Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, what we have here is a failure to understand what is going on. We have been at it for 18 hours. There is no weaponization fund in this bill. Let me repeat: There is no weaponization fund in this bill. Ironically, the author of this amendment is the one creating a weaponization fund and directing it to pay his chosen group of people. This amendment is nothing more than a poison pill that would prevent us from doing what is at hand, and that is securing our border, enforcing our immigration laws. Democrats and some others refuse to vote for $1 for the border. Republicans have stepped up to do the job Democrats refuse to do. We cannot let them hijack this bill at the last moment with an unrelated issue.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this amendment would kill the bill. The budgetary effects of the pending amendment are merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the amendment; therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, Paducah, KY, is a town of 26,000 people on the banks of the Ohio River, known for its barbecue, character, and community. At the heart of that community, for more than 70 years, is the Oscar Cross Boys & Girls Club. What began in the 1950s as a small group of men under the leadership of local parole officer Oscar Cross has since grown into a Paducah institution, serving boys and girls from ages 6 to 18. Through financial responsibility lessons, health education, literacy programs, and community service projects, the club offers kids much more than just a safe place to go after school. It provides stability, mentorship, and life skills that shape their future. The future of the club, however, is limited by something as simple as paperwork. The building that houses the Oscar Cross Boys & Girls Club sits on a 3\1/2\-acre lot owned by the city, constrained by a Federal restriction that prevents the property from being transferred to the Boys & Girls Club. As a result, much needed renovations to improve and expand the space they are in is out of reach, kneecapping growth. According to the club's executive director Andrew McGlenon, transferring the property would allow for renovations and new facilities like a gym and classrooms that would nearly double the daily attendance from 100 to 200 kids. Congressman Comer and I have introduced legislation to lift the outdated restriction and allow the city of Paducah to transfer the mere 3\1/2\ acres to the club, as has been requested by the city, the club, and the community for several years now. There is no policy change here. It simply seeks to take care of a community back home. In fact, this is how a unanimous consent request should be used. All parties want to see the land swap effectuated. The only thing the Senate needs to do to ensure that the Boys & Girls Club can better serve its community is to allow this bill to pass today. This isn't a sweeping policy change. This isn't a national regulation. This is something local for a local boys and girls club. I can't imagine why it would be objected to. Passing this bill today will ensure that a cornerstone of Paducah's youth continues to serve generations to come. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1276 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think the problem we have here is a misunderstanding, and it is sort of a false equivalency that somehow granting a boys and girls club a deed to 3\1/ 2\ acres they have been using for 50-some-odd years that was once held by the Federal Government and is held by the city--to let this boys and girls club have a deed, that that is somehow equivalent to a nationwide regulation with fines and fees. There are some questions about these smart refrigerators: Are they so smart that they hook themselves up to the internet unbeknownst to the person? The refrigerator shows up in your house and somehow a cord surreptitiously comes out the back and plugs into the cable or it somehow hooks up to your router; it knows your password and has Bluetooth? How do you get a smart refrigerator that spies on you without your hooking it up to the internet? So that is a question. But the other question and sort of the mistaken notion here is that somehow, when you voluntarily agree to give information, that that is something that libertarians object to. Libertarians object to the government spying on you. If you voluntarily agree to share your information, that has never been something the libertarians object to. For example, the internet is predicated upon your anonymous information being shared on your purchases. Sharing of information is not something libertarians object to. They object to the government snooping on you and getting your information. So having a national mandate that you are going to enforce on the refrigerator manufacturers--that you are going to fine them and if they don't pay, they will be held in contempt for--I just don't see that as a very Republican idea to be introducing national regulations. To say that is equivalent to the Boys & Girls Club--you are going to hold the Boys & Girls Club unless I agree to a national regulation on the smart refrigerators that are surreptitiously somehow hooking themselves up to the internet and spying on us? It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. It also, to most people with common sense, would not seem to be equivalent. I would never in my right mind come to the floor to object to the Boys & Girls Club of Texas. I don't think they are equivalent. But if you have 30 bills or 100 bills that want to have nationwide regulations--your a.m. radio bill. You want to mandate to the car manufacturers that they have a.m. radio. Why? Technology has gone beyond this in many ways. We have Teslas now, and nobody in their Tesla is going to tune in through an antenna. But, you know, to get an antenna into a Tesla and get it to work, you have to coat the battery with this special coating. It costs a couple hundred dollars. Your bill says that the manufacturers can't charge more for that. So if I sell Teslas and I have to spend $300 to get an a.m. antenna radio working in my Tesla that nobody is going to use, that you are going to mandate on behalf of