometimes a business has to reduce by 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent, to live within their means. What we are calling for here is not no government. We are not even calling for a minimal government. What we are calling for is a government that lives within its means. Right now, living within its means would be a government that brings in $4.8 trillion, which is how much tax revenue comes in, would spend $4.8 trillion. So still the vast majority of things the government does, it could still continue to do, but it would have to spend less. We would have to have real restraint in spending. The best way to perceive it is this: Imagine the thing that you want from government that you think is so popular, nobody could touch. Let's take for example research for cancer or research for Alzheimer's disease, something that so many people advocate, so many people are emotionally charged with. Well, when people come to Washington and they ask me about ``I have this'' or ``My parents have this, and I want research money to go to this,'' what I typically will say to them is ``You know we are out of money. You know that we have this massive deficit, and it has led to this great inflation that is across the land. What if we told everybody that they had to have a little bit less?'' They look at me and they say ``Well, what would that mean?'' and I say ``Well, let's say that your research project--the cancer research or the Alzheimer's research--got $100 million last year. In order for all of us to tighten our belt, in order for all of us to balance the budget so we can be stronger, in order to tame the inflation that is eating us alive, you would get $94 million next year.'' So we are not talking about sort of eliminating whole facets of government; what we are talking about is everybody would have to deal with less. There is so much waste throughout government. You look at the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation is one of the most wasteful Agencies in government. You go back 50 years, and you look at William Proxmire. In the early 1970s, William Proxmire began giving an award called the Golden Fleece Award. What he would give an award for was wasteful spending, and almost always, it came to the National Science Foundation. One of the first ones he gave an award for was $50,000 to discover what makes people fall in love. He just thought it was ridiculous that we would be spending money on that, and I agree. But it didn't get better; it got worse. The National Science Foundation has never had a reduction in its money. It always gets more money. This year--and this is why this is a bipartisan problem--the Republicans and Democrats got together, and we nearly doubled the income or nearly doubled the appropriations for the National Science Foundation. What are some other kinds of great research coming out of this organization? Well, they did a study to see whether or not selfies make you happy. So if you take a selfie of yourself smiling and then look at it later in the day, does that make you feel better about yourself? That would cost a little over a million dollars. They did a study also on the mating call of male Panamanian frogs. They said: Well, we want to know whether the country frogs have a different mating call than the city frogs. As someone who comes from the country, I can tell you there is a different mating call in the country than there is in the city. But that cost us about half-a- million dollars. Another study was $2 million to find out if the person in front of you sneezes on the food in the cafeteria, are you more or less likely to take that food? Another study was three-quarters of a million dollars, studying whether or not Japanese quail, on cocaine--whether or not they are more sexually promiscuous when they use cocaine. I mean, the studies go on endlessly. So what did Congress do? Instead of telling them: Why don't we give them one penny less; why don't we give them 99 percent of their budget, or this year why don't we give them 94 percent of the budget, instead we gave them 200 percent of their budget. Do you think the National Science Foundation is going to be more frugal now that we have nearly doubled their budget? But this is the kind of great ideas that are coming out of Congress, and this one turned out to be a bipartisan idea. All of the Democrats and half the Republicans voted to nearly double the size of the National Science Foundation. So you will get more waste, more abuse, and more debt. The thing is, we bring in a lot of money. We bring in $4.8 trillion. Could we not simply spend what comes in? Part of the problem also is most of the bills are not read. Most of the appropriations bills come in here at the last moment, are 2,000 pages, and no one gets to read them until hours beforehand. And so what they do is they have renewed programs year after year. There is a process up here where we authorize spending. So one committee is supposed to say, is the spending working, and then the other committee appropriates the money. We don't even bother to reauthorize these things. We just keep reappropriating the money year after year. Someone will have this great idea and