Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I am disappointed that any Senator would come to the floor and find the Bill of Rights laughable. The Sixth Amendment is an important part of our Constitution, and the right to face your accuser is incredibly important. It is disappointing that an actual U.S. Senator would come to the floor and say that it was laughable to apply the Bill of Rights to the President. I am disappointed that it has come to this. I will hope that Americans would look at this and say, absolutely, the President deserves the same protections that the rest of us deserve.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for floor privileges for a member of my staff, Rob Givens.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise to honor and pay tribute to one of the most tenacious and dedicated Kentuckians I have had the pleasure of knowing, Mr. Jim Milliman. Jim began his career in 1964 after graduating from the University of Notre Dame. He subsequently graduated magna cum laude from the University of Louisville School of Law in 1970. He married Nan Milliman, and they made their home in Louisville, KY. They have been married for 48 years. When I first met Jim, I knew him as one of Kentucky's finest attorneys, who represented Brown & Williamson during the tobacco litigation and the State Republicans in election law matters. I knew him as an accomplished managing partner of the Louisville-based law firm, Middleton Reutlinger. I also knew him as the fiery conservative cohost who often sat opposite Congressman John Yarmuth on WAVE 3 TV's political show ``Hot Button.'' He was known for his spirited debate and for not backing down. After having over 40 successful years in commercial litigation and receiving numerous awards from his peers, such as being named one of the top 50 attorneys in Kentucky, Jim decided to retire--from the law, at least. In 2010, right after I was elected to the Senate, I convinced Jim to come out of retirement and be my State director for Kentucky. I am truly grateful that he said yes because, for nearly a decade, Jim has served in that role and has been one of my most trusted advisers. Anyone who knows Jim knows that he is a force to be reckoned with. He is fiercely loyal, a real problem solver, and a highly accomplished legal mind. Moreover, he is an incredibly kind person who cares deeply about his friends and colleagues. When I ran for President, Jim spearheaded the approval of a caucus for Kentucky so I would not be kept from the ballot for President and the U.S. Senate. Recently, Jim has decided to transition from the daily State director duties into more of an advisory role. Considering he tried to retire over 10 years ago, I think it is well-deserved. No matter in what capacity, I will always be thankful to have Jim as a part of my team as an ally and an adviser. He has dedicated so much of his time to the pursuit of liberty and freedom, to defending the principles that made this Nation great, and to supporting a pro-Kentucky policy agenda. Thank you, Jim, for your service to Kentucky and to this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we are set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year. Our overall debt is over $22 trillion. In my office, I have a debt clock. You can see it at debtclock.org. It is spinning out of control. The numbers are mind-boggling. In the next decade, just the interest on the debt is set to exceed $1 trillion. That is $1 trillion simply wasted because we are not fiscally responsible enough to balance our budget. There are ramifications to having so much debt. When we monetize the debt or the Federal Reserve creates money to pay for the debt, what ends up happening is it dilutes the value of our current dollars. We have been doing that for a long period of nearly 100 years or over 100 years, since the Federal Reserve was created, and the vast majority of the dollar's value has been lost over time. Inflation is not what it used to be, but there are still other problems. As interest grows on the debt, it crowds out other spending. So when we get to spending $1 trillion on the interest of the debt, what it is going to do is it is going to crowd out other spending. Whether you are on the right and you want more military spending or you are on the left and you want more welfare spending, it is being crowded out by the debt growing so much that interest is pushing out other projects. What I have offered is a commonsense approach to this. Everybody has their sacred cow. Everybody has some money they want to spend somewhere. Why don't we cut every program by 2 pennies? We have a 2- percent across-the-board cut, and so what we would do is we would spend 98 percent of what we spent last year. It is interesting that groups come in to see me in the office, and they say ``Well, we have this dramatic program, and it is to cure AIDS or Alzheimer's or diabetes, and it is going to be this wonderful project,'' and I say ``Well, last year you got $100 million; could you deal with $98 million this year?'' Interestingly, whether they are conservative, liberal, or independent, they look at me and say ``Well, gosh, yes, I think I can deal with $98 million instead of $100 million; I think we could deal with a 2-percent cut if we get 98 percent of what we got last year.'' Most of the groups that are actually invested in this and have a family member with one of these diseases think they can deal with it. Do you know the only people in the whole country who think we couldn't do it? The people you have elected. They have become so distant from you that they will not vote for any cuts. They think: Oh, woe is me. It will be so much money. The media