Rand Paul

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, some say it is irresponsible not to raise the debt ceiling. Well, true fiscal conservatives say it is irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without any reform of our profligate spending ways. To allow the debt ceiling to go up an infinite amount--as much as Congress can possibly spend and borrow over a nearly 2-year period--is fiscally irresponsible and has never been seen in our history. This may well be the most fiscally irresponsible thing we have done in the history of the United States. The Federal Government is currently spending nearly $2 million every minute. Don't let anybody fool you--this is a spending problem. The annual deficit this year will exceed $1.2 trillion. What is irresponsible is recklessly indenturing our children and our grandchildren. What is irresponsible is binding our kids to this massive burden of debt. What is irresponsible is a Congress that believes it is Santa Claus and that it can be everything to everyone and that everything is free. At least the Democrats are honest. The Democrats don't care about deficits, and they will tell you that to your face. The Democrats, in fact, are falling all over themselves to propose more than $50 trillion in new spending in addition to the trillion-dollar annual deficits. They want to add $50 trillion in spending. Yet it is not just the Democrats. The Republicans are also guilty--at least the Big Government Republicans who will vote for this monstrous addition of debt. Many of the supporters of this debt deal ran around their States for years and complained that President Obama was spending too much and borrowing too much. These same Republicans now--the whole disingenuous lot of them--will wiggle their way to the front of the spending trough to vote for as much or more debt than President Obama ever added. Get this. All of those who said the debt was bad under President Obama will today snuggle their way up, wiggle their way up to the spending trough, and they will do exactly what they condemned under President Obama. Shame. Shame on the politicians who have campaigned as conservatives but who have governed as big spenders. America, wake up. The two parties are often one. The two parties that ostensibly fight are in reality one party of big spenders, separated only by where they want to spend the money. The media reports of a lack of compromise. The opposite is true. There is too much compromise, and the compromise is always more debt, more porkbarrel spending, and more burden for our kids. Yet there is another path. There is another form of compromise. Instead of compromising to raise spending for guns and butter, we could compromise to hold the line on all spending. Just a mere 2-percent cut in spending would balance the budget over a 5-year period--1 or 2 pennies out of a dollar. You get to spend 98 percent of what you spent last year, and we balance the budget. Yet that is never enough because these people are not honest with you. They are not willing to hold the line. They want more, more, more. More spending, though, means more debt, and that is what we are getting. So what I offer today is a compromise. The right would have to deal with less military spending. The right says: Oh, we don't have enough. Perhaps the mission is too big for the budget. It isn't a lack of money. We spend more money on the military than the next 10 countries combined. We spend more money on the military than all of Europe spends. It isn't a lack of money; it is that the mission is too large. Why do we have troops in 50 of 55 African countries? Why are we involved in every civil war on the globe? We need to question what our mission is. The left would have to accept less welfare spending or at least hold the line and get 98 percent of what it spent last year on welfare. The right would have to spend 98 percent of what it spent on the military last year. Guess what. We would balance the budget. My amendment is called cut, cap, and balance. When the balanced budget is passed and sent to the States, when spending caps are in place and when spending has been cut, then and only then would we raise the debt ceiling. This is the only responsible way of dealing with this. It is irresponsible to give a blank check to a government that has shown itself to be so reckless and for it to so recklessly disregard any kind of sense of sanity with regard to the budget. Today's votes, though, will be a litmus test for fiscal conservatism. Those Senators who vote for an unlimited increase in the debt ceiling are not and have no right to call themselves conservatives. America, wake up, watch the votes today, and discover who actually gives a damn about the future of our country. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 932.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, can you hear it? Can you hear the somber notes, the feet shuffling, and the solemn tones? Can you hear it? It is a dirge, a funeral march, and it is the death of a movement--a once proud movement with hundreds of thousands of people gathered on the National Mall. It is the death and it is the last gasp of a movement in America that was concerned with our national debt. Today is the final nail in the coffin. The tea party is no more. The budget deal today allows unlimited borrowing for nearly 2 years-- unlimited, no limits--and the government will borrow what they wish without limit for 2 years. It abolishes all spending caps. Adoption of this deal marks the death of the tea party movement in America. Fiscal conservatives--those who remain--should be in mourning for Congress. Both parties have deserted you. The national debt now stands at $22 trillion. This year, we will add over $1.2 trillion. We are approaching record deficits, and neither party cares. Both parties have deserted, have absolutely and utterly deserted America and have shown no care and no understanding and no sympathy for the burden of debt they are leaving the taxpayers, the young, the next generation, and the future of our country. The very underpinnings of our country are being eroded and threatened by this debt. The interest on this debt will be over $400 billion next year--precisely, $455 billion. Interest will surpass all welfare spending in the next 2 years. Interest on the debt will surpass defense spending by 2025. Social Security is $7 trillion in debt. Medicare is over $30 trillion in debt. Yet a parade of candidates on national television last night said they want to double and triple the government's expenditures where the government is already trillions of dollars short. Whose fault is this? Both parties. The media completely doesn't get it. The media says: Oh, there is not enough compromise in Washington. That is exactly the opposite of the truth. There is too much compromise in Washington. There is always an agreement to spend more money. There is always an agreement to spend money we don't have. There is always an agreement to borrow your kids' and your grandkids' money and to put this country further at risk. Admiral Mullen put it this way. He said the most significant threat to our national security is our debt. Yet all around me on my side of the aisle are those who clamor and say: Our military is hollowed out and can't complete its mission. Well, perhaps the mission is too big for the budget. Maybe it is not a problem of having enough money; maybe it is a problem of making our mission to be everything to everyone around the world, to have spent $50 billion a year building roads and bridges in Afghanistan for the last 20 years and to continue that forever. When the President put forward a proposal, a thought that we might try to end and to declare victory in Afghanistan, this body--both parties rose up as one, and the vast majority said it would be precipitous to leave Afghanistan after 19 years. This is the problem. It isn't acrimony. It isn't both parties fighting each other. It is both parties agreeing to increase the debt. They increase the debt for different reasons, but the only way they get theirs--``give me mine, give me mine'' is what both sides say. The right wants for the military. Yet we spend more on the military than the next 10 countries combined. We spend more on the military--the United States spends more than all of NATO combined. All of the NATO countries combined spend less than we do on the military. People say we are hollowed out and we can't complete our mission. Well, maybe the mission is too big. It isn't that the budget is too small; it is that the mission is too big. Maybe we don't need to have troops in 50 of 55 African countries. Maybe we need to rethink our mission. Maybe the mission of the military should be to defend our country, not to intervene in every civil war around the world. Admiral Mullen said the most significant threat to our national security is our debt. Yet we are piling on more debt, saying we need more military. Maybe we need to discuