Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment to pay for this economic stimulus package by removing less important spending from elsewhere in the budget. I would ask every American: If you were faced with a personal crisis and had to spend extra money and you had to spend extra money on food and medicine--money that you had to borrow from a relative--wouldn't you prioritize your resources and immediately stop loaning money to friends overseas for their children to go to, for example, space camp? Wouldn't you stop funding clown colleges in Argentina? If you had a true emergency like this pandemic, wouldn't you stop building roads and gas stations in Pakistan? If you had a true emergency like this corona pandemic, wouldn't you immediately stop spending money studying why drunk people fall down more than sober people? I ask my colleagues to stop wasting money in this time of crisis. Stop being a rubberstamp for wasteful spending. Do your jobs and prioritize our precious resources. It is our job and our responsibility to conserve these resources. Why is this important? Why shouldn't we just print or borrow the money instead of making cuts in things like foreign aid? Because next time, maybe in the not too distant future, our children may not even be able to borrow their way out of a crisis. Our dollar will be devalued, our economy ruined, and all because we will have been profligate fools with our resources; all because we refused to do what we were elected to do, which is to prioritize the truly vital, such as coronavirus relief and medical research, over the extraneous, such as spending money on clown colleges, gas stations, and roads in Afghanistan. To my fellow Americans, remain hopeful, remain kind, remain faithful, and above all, remain resilient. In the world's history, pandemics are the norm, not the exception. It is only recently--in the modern era of antibiotics and vaccines--that pandemics have become less frequent. Ever since vaccines eradicated polio and smallpox, modern man has become accustomed to the idea that life is relatively safe and that a long life is to be expected. Consequently, any re-eruption of diseases beyond our control paralyzes us with fear. People have forgotten what it is like to experience the annual dread of recurring infectious disease. My parents remember vividly the polio pandemics of the 1950s. In one of the last great outbreaks of polio, before the vaccine, almost 60,000 people contracted polio and over 3,100 died. Jonas Salk was greeted as a conquering hero for developing the first widespread polio vaccine, but that was nearly 70 years ago. In the early 18th century, Dr. Zabdiel Boylston showed great courage in introducing inoculation for smallpox. Within a generation, smallpox was on the wane and ultimately defeated when Edward Jenner discovered how to vaccinate using the milder cowpox. This latest pandemic already has heroes--some known, but most of these heroes are unknown doctors and nurses on the frontlines. The innovators among us are already putting forth potential treatments and possible cures. A half dozen antiviral medications are in the final stages of study. Researchers believe that an old drug developed for malaria may help. Reports indicate that scientists will likely set a speed record in developing a vaccine. Now is not the time for malaise; now is the time for optimism. By summer, there is a very good chance we will be in the recovery phase. Now is not the time to give in. Several generations have grown up unfamiliar with the devastation of pandemics, and even now, when it is impossible to look the other way, the young and healthy rationalize their relative safety. Psychologically, it is easier for the young and healthy to view mortality as something that happens to the old and unhealthy. Coronavirus scares us because it kills not only the old and infirm but the young and vibrant, although much less frequently. One of the coronavirus's first victims was a 32-year-old, previously healthy ophthalmologist in Wuhan. The question is not how serious is the pandemic or whether we should act but whether there is a plan of action that can preserve our economy and lead to a quick rebound. I don't think anyone will ever know for certain whether grinding the U.S. economy to a halt was necessary. Likewise, no one can really know the converse--what would have happened had we not attempted to slow the virus's spread. It is useful, though, to remember that just 10 years ago, we suffered the swine flu pandemic, and the swine flu was no walk in the park. It is estimated that about 60 million Americans were infected and over 12,000 people died. Now experts have said that the coronavirus is much more lethal than the swine flu--likely true--but worldwide deaths from the swine flu were estimated to be between 150,000 and 575,000. When calm returns, it will be helpful to examine how our responses differed between the swine flu and the coronavirus. At one time, we were completely helpless before the ravages of natural disasters, such as infectious diseases, but our history is one of great innovation and perseverance. We will survive this pandemic. What government does to mitigate the calamity should be short-lived, temporary, and cause as little distortion to the free market economy as possible. The history of pandemics indicates a strong likelihood that the peak of infections and mortality could pass in a few weeks to a few months. Congress should remain calm and try not to explode the debt in our response. The public should know that Congress has already enacted reforms that will free up millions of industrial masks to be used by our doctors and nurses. Thoughtful sequestration and quarantining is in place and helping. In addition, I have introduced legislation to allow our university labs and advanced private labs to be able to develop additional testing for coronavirus and possible cures by removing redtape at the FDA. I do worry, though, that as we go further into debt, we may reach a point where our debt is so large that we are unable to manage the next pandemic. We should never forget fiscal responsibility, even in a crisis. We should pay for any new Federal funding by taking that money from areas of the budget where it is not being wisely used. My amendment does just that. My amendment says that if you want to apply for money from the government through the child tax credit program--this is money the government gives to people--then you have to be a legitimate person and you have to have a Social Security number. We have been talking about this reform for a decade now, and we never seem to be able to get it passed. It has nothing to do with not liking immigrants; it has to do with saying taxpayer money shouldn't go to nonpeople. You should have to be a person to get taxpayer money. It just says you have to have a Social Security number. People estimate this will save $26 billion. That goes a long way toward paying for this bill. I think