say, well, we need to do something about homelessness, and everybody will say, well, that is such a well-meaning--they intend to do it, and they will do it. But nobody looks up the fact that we already have 80 other programs doing the same thing. Nobody ever looks at whether the program is working. Nobody ever figures out whether anything that we are spending on money is viable and doing us any good, and so it just adds up. People come and say: Oh, well, this is something we have to do. We have to send $40 billion to Ukraine. Where does it come from? If you really think it is such a great idea, why don't we have a Ukraine war tax? Why don't we do $500 per taxpayer, and you would have enough for Ukraine. No, they just want to add it on the tab. But it is worse than that. It is so irresponsible that the party in charge will produce no budget. So we have nearly $5 trillion coming in; nearly $6 trillion going out the door, and there will be no budget. It is inexcusable. We have the largest economy in the world. We have the largest government in the world, and we will have no budget this year. So what I have done and will continue to do is to produce a budget that balances in 5 years; this is consistent with the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And the other reason we do 5 years is that some people have come forward in the past and said that we will balance it in 10. It becomes so long and unbelievable with the cuts in years 9 and 10 that they never happen; that it really hasn't become a good document even when budgets are put forward. I think if we were to balance our budget, I think we would be a stronger Nation. It is the way we would combat inflation. If you see the people representing the party in power, the Democrats, you see them on TV, they are scratching their heads; they have no idea. They are like we have tried everything. But they don't even understand the problem. They have no idea where inflation is coming from. Inflation comes from debt. When the Federal Reserve buys the debt, that creates the inflation. Because the Federal Reserve has no money, the money is printed up, and the money floods the system. But it is also part of a bait and switch. These are people who run for office and say: We will bring you free things. We will bring you baubles. We will bring you manna. We will give you free stuff. We all instinctively know that nothing in life is really free. So the free stuff that they are going to bring to you is paid for through inflation. So we have to get away from this. We have to get to the point where we say that we are smarter than this. When a politician calls you up and says: Give me your Social Security number and I will send you a thousand dollars, that is what this is. It is an internet scam. It is a phone scam. They are asking for your vote by saying: We are going to give you free stuff. There is no free lunch. There is nothing in life that you will get without working. But what we have done is political parties and politicians--sometimes in both parties--offer free stuff to people. But right now we are paying the penalty. We are paying the piper. We are paying the inflation tax. And the inflation tax is a tax because we have overspent. Inflation will continue to get worse until we begin to reduce the debt. You have got to quit digging the hole. We have this massive hole of debt, and we have to quit digging the hole deeper. So this budget will be a budget that balances in 5 years, and I recommend a ``yes'' vote. Motion to Proceed And with that, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 397, S. Con. Res. 41.

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

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize The Foxhole of Smiths Grove, KY, as the Senate Small Business of the Week. Take a look at any small town American Main Street, and you will likely see a common trend: small businesses are a bastion of creativity. All around the country, entrepreneurs break out into new ventures based on an idea that is uniquely theirs, and they work hard to support the enterprise that is their dream. Such is the story of Kellie B. Long and her store, The Foxhole. Founded in 2017, Kellie set out to open a store that offered a wide variety of items, from clothes and jewelry, to furnishings and tableware. In the years since her opening, the store has grown in its product variety, staff capacity, and customer reach. Though The Foxhole is well-loved by the residents of Smiths Grove, customers travel from all across Kentucky to peruse items that could only be found at this unique shop. When customers walk in the door, they are surrounded by Kellie's unique vision for what defines beauty and creativity. This entrepreneur does not rely on products that are freshly made or unused; she curates a wide array of distinctive items that cannot be found in the typical clothes or home goods store. Moreover, Kellie appreciates the quality of a product that has been loved by a previous owner, and she takes pride in her keen eye for identifying items that deserve to be loved again. Her store offers products that are notably vintage, along with lightly used items, as well as the occasional new