Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, at 10 p.m. on March 30, 2021, Stanford, KY, Police Officer Andy Ferguson and Detective Ryan Kirkpatrick were dispatched to the parking lot of a local eatery after receiving a 911 call from Maria Vergara, a teenager who witnessed a heinous crime: a young woman being assaulted and dragged, screaming, into the cab of a semitruck. Once on the scene, these law enforcement professionals gained access to the vehicle, rescued the victim, and eventually arrested the 29- year-old perpetrator who was later charged with sexual assault and kidnapping. Working with SPD Chaplain Jeremy Johnson and the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, the out-of-State victim received medical treatment at the hospital and was reunited with her family. But the story does not stop there. A locket containing the ashes of the victim's mother had been ripped from her neck and discarded during the assault, and officers were unable to locate it during the night. The next day, Chaplain Johnson and Stanford Mayor Dalton Miller returned to the scene and eventually found the necklace, which has since been returned to the victim. These actions remind us all of several things: of one person's ability to change the course of history for another--in this case, the teenager who reported the crime, of the mix of professionalism and heroism that sends police officers into unknown but certain danger; and of the never-give-up attitude of our best public servants who are moved by compassion to go the extra mile for those who are hurting. We honor each of these individuals today and thank them for their example.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in 2010, Congress passed what is known as pay-go. Pay-go was signed into law and requires that if you want to spend new money, you have to spend for it, hence the name ``pay as you go.'' The idea was that if you wanted to spend money on something, you would either need to cut spending or raise taxes, but you couldn't just simply borrow more money. And if you don't cut something, the cuts would be automatic. Except we have now waived pay-go 60 times since we passed pay-go. Debt has gone from $13.5 trillion to $30 trillion because Congress continues to evade the rules they put in place. It brings us back to the $1.9 trillion spending bill the other side just passed. They want to now waive the pay-go rule. This will be the 61st time to waive pay-go. Some will say that Republicans didn't seem to care about the debt when they voted to cut taxes. However, honest observers will note that I also forced a vote on pay-go when we cut taxes. Interestingly, every Democrat in this body at that time voted to evade the pay-go rules and add taxes to the deficit, as I am sure they will today. So do deficits matter? The answer is a resounding yes. There is no free money. When we borrow or print new money, that money must be repaid. We have racked up nearly $30 trillion in debt. That is almost 150 percent of our entire economy. We borrow $6.6 million every minute. Get that. We borrow $6.6--

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent to have 1 minute to conclude my remarks.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 6 minutes, 3 minutes equally divided.

Mr. PAUL. Since the implementation of PPP last April, 38 Planned Parenthood affiliates applied for and received $80 million in taxpayer funds meant for small business relief. Pursuant to the longstanding affiliation rules, which stipulate that affiliated organizations are considered one organization, the Small Business Administration found that Planned Parenthood was ineligible for PPP funds and sent letters to each of the 38 organizations that wrongfully received funds. After months of delay, though, SBA finally revealed that they have now given secondary loans to more Planned Parenthood organizations. These approvals come long after the SBA had determined that the initial ones were illegal. Further extending the PPP program could allow all 49 Planned Parenthood affiliates time to access both the first or second draw of PPP loans, given the Biden administration's apparent recent actions. I urge everyone who believes that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortion to vote no.