we should also end the war in Afghanistan. We are spending $50 billion a year on that war. And it is mostly not to fight war. It is to build stuff for them. It is to build infrastructure for them. We have a lot of problems with infrastructure in our own country without spending $50 billion a year in Afghanistan. If we have a true emergency now, it is our job to prioritize, to take that money from where it is not being spent wisely and spend it on something we need at the moment. My bill also allows the President to look throughout the budget and transfer money from any other wasteful areas. If you look at our budget, it is loaded with waste. Nobody ever culls the waste, and then we have an emergency, and they say: Let's just borrow more money. Instead, what we should do is we should actually take money that is unwisely spent and move it over to account for this emergency. What I am offering is a very reasonable proposal. We simply pay for this emergency bill by taking money from other areas of waste in the budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1556 and ask that be it reported by number.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, my amendment would pay for the emergency funds for the coronavirus. I think that we should not let fear or urgency cause us to lose our minds and cause us to act in an irresponsible fashion. I, for one, have looked at foreign aid over the years as welfare that we send to other countries that really is not particularly in our best interests anyway. If you follow foreign aid through the years, what you will find is that it goes from middle-class folks in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. Frankly, people enrich themselves at our expense. They steal our money. The Mubarak family in Egypt is now worth billions of dollars, which it skimmed off the top. The history of this throughout the Third World is legion and is well known. My amendment would basically take the $8 billion from the welfare we give to foreign countries in order to pay for this. I see no reason we shouldn't do this. I am not opposed to the emergency funding, but I think that the emergency funding should be gotten from elsewhere in the budget and that this is the responsible way to act. Every day, people across the country are confronted with unexpected expenses. We budget and we plan, but things happen. When they do, we adjust and plan accordingly. Sometimes we confront an expense that is not only unexpected but is urgent, and that is where we find ourselves today. We want to respond and make sure we are providing resources to our medical professionals and researchers. That is important, and I fully support that, which is why we should use this moment to ask ourselves whether it is really necessary to keep spending on wasteful things. If we don't consider this now, when will we ever consider this? We want an all-hands-on-deck response, so we should be cutting out waste and moving those resources to something that is of more immediate concern. So, if the coronavirus is of immediate concern--and I think it is--let's address that situation now, but let's do so by taking money from less urgent things and money that we are wasting overseas--money that is often stolen by Third-World dictators. That is exactly what I am proposing today. We have the money. We don't need to borrow more money. We just have to start setting our own priorities. For example, we shouldn't spend another dollar in developing a foreign economy this year. That spending should be stopped, and the money should be spent here to buy supplies, to help expedite research, and to support our communities. The funds I am proposing to keep at home have been used abroad for all kinds of unnecessary and wasteful things. I will give you a few examples. We send U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund kids from Pakistan to go to space camp in America. We spend money on combating student truancy in the Philippines. We have been funding the Peruvian Green New Deal. We actually send money to help deported illegal immigrants start up businesses in El Salvador. What business is it of the U.S. taxpayer to be funding small businesses in El Salvador for people who broke the law by trying to break into our country? It is insane. At this point in time, I think this money would be better spent on research on the coronavirus and on a response to this epidemic should it become worse in our country. The list doesn't stop there. I don't know why we can't agree to spend this money on the coronavirus instead of spending it abroad. We spend over $50 billion a year in Afghanistan--building their roads, building their schools, trying to create a nation where there really is no nation. We need to spend that money here at home. Besides, it is the law. We have a law called pay-go, or pay as you go, which is supposed to require Congress to pay for new spending. It has been around for a couple of decades. Yet we have broken the law thousands of times. What do they do? They see something they want. You know, they are kids in a candy store. They want to spend. They want to give you, give you, give you free money, so they just ignore the law. So what happens every year is that they exceed the pay-as-you-go, and they don't do the thing they are supposed to do, which is to offset this with a spending cut. Then they just write a small, little note in there, reading they have agreed to ignore the pay-go rules again. That is what will happen in this case. The other way they ignore the rules on pay-go is they declare things to be emergencies, so everything is an emergency. They say: Well, what would we do if we didn't have this--if it weren't an emergency? We already spend billions of dollars and have spent billions of dollars over the years to prepare for epidemics. We fund the CDC, and we fund the NIH. There is a lot of money out there. Once again, I am not against giving additional money, but we should just make a decision. We should be mature people and say we are not just going to print up the money or borrow it from China but are going to take it, maybe, from something less necessary. When we don't want to pay for new spending, we just simply waive these rules on pay-go. We declare the spending to be emergency, and we get around the requirement. That is how we got a $23 trillion debt. We actually borrow $2 million every minute. People say: Well, we have to do something. People are running around, acting crazy--we have to do something. Well, who is going to do something about the $23 trillion debt? Do we not have 5 minutes to take a vote? In 15 minutes, we will be taking this vote, and people could simply vote and say that we are not going to borrow more money and that we will take the money from somewhere else in the budget that is less pressing. Mark my words--there is no fiscal responsibility up here among either party. It will be a small minority of us who will say that this funding should be offset by taking it from somewhere else in the budget. In times of emergency, Congress scrambles to put together new spending, but we should be working just as hard to pay for the cost that comes with emergencies. Which is a higher priority--spending millions of dollars to stabilize the supply chain of medical supplies and treatments here at home or spending millions on international arts festivals? Which is a higher priority--spending millions to train frontline medical professionals here at home on how to limit exposure to the coronavirus or spending millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, paving roads in Afghanistan? My amendment gives us a chance to set priorities. We can support our communities and give our medical system the resources its needs, and we can do it without adding to the debt. That is the responsible way. My amendment would do exactly that, and I encourage the other Senators to consider fiscal responsibility. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 1506, and I ask that it be reported by number.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I recently had the honor of being welcomed by Game Changers, an organization based in Louisville, KY, devoted to guiding our youth toward productive and meaningful lives, for a panel discussion on the impact of violence in our community. The executive director of Game Changers is Christopher 2X, whom I have known for many years and watched change the lives of so many Kentuckians through his advocacy, leadership, and community building efforts. In December of 2019, just a few months ago, Christopher showed me the findings of Game Changers's study on the impact of youth violence recently released by his organization. Subsequently, I asked him to organize an event in West Louisville with a panel of community leaders and parents to discuss the report and how violent crime affects the lives of Louisville youth. At the event, we not only discussed the findings but also heard from Louisvillians whose real-life stories are contained in the pages of those reports. Earnestine ``Tina'' Tyus described how the ongoing physical and the mental suffering of her grandson, Ki'Anthony Tyus resulted after being shot. Rather than excelling at football and basketball, Ki'Anthony was focused on learning how to walk again. Violence also has indirect consequences. Stevonte Wood started failing out of school, treating those around him poorly, and had trouble sleeping at night. This downward spiral was a result of witnessing the murders of his mother and older brother. Jarron Jones, a behavioral therapist, recounts a story of how a once-promising baseball career for one student may now never come to fruition because he is too afraid of violence to continue playing the sport. Only personal stories such as these truly demonstrate the extreme toll taken on children exposed to violence. That is why I feel compelled to share Game Changers's findings on violence and its impact on our youth with my colleagues. Tragically, children are exposed to violence in every corner of our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that this report be printed in the Congressional Record with the hope that every Member of Congress will read it and work with me to create safer communities for our children.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I recently had the honor of being welcomed by Game Changers, an organization based in Louisville, KY, devoted to guiding our youth toward productive and meaningful lives, for a panel discussion on the impact of violence in our community. The executive director of Game Changers is Christopher 2X, who I have known for many years and watched change the lives of so many Kentuckians through his advocacy, leadership, and community building efforts. In December of 2019, just a few months ago, Christopher showed me the findings of Game Changers's study on the impact of youth violence recently released by his organization. Subsequently, I asked him to organize an event in West Louisville with a panel of community leaders and parents to discuss the report and how violent crime affects the lives of Louisville youth. At the event, we not only discussed the findings, but also heard from Louisvillians whose real-life stories are contained in the pages of those reports. Kentucky Education Commissioner, Dr. Wayne D. Lewis, educated us on the burden that violence has on children. However, the only way to grasp the true tragedy of violent crime is to hear from those impacted. I met with Deshante Edwards, who not only lost her son, Donte, but now sees her 6-year-old grandson subsequently lose focus in school. I listened as Krista and Navada Gwynn told me that, as a result of the murder of their son, Christian, their 17- and 11-year old children are too petrified to go outside. Only personal stories such as these truly demonstrate the extreme toll taken on children exposed to violence. That is why I feel compelled to share Game Changers's findings on violence and its impact on our youth with my colleagues. Tragically, children are exposed to violence in every corner of our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that this report be printed in the Congressional Record with the hope that every Member of Congress will read it and work with me to create safer communities for our children.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until May 1, 2020: Paige Grande, Michael Sugden, William Scott, and Noah Vehafric.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, when the Senate begins its debate, as it has been doing today on the War Powers Act, in considering this resolution, we are considering whether to do our duty to the Constitution. The debate over war powers is bigger than any one Senator, bigger than any one President, and bigger than any political party. The debate over war powers is a fundamental constitutional debate, and the Constitution and our Founding Fathers were clear: The power to declare war lies in the legislature. Madison put it this way: The executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested the power to declare war in the legislature. Yet we have increasingly deferred and delegated the war powers back to the executive. We have abdicated our role as the body that should be deciding with the people when to go to war. While the President may have the power to repel an attack, Congress has done little to stop increasingly bold arguments that everything is in response to an imminent attack. I will never forget President Obama coming to speak to the Republican caucus a few years ago, and he said: Well, they were under imminent attack, and we were like: Who, in the Libyan war, and he said: Well, Benghazi. And it was like: For goodness' sake, we thought imminent attack was of America, not of a foreign city. That is how far afield we have come, that a President would come to us and say: I can do whatever I want if there is an imminent attack of a foreign city. How ludicrous. Given Congress's inaction, it should come as no surprise that administration lawyers increasingly argue that everything is imminent and that statutes limiting their authority actually don't limit their authority; that the statutes actually say they can do whatever they want. Presidents actually argue that article II of the Constitution--this is what gives the President power. Article I is the congressional power; article II is the President. They argue that the article II section of the Constitution lets the President do anything he or she wishes; that there are no limits on Presidential authority. That is absurd. Under President Obama, we droned hundreds of people in Pakistan; we bombed Libya to help defeat Qadhafi; we put military personnel in dozens and dozens of countries around the world fighting militants and regional thugs here and there, but with each passing year it had less and less to do with 9/11. It is hard to explain to someone how a goat herder in Mali has anything to do with the attacks of 9/11. Yet every President comes back to us and says: Well, you voted for this proclamation in 2001. It gives me the power to do whatever I want wherever I want. In our Republic, if we are going to go to war, the Constitution says you must come to Congress, not for consultation but for permission. Today's vote is not a vote for or against the current President. Today's vote is for or against the Constitution. Either you believe that war requires the permission of Congress or you don't. Why is this vote necessary? Because we live in a topsy-turvy world, where Presidents now argue that their war power is absolute. Don't talk to me. I will do what I want--but the Constitution envisioned that we did not ever want one person to decide when we went to war. Presidents now argue that a decades-old authorization of force against a long-deceased autocrat--Saddam Hussein--is still valid and applies to an Iranian general, and that is absurd. That is insulting to the people; it is insulting to the Constitution; and it shouldn't be. You cannot argue that the Constitution gives the President unlimited power and say: Oh, well, if that doesn't work, I am also arguing that in 2002 Congress voted to go to war with Saddam Hussein, and that gives me the power to kill an Iranian general. Presidents have also argued that bombing is not war. They argue somehow that bombs are not war and that there is a certain attitude of, well, maybe 100 soldiers aren't, maybe 1,000. What does it take to be at war? They argue sometimes that we are not in hostilities when we are dropping bombs everywhere around a country. They sometimes argue that battles are kinetic action and not really war. We have been at war too long in too many places. It is time to bring our soldiers home. This week, I joined the President to honor two of our soldiers who were killed in action. I stopped with the President at Dover Air Force Base. Let me tell you, it was a sad and somber memorial for two of our Nation's heroes. But people need to think about this. This isn't a chess game. This isn't a geopolitical chess game and we are just moving troops here and there and they are somehow represented by symbols on a big map or a board. This is about people. It is about our young people of our country, and they deserve better. Our soldiers deserve to know what they are fighting for. Our soldiers deserve to know what the mission is. Our soldiers deserve to know if we are making progress. They deserve to be told the truth. America's longest war in Afghanistan is in its 20th year. We now have kids fighting who weren't even born when the war began. My committee this week held a hearing to discuss the Afghanistan Papers--papers that reveal that the highest ranking officials in our military and in our government and in our State Department have known for many years that the Afghanistan war lacks a real mission; that it lacks a real national security rationale. My vote today is not simply about Iran or the killing of Soleimani. My vote today is about the constitutional requirement that Congress must declare war. This vote should be 100 to 0. It is a vote for or against the Constitution. This is about acknowledging the Constitution says no one man, no one woman can take a nation to war. Many Members will quietly acknowledge that the separation of powers assigned Congress the power to declare war, but when push comes to shove, many Senators are afraid to appear to oppose a President of their own party. For me, this debate is not about party. I have supported the constitutional mandate that Congress must declare war under both Democratic and Republican Presidents, and I will continue. For me, this debate is not a dry and esoteric or meaningless debate. It is a debate about life and death. It is a debate that, more than any other debate, embodies our commitment to our soldiers. It is a debate that strikes at the heart of our duty to do everything possible to protect human life. Today's vote is historic in that the majority of the House and the Senate will now be on record affirming Congress's power over issues of war. Even at the height of the Vietnam war, the height of America's probably most unpopular war, congressional majorities did not stand up and assert their constitutional prerogative. Today we are doing that. That is a step forward. In the aftermath of the most partisan impeachment in our history, today, though, marks a high-water mark for the bipartisan assertion of the separation of powers. For me, it will have all been worthwhile when I see our troops returning home to their families safe and sound. For me, it will all be worthwhile when we finally end the Afghan war, when we finally end the Iraq war, and when we finally end the wars in Yemen and throughout Africa. When that day comes, I look forward to standing arm-in-arm across the political divide to welcome our brave soldiers home. Until that day, I will continue to fight for the truth that great nations don't fight perpetual wars. Thank you.