and custom-made products. Despite the fact that her store is filled with products that are hard to find and potentially irreplaceable, Kellie is not shy or finicky about welcoming all clientele, even making the store dog friendly for those who cannot part with their pups. Furthermore, Kellie participates in ``Second-Saturdays,'' which is a communal outdoor shopping experience for the residents of Smiths Grove. Second-Saturdays bring out food trucks, vendors, and entertainment for locals to shop, eat, and enjoy with their neighbors and friends. Her participation in Second-Saturdays is not the only way Kellie stays involved in the community. Outside of her regular commercial activities, The Foxhole offers the occasional Bible study for residents of Smiths Grove to gather and share in their religion and faith. And though her Bible study is not a routine part of The Foxhole's activities, Kellie makes sure to incorporate her giving spirit into the running of her business. Every year as Americans observe Memorial Day, Kellie opens up her business to a greater cause, by donating 10 percent of her Memorial Day weekend sales to the Wounded Warriors project. Kellie understands that we all have a veteran in our life, and she does her part in giving back to the community that gave their all. In addition to their annual sales donations to charity, Kellie is sensitive to whatever needs may arise from her Kentucky neighbors. After devastating tornados struck western Kentucky in late 2021, Kelly donated 21 percent of all of The Foxholes' sales recorded in the last 2 weeks of December to the Bowling Green Tornado relief fund. Kellie ensures that The Foxhole is a place where customers can find beautiful and unique items, while promoting community involvement and goodwill to all who dawn her storefront. I want to congratulate this upstanding entrepreneur for her dedication to her community and for her drive to bring creativity and beauty to her corner of Kentucky. Congratulations to Kellie Long and the entire team at The Foxhole. I look forward to seeing their continued growth and success in Kentucky.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the Kentucky Chapter of the National Association of Women Business Owners--NAWBO--provides dynamic opportunities for women to network with other business owners, mentor one another, develop partnerships, and incubate and foster that next big idea. It is composed of women of all ages and levels of experience from all sectors of the marketplace. This year, as NAWBO Kentucky continues to celebrate three decades of success stories that are as diverse as our Commonwealth, its members have established a series of awards to recognize women business owners who have excelled. These include the Woman Business Owner of the Year, the Next-Gen Women Business Owner of the Year, the Public Policy Catalyst of the Year, NAWBO Corporate Partner of the Year, and the NAWBO Member of the Year. Christine Smalley, owner of Fort Thomas Coffee, was named the Woman Business Owner of the Year. FTC opened in March of 2019 and will expand in June of 2022, to include a wine and cocktail bar and a business center. Christine's husband Justin and their two children Kaelan and Cadence have been embraced by their community as ``The Hot Chocolate House,'' by serving hot chocolate instead of candy to their neighbors on Halloween. To this day, trick-or-treaters will make plans weeks ahead to visit the Smalley household and it delights the family to no end. Brooke Corder, owner of Squeaky Cleaners, was awarded as the Next-Gen Women Business Owner of the Year. Brooke has developed what was once an idea into a beautiful dream with her housekeeping, residential, and commercial cleaning services business in Louisville that opened in February of 2020. Adriane Polyniak, owner of the Kentucky Cannabis Company, was awarded the Public Policy Catalyst of the Year. Based in Midway, this family- owned business has been involved in multiple policy changes that have been beneficial to women business owners. Some of these policies include the legalization of hemp, Shawna's Law, and improved access to cannabis research. The NAWBO Corporate Partner of the Year was awarded to Wiser Strategies, a public relations and communication firm in Lexington, KY. President and APR Nancy Wiser has worked with NAWBO on many projects, including the NAWBO website and media relations efforts that made the EPIC event possible. Vanessa Pennoyer, founder and owner of Go2Girl, LLC, was awarded the NAWBO Member of the Year. Vanessa helps diverse-owned businesses seek and obtain certification by navigating the time-consuming portal process. Vanessa has also been involved with NAWBO for years and stepped up this year to assist with all marketing efforts, as well as assistant duties. I am proud to salute the Kentucky Association of Women Business Owners on its 30th anniversary and to honor these awardees.