Mr. PAUL. The deficit has gone from $3 trillion last year; it will be $3.5 trillion this year. In Washington, every day is a good day to spend money. Big spenders like to say the Federal Government is no different than a family budget. We have the Federal Reserve that can print money to buy our debt, but all that does is cause inflation. Even with inflation not spiking, we have lost 17 percent of the dollar over the last several years. Who is responsible for the $30 trillion debt? Republicans? Democrats? The answer is yes and yes. Both parties are to blame. The vote I have called for is a litmus test for fiscal responsibility. Anyone who cares about the debt should vote to enforce the pay-go rule. According to the CBO, the bill before us will increase the deficit by $15 billion in fiscal year 2021; therefore, I raise a point of order against the measure pursuant to section 404(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 of the 111th Congress.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, on March 18, I voted against the confirmation of Xavier Becerra to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mr. Becerra has no substantive experience in public health policy, and he has proven himself to be an extremist on the few occasions he has engaged on health care issues. In October 2017, he told FOX News, ``I've been a supporter of Medicare for All for the 24 years that I was in Congress.'' As attorney general of California, he filed over 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration, including leading a group of attorneys general in opposing Texas's legal challenge to Obamacare in Texas v. Azar. He also won lawsuits to reclassify gig economy companies like Uber and Lyft as employers. In response, California's Prop 22 was drafted, with a description saying it ``changes employment classification rules for app-based transportation and delivery workers.'' Becerra's office, which has authority to summarize ballot measures, seemingly tried to sabotage Prop 22 by changing its summary to say it ``exempts app-based transportation and delivery companies from providing employee benefits to certain drivers and delivery workers.'' Californians passed Prop 22 anyway, with over 58 percent support. Mr. Becerra's history suggests he will use this Cabinet post for political activism, not for advancing our Nation's public health. For that reason, I opposed his confirmation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I voted against the nomination of Merrick Garland to be Attorney General because President Biden's campaign promises included permitting the Department of Justice to take unilateral and unconstitutional actions to infringe upon Second Amendment rights. Gun control advocacy groups applaud these promises and encourage even more executive actions to erode the right to keep and bear firearms. Absent an explicit promise from Judge Garland to respect the Second Amendment, my oath to defend the Constitution prevented me from voting to confirm him as Attorney General.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this amendment is an insult to every cashier at Walmart or bagger at Kroger who comes to work every day in person. This amendment is an insult to every meatpacker or waiter or waitress who comes to work every day in person. Supporters of this amendment care more about government contractors making $100,000 a year than they do about the people who serve your food. If food servers and grocery store clerks can go to work in person, I think government contractors can, too. I urge a ``no'' vote. Vote on Amendment No. 1391

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the Paycheck Protection Program was created to help small businesses. We should all agree that an organization with thousands of employees working in dozens of cities across the country is not a small business, but this bill has a provision that would extend small business assistance to these kinds of large organizations. That means that an organization operating in 100 cities across America, with thousands of employees, will get money that was really intended for small businesses. My amendment would remove this provision, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 1014 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in times of conflict and peace, nations should discuss and resolve disputes. We cannot expect to achieve peace without effort and dialogue. The post of Ambassador to the United Nations is a position where engagement is of the utmost importance. Throughout Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield's 35-year tenure at the State Department, under both Republicans and Democrats, she developed a long track record of engaging diplomatically with other countries through a very unique approach. Based on Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield's career, I believe she will tackle international challenges and engage with friends and adversaries, alike, and I support her nomination.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of America's finest, MG Brian Winski, who served a 24-month tour as the commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division and Fort Campbell, KY. Major General Winski's unparalleled mastery across the tactical, operational, and strategic spectrums in combination with his infectious and inspirational leadership provided a continuous source of motivation for soldiers and leaders alike. In a time of uncertainty, Major General Winski exhibited the most valued traits of a leader. As the senior commander of Fort Campbell, KY, Major General Winski oversaw support services for 33,000 soldiers, 50,000 family members, 10,000 civilian employees, and 150,000 retirees. Prior to the global Covid-19 pandemic, Major General Winski shaped the way in which the 101st Airborne Division plans and executes emergency deployment readiness exercises leading the 531st Hospital Center EDRE and later watched their successful domestic deployment to New York to provide help in crisis. Major General Winski's impressive contributions enabled mission success in some of the toughest and most challenging conditions. The distinctive accomplishments of Major General Winski reflect great credit upon himself, the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), the XVIII Airborne Corps, the U.S. Army, and the Department of Defense. I join my fellow Kentuckians in honoring Major General Brian Winski with the Award of Distinguished Service Medal as he served his country with class and courage.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, every American family must balance its own family's budget, and voters wonder why Congress never balances its budget. The Democratic budget before us will add $15 trillion of debt over the next decade. The Pennies Plan budget, which is consistent with the balanced budget amendment that most Republicans have voted for, balances the budget in just 5 years. When I first introduced this budget a few years ago, all you had to do was cut one penny over 5 years, and the budget balanced, but as Congress has blown through the budget caps, it has become much more difficult. Last year, it was two pennies--a 2-percent cut per year to balance in 5 years. Now it is a three-penny plan, and you have to have a 3-percent cut, but it is still foreseeable that we could balance our budget. It is the right thing to do. It is good for America. It will make us a stronger country to leave for our kids and our grandkids, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 1, and ask that it be reported by number.