will say that even a freeze in spending for 10 years is a $10 trillion cut. How could that possibly be? If we spent the same amount of money next year as we spent this year, how could that be a cut? But the media controls the narrative. The left has aided and abetted them. They say: Well, we were going to spend 5 percent more, so you cut 5 percent by not increasing the spending from last year. That is ridiculous. They call a freeze a spending cut. If your salary is going to be the same next year as it was last year, is that a cut or is it getting the same salary? What I am proposing is that we cut it by 2 percent. Why? Well, we would like to balance the budget, ultimately. This is just the annual budget. This isn't getting rid of the debt--not the $22 trillion debt. It is just so we quit digging the hole deeper. For the first several years I proposed this, we called it the penny plan. We would cut 1 percent a year for 5 years and the budget would balance in 5 years. Nobody listened. Not one Democrat cares at all about the debt. Not one of them will ever vote to cut any spending. Now, on the Republican side, they profess to care, but over half of them will not vote to cut any spending. There is a lot of hypocrisy to go around. When I first started introducing the penny plan, a 1-percent cut would have balanced the budget in 5 years. But since we didn't do it, government spending kept exploding and growing and growing, so now it takes a 2-percent cut. This would be a 2-percent cut of everything but Social Security. The problem is, though, nobody has introduced a bill in decades and nobody has had a vote in decades on a bill to fix the real problem, which is entitlements. So many of the people will bemoan: Oh, we could never fix it by cutting the discretionary spending, so I am not going to cut any. But that is the only thing we get to vote on, so that is what we are putting forward, a 2-percent cut. Still, in order to balance it, you would have to have a 2-percent cut of the entitlements, as well, but we might as well start with what we are doing. Some people say: Well, government is so essential. We would cut government, and what would happen to the people who depend on it? Let me give you an example of some of what your government is spending your money on. The National Science Foundation probably gets the award for some of the most ridiculous spending in all of your government. Even since the times of William Proxmire, in the early 1970s, they would get the Golden Fleece Award. One of his first awards gave them an award for spending $50,000 to determine what makes you happy. It was thought to be ridiculous at the time, and then, for the last 50 years, we have continued to do it. In fact, just this last year, the National Science Foundation is still concerned about what makes you happy. They spent $500,000 this time. I guess that is inflation. They spent $500,000 studying whether it makes you happy if you take a selfie of yourself while smiling. If you will keep looking at the picture of yourself smiling--the selfie you took-- is that worth $500,000? Do we not have something better we could do? Maybe we can reduce the deficit by cutting the National Science Foundation. They also studied what Neil Armstrong said when he landed on the Moon. Did he say ``one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind'' or did he say ``one small step for a man''? They spent $700,000 of your money studying whether Neil Armstrong said ``a man'' or ``man.'' Guess what the experts said after they listened to the tape crackle, crackle, crackle, over and over again, for $700,000. They don't know. Experts still disagree on whether he said ``a man'' or just ``man''-- $700,000. We spent $1.2 million studying online dating. Look, they seem to be successful. I think it must be working. The websites are making a ton of money. Millions of people use them. Why in the world would government study whether dating sites work? They spend $1.5 million trying to make tomatoes taste better. I don't know where that came from. They funded a book on appreciating the metric system for $188,000. There was a conference sponsored on balding for $22,000. The Department of Commerce got into the game. They developed a digital down marker for football games for $130,000. I think that had existed already. They spent $500,000 on a movie about the kilogram. Raise your hand if you are going to stay up tonight to watch the documentary by the Department of Commerce on the kilogram. The Department of Agriculture provides marketing assistance for specialty crops, including Christmas trees. It turns out there are more specialty crops than regular crops. There was $50,000 given to the State of Georgia for marketing Christmas trees. The Department of the Interior studied people's experiences with sea monsters in Alaska--$150,000. I thought sea monsters were fake news, but I guess in an era of fake news, it is difficult to determine what is really fake news. Your government spent $150,000 studying sea monsters in Alaska. They built a parking lot at an Indian casino for $500,000. These casinos apparently make multiple millions of dollars a year, and we spent $500,000 paving a parking lot for a for-profit enterprise. We built a self-cleaning toilet in a New York City park. We gave $1 million to subsidize Lyft rides. I thought Uber and Lyft were doing quite well without our help. We gave $153 million to D.C. Metro, which apparently is one of the most mismanaged metros in the country. Let's see. National Endowment for the Arts--we spent $25,000 on a museum to Hollywood. If there is any person in the country who really does not need any more adoration--and the taxpayers to pay for