people who really have a vested interest, a monetary interest, in a.m. radio--there are questions that should be asked, and that should be debated, and that is controversial enough not to be a unanimous consent. A Boys & Girls Club kind of sounds to me like a unanimous consent agreement. The mistaken notion we have around here is that we want to pass hundreds and hundreds of pieces of legislation that affect policy. What I get every time is ``Well, this legislation only adds $50 million'' or ``It is only going to be $500 million'' because millions of dollars don't matter anymore; nationwide regulations don't matter anymore. Well, it does. And these are policy differences, and these are honest. These aren't because I dislike you or I dislike your legislation. I don't want a national regulation on refrigerator people. I just don't want it, and I don't see a need for it, and I think it is a reasonable position to take, but it has nothing to do with the Boys Club. I would promise you, if you have anything to do with Boys & Girls Clubs or any kind of small, parochial interest, you haven't seen me. I don't come to the floor to object to that. But something that is on policy, I do object to, and I have questions about how the refrigerators are surreptitiously hooking themselves up and spying on people. The thing is, when you go to buy one of these refrigerators, they charge you more, I would assume, for a smart refrigerator, so my guess is they advertise they are smart so they can charge 200 bucks more. I don't know how you are getting a refrigerator with a microphone and the ability to connect to the internet without knowing it because they charge you and it is an incentive for them to advertise this. So I don't understand where the problem is, nor do I understand how they hook themselves up, so therefore I do object.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the interesting thing we hear--you know, because typically you don't hear it from Republicans--nationwide mandates on refrigerators, nationwide mandates on car manufactures, penalties and Federal punishment if we don't comply with the way of thinking that is prescribed by these bills. What we didn't hear, though, was any kind of objection to the idea or explanation of how your refrigerator is going to spy on you. I think it sort of assumes the notion that people are not competent, not smart enough to make any decisions on their own, that Big Brother has to help them out with it. You have to imagine that someone is buying a smart refrigerator that is going to cost you a couple hundred bucks more than a non-smart refrigerator, is going to cost you more--I can't imagine it isn't advertised. So let's say you pay $200 more for your refrigerator than you would normally, you get a smart one, and you take it home. I still didn't hear any explanation of how it spies on you. How does it spy on you unless you hook it up to the internet? Short of that, your refrigerator is not spying on you. ``Big Refrigerator'' is not spying on you. They are offering you a service if you choose to use it, and you have to choose to use it. You could also choose not to buy it. Regulation like this are the regulations of the left and of Big Brother, who thinks that Americans are incompetent and can't make their decisions. But regulations like this add up, and they add to the cost of refrigerators, they add to the cost of appliances. Just go to California. In California, you will see a tag on everything that says ``doesn't cause cancer anywhere else in the United States but may cause cancer in California'' because they have over- labeled everything to death. It really isn't the business of the Federal Government to be involved with this. They need to be committed to the rules of fraud. They shouldn't be able to sell something to you that is hooking itself up to the internet. But if you have to hook it up--if you have ever Bluetoothed something, you have to do something. The internet just doesn't come and grab your picture on the refrigerator or listen to your microphone. It has to be hooked up to the internet. You have to do this. So there ought to be some thought that goes into this. I am disappointed that you choose to hurt the Boys & Girls Club, but what is the alternative? I have to just say: I won't use my brain. I won't think about the consequences of this bill. I won't think about how it goes against our philosophy of adding more Federal regulations. I won't think about the cost to corporations. I won't think about the nonsensical assertion that it is going to spy on you without you knowing it because it is going to hook itself up to the internet. I am supposed to ignore all that and take that in order to get a deed for a Boys & Girls Club. I find this a false equivalency and insincere. Every objection I have to every one of your other bills is a debatable item based on philosophy. If you have a philosophical difference with this, come to the floor and tell us why you hate the Boys & Girls Club of Paducah, but don't come to us and say: Well, you have to accept a regulation on refrigerators in order to help the Boys & Girls Club--which doesn't cost anything. It is a bizarre, arcane thing. The Federal Government, I think, owned the land, gave it to the city, and said the city couldn't transfer it 50 years ago. The Boys & Girls Club has been on this land for 50 years, but they don't have the title, so we are trying to give them the title through legislation. This is exactly the kind of stuff that, because it doesn't affect nationwide policy, shouldn't have to go to committee, shouldn't have to come to the floor, shouldn't have to tie up a lot of time. These are the things we can dispense with. But a nationwide regulation on cars shouldn't be adopted without debate and without the normal procedure of the Senate. This is a special procedure. We only do things unanimously that typically we agree on. If we want to have sense of the Senate to recognize John Lewis or a sense of the Senate to recognize some individual, those are the kinds of things we do unanimously, but we don't typically do policy or regulations for the whole country unanimously. So I hope there is a better way out where we can think about treating and figuring out what levels of legislation rise to the ability of having a serious debate over and what things are parochial and really could be passed unanimously.