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the great irony of the last several weeks in the impeachment trial is that the Democrats accused the President of using his governmental office to go after his political opponent. The irony is, they then used the impeachment process to go after their political opponent. In fact, as you look at the way it unfolded, they admitted as much. As the impeachment proceedings unfolded, they said: We didn't have time for witnesses. We had to get it done before Christmas because we wanted it done and ready to go for the election. We had to get it done--the entire process needed to be completed--before the election. They didn't have time for the process. They didn't have time for due process. They didn't have time for the President to call his own witnesses or cross-examine their witnesses. The great irony is, they did exactly what they accused the President of. They used the government and the government's process to go after their political opponent. What is the evidence that it is partisan? They didn't convince one Republican. Not one elected Republican decided that any of their arguments were valid or that the President should be impeached. They made it into a sham. They made it into a political process because they didn't like the results of the election. When did this start? Did the impeachment start with a phone call to the Ukrainian President? No, the impeachment and the attacks on the President started 6 months before he was elected. We had something truly devastating to our Republic happen. We had, for the first time in our history, a secret court decide to investigate a campaign. At the time, when those of us who criticized this secret court for spying on the Trump campaign, they said: Oh, it is just a conspiracy theory. None of this is happening. There is no ``there'' there. But now that we have investigated it--guess what--the FISA court admits they were lied to. The FBI has now been proven to have lied 17 times. We have a half a dozen people at the top level of our intelligence community who have admitted to having extreme bias. You have Peter Strzok and Lisa Page talking about taking down the President and having an insurance policy against him succeeding and becoming the President. You have McCabe, you have Comey, and you have Clapper. You remember James Clapper, the one who came to the Senate, and, when asked by Senator Wyden, ``Are you storing, are you gathering information from Americans by the millions and storing it on government computers?'' James Clapper said no. He lied to Congress. Nobody chose to impeach him, but he lied to Congress and committed a felony. Is he in jail? No, he is making millions of dollars as a contributor on television now, using and peddling his national security influence for dollars, after having committed a felony in lying to us. These are the people who plotted to bring the President down. These are the people who continue to plot to bring the President down. Before all of this started, though, I was a critic of the secret courts. I was a critic of FISA. I was a critic of them abusing American civil liberties. I was a critic of them invading our privacy, recording the length of our phone calls, who we talk to, and sometimes recording conversations--all of this done supposedly to go after terrorists, but Americans, by the millions, are caught up in this web. But now, for the first time, it is not just American civil liberties that are being abused by our intelligence agencies. It is an entire Presidential campaign, and it could go either way. This is why you want to limit power. Men are not angels, and that is why we put restrictions on government. We need more restrictions now. We can't allow secret courts to investigate campaigns. This started before the election. It went on for the last 3 years, through the Mueller investigation. They thought they had the President dead to rights, and they would bring him down through this investigation. So, initially, the spying didn't work, and the Mueller investigation didn't work. They went seamlessly into the impeachment. The question for the American public is now: Will they go on? Are they going to immediately start up hearings again in the House that will be partisan hearings again? I suspect they will. They have had their day in the Sun, and they loved it, and I think they are going to keep doing it time and time and time again. Now, during the proceedings, I asked a question that was disallowed, but I am going to ask that question again this morning, because the Constitution does protect debate and does protect the asking of questions. I think they made a big mistake not allowing my question. My question did not talk about anybody who is a whistleblower. My question did not accuse anybody of being a whistleblower. It did not make a statement believing there was someone who was a whistleblower. I simply named two people's names because I think it is very important to know what happened. We are now finding out that the FISA investigation was predicated upon 17 lies by the FBI, by people at high levels who were biased against the President, and it turns out it was an illegitimate investigation. Everything they did about investigating the President was untrue and abused government to do something they never should have done in the first place. So I asked this question. And this is my question--my exact question. We will put it up here: Are you aware that the House Intelligence Committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together? Are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings? Now, why did I ask this question? Because there are news reports saying that these two people--one of them who works for Adam Schiff and one of them who worked with this person at the National Security Council--that they knew each other and had been overheard talking about impeaching the President in the first month of his office. In January of 2017, they were already plotting the impeachment. And you say: Well, we should protect the whistleblower. The whistleblower deserves anonymity. The law does not preserve anonymity. His boss is not supposed to say anything about him. He is not supposed to be fired. I am for that. But when you get into the details of talking about whistleblowers, there is a variety of opinions around here. The greatest whistleblower in American history, in all likelihood, is Edward Snowden. What did people want to do with him? Half the people here want to put him to death and the other half want to put him in jail forever. So it depends on what you blow the whistle on, whether or not they are actually for the whistleblower statute. I am not for retributions on the whistleblower. I don't want him to go to jail, and I don't want him to lose his job. But if six people, who all work together at the National Security Council, knew each other and gamed the system, knowing that they would get these protections-- they gamed the system in order to try to bring down the President--we should know about that. If they had extreme bias going into the impeachment, we should know about that. I think the question is an important one, and I think we should still get to the bottom of it. Were people plotting to bring down the President? They were plotting in advance of the election. Were they plotting within the halls of government to bring down the President? Look, these people also knew the Vindman brothers, who are still in government. So you have two Vindman brothers over there who know Eric Ciaramella, who also know Sean Misko, who also knew two people working on Adam Schiff's staff, and Adam Schiff throws his hands up and says: I don't know who the whistleblower is. I have never met him. I have no idea who he is. So if he doesn't know who he is and the President's counsel doesn't know who he is, how does the Chief Justice of the United States know who the whistleblower is? I have no