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, every Member of Congress vividly remembers his or her path toward engagement in our government. Some have been more circuitous than others, but we all remember how that spark was ignited and how action ensued. Katherine Wetherton, a freshman at the University of Louisville, hopes to kindle that passion for civic engagement in young women, and part of her strategy was to write a book targeted toward middle and high school students entitled, ``She Rocks the Vote.'' She distributes it through the seminars and workshops she conducts for students and at the Little Free Library that she built and installed in her hometown in Oldham County. A results-focused young woman, Kate was active in Girl Scouts for 13 years and completed her Girl Scout Gold Award, which is achieved by only about 5 percent of Girl Scouts. And while she has big plans for her education, including graduate school, she doesn't intend to stop connecting girls and young women with the information and skills they need to become involved at every level of government. I am proud to recognize Kate for her accomplishments and leadership, and to encourage her future endeavors.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Today, we will have a bill before us ostensibly titled and ostensibly about the subject of domestic terrorism. But this bill would be more accurately called the Democrat plan to brand and insult our police and soldiers as White supremacists and neo- Nazis. How insulting. I have met our Nation's policemen. I have visited with policemen across Kentucky, through our big cities and small, and I have not met one policeman motivated or consumed with any kind of sort of racial rage. What I have met are proud policemen and women who care about the people that they protect in our society, but also who care about their fellow officers. I have not met one policeman who would not defend their partner: Black, White, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. I don't see the kind of sort of insulting rage that the Democrats have for our police. I have met our country's young soldiers and marines. I don't meet racists. I don't meet White supremacists. I don't meet neo-Nazis. I meet young men and women who are courageous enough to defend our country. And what an insult it is to put a bill before this House that says: Oh, somehow our marines are consumed with White supremacy and neo-Nazism. How insulting. In fact, I don't think you could look at a group of young men and women who are more adapted to the times, who are more accepting of their fellow man. And I have never--I have never--heard of a marine saying: Oh, I am not going to carry my fallen colleague out because he is African American. I have never heard of an African-American marine saying: I am not going to carry out my fellow marine because they are White. If there is any kind of grouping in our country more accustomed to treating people because they are your fellow soldier and your friend, it is the military. To insinuate that the military is consumed with White supremacy is an insult. To insinuate that our soldiers are somehow these terrible people, these neo-Nazis and White supremacists, that we are going to get a new government Agency to police the marines--the marines are a proud part of our military. Our soldiers are a proud part of our country. These are the people who do not see color, who do not see race, who do not see religion. These are the people who don't leave their fallen. Do you think the marines go around saying ``Oh, we are going to leave our fallen if they have a certain race or religion''? You don't see that. The marines, the soldiers in our country, the people who defend our country, the people who defend and love our country, are the least consumed with any kind of notion of race. How insulting. This bill states as if it were a fact in the beginning of section 5 that this bill will create ``an interagency task force to analyze and combat White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of the uniformed services and federal law enforcement.'' This is not just an insult to your local police or to the Marines or to the Army and to the Navy; this is an insult to the FBI; it is an insult to the Capitol Police. This bill says that they have been infiltrated. This says that our police are consumed with some kind of race rage. It is untrue, and it is slander, and it is scandalous, but it is predictable. This is the party that wants to defund the police. But this party not only wants to defund the police, they think the police are full of hatred and racism. It is not true. Every policeman in our country, every soldier in our country should look at this bill and say: Who are these people? White supremacy and neo-Nazism infiltration of the Marines? That is not true. It is an insult to every marine in our country. It is an insult to every soldier in our country. It is an insult to every policeman in our country. It is an insult to the Capitol Police. I don't see this in our country. I actually see our armed services as probably one of the areas where people intermix regardless of race and religion better than any segment. These are our young men and women who live in close quarters in barracks. These are our young men and women who go overseas. These are our young men and women who have given arms and legs, and I don't hear examples--I don't know of an example of some guy who says: Oh, yeah, we