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

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the subsequent votes be 10 minutes in duration.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL. Probably nothing makes Americans madder than to see their hard-earned tax dollars sent overseas to boondoggle after boondoggle-- countries that laugh at us, burn our flag, take our money, and then ask for more. Meanwhile, our roads and bridges are crumbling in our country. We can't fix our own infrastructure because we keep building roads and bridges in other countries. My amendment would take the $26 billion we send in foreign aid welfare and keep it here and put it into our infrastructure in our country. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 441 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I voted to confirm the nomination of Pete Buttigieg to be Secretary of the Department of Transportation. As a former mayor, Secretary Buttigieg understands that infrastructure in a state of good repair is crucial to economic growth. For too long, American infrastructure has gone without proper investment, while we simultaneously engage in a two-decade-long adventure to remake and rebuild the Middle East. Rather than increase gas taxes, I hope to work with Secretary Buttigieg and the rest of the Biden administration to put an end to endless wars, stop building infrastructure in Afghanistan, and start building infrastructure in America.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, today we will be considering the nomination of Antony Blinken to be President Biden's Secretary of State. The problem I have with this nomination is that, for decades now, we have been at war in Afghanistan. The war is now called ``the forever war.'' People lament that it goes on so long, and people say: How could it possibly keep going on? Sixty-five to seventy percent of the American people, 65 to 70 percent of American veterans--veterans who served in the theater--say the war is enough. We should end the war in Afghanistan. How does it go on? We have got a new President. Are things going to change? Here is the problem: Why do the wars continue? Why do the wars in Syria and Libya and Somalia and Afghanistan continue? Because the more things change, the more they stay the same. Mr. Blinken has been a full-throated advocate of military intervention in the Middle East for 20 years. We are fooling ourselves if we think we are going to get a new policy. We are going to get more of the same. In his hearing, I said to him: ``The problem isn't that we don't compromise or that we don't have bipartisan consensus; the problem is we have too much bipartisan consensus for war.'' For 20 years, he has advocated for military intervention. He advocated for the Iraq war, as did the President. President Biden was also an advocate of the Iraq war. Now, later on they said: Well, the war wasn't that great of an idea, but we were lied to by George Bush and the intelligence, and I am willing to admit there is some truth to that. But there is a bigger lesson here. The lesson is that regime change doesn't work. They often get unintended consequences, and you often get the opposite of what you think you are getting. They said: We must go to Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein because he is a terrible dictator. Well, yes, he was a despot, a dictator, an autocrat. You know, he wreaked havoc on his people, probably gassed the Kurds--many different horrible things. And yet, when he was gone, what did we get? We got a power vacuum. We got more terrorism. We are back in there 10 years later because the government is nonfunctional. And what is the final result? Iran is stronger. What does everybody talk about? Iran, Iran, Iran. Why do we worry about Iran? Well, because we toppled their biggest adversary. We used to have a balance of power between Iraq and Iran--despot on one side, despot on the other but at least a balance of power. But who is Iran's best ally now? Iraq. Think about it. Iraq is allied with Iran. Iraq is also allied, in many ways, with Russia, as well as us, but they have also asked us to leave. They are like: Oh, thanks for our freedom, but you all can take off now. But who supported the war? President Biden, Antony Blinken. We are back where we were 20 years ago. Now, like I say, there is some retrenchment, there is some backing off of the position, but I don't hear from either President Biden, Candidate Biden, or from Antony Blinken that regime change is wrong. Now, if it were wrong, you would expect there was a learning