adoration--it is Hollywood, but you spent $25,000 building a museum, so I guess they can appreciate themselves even more. In order to combat homelessness in LA, we paid to put on plays. Apparently, if you are homeless, it must make you feel better to watch street performers performing a play in front of you. We also paid to put on dances with the Cars. While that may sound entertaining, it might be that we might have other things we might want to spend that money on. We were told every year that we couldn't possibly cut any spending. There is no way we could do it. I put forward these spending proposals because I ran for office and said that we should balance the budget. I actually believed what I ran on. I thought I would get here, and I thought there would be momentum. The Republicans all talked about the debt. They don't care. The Democrats are not going to vote for it. No Democrat will vote for a spending cut--never have and never will. But the Republicans will at least tell you they will, and then they don't. What I am putting forward today is a 2-percent cut across the board. They get to spend 98 percent of what they spent last year, and we could be serious about actually bringing our budget into line. I have yet to meet someone at home who doesn't think it is a good idea, and I have yet to meet very many people here who are willing to entertain the idea. There is a disconnect between Washington and the people. If you were to ask the people in any of the States that are represented at least by the Republican side--and I venture to say by some on the Democratic side--if you were to ask any of the people in those States ``Do you think we could live with 98 percent of what we spent last year?'' I think the people would say that we ought to do it. Most businesses or families in our country have had to deal with less money and have often had to deal with a lot less than 98 percent of their previous salary, and people do. Businesses recover all the time by having to clamp down and watch their costs, but government never does. Government just keeps spending and spending and spending. The vote on my amendment will come up in the next few minutes, and it will be a 2-percent cut across the board, and I urge the other Senators to vote in favor of it. At this time, Mr. President, I call up my amendment 1019 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Samantha Romano and Sherry Gill, interns in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of Congress.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am concerned that this bill would put an undue burden on anybody who decided to run for office in the sense that you would be burdened with trying to understand everyone you talk to anywhere in the United States--whether or not they are an agent of a foreign government or an agent of a foreign principle, such as a foreign company. For example, I might run into Hunter Biden in the airport. I know he is an American citizen, but this bill doesn't prevent American citizens from being an agent of a foreign principle. Hunter Biden also worked for a Ukrainian oligarch and a company with mysterious origins that may well have something to do with our foreign policy. So if I meet Hunter Biden, I am concerned that now it may be against the law or I could be reprimanded or fined by the FEC for talking to Hunter Biden. The same might also exist--I enjoy going to the Indian New Year in Louisville, and I sometimes see 5,000 to 6,000 Indian Americans, but I can't tell you how many of them are brand new to the country, what their visa status is, whether they have a relative from government there who might come up to me. So I think we need to be very careful about putting forward law, particularly by unanimous consent, that hasn't been scrutinized and might end up having a burden that we don't really agree with. There has been a certain degree of hysteria over the Russian thing. Some on the other side of the aisle can't get over they lost the Presidential election, and so they continue to blame the Russians for losing the election. It is so bad that their candidate from the last election, Hillary Clinton, had to go after Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic Member of the Congress, a sitting Congresswoman, the first female combat veteran to run for President, and she has been labeled by Hillary Clinton a Russian asset. So you can see that the hysteria over Russia is a little bit concerning; that we may be going too far in this hysteria. Then, once we apply this to the world, is there going to be a hesitancy to talk to someone who looks different than you, who dresses different than you, who has a different color skin than yours because you are concerned they might be from a foreign country? So I think this would have the ability of stifling speech--stifling political speech--and I think it is a reactionary way to look at things, and it really fits in with this unseemliness of Hillary Clinton's thinking everybody is a Russian agent to many of the Democrats saying: Donald Trump is a Russian agent. We spent $35 million on this notion. This was probably a notion promulgated by people within the intelligence community who already hated Donald Trump before he was elected. I hope we get to the bottom of this, but I am not about to allow, by unanimous consent, an attempt to politicize our election process and make it so absurd that you would have to worry about whom you talk to as you travel the country. I object.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to commence with the prearranged vote.