were blown up by an IED, but we decided to leave that guy because he is of a different race. How insulting. So you are going to have a task force to investigate our soldiers. This is a Federal task force that is going to go in and investigate our soldiers for White supremacy--I guess read their emails, read what websites they go to--because the implication is they are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. That is what this will set up. It will set up more government Agencies that presume your guilt. But it is an insult to our armed services, to our police, and to anybody who works in law enforcement. One might well ask if Democrats now believe that the U.S. military and Federal, State, and local police departments are all corrupted. Are there White supremacists and neo-Nazis running around our country? Look, when I visit even the larger cities in Kentucky, when I visit the Louisville Police Department, guess what. I see African Americans and Whites working together and Brown, Hispanic--whatever you want to call people--all working together. I see high-ranking people in our department who are African American. I don't see that everybody is running around hating each other. I see Black officers and White officers who work together as partners, who care about each other and would defend to the last breath their partner if they were shot in the line of duty. I have seen the officers who have been shot, Black and White. I don't see any of them saying: Oh, yeah, well, we are not going to do anything because that person is of a certain race. This bill is an insult to every police officer in this country. This bill is an insult to everyone in our armed services. This bill says that the armed services have been infiltrated by White supremacy. So if you are a soldier in our country, if you are a policeman in our country, you need to let your Congressman or Senator know that you are not a White supremacist and that it is an insult for the Democrats to call you a White supremacist. It is an insult for the Democrats to say our police force is full of White supremacy, that our armed services is full of this. Everybody in this country who works in law enforcement should be outraged by this bill and should respond and say: No, that is not me, and that is not any of my colleagues. That is not what the Kentucky police force is about. That is not what the National Guard is about. That is not what the Marines are about. What an insult. What an insult. So what do they do? They set up a new Department in Homeland Security. Isn't Homeland Security Federal too? Have they not been infiltrated as well? See, the implication of this bill is that all people are bad, that there is this great and worrisome thing that is infecting America--when the opposite is true. I was born in the 1960s. Every decade has gotten better. People get along better. We have more intermarriage between races. We have more integration within churches. I see less and less of this that everybody is saying is now infecting us. But they don't realize that they are insulting everyone. They are insulting the police. They are insulting our marines. They are insulting our armed services. The bill creates two other Departments. These essentially are Departments that are going to be the thought police of the military. We just took down the ``Ministry of Truth,'' which was in the Department of Homeland Security. It took a couple of weeks for them to finally be ashamed that they were going to try to censor speech, and the Biden administration has canceled it or at least put it on pause. But this bill will create two other Agencies, two other thought police offices at the Department of Justice and the FBI--seems like a self-defeating choice since elsewhere in the bill, we are told that Federal law enforcement is completely infiltrated by White supremacists and neo- Nazis. But, again, none of the bill makes sense. It doesn't make sense because it was a bill that was never intended to become law and won't. It is a dumb Washington talking points memo masquerading as legislation, but it is also a grave insult to anyone involved in law enforcement, anyone involved in the military. But congressional Democrats have gotten so radical, so extreme, so out of touch with the American people, that when they read it, they think this is something worthwhile to do. It is a messaging bill for today. This bill will fail today, though, because the Democrats' message-- hate the police; defund the police; the police are terrible people; the military are terrible people--to slander the military and the police as racist and White supremacist has been roundly rejected by the American people and will continue to be.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the Wainstein nomination be withdrawn and that the confirmation vote on the nomination occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader or his designee in consultation with the Republican leader.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the rest of the votes for this evening be 10-minute votes.