independent confirmation from anyone in government as to who the whistleblower is. So how am I prevented from asking a question when nobody seems to admit that they even know who this person is? My point is, is by having such protections--such overzealous protection--we don't get to the root of the matter of how this started, because this could happen again. When the institution of the bureaucracy, when the intelligence community with all the power to listen to every phone conversation you have has political bias and can game the system to go after you, that is a real worry. It is a real worry that they spied on the President. But what if you are an average ordinary American? What if you are just a supporter of President Trump or you are a Republican or you are a conservative? Are we not concerned that secret courts could allow for warrants to listen to your phone calls, to tap into your emails, to read your text messages? I am very concerned about that. So we are going to have this discussion go on. It isn't really about the whistleblower so much. It is about reforming government. It is about limiting the power of what they can do as secret courts. I think the FISA Court should be restricted from ever investigating campaigns. If you think a campaign has done something wrong, call the FBI, go to a regular court, where judges get to appear on both sides, and if you want to subpoena somebody or tap the phone, all right, we can do it, but it has got to be an extraordinary thing. Think about it. Think about the danger. The other side says it is a danger to democracy. Think about the danger to democracy of letting your government tap the phones of people you disagree with politically. I don't care whether it is Republican or Democrat. We cannot allow the intelligence community and secret courts like the FISA court to go after political campaigns. And I mean that sincerely--Republican or Democrat. We need to change the rules. We cannot have secret courts trying to reverse the elections. I feel very strongly about this. I was for this reform before Donald Trump ever came on the scene and before any of this happened. I have been for having more significant restrictions on these secret courts and more significant restrictions on the intelligence community to make sure they don't abuse the rights of Americans. This is a big deal, and if we are going to get something good out of this, if there is going to be some positive aspect to having to go through this nightmare we have been through over the last several months or years now, the blessing in disguise here would be that we actually reform the system so this never happens to anyone else ever again. I yield the floor.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I want to recognize Ms. Mattie Florence Jones, recipient of the 2020 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom Award, for her lifetime of commitment to the dream of equality so beautifully articulated by Dr. King. Her tireless civil rights advocacy is surpassed only by her loving commitment to her family, including the dozens of foster children who were welcomed into her Louisville household. Her legacy of activism and service are unparalleled and worthy of this special distinction.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I have a question to present to the desk for the House Manager Schiff and for the President's counsel.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we have before us today the National Defense Authorization Act to authorize the programs and policies of the Department of Defense. We will be taking a vote to finalize this bill shortly. Our national defense is incredibly important. It is mandated in the Constitution. Our national defense is arguably Congress's primary constitutional responsibility. I have great respect and honor for those in uniform who serve. In fact, I recently introduced a bill to give each soldier who served in the War on Terror a $2,500 bonus and, at the same time, officially end the war in Afghanistan. Ending the Afghan war would save us about $50 billion a year. Unfortunately, the bill before us does not end any of our multitude of wars. The bill before us simply continues the status quo and throws more money around the world at conflicts we can't even begin to fathom. Before rubberstamping more money, it is worth a moment for us to take a step back and consider two things. First, we need to ask ourselves whether borrowing millions of dollars year after year to fuel our appetite for more military spending is a wise policy in the years ahead. Second, we need to look at how this bill has been loaded up to carry things only somewhat related or not related at all to national defense. As I have reminded my colleagues often, Admiral Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the national debt was our greatest national security threat. His exact wording was ``the most significant threat to our national security is our debt.'' That was in 2010. When he made that remark, our debt was only $13 trillion. Our debt is now over $23 trillion. We just keep borrowing and borrowing, and there is no end in sight. Under the new budget deal passed by Republicans and Democrats, we are borrowing $2.75 billion every day. In fact, we are borrowing nearly $2 million every minute. We spend more on our military than the next seven largest militaries combined. Our Defense Department is so large that it took them a decade to even figure out how to audit themselves. Then they said that the audit itself would cost over half a billion dollars. But then, last year, they arrived back at square one. After all that effort, they said: Well, we just can't figure it out. It is too big. We can't audit the Army, the Navy, the Marines, or the Air Force. We spend so much money that the Department of Defense literally can't keep track of all of it. We don't have a great idea of exactly how much we are wasting because no one can get a grip on how much is being spent. A few years ago, the Defense Business Board, which is a defense advisory panel of corporate executives who report to the Secretary of Defense, recommended that the Department of Defense can save $125 billion in administrative expenses. According to news accounts, that report scared everyone at the Pentagon, so they buried the report. They even tried to keep it away from Congress for fear that Congress might actually do something with it, although I wouldn't be holding my breath or too worried. I am not familiar with Congress ever cutting anything. We are set to spend $738 billion on the military this year. That is up $22 billion from last year. Over the past 6 years, military spending has risen over $120 billion. We say that we are for accountability, efficiency, and savings. Yet we keep piling good money after bad. How can we demand better accounting and efficiency when we budget increases every year? To be clear, I support our national defense. Supporting our servicemembers is a