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, ironically, the Syrian Kurds may be closer to having some degree of autonomy or homeland than they have been in decades. With the new arrangement--or rearrangement--of alliances, the Syrian Kurds now will have an alliance with someone who will remain in Syria. Whether you like him or not, the Assad government is there to stay. There was never going to be a U.S. presence for long enough or one great enough to preserve or to create a homeland for them. I think there is every possibility, in alliance with Assad, that there will be some Kurdish arrangement. It happened in Iraq. In Iraq, the oil proceeds are shared. The Kurdish wanted more in Iraq. They didn't get as much as they wanted, but they got some degree of autonomy within their province. I think that sort of encouraging the Syrians Kurds to abandon their country is really premature and doesn't really recognize the fluidity of what is going on on the ground there. There is actually the potential, for the first time in 8 years, to break through to a peace agreement. Peace agreements have been unable to be achieved in the past because people have refused to acknowledge that Assad is staying. It is easy to say Assad is all of the things that he likely is, but it is harder to acknowledge that no matter who he is, he is staying and that peace on the ground will, ultimately, for the Syrian Kurds, probably come through an arrangement with Assad's regime. There has been a huge diplomatic breakthrough. As much as we have all of the talk of Sturm und Drang--that the world is ending and there is going to be a Kurdish genocide--perhaps the opposite is going to happen. I don't think we yet know, as no one can predict the future with certainty, but it actually looks as if there has been a somewhat reasonable withdrawal. You have the Syrian Kurdish generals now saying they have agreed to the withdrawal. There is now in place, hopefully, a long-term cease-fire. So, while nothing is ever perfect in Syria and while nothing is ever perfect in the Middle East, I think, rather than saying it is the end of the world, we should say that this is a big transition, that this is a big realignment of interests there, and that there is a possibility that the Kurds could get a homeland. The last thing you would want is to say to all of the leaders in the Kurdish community, to all of the intellectuals, to those who speak English, and to those who are open to western ways, ``Hey, come over here, and abandon your country.'' It would be equivalent to France's saying to George Washington during or after the war, ``Hey, guys. Hey, Founding Fathers. Why don't you all come to France?'' It is not a good notion to ask the leaders of a country and a movement to leave and abandon their country. With that, I respectfully object.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I think one of the interesting things about the Kurdish situation and about Syria in general is how quickly the Kurds and Assad actually did align. If you watched the war over the last 8 years, the Kurds and Assad have largely not fought each other. There isn't a great deal of the blood sort of lust or curdling animosity between the two, and it was actually pretty remarkable how quickly they came together. One of the things is we think we are doing best, and we try to do the best when we insert ourselves in the Middle East, but sometimes we get unintended consequences. So we have been there. We want peace, but we refuse to allow the Kurds to talk to Assad. There is a stalemated civil war that has gone on 8 years. Had we never been involved, Assad likely would have crushed the rebellion in 6 months, maybe 500,000 people wouldn't have died, maybe 3 million people wouldn't have left, and you would still have a dictator. Instead, we have 500,000 people dead, 3 million refugees, and we still have a dictator. So I think we need to question our strategy as to what our intended goal is and what ends up happening. Syria is an utter disaster but made no better by our intervention, the Saudis' intervention, and the Qataris' intervention. There is a great deal of unknowns as to whether the Sunni extremists who were supported by the Saudis, Qataris, and sometimes us would actually be more humanitarian or more for human rights than Assad is. I think we can agree that Assad has abused his people, has used chemical weapons, et cetera, et cetera, but on the other side were Sunni extremists allied with the ideas of radical Islam, with radical jihad, with the things that led to 9/11. So it is a very complicated situation over there, but I think we cannot say with certainty that there will not be a deal that sticks, actually, between Assad and the Kurds. If the Kurds want a homeland and they believe Assad is staying, it makes all the sense in the world for them to work together. If Assad wants to actually protect that region of north Syria, either from Turkey or from others, and the Kurds are willing to help him do it, the Kurds have proven they are good fighters. The Kurds would probably have to acknowledge there is a greater Syria and that they are part of it. If they want to break off from Syria, there will be continual war. If they are able to make an arrangement with Assad, there is a chance that there could be an oil-sharing arrangement like we have in Iraq. The bottom line is, we sometimes see the world in black-and-white terms and think we can get Thomas Jefferson in Syria or in Libya or in Iraq, but what happens is, time and time again, we topple a dictator, we get chaos, we get more terrorism. ISIS sprang out of the vacuum that was Iraq after a government that was incapable of doing it after we get rid of the same. The same thing happened when we got rid of Qadhafi in Libya. I think we need to rethink our approach to the Middle East.