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the most recent assassination attempt makes approval of a secure White House addition more urgent. The National Planning Commission, of which I am a member, voted 8 to 1 to approve the White House addition. Lawfare, though, is currently delaying construction. It is clear that the threats of violence against our President are not going away; they keep getting worse. So to prevent further delay, Congress should authorize the White House ballroom and get it on a path to completion. Let's get it built. I am very glad that this latest assassination attempt was stopped, but it is concerning that the would-be assassin got so close and that these types of threats are growing more frequent. The fact I even have to qualify my remarks to specifically say that I am talking about the latest assassination attempt rather than the one before it or the one before that should make us all think clearly on how seriously we need to be taking this. We do need to improve security for the President, and one solution is already right in front of us. The most significant thing we can do-- something that will make the biggest improvement in security--is have a secure event space in the White House ballroom project. Its designs are complete. The project has already broken ground. Funding has already been secured from private donors, not taxpayers. My proposal today doesn't involve any tax money. Congress doesn't need to reinvent the wheel here. I have a straightforward bill, which I will move to pass in a moment, to give this project clear, legal authority to proceed. By passing my bill, we can help build the ballroom with no more legal delays, no more bureaucratic delays, improved reporting and progress updates to Congress, and no added cost to taxpayers. I support the building of the ballroom, and the Senate can do something right now to make it happen. Let's do the right thing without delay. Let's formalize and authorize the White House ballroom. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill 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. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2280, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5378 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, Congress ought to fund border security, but we should be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars and fully pay for the $70 billion to secure our borders. My amendment would eliminate over $5 billion in refugee welfare, cut over $45 billion in foreign aid, and slash the National Science Foundation by nearly $4 billion, as well as reducing the Department of Education by 16 percent. This is consistent with the Trump administration's goal of returning educational authority to the States. These reductions would be made in just one fiscal year and would fully pay for border security. With $2 trillion deficits and a $39 trillion debt, we must stop handouts to refugees, countries that hate the United States, and Federal Agencies that study such things as frog mating calls in Panama. Let's pay for the border security. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, there is nothing in the bill that cuts Pell grants.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Regena Triplett Jones, a devoted public servant, a proud Kentuckian, and a woman whose kindness left a lasting impression on all who knew her. Regena was born on May 6, 1964, and raised in the small community of Warfield, KY, a place that shaped her values and remained close to her heart throughout her life. She was the beloved daughter of John R. Triplett and Bonnie Triplett, a role she carried with deep pride and gratitude. She later made her home in Pikeville, KY, where she built a life centered on faith, family, and service. A graduate of Northern Kentucky University's Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Regena brought both knowledge and heart to the work she would go on to do. For 10 years, Regena served as my Eastern Kentucky Field Representative. In that role, she worked to connect Kentuckians with Federal resources and to serve the people of the Commonwealth with sincerity and care. She approached her work with a spirit of humility and a genuine desire to help others, leaving a quiet but meaningful mark across the region she served. Beyond her professional life, Regena's greatest joy was found in her family. She was a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother who treasured every moment spent with her children and grandchildren. Whether cheering them on at ballgames or simply being present in their lives, she made them the center of her world. Her faith was also an important part of her life. As a member of Connection Church in Pikeville and a participant in the women's prayer group, she found strength in her beliefs and fellowship in her community. Regena will be remembered for her bright personality, her gentle spirit, and her sincere kindness. She had a way of making others feel seen and valued, and her presence brought warmth to those around her. While her passing on December 11, 2025, leaves a void in the lives of those who loved her, her legacy lives on in the family she cherished and the many lives she touched through her kindness and service. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Regena Triplett Jones and in extending our deepest condolences to her family, friends, and all who mourn her passing.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call in relation to the Shepherd nomination.