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I opposed the confirmation of Bridget Brink to be U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine because of her support for the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. Ambassador Brink believes in expanding NATO to any country who would like to join, including Ukraine. An important part of diplomacy is understanding your adversary. When I questioned Ambassador Brink about the eastern expansion of NATO, however, she expressed her belief that Russian President Vladimir Putin merely uses the NATO question as a pretext for actions he would take anyway. I strongly disagree. We must evaluate our leaders' actions, as well as the actions of our adversaries, on the world stage. Putin is an aggressor and must be condemned, but we cannot allow our revulsion for his invasions to blind us to the fact that our adversaries react to the actions of the West. For years, Putin stated that any attempt to expand NATO to Russia's borders would be perceived as a direct threat. Fifteen years ago, Putin asked, ``Against whom is this expansion intended?'' Yet, a year later in 2008, NATO promised that Ukraine and Georgia would one day join the alliance. Russia's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine are not a coincidence, but I left my meeting with Ambassador Brink believing that she is not willing to reflect upon the actions of the West and how they would be viewed by Russian eyes. Putin has no justification for embarking on a war and invading another country. I fully support the Ukrainians in their fight against Russia. Russia's brutal use of its military to achieve its objectives is unacceptable. But we must understand the reasons why he chose to invade in the first place. When the Cold War ended, the United States had the benefit of the wisdom of foreign policy officials who took Russia seriously. George Kennan warned that NATO expansion would ignite a new cold war. Henry Kissinger proposed a peaceful coexistence in which Ukraine pursued a policy of neutrality, with one foot in the West and one foot in the East. Jack Matlock, our Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, called the current crisis ``predictable'' and, in 1997, warned Congress that he believed that NATO expansion ``could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.'' Those wise voices are either gone or retired. Had we listened to their warnings, today's crisis might have been averted. But the State Department is now filled with officials who refuse to listen to adversaries or consider how our actions may make peace more difficult to obtain. Although I opposed the confirmation of Bridget Brink to be Ambassador to Ukraine, I wish her luck in representing the United States and finding a path to a peaceful end to the conflict.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize the small business, Druther's Restaurant of Campbellsville, KY, as the Senate Small Business of the Week. Steve McCarty, owner and operator of the last remaining Druther's restaurant in the world, understands the importance of commitment and passion when managing a business. His dad built the Campbellsville store in 1970, originally named Burger Queen before the company's rebrand to Druther's in 1980. It was an independent franchise fully owned by the McCarty family. Steve developed a love for the Druther's business at a young age, as he began working there at only 15 years old. At its peak of success, the Druther's franchise had around 200 locations spanning from Florida to Missouri, as well as international locations and a devoted consumer base. In light of financial woes burdening the company in the early 1990s, the owners decided to sell their business to Dairy Queen, leaving 12 independent franchises remaining. Despite this drastic change within the company, Steve and his family wanted to continue the Druther's tradition and keep their independent restaurant open. Having now worked at Druther's for over 45 years, Steve McCarty is the embodiment of dedication and persistence as he works day in and day out to preserve the Druther's story. To this day, Steve will have restaurant-goers come and visit Druther's from all over the country, seeking a taste of the classic food they once cherished. Druther's has maintained the same menu ever since its installation in 1970, only adding additional items to create a wider selection for customers. Throughout its operation, Druther's has always been and continues to be a shining example of what makes a great restaurant: tasty food, excellent service, and an unspoken familiarity among staff and customers. Along with its excellent food and atmosphere, Druther's is committed to giving back to the people of Campbellsville and the surrounding areas. Steve and his team have been a part of several charitable initiatives, including donating to the Toys for Tots program, sending food to Taylor County High School in Campbellsville, and providing free hot meals to all Taylor County residents affected by tornadoes in December of 2021. Druther's continues to provide a sense of joyful nostalgia that their loyal customers love. The restaurant's devotion to keeping the magic of the brand alive is evident among their staff, as Steve works alongside several employees who have been there