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, if our goal is to create a Kurdish homeland and to defend it for them, hell yes, we need a debate and a vote and an authorization of force. You can't just say that we are going to stay there forever. It would take tens of thousands of troops if you want to pacify Syria. It has not been pacified for 8 years. It is an utter and complete mess, and it is time we get the hell out.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object. If Democrats want to send our young men and women to fight in the Syrian civil war, let's have that debate. By all means, let's have a constitutional debate today on the Senate floor, right here, right now. If Democrats are so hungry for war, let's have that debate. Our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutional method to go to war. If there be a national security interest in Syria, let's hear it. The other side does not want that debate. They want to lob invectives at the President, but they aren't prepared to debate about whom we are to go to war against. Do they wish to declare war on our NATO ally, Turkey? Do they wish to declare war on our former ally, the Free Syrian Army? Do they wish to declare war on Syria's Assad? They don't know. No, Democrats just want to heap abuse on the President. They don't want to debate war because they have no clue on whom to declare war. In reality, the President made the wise decision to move 50 soldiers out of the way of tens of thousands of Turkish troops. Ironically, the President's decision may finally allow the Kurds to negotiate with Assad for a semiautonomous region in northern Syria. Perhaps, if the Kurds pledge their battle-proven fighters to Assad, they might receive in exchange some autonomy and a share of the oil receipts, much as the Kurds did in Iraq. Already we are seeing promising cooperation between the Kurds and Assad. This week, Turkey's Erdogan met with Putin. Putin already is allied with Assad. There is a possibility diplomacy may actually break through here. There is a real chance that the Syrian civil war could come to an end if Assad, with the Kurds' help, would agree to secure the border and not allow Kurdish raids into Turkey. The permanent war caucus on both sides of the aisle claims that repositioning 50 troops is the end of the world. Perhaps, just maybe, less of our presence in Syria will actually lead to diplomacy and, ultimately, peace. Only time will tell. I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes, followed by Senators Johnson, Risch, and Menendez, for 5 minutes each.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, today, we will vote on whether or not to admit North Macedonia into NATO. I, for one, think we already have enough dead weight in NATO and that adding North Macedonia to NATO adds absolutely nothing to our collective security. In his farewell address, George Washington stated: ``It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.'' This was echoed by Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address, who wished for ``peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations . . . entangling alliances with none.'' As we watch the most recent developments in Syria unfold, it is a good moment to remember the guidance that Washington and Jefferson attempted to pass along. Turkey, a nation that we have been locked in a permanent alliance with since the Cold War, has launched an offensive, a war of choice, by further invading Syria. While they are clearly acting in their own self-interest, their actions place our Nation one mistake or one small incident away from a hot war with at least one major global power. Does it make sense for American men and women to potentially have to defend Turkey over their war of choice? I believe that when Jefferson spoke of entangling alliances, one could not pick a better example than how we have expanded NATO. Since 2004, we have expanded NATO ever closer to the border of Russia. In the process, we have added the so-called military might of countries such as Slovenia, Latvia, Albania, Montenegro, and now, today, North Macedonia. What benefit is it to the United States to add countries that barely have enough military might to defend themselves? I say that adding North Macedonia to NATO adds absolutely nothing to our national security. The best-case scenario we can hope for with these countries is that an incident that triggers a major land war never occurs. If you think this is far-fetched, remember that World War I began when a Serbian nationalist assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Within months, the very system of entangling alliances that our forefathers warned about turned Europe into a killing field, which ultimately killed upward of 19 million people. Adding yet another small country to NATO does nothing to dissipate the chances of catastrophic war and, in fact, encourages that possibility. What military capabilities does North Macedonia bring to the table? Some 8,200 active-duty soldiers. Additionally, in 2018, they spent a whopping $120 million a year on their military. By comparison, the Chicago Cubs spent $221 million on their payroll. Additionally, 15 other Major League Baseball teams spent more on their rosters than North Macedonia spends on defense. Even if North Macedonia brought their military spending in line with NATO guidelines, it would still only be $227 million. But if the goal of NATO is to have these countries spend 2 percent, why don't we wait until they are spending 2 percent to admit them instead of admitting them and saying: Please, increase your defense spending. If they come up to 2 percent, they would only be spending $227 million, which