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent to commence the vote.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, once war begins and American soldiers are under fire, a rational discussion of the pros and cons of war becomes nearly impossible. That is exactly why our Founders wrote a Constitution that demands a debate before the initiation of war. But there was no debate in Congress, let alone a vote. Americans awoke to discover their country once again embroiled in a war in the Middle East. Americans were not asked if they would bear the burdens of war. Instead, the American people were told, through a Presidential 8- minute video posted around 2:30 in the morning, that the country was once again at war. And, because there was no national discussion about going to war, we do not know whether ground troops will be used, we have no idea how long the war will last, we have no idea who will lead Iran after the death of the Supreme Leader, and we have no idea how many casualties the American people are supposed to tolerate. We cannot know the answer to these questions because no one bothered to make the case that war with Iran was worth the sacrifice. The Senate only now debates whether hostilities should end after they have already begun. Before I discuss the merits of this war, I want to say that my prayers and those of my family are with the troops in the region and in combat and anyone who may be called to do so. I do not take lightly that combat has begun, that many have been severely injured, and that lives have been lost. It is because of those realities of war that the Constitution grants the power to declare war to the U.S. Congress--not one individual sitting in the Oval Office. Giving Congress the power to declare war was meant to prevent the ability of one person to commit the Nation to war. When the Nation goes to war, it should be a collective decision, where a clear rationale for war is articulated. But more importantly, a debate and a vote in Congress provides the Nation with the only opportunity to discuss whether a country is aware of and accepts the inevitable sacrifices of war, especially the loss of life. The people have been robbed of a public debate. Let me inform the public, that evasion is intentional. The congressional leadership--resigned to their own irrelevance--will gladly hand the President the power to initiate war in exchange for plausible deniability. The congressional leadership wants to make the case to the voters that they are not to be held accountable at the ballot box because they simply played no role in the decision to go to war. That is not statesmanship. That is shameful. This country is now at war, which already cost the lives of six American servicemembers and many more are severely wounded. Those soldiers and their families deserved a public debate and a vote in Congress before the initiation of hostilities. But had Congress debated war with Iran, we would have been wise to recall the words of John Quincy Adams who, as Secretary of State, advocated a foreign policy of restraint. ``Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled,'' argued Adams, ``there will [America's] heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.'' There is wisdom in Adams's words, but his was not an original argument. It was George Washington himself who warned in his farewell address to stay out of the world's endless conflicts. Congress has tragically forgotten this advice. The history of the 21st century has been one of endless wars in which America perpetually searches for the next monster to destroy. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Syria to Venezuela, the advocates for war tell us that a country is a threat and that toppling a foreign government is a noble quest to protect security at home while spreading freedom globally. While they have recycled their arguments, when they bother to make them, the results are always instability, chaos, suffering, and resentment. The Iraq war was launched under similar false pretenses, and the consequences of that fateful decision still reverberate throughout the Middle East to this day. The overthrow of Iraq's secular government and the collapse of its civil society spurred some of the worst sectarian violence in modern history and directly led to the rise of ISIS. Over a decade since the U.S. military intervention that toppled Muammar Qadhafi, and a year after the fall of Assad, these divided, unstable countries struggle to escape the cycle of violence and chaos. And although Nicolas Maduro may have been removed from power by American military forces, the socialist and oppressive Chavista regime has not been removed from the Venezuelan government. And, most tragically, after two decades of war, the Taliban flag flies over Kabul. America's adventures have not produced the promised utopias, or even Jeffersonian democracies. History is replete with examples of wars that quickly escalate beyond their initiator's intent. While some may think that we maintain escalation dominance, the spiral of violence can rapidly get out of control. America is at war. But Americans don't want this war. They didn't vote for it. In fact, they voted for just the opposite. Beyond the documents and words of our Founders, that is why their intentions to only grant the power to Congress is so important today. If the President came to Congress to ask for authorization for war, the people's representatives can do what they were elected to do and represent them. Debate provides information and answers we do not now have. The constitutional separation of war powers is not just some notion that belongs in our history books. It is a vital part of a democratic republic. This Congress should be ashamed of how it has allowed this unilateral march to war. No others in our history have been this cavalier with our military men and women and tax dollars as they are at this moment. I urge my colleagues to join in opposing both this war and the unilateral actions that were taken without congressional authorization as the Constitution commands.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4272 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, a freelance journalist discovered recently that billions of dollars had been stolen from welfare programs in Minnesota. Congress didn't discover this theft; a member of the public did. How did Congress respond? Did Congress open an investigation? Did Congress claw back the money from Minnesota? No. Congress simply decided to give another $5 billion in refugee welfare. My amendment says: Stop. No more welfare for refugees until there is a nationwide investigation of the level of this fraud. No more welfare for refugees until Congress balances the budget. America can't be the world's sugar daddy when we can't even afford welfare for our own citizens. Many refugees are good people--frankly, some of the best Americans just got here--but our welcome mat should not be a welfare check. Anyone who sponsors immigrants or refugees should be responsible for their welfare. Charity is when you give your money. Any groups assisting immigrants or refugees should themselves be responsible for the welfare of the refugees. So my amendment will remove from the bill a little over $5 billion from the refugee welfare programs. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I yield back all time on Paul amendment No. 4272. Vote on Amendment No. 4272