from the Iraq war, and they would say: OK. Now that we are in charge, we won't do the same. But it turns out, when we had an Obama administration, with Blinken and the other military interventionists, in a supposedly progressive administration, we got more war. They went into Libya. Once again, the same sort of idea--the idea that regime change works, and that we will topple this terrible dictator, Qadhafi, and out of the mist, out of the embers, out of the fire will arise Thomas Jefferson. The Thomas Jefferson of Libya will take over and freedom will reign. It didn't work out so much. So Mr. Blinken, in his hearing, admitted as much. He said: Well, maybe we overestimated the possibility that there would be rivals to replace him. Do you think? But, see, this is sort of the expected pattern of the Middle East. The Middle East doesn't have this 1,000-year English tradition of trying to control central power, dating back to even before the Magna Carta. But even 350 years ago, the English had a revolution trying to restrain the power of the King; 250 years ago we had our revolution to further restrain the power of the King. We have this longstanding tradition. But in the Middle East, there is more of this tradition of tribalism, and so you have an iron fist, but when you get rid of the iron fist, it is replaced by another iron fist or nothing--by chaos. So in Libya you get rid of Qadhafi--supported by President Obama Vice President Biden, Antony Blinken. You have the toppling of Qadhafi, but what did you get? Chaos. More terrorism. It is unclear even whom we support--whether we support the current government, the U.N. government, or General Haftar, or whom we support. The Middle East is divided, arms are flowing in on both sides, and like we always do, we fan the flames by shipping arms to everybody in the region as well. It didn't work. So Mr. Blinken acknowledges: Yes, we underestimated the possibility there would be a rival government or a rival faction strong enough to rule Libya. Well, yeah. So did they learn their lesson? No. About this time or a little bit later, they decided: We must go into Syria. So they spent about $500 million--$500 million--to train about 60 fighters. They did it in a remote area of Syria and they got them trained and they spent their $500 million and they sent 10 of them into battle. They were all captured or killed in the first 20 minutes. Five hundred million to train sixty of the so-called moderates. But guess what. The same holds for Syria that held for Iraq, that held for Libya, that now holds for Syria. Guess what. Another despot. But who are the people fighting against the despot? The most fierce fighters in Syria all along were al-Nusra and al-Qaida. The more jihadists, the more vicious and violent and the better the fighters were. Were there doctors and lawyers and academics and people who want a secular form of government? Sure. But the people out there fighting and the people winning the battles were the jihadists. So there was always the danger, if you get rid of Assad, we get another jihadist regime. So we have to think through the policy of this. But Blinken and Biden both supported the Iraq war. It was an utter failure. They admit as much. They supported the Libyan deposing of Qadhafi and war. Then they acknowledge: Well, maybe it wasn't the best--but then they don't take any learning or knowledge from that and say: Maybe we shouldn't go into the next one--Syria. And yet, they went into Syria. And what Blinken's response is should tell you a little bit about the danger of what we may get from Blinken as Secretary of State. He said the problem in Syria was not doing too much but doing too little. He said: What we really should have done is gone in with full might. If we had put 100,000 troops in there, like we did in Afghanistan and like we did in Iraq, if we would have used sufficient enough force, we could have toppled Assad. But in the end, he said: We didn't do enough. So the lesson to Blinken and Biden and this administration isn't that regime change doesn't work; it is that if we are going to do it, we need to go bigger. We need to go all in. I would posit that regime change doesn't work; that we should not support evil regimes. If they are despots or dictators, we shouldn't arm them. But I am not for toppling every one of them either because I am not so sure what you get next. So how would this be in the real world? Saudi Arabia has shown themselves to be an autocratic, anti-woman, anti-modern administration that would actually kill a journalist and dismember him. They were rewarded