for over a decade--a testament to both Steve as a business owner and to the wonderful work environment he has cultivated since Druther's founding. The old-fashioned and welcoming nature of Druther's makes it the perfect time-capsule for Kentuckians to re-live cherished memories of days gone by. Druther's unwavering commitment to high quality and service is the reason why people from all over the country are willing to travel hundreds of miles to enjoy their delicious food. This restaurant demonstrates the important role small businesses play within a tightknit community, providing joy and support to their friends and neighbors alike. Congratulations to Steve and the entire Druther's team. I wish them the best of luck and look forward to watching their continued growth and success in Kentucky.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, today the Senate is considering a bill to give $40 billion to Ukraine. This bill brings up the questions of both constitutionality and also affordability. There was an essay written in 1867 that was published in Harper's Magazine. It was called ``Not Yours To Give.'' It is the story of Davy Crockett as a Congressman in the late 1820s. Like most stories of that vintage, some will argue that the story is an accurate rendition while others may say it is apocryphal. The moral of the story, however, is incontestable. Davy Crockett only served two terms in Congress, but on one day in Congress he was confronted with a bill to give money to the widow of a military officer. Davy Crockett arose and gave this speech. Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Davy Crockett continued: I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay-- I will give my check for 1 week, and if every member of Congress were to do this, it will amount to more than this bill asks for. When Crockett finished, there was silence, and, remarkably, the bill failed. When later asked for an explanation, Davy Crockett explained. He said: Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when [we saw] a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. Later in the year, when Davy Crockett was back in Tennessee, he ran into a constituent by the name of Horacio Bunce. Crockett asked him for his vote, and Horacio Bunce responded thusly. He said: You had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again. Your vote last winter shows that either you have not the capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets the Constitution is more dangerous the more honest he is. Horacio Bunce continued. He said: No, Colonel, there's no mistake. The newspapers say that last winter you voted for this bill to give $20,000 to some who suffered from a fire in Georgetown. Is that true? Congressman Crockett answered him: Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children. Horacio Bunce replied to Congressman Crockett. He said: The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man. . . . [W]hile you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. No, Colonel [Crockett], Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county [in Tennessee] as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. Bunce informed Crockett that if each Congressman had shown their sympathy for the fire victims by giving 1 week's pay, it would have nearly covered the cost, but it was easier simply to give other people's money. Bunce continued: The people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. ``So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.'' Today, we are faced with a vastly greater sum of money than $20,000. We are faced with $40 billion to be gifted to Ukraine--a noble cause, no doubt; a cause for which I have great sympathy and support but a cause for which the Constitution does not sanction or approve of. Now, we could ask, as Davy Crockett did, if each Member of the Senate would like to contribute individually to Ukraine, but, of course, that would simply serve to demonstrate the enormity of the gift. To come up with $40 billion, each Senator would need to give $400 million--not a likely scenario. It is much easier to spend such exorbitant amounts if you are spending someone else's money. But even if the Senators won't agree to contribute their own money, surely we are a rich country and can afford it. Well, not exactly. The U.S. debt now approaches $30 trillion. In the past 2 years alone, we have added nearly $6 trillion in new debt. Inflation roars throughout the land. Grocery bills are punishing the working class and poor, and gas prices exceed $5. Even before the pandemic bailouts, our country was running a trillion-dollar annual deficit just to pay for its routine commitments. Putting aside the constitutionality of the $40 billion to Ukraine, isn't there a more fiscally responsible way this could be done? What about taking the $40 billion from elsewhere in the budget? The United States spends more on our military than the next eight countries combined. Couldn't Congress simply shift over the $40 billion and not add to the debt? If the defense of Ukraine is really in our national security interests, shouldn't the gift come from our military budget? What about cutting wasteful