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

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we are here on the floor of the Senate today to discuss the War Powers Resolution, to discuss the recent war activities in Venezuela, and yet there still is a debate. Some say there is not a war; some say there is a war; some say we won't know for a while if there is a war or isn't a war. Last year, we had this debate. The junior Senator from Texas came forward and presented a War Powers Resolution for Gaza. He said that President Biden's decision to send U.S. troops in to build a beachhead, to build a pier, was sending them into a war zone. Interestingly, every Republican Senator at that time voted against a point of order, and the point of order said no hostilities existed. The point of order at the time said Gaza is not a war. And every Republican voted against that point of order because every Republican considered that Gaza was a war zone and that the War Powers Resolution applied. Fast forward to today, the proposition that the majority of Republicans will put forward is a point of order saying there isn't a war in Venezuela. So they all believed that there was a war in Gaza, but they all now believe that there is not a war in Venezuela. Now, there are arguments, I think, actually for both being war. In Gaza, the troops that were building the beachhead were fired on multiple times, so I think U.S. troops under fire sounds a bit like you are putting them into a war. Now, we have a situation in Venezuela where hundreds of troops were sent in--dozens and dozens--and pilots and planes were sent in. You bombed a nation's capital. You had extraordinary rendition of the nation's President, and now, we have a blockade involving hundreds of ships and thousands of sailors, but that is not a war. It is somewhat boggling to the mind that almost every Republican Senator believed there was a war when a few soldiers were shot at in Gaza trying to build a pier. I agreed with them. I think that was putting U.S. troops into war. But now every Republican--not every Republican--virtually all Republican Senators who believed that it was a war in Gaza now believe it is not a war in Venezuela. Now, some of them on the quiet will tell you: Well, it was a war, but it is all over. It is all done. Yeah. We are not going to quibble. We really weren't arresting somebody. It wasn't a drug arrest. It was a war. It is a mini-war. But it is all over, so the War Powers Resolution doesn't apply because the war is over. And yet, we still have an entire military blockade of a country, and that is not a war. This is a real question. So we have been given a legal opinion by the current administration, and we had one of their assistant attorneys general come and explain to us why this is not a war. You have to realize this is an important part of the debate because, if it is a drug bust, it is not a war. So they told us this is really just a drug bust. We had to bomb the entire capital. We had to remove all their air defenses. We have an armada of 20,000 ships and hundreds of airplanes flown from all over the world, but it really was just a drug arrest; it really isn't a war. But this young man came in to us, and he explained to us that we probably don't know yet whether it is a war. The way we will know it is a war is by the scope, the extent, and the duration, including how many people die in the war. So the problem we have, though, is the Constitution gives us the power to initiate war, to declare war. But if we don't know if it is a war until after all the people die and we add up how many people died and they call it a constitutional war because a lot of people died, wouldn't it then be a little bit late to vote on initiating a war? See, this is an enormous debate. This is an important debate, and this should not be sluffed over as, Oh, no big deal. The war is already over. Well, we actually don't even know if the war is already over. We are under a blockade. The current administration has said they will send troops back in if they need to. They said they will send troops into other countries if they need to. The blockade is said to be, Oh, we are going to control the ships, and we are going to sell the oil, and we are going to run. We are in charge. It is our oil. We are going to be in charge of Venezuela. But that sounds to me like a military blockade, a long-term military blockade, and I don't know how we argue that that is not war. But the position of the administration and probably the position of other Presidential administrations--because this isn't really and shouldn't be Republican versus Democrat--this should be legislative prerogative versus Presidential prerogative, and it should be about the Constitution. The Constitution specifically, thoughtfully, vested the power of initiating war and declaring war to Congress. They talked about it. They talked about it in the Constitutional Convention. They wrote about it in the Federalist Papers, and from Hamilton to Jefferson, the spectrum of our Founding Fathers concluded they didn't want the President to have this power. They said the initiation--the declaration of war shall be vested by Congress in the legislature. So what we have is an elaborate song and dance. They know the declaration of war resides here. They know initiation of war--so they argue first that it is not war; it is a drug bust. But then they say: Well, internationally, people say it probably is a war, so in case you think it is a war, we are going to tell you that it is not really a war