by the previous administration with arms. Terrible idea. But what would we do if there was a rational, realistic--more realism in foreign policy? We would not topple the Government of Saudi Arabia, but we might not sell them arms. I think that would be a reasonable thing. We also might not sell them arms because they were committing atrocities and killing civilians in the war in Yemen. But if you look back at the war in Yemen, the Obama-Biden administration did not have very strong opposition to the war in Yemen. They do now, but in the beginning, they didn't. And so the supplying of weaponry and bombs and smart bombs to Saudi Arabia occurred under the Obama-Biden administration and then continued under the Trump administration. So we have to ask ourselves: We have so many unintended consequences; how will we ever make things different? Now, our Founding Fathers envisioned something different. Our Founding Fathers envisioned that war should be difficult. It was James Madison who said that the executive branch is most prone to war and, therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature. To declare war was to be split between the House and the Senate and by a majority vote to declare war. We don't do that. It is passe. Oh, that is an anachronism, some say. And when Antony Blinken was asked about this, when he was asked about a use of authorization of force--he was asked: Do you need it? And this was when he was working for the Obama-Biden administration. And he said: Oh, we would welcome discussion and debate and advice from the Senate, but, you know, we don't really need it. Now, he is not alone in this. This isn't a Democratic or Republican thing. This is most of the foreign policy establishment in both parties, particularly once they work for a President. They will tell you, yes, they will listen to your advice. Oh, we really welcome your coming down. Please come down. We would love to sit down and have tea. But, really, don't tell us what to do. We can do whatever we want under article II. And you think, well gosh, that sounds harsh. It sounds like you are describing Blinken as some sort of John Bolton. Yeah. There are similarities, but there are similarities between both parties when they get to the executive branch that they don't think they need Congress's permission. This is a real problem. So some in the Senate have tried to narrow the definition of where a war would be, and I looked at their narrower definition last time and I said: Well, yeah, you would narrow it from the whole world to 24 countries. I don't want to be at war in those 24 countries either. Think about it. We have more military action in Africa right now than we do in the Middle East. Somalia, Mali, all throughout Africa we have got troops. We had four soldiers die a little over a year ago in Mali, and people were like: We have 800 soldiers in Mali? No one even knew. People on the Armed Services Committee were like: We have 800 soldiers in Mali? And yet that goes on without our permission. Without a vote of the people's representatives, without consulting the people at all, it just goes on and on and on. So my opposition of Mr. Blinken to be Secretary of State is not so much because I oppose the administration; it is because I oppose the bipartisan consensus for war. If we are ever to end these wars, we are going to need to not keep nominating the same retreads who have gotten us into these wars. So I will vote against Mr. Blinken because I am against war. I am against war that is not declared by Congress. I am against war that is executed primarily by the President. I am against them doing it without the permission of the people. So I will oppose Mr. Blinken's nomination. I don't think I will get many people from the other side. It is difficult to vote against nominees of one's own party, but I will say that if we are ever to end war, we need to have a real discussion in this body about when we go to war, whether or not we have to declare war, and we have to talk about whether our involvements have worked in the Middle East, whether or not there are unintended consequences. Instead of saying ``Oh, it was all George Bush's fault. It was faulty intelligence''--yeah, yeah, there is some truth to that, but it is really about regime change. It is about the idea that we know what is best for everyone else and that by putting a new regime involved in a country in the Middle East, somehow it is going to be better. It usually turns out worse. So I hope my colleagues will today consider voting against Mr. Blinken because I think he is more of the same.