is $103 million less than Bryce Harper's contract with the Philadelphia Phillies. NATO is supposed to be about mutual defense, not just blanket security guarantees to smaller states. How much would North Macedonia give in monetary terms to NATO? Less than $1 million. We foot the bill. We pay for everything. We are going to get less than $1 million of direct contributions from North Macedonia. It doesn't seem hardly fair; does it? It is clear that North Macedonia adds little, if any, value to the NATO alliance in terms of manpower or military capabilities, which means that the only reason they are being added is to be a tripwire that would only ensnare us in a rapidly escalating wider war in which they would not be able to carry their own weight. So I don't think North Macedonia adds anything to our national security, but they are out there on the edge of Europe as a tripwire to ensnare us in a wider war. If the recent events involving Turkey were not enough to validate the guidance laid down by our Founding Fathers, then adding North Macedonia to a tangled network of permanent alliances certainly is. We would be wise to revisit and heed our Founding Fathers, who said getting involved in entangling alliances in Europe does not add to our security; it threatens our security. I urge a ``no'' vote. I don't think we need to expand NATO. We certainly don't need more people that the American taxpayer will be asked to pay for.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled vote commence now.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object. The Constitution is quite clear on this subject. If the minority leader wishes to engage in the civil war in Syria that has been going on for nearly a decade, we should obey the Constitution. He should come to the floor and say we are ready to declare a war, we are ready to authorize force, and we are going to stick our troops in the middle of this messy, messy five-sided civil war, where we would be ostensibly opposed to the Turkish Government that has made an incursion. We would then be opposed to our NATO ally. It would be the first time in history that we would be inserting ourselves militarily against a NATO ally. None of this is to excuse Turkey's action. In fact, today I will offer a resolution that would actually do something. The resolution that is being offered is simply a way to have petty, partisan criticism of the President infect this body. Mine, actually, would have the force of law and would prevent any arms from being sold to Turkey, which would be a serious rebuke to what they are doing in Syria. The Constitution is quite clear. No authorization has ever been given for the use of force in Syria. There was no authorization of declaration of war and no permission to be there at all. So if they want to insert themselves in this civil war, by all means, let's have a debate. Let's have a constitutional debate, but I, for one, am not willing to send one young man or one young woman, one soldier over there without a clear mission. There is no clear mission. There is no clear enemy. In fact, the war is largely over. Assad is going to remain, for better or worse. So we have a despot on one side, Erdogan. We have another despot on the other side, Assad. Here is the deal: The Kurds have to live there. It is despairing that they have to live there, but you know what, their best chance for survival is having an ally inside of Syria. If they become allied, and it appears they are--if they become allied with Assad, you know what, there is a possibility of a Kurdish area within Syria. There may well be an opportunity for a Kurdish area similar to what has happened in Iraq. So I object to this resolution because this resolution does nothing to fix the problem. My resolution would stop arms sales to Turkey, so I will object to this resolution.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, at this time I want to ask unanimous consent that we introduce S. 2624, Turkey arm sales, which would eliminate any further sale of arms to Turkey and, instead of sending a fake message or a sense of the Senate resolution, would actually be a binding resolution and would tell the Turks: Yes, we are serious. We object to your incursion into Syria. You need to respect the territorial integrity of Syria, and we therefore are no longer going to be selling you arms. I ask unanimous consent that this be passed.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that the subsequent votes be 10 minutes.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 942 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL. My amendment to this spending bill will be to cut 2 percent across the board, so we can actually be responsible and try to balance our budget. Most people I talk to at home or people who come up here, who are seeking assistance from the Federal Government, say: That doesn't sound too bad--1 or 2 percent. We could deal with that. People come to me and say: Well, my group is doing this great research for this disease that affects all of these people. I say: How much are you getting? They say: $100 million. I say: We have a trillion-dollar debt, and everybody ought to try to spend what comes in rather than spending money we don't have. Does it make sense even for a good cause to borrow money from China to spend money we don't have? Most of them--even groups that live at the Federal trough, groups that need and want and all they come here for is Federal money--say: Well, that is not too unreasonable. We got $100 million last year. Could you take $98 million for the good of the country? Instead of getting $100 million, could you take $98 million--2 percent less--in order to balance the