worthy cause. There are things in this bill that I do support. I am a cosponsor of the bill to eliminate the so-called widow's tax, and I have argued that it is the right thing to do. We should find the money to pay for it. That is in this bill. I support returning the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell to its full air assault capacity with the return of a combat aviation brigade. That is in this bill. I support giving our servicemembers a pay increase. That is in the bill. But I take issue when Congress adds other things to this bill that don't have anything to do with our military. This bill would sanction NATO allies and potentially American energy companies if they have any involvement with Nord Stream 2 pipeline. This is a pipeline between Russia and Germany. The pipeline is basically done. It may well be completed in the next few months. The pipeline will be completed. Yet we want to jeopardize our relationship with our allies and with businesses both in Europe and America. This bill would also drop more sanctions into the middle of the Syrian civil war, as well as funding for so-called ``vetted'' Syrian rebel groups. All this would do is prolong the Syrian civil war and, with it, the humanitarian suffering and displacement we have seen in the region. The Syrian civil war is largely over. I agree with President Trump that it is time to come home. Another problem with our insatiable appetite for more military spending is that it requires conservatives to make bad compromises. If you want $40 billion in new defense spending, then you have to give the liberals $40 billion new domestic spending. If anything, that is the real nature of today's bipartisanship: You can have your money as long as we get our money. The dirty little secret in Washington is that there is actually too much compromise. Republicans want more military spending; Democrats want more welfare money. And with each new Congress, Congress always chooses to spend and borrow more money. For example, this bill provides a new mandatory benefit program: paid parental leave for all Federal employees, starting next year. The program will cost over $3 billion forever--and most of these programs continue to expand forever. The program will cost $3 billion a year, and, of course, there is nothing in the bill that tells how we are going to pay for it. So we are going to have paid leave, everybody, but we are going to borrow the money from China to give this great benefit. In essence, today, Congress is simply saying: Add it to my tab; the deficit be damned. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, this represents a better benefit than many working Americans enjoy, and it has nothing to do with national defense. Conservatism is more than supporting military spending at any cost. We have to do more and make tough decisions that enable a strong national defense and a balanced budget. Many so-called conservatives will hail this bloated military spending, but, in truth, there is nothing fiscally conservative about borrowing money from China to pay for our military. In fact, I would argue that borrowing money to buy more tanks or planes or to police the far corners of the Earth actually damages our national security. Some have argued that our military is hollowed out, exhausted from so many far-flung conflicts--probably true. They will argue that we must expand military spending to meet the mission. Perhaps we should entertain the opposite argument. Perhaps it is not that our military budget is too small but that our military mission is too large. I, for one, hope for a day when Congress rediscovers that our constitutional mandate is to defend America first and only to become involved in war as a last resort and, even then, America should only become involved in war when Congress has debated and done its constitutional duty to declare war. Until that day, I will continue to argue that the only fiscally conservative, fiscally responsible action is to vote against expanding the military budget. I encourage my fellow Senators to consider that. I yield back.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, Mary Hulsman Allgeier was selected as the #1 Citizen of Schnitzelburg, a historic neighborhood in Louisville, KY. Mary has been a lifelong community advocate and volunteer. She has given to and supported those in need as a leader in Holy Family Parish for many years. In addition, Mary is a role model for women in leadership and is instrumental in ensuring members of her community understand their civic rights and responsibilities. Mary has served her community faithfully from education to civic engagement and is an example for us to follow. I am proud to join the people of Schnitzelburg in honoring Mary Allegeier as their #1 Citizen.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, Col. Fred Johnson, U.S. Army, Retired, was honored as Kentucky's 2019 Veteran of the Year. Since his retirement from the U.S. Army in 2014, Fred Johnson has immersed himself in community service in Louisville in both existing programs, such as YouthBuild and Restorative Justice Louisville, and through developing new, innovative ways to use the arts and storytelling to help connect veterans with the broader community. His Veteran's Writing Workshop series and the innovative Shakespeare with Veterans group that he cofounded in 2016 are helping veterans communicate their stories in creative and timeless ways. Colonel Johnson remains committed to our country as is evident by his decision to teach sixth grade Social studies class at Thomas Jefferson Middle School. I am proud to recognize Col. Fred Johnson as a remarkable symbol of the rich veteran heritage of Kentucky.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, Karen Weaver, a Kentucky native and a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, has been recognized as the Kentucky Female Veteran of the Year 2019. After serving on Active Duty and in the Air Force Reserve, Karen taught science at Leestown Middle School in Lexington, KY, where she began immersing herself in volunteer work for veterans. She has worked with Military Missions, an organization that sent care packages to over 8,500 deployed U.S. men and women last year. One of her current passions is Lady Veterans Connect, a nonprofit with a real heart for female veterans, particularly those who are homeless. Karen Weaver has been an incredible role model to the children of her classrooms and to the entire Commonwealth. I am honored to recognize Karen in her service to our country and our State.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3055, with a further amendment numbered 1250.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. At this point, I am about ready to do that.