because we won't know if it is a war until it is over. We will tell you more about it. We will know when the war is over whether it actually was a war and whether we should have voted to initiate war when the war is over depending on how many people die. And then they say: Well, we are going to look at the scope, extent, and duration of the war, but since we don't know what that is, we are going to guess based on what the policymakers say. And they say to us now we are not going back in, so we don't have to vote on whether or not we are going to war with Venezuela. This, to me, is an absurdity; it is logic that runs in circles, and it doesn't get us any closer to where we need to be. The reason the Founding Fathers gave this power to the legislature is because they wanted to make war less frequent, they wanted to make war hard to initiate, they wanted to see war more as a defensive notion, not as an offensive enterprise. During the debate over whether Gaza was a war, the resolution was introduced by the junior Senator from Texas, and virtually every Republican voted for it. Interestingly, Marco Rubio voted for it. The Secretary of State actually voted to say that the war in Gaza where troops were being shot at that were building a pier was a war. But now, things seem to have reversed, and all those who thought Gaza was a war where there were some shots being fired at the people trying to build a pier--which by many people's interpretation would be a lot less than an entire invasion of a capital and removal of a President and a blockade of an entire country--every Republican in this body, including the current Secretary of State, voted that Gaza was a war. In making the arguments that Gaza was a war, the junior Senator from Texas expressed the reality that the Senate had abdicated its constitutional responsibility. So at that time, the junior Senator from Texas argued that Gaza was a war. He said: Over recent decades, we have seen the Senate hand away much of our responsibility on foreign policy and national security to the Executives. That is contrary to the design of our Constitution, and it is frankly harmful to the Senate and harmful to this country. I couldn't agree more, but I don't understand how it was harmful when we were talking about Gaza and it is no longer harmful when we are talking about arguably a much greater military incursion into a country. It seems as if--and I know this would be shocking to people-- that there is some partisanship here, that there is a different definition of war under Democrats than there is under Republicans. My colleague from Texas went on to highlight the flagrant hypocrisy of both parties, saying on the Senate floor: [Now], far too often, the Senate has stepped out of our historic role in foreign policy and [has] said: Whatever the President wants, we, the Senate, aren't going to say anything about it. When there is a Republican President, Democrats suddenly discover their voice and say: Hey, the Senate ought to say something. But when it is a Democrat President, it seems no matter how incoherent and disastrous the foreign policy from the Democrat President, [the] Democrat Senators don't want the Senate to exercise its authority. I would argue today is evidence that both sides are guilty of this. I would argue that if Gaza was a war, that bombing of the Venezuelan capital and removal of the President and the blockade of an entire country might qualify as a war. If a few soldiers shooting at our soldiers who are trying to build a temporary pier or a temporary port in Gaza is war--which every Republican in the body voted for--certainly they must think the invasion of a capital is a war, that removing a President is war, or that blockade of a country. So even though the first incursion, the first invasion, may well be over, is the blockade of a country not a war? Are we not at war when we have a military blockade of a country? The American people are sick and tired of their elected officials disregarding the Constitution when their party is in power and then becoming ardent defenders of the Constitution when the opposing party is in power. Each of us took an oath to the Constitution to defend it that applies at all times, not just when it is politically convenient. Congress maintains a constitutional duty to debate matters of war. Playing politics when the lives of our brave servicemembers are on the line and our country is at risk of being entangled in yet another foreign conflict is an inexcusable dereliction of duty. At this point, I think we need to have a fulsome debate--a debate in the country, a debate in the Senate--over what war is. But I think anyone who accepts the ludicrous notion that they will tell you what war is after the war is over should not be treated seriously. How can we do our duty? How can we do our duty to initiate and declare war if we don't know what war is until it is over? If after the war we can count the casualties, and there are a significant amount of casualties, or the incursion took a significant amount of time, then there is war. Or some will say: Well, we can just defund the war. You know what, it has never happened. Find me the Senator or Congressman who wants to vote against money for our troops who are being shot at. It is very difficult to stop funding a war once we start because a nation's patriotism rises up naturally. The time to start a war is before it gets started. But if they are telling you they define war by how many casualties there are, you have got to wait until the war is over to determine whether it was a war, to determine whether we should initiate the war. This is an absurdity. Both parties, frankly, have been guilty of hypocrisy on this, but the order today that we will be voting on is whether or not the point of order says that this is not a war. Well, invasion of another country, blockading of a country, and removing another country's leader, to my mind, clearly is war, and I will vote against this point of order.