budget and not destroy the country with all of this debt? Interestingly, whether these groups are from the left, right, center, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, most of them look at me and nod their heads. I think the groups that receive Federal money realize this massive debt we have is destroying the country. Even the groups receiving it are willing to cut 1 percent or 2 percent. But do you know who is not? The Senate--the Congress. They will not cut anything. My amendment today to add a 2-percent cut to this spending will get 15 or 20 votes. Not one Democrat will vote for this bill. Do you know what the Democrats will say? They will say: The debt is because you cut taxes. This is something that is factually incorrect. We did cut taxes, but revenue is up. This is a fact. We cut the tax rates, but the economy is growing gangbusters, and revenue is up. Why do we have a massive debt? Why are we breaking records? Why, in February, did we have more debt added than at any other time in our history? Why are we about to bust a trillion dollars in debts this year? It is spending; it isn't revenue. Revenue is up. We did cut tax rates, and companies are growing like they haven't grown in decades. If you talk to businesses, the biggest problem in our country right now is they can't find enough people to work for them. There is a labor shortage in our country. It is a great time to be a worker in our country. But this will not pass. My amendment will not pass because people are afraid that the public will not like them if they don't give them more money. I am afraid we will destroy the country if we keep running more debts. The debt is growing at 8 percent a year. Spending is growing only at 4.5 percent, 5 percent a year. The debt is growing more rapidly because we have accumulated so much. We have over a $22 trillion debt. The interest this year is over $300 billion. As it grows faster and faster, the interest will exceed what we are spending on the military within about 5 years. Nobody is doing anything about it. We passed spending caps 5 years ago. It was called the sequester. It went on for a while and actually was reducing the debt. Then you ask whose fault is it that we have this massive debt, this massive spending; is it Republicans or Democrats? The answer is yes. Both parties are fiscally irresponsible, but it has nothing to do with taxes or revenue. Revenue is going up dramatically. It has to do with spending. Both parties are guilty of this. The Republicans want unlimited military spending, and the Democrats want unlimited welfare spending. People say that there is not enough compromise in Washington. That is absolutely untrue. It is absolutely misreported by the media. There is too much compromise here. The compromise is always to spend more money and to spend money we don't have. The military gets their unlimited money, and the welfare state gets unlimited spending. Republicans and Democrats both join hands together, and what happens around here on a day-to-day basis is compromise to spend money we don't have, to borrow it from China and, sometimes, to send it back to China. Do you realize we send economic development aid to China? That is ridiculous. We send money all around the world. Many of these countries that get money don't like us. They hate us. They burn our flag in the street, yet we send them money. We are not even sending our own money. We borrow from China to send it out. I think this is a very reasonable proposal. Some will say it is draconian. If they passed my amendment today and cut spending by 2 percent, we would still be spending more money than 2 years ago. We would be spending $19 billion more than 2 years ago. If we pass my 2 percent cut--the 2-penny cut that I am proposing--we would still be spending more money than the caps that the vast Senate majority voted on 5 years ago. Why is the debt burgeoning? Whose fault is it? Is it Republicans; is it Democrats? The answer is yes. Both parties are acting fiscally irresponsibly. It has nothing to do with tax revenue and has everything to do with spending. People say that the people want it. Do the people want a bankrupt country? Do they want a country that is being eaten from the inside out? Do they want this reckless spending that someday will lead to a day of reckoning? No. I think we have to get our house in order and get our budget in order. I think we need to balance our budget. If my amendment for a 2- percent cut were to pass--how many families have had to deal with 2 percent less? How many businesses in bad times have to cut their budget by 2 percent? If the government were today to pass my amendment--a 2- percent cut--that means you get 98 percent of everything they are spending. We would balance the budget within 5 years. That is ostensibly what many Republicans say they are for. When we have a vote for a balanced budget, everybody lines up, and all of the Republicans vote for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that says the budget will balance within 5 years. Then, when given the opportunity to vote for spending cuts, we lose half of the Republicans. The Democrats don't care, as they will not vote for spending cuts, but the Republicans at least profess to be for spending cuts. Yet, when we offer a modest proposal like this, we lose half of the Republicans. There is a problem with debts, and both parties share some guilt. What I have put forward today, though, is an opportunity for the Senators who truly believe the debt is a problem to try to restrain spending with a 2-percent cut across the board. I hope Senators will consider voting for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Vote on Amendment No. 942