spending? My office catalogued over $50 billion in waste. I don't know about you, but couldn't we cut programs like the million-dollar study to see if taking selfies of yourself while smiling and then looking at these selfies later on--if that makes you feel good? Couldn't we cut the budget of the National Science Foundation that spends billions of dollars studying such burning questions as ``Do Panamanian city frogs have a different mating call than country frogs?'' Couldn't we maybe cut the $2 million the NIH spent studying cafeterias to see, if someone in front of you sneezes on the food, whether you are more or less likely to eat that food? Couldn't we maybe cut the money spent on Japanese quail, studying whether or not they are more sexually promiscuous or not when you give them cocaine? If we are not willing to cut the budget at all, couldn't we ask the American people to step up and pay a war tax? If this is really for our national security, it should be very popular with the people. Why don't we offer to tax them in exchange for this? Guess what. The American people don't want to cut spending anywhere in the budget--at least their representatives don't. They don't want to pay any taxes for this. They just say ``Put it on my tab.'' But we have been doing that for decades, and that is why we have a $30 trillion debt, and that is why we have roaring inflation. If you want to pay for this with a tax, you could triple the gas tax. I am guessing that is going to be really popular and people really want to send this money so badly that they would be willing to triple the gas tax. If we were honest, that is what the people who are for this would propose. That would guarantee $5 gas for the foreseeable future. Alternatively, Congress could raise the income tax about $500 for every American taxpayer. I am sure that would be popular. And for the people who think it is a great idea to send $40 billion overseas, why don't they just be honest with people and tax them? Here is your bill, Mr. and Mrs. America, $500 a taxpayer. Then it would be paid for. No, it is like everything else: Put it on our tab. Well, Uncle Sam's tab is full. It is complete. To be clear, I am not for raising taxes to finance Ukraine's defense, but it is irresponsible to simply borrow more money. To borrow the money from China simply to send it to Ukraine makes no sense and makes us weaker, not stronger. But let's be honest--most of Congress doesn't seem to care about the debt, doesn't seem to care how much money we shovel out the door and out of the country. Why? Because it is not their money. Every day, Milton Friedman's statement has proven correct--that nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as their own. I doubt the big spenders in Congress will ever consider spending any of their own money. But Americans across the land should sit up and notice and attach blame to these profligate spenders. In the past 3 months, bipartisan majorities, Republicans and Democrats, have added over $100 billion to the debt. Now these same big spenders are proposing another $50 billion next week to bail out restaurants--restaurants that have been primarily injured by overzealous Democratic Governors and their edicts. There are ramifications to this mountain of debt. Make no mistake, inflation is here, and it is rip-roaring and on the rise. Just as aiding the victims of fire in Georgetown during the days of Davy Crockett ignored the misfortune of the suffering people in lands too distant from Washington to be noticed, so, too, does today's deficit spending to be sent overseas ignore the pain and suffering and the inflation that is caused by that debt on everyday American families. Inflation is simply an increase in the money supply. It comes from the Federal Reserve buying U.S. debt. M2 is a measure of the money supply. For the last 3 years, it has been going up at about a 15- percent rate. So we shouldn't really be surprised that there is inflation because inflation is an increase in the money supply. In January of last year, the annualized rate of the M2 expansion, the monetary expansion, was 27 percent. No one should be shocked we have inflation. We have rising prices in the grocery store. We have rising prices at the pump because we borrowed too much money. We went heavily in debt, and the Federal Reserve is buying the debt. All this so-called free money floods the market and chases prices higher. Adding to our debt will only make the problem worse. Yes, our national security is threatened--not by Russia's war on Ukraine but by Congress's war on the American taxpayer. The vast majority of Americans sympathize with Ukraine and want them to repel the Russian invaders. But if Congress were honest, they would take the money from elsewhere in the budget or ask Americans to pay higher taxes or, Heaven forbid, loan the money to Ukraine instead of giving it to Ukraine. But Congress will do what Congress does best: spend other people's money. I, for one, will not. I will vote no. Somehow, somewhere, a voice of fiscal sanity must remain vigilant, must remain stalwart and steady in a sea of fiscal madness.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I object.