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise to present an amendment to this bill. My amendment is simple, and it reflects the kind of commonsense budgeting we ought to be doing in Washington. Today I offer the penny plan for infrastructure. This plan cuts one penny, 1 percent of all spending, and puts that money in a fund for infrastructure. My amendment would put about $12 billion per year into a fund to fix our roads and bridges. Every agency would still get 99 percent of the spending they got the previous year. Sure, they would need to trim some fat, but they would still be fine. A lot of businesses and organizations will tell you they have to cut much greater than 1 percent a year. I visited a business recently that in the downturn of 2008-2009 had to cut 30 percent of their expenditures. Business men and women in America are used to having to cut expenditures; government never does. Whether it is our highways or our bridges or our waterways, our infrastructure in America is falling behind. Everyone knows it, but like so many things, Washington can't figure out how to fix it, how to find the money to fix it. Politicians on both sides of the aisle talk about trillion-dollar infrastructure plans but offer no way to pay for it. My plan is much more modest, doesn't increase taxes, and doesn't increase our debt. The penny plan for infrastructure pays for it with money we have already allocated. To be clear, we do have the money. Washington just spends it in inappropriate ways. Washington spends, for example, $233 million on a single highway in Afghanistan. We have money to pave roads in Afghanistan, but they will not vote to spend the money here to pave roads. The people in Afghanistan got $233 million for a road, but they couldn't even maintain it, so we gave them another $22 million to maintain the road. We spent $326 million to pave 2,000 kilometers of dirt roads in Afghanistan. We have enough money to spend over $300 million to pave dirt roads in Afghanistan, but we can't come up with $1 billion to help our infrastructure here. They were supposed to pave 2,000 kilometers; it turned out they only paved 159 kilometers. They paved less than 10 percent of what they actually promised to do with the money. What is that equal to--$2.7 million per mile. It is outrageous, and it goes on year after year after year. I think it is time we try a new way. Just in Afghanistan, we have spent more than the Marshall Plan did to rebuild Europe after the devastation of World War II, and we are still there, spending good money after bad. So when people come up here and say that a 1-percent cut would somehow be a disaster, we need to remind them that the money is there. They just have to listen to the people and pull the plug on this kind of crazy spending overseas. My amendment would move 1 percent of current spending, and it would put that 1 percent of the current spending bill into infrastructure. Supposedly, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all agree on infrastructure. Yet we don't allocate more money to it because we are too busy paving roads in Afghanistan. If we did this, it would be about $12 billion. It is not enough to fix everything in the country. It is a modest sum. This is actually a modest proposal to move over a few billion dollars. Do you know what it would do? Twelve billion dollars would pave up to 6,200 miles of a new four-lane highway, resurface 20,000 miles of a four-lane highway, and 2,200 miles of a six-lane interstate. It would pay for multiple big-ticket infrastructure projects that are currently stuck without funding. In my State, they have been advocating money for the Brent Spence Bridge across the Ohio River since before I was elected--8 or 9 years of advocating for a bridge for which we can't find the money. We have the money. Quit paving roads in Afghanistan, and let's start building bridges and paving roads here. This amendment would improve our infrastructure, benefit our communities, eliminate government waste, and help our economy. By cutting 1 percent of the current spending, we will force all of government to do a better job. There is at least 1 percent waste. There is probably 10 percent waste in government. I am asking to cut 1 percent of waste. Take that money you cut by making government more efficient and put it into infrastructure. I encourage the Senate to consider this amendment. I think we have very few amendments come forward where people have a chance to vote for infrastructure. At this point, I move to concur on the House amendment to the Senate amendment--

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the Brouillette nomination occur at 1:30 p.m. today.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, Jennifer Beck Walker has used her career to show that perseverance, dedication, and a strong work ethic can not only lead to success but make positive change in communities. In 1987, Jennifer became an intern at the Purchase Area Development District in Mayfield, KY. Over the years, she worked up through the ranks in various roles, married her husband Eric, and had 2 sons, Wyatt and Aidan. Jennifer was named the executive director of the PADD in 2008 and her commitment to the growth and development of the region has been unsurpassed. Today, I congratulate Jennifer on her retirement and send my best wishes for her future.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I want to recognize the accomplishments of SSgt Daniel P. Keller for his heroic actions while in combat in Afghanistan. On 16 August 2017, while assigned as a joint terminal attack controller for Combined Joint Special Operations Air Component Afghanistan, Staff Sergeant Keller performed his duty to his country and his teammates with fierce determination and unquestionable courage. While on a mission, his assault force struck an improvised explosive device and came under heavy fire from the enemy. Despite being wounded, Staff Sergeant Keller used his most potent weapon, the ability to call in airpower, to strike enemy positions while simultaneously returning fire with his personal weapon. Most admirably, Staff Sergeant Keller took direct action to ensure the successful evacuation of 13 critically wounded casualties while under continuous enemy fire. Upon saving his wounded comrades, Staff Sergeant Keller continued to engage the enemy and guaranteed follow-on forces were well prepared to continue the fight. For his valiant service, Staff Sergeant Keller received the Air Force Cross, our Nation's second highest medal for combat valor. His citation for this award stated that ``his personal courage, quick actions and tactical expertise whilst under fire directly contributed to the survival of the 130 members of his assault force, including 31 wounded in action.'' I would like to offer my most profound appreciation to Staff Sergeant Keller for his willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure his mission while saving American lives. His courage and dedication should serve as an example to us all and remind us of our solemn duty to the men and women who volunteer to defend our great Nation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.