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Virginia for leading this effort. There is likely no issue more important that confronts us as a nation, as a people, as a Congress, than whether or not to send our young men and women to war. I take a backseat to no one in my disdain and loathing of state- sponsored socialism. In fact, I wrote a book, ``The Case Against Socialism,'' describing the historic link between socialism and state- sponsored violence. I wish the people of Venezuela well and sincerely hope that they will not repeat the mistake of electing socialists that have plagued the nation since the 1970s. Whether or not socialism is evil, however, is not the debate today. The debate today is about one question and one question only: Does the Constitution allow one man or one woman to take the Nation to war without the approval of Congress? Full stop. That question is bigger than regime change in Venezuela, bigger than the claims that the ends justify the means, bigger even than the depredations and evils that multiple socialist autocrats have perpetrated upon the once great country of Venezuela. Even those who celebrate the demise of the socialist, authoritarian regime in Venezuela, as I do, should give pause to granting the power to initiate war to one man. The power to initiate war is so vast a power that it must be confined by checks and balances. The debate today would not be happening if our leaders read and understood the Federalist Papers. The constitutional power to initiate war is placed squarely on the shoulders of Congress. Current congressional leaders squirm and would like to shift the burden of initiating the war to the President. Less than courageous Members of Congress fall all over themselves to avoid taking responsibility to avoid the momentous vote of declaring war. But make no mistake, bombing another nation's capital and removing their President is an act of war, plain and simple. No provision in the Constitution provides such power to the Presidency. No Supreme Court has allowed the Congress to abdicate its role in the decisions of war and peace, and no Congressman of any self-respect will argue otherwise. Our leaders debated fully whether or not to grant this power to the President. To a man, from Jefferson to Hamilton, the spectrum of our Founding Fathers, they all agreed with the words that Madison wrote that the executive is the branch most prone to war, and, therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power--vested the power to declare war in the legislature. Founding-era arguments in support of ratifying the Constitution demonstrate that our government does not entrust the decision to go to war to just one person. At the Constitutional Convention, Charles Pinckney argued that uniting the war powers under a single Executive would grant to the President monarchical powers. It would make him like a King. They did not want a King. They were tired of the endless wars of Europe. They took that power and placed it with the people's representatives. They didn't want to make it easy to go to war. They wanted to make it hard to go to war. Some will argue--they will say that Congress is so feckless. They will never declare war. Well, guess what, when we have been attacked, we have been virtually unanimous. When we were attacked on 9/11, the vote was virtually unanimous to go after the people who attacked us. When we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, once again, the vote was virtually unanimous to go to war. James Wilson, one of the Founders, assured Americans at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention that the proposed Constitution would not allow one man or even one body of men to initiate hostilities. In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton stated the Constitution gave the Presidency fewer war powers than those of the British Monarch and that the American President would be restricted to conducting the operations of the Armies and Navy. In other words, the Constitution, the declaration of war, that power would remain with the legislature. The execution of the war--how many troops are stationed here; how many battleships are stationed here--that would be the prerogative of the President. The beginning of the war, the initiation of the war, the declaration of the war would reside with the people and their representatives to make it less likely that we go to war. The founding generation was largely united in the opinion that the American President would not be endowed with the monarchial powers to initiate war unilaterally. These Founders were not just engaged in a sales pitch; they were accurately representing the Constitutional Convention's decision on how to divide the war powers. Initiation, declaration of war, would be the prerogative of Congress; execution, fighting the war, would be the prerogative of the President. An early draft of the Constitution gave Congress the power to ``make war'' rather than to ``declare war.'' This was debated, and during the debate over this, South Carolina's Pierce Butler rose to defend the proposition that the new American Government should vest the war-making powers with the President. So this one man from South Carolina rose and said, not only should the President execute the war, he should initiate the war also. But others stood up. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, was so aghast by Butler's suggestion that he rose to say that he ``never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.'' And in response to Butler's proposal to vest all the war powers with the President, Gerry joined with James Madison to successfully propose amending the draft of the Constitution to give Congress the power to ``declare war.'' They specified that Congress would have the power to initiate or declare war, but the execution of a war would be the President's power. But they wanted to make sure that the President would be able to defend the country against foreign attack without awaiting congressional action. This comes up all the time about: What if we are being attacked? What if it is an emergency? Can the President act without Congress? Of course, he can. No one has disputed that. Military action in defense from another military attack has always been the prerogative of the President. People say: Well, this had to be a secret. Well, guess what. It was no secret that we had an entire armada lined up outside and across the coast from Venezuela. They knew we were there. They knew it was a possibility that we were coming in. Had we voted to declare war, yes, they might have been chastened even more. They might have even decided to negotiate before, had the entire Congress said: We are declaring war. So in some ways, a declaration of war actually is more potent if you are trying to effect diplomacy. But, instead, we didn't vote. People said: Oh, they wouldn't be surprised. If we had voted to declare war, the President still doesn't have to divulge the time or place of the war. Those secrets can still exist. And, in fact, it is even more justified for the President not to tell us anything about the attack until afterward, if we have already given him permission to initiate a war. And people say: Oh, this is just a technicality. Why should we care? Well, if you have sons or daughters, you should care, because if we have unlimited war, if we have no limitations on the war-making power of one person, what happens when you get someone who will run amok with war? I am not even talking about this President. I am talking about ``what if.'' That is why the rules are in place. The rules are in place to prevent a President, at one point in time, from running amok and having millions of our soldiers strewn around the world. Does anybody remember the Battle of the Somme? A million soldiers died over an 18-day period in World War I. Now, that war was authorized, and it was still awful. But can you imagine a million soldiers dying without a declaration? And people say: Well, what are you talking about? They are already gone. No one is in Venezuela. What we are talking about is taking a country to war. We aren't just talking about Venezuela. We are talking about the power of a President to have a million soldiers die in an 18-day war. People say: We are not talking about that. Then we would declare war. You have to declare war at the beginning. And then people say: Well, it is not a war. All it was was an arrest warrant. It was just a drug crime. Oh, he was guilty of possessing machineguns. That sounds like that is being made up as humor. In 1934, we passed a law in our country saying you can't own machineguns. It is an American law. Does anybody in their right mind-- does any sane individual who can read in our country--believe that it applies to the security forces of a foreign dictator or a foreign President; that if their guards have machineguns, they are guilty of breaching a 1934 U.S. law? What kind of world would we live in if we could accuse people around the world and simply go arrest them and send the military to quiet down all of their defense systems so we could arrest them? We had intelligence reports in our country that reported that, per our intelligence, the leader of Saudi Arabia was guilty of or was involved with killing an American journalist. What if a President decided they wanted to arrest him? Can they do that without a congressional vote or permission? There are arguments that the current President of Brazil has unfairly imprisoned the previous President of Brazil. Now, you can have an argument on both sides. You can listen to the facts, but would you want your President to be allowed to go to Brazil, free the former President, and put the current President in jail without a vote of your representatives? What kind of world would that be? Who could be for that? The Constitution empowers the President to defend the country against sudden attacks initiated by any foreign power. The initiation of hostilities by the United States that requires deliberation and authorization must be voted upon in Congress. Our Founders' intent was not a close call open to equivocation. Pundits argue that Presidents have been ignoring this restriction for decades. That is true. But that is not an argument. That is just an excuse, and a lame one at that. The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war. The power to declare war was too important to be left to the competence of one man. As Jefferson wrote, ``in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.'' See, the Constitution isn't chains on the people; it is chains on your representatives so they don't usurp the power, so your representatives don't take you to war without careful deliberation. Our Founding Fathers were explicit, and yet they still worried that a branch of government might resist the chains of the Constitution. So in pondering how they would enforce these checks and balances, they took to heart Montesquieu's maxim that if the powers of the Executive and the legislature, if they are combined--if there is no difference between the legislature and the Executive, if they are combined together--there can be no liberty. Those are strong words. They felt liberty would be endangered or imperiled if all the power resided in one person. Madison wrote that by dividing the powers, by separating the powers within the Constitution, within the branches of government, that would pit ``ambition against ambition.'' The ambitions of a President to usurp power would be pitted against the natural ambitions of the legislature to keep power. The natural allure of power would be checked by each branch jealously guarding the prerogative of power. Who among the Framers would have ever guessed or conceived of a time when Congress would lack any ambition--any ambition at all? Who would have predicted a time when Congress would be so feckless as to simply and obediently abandon all pretense of responsibility and any semblance of duty so as to cede the war power so completely to the President? It is as if a magical dust of soma has descended through the ventilation systems of the congressional office buildings. Vague faces, permanent smiles, and obedient applause indicate the degree that the majority party has lost its grip and become eunuchs in the thrall of Presidential domination. A President is never truly checked by the minority party, other than through elections. Meaningful checks and balances require the President's party to stand up and resist unconstitutional usurpations of power. Until that happens, the dangerous precedent of unlimited war- making power will continue to be abused by Presidents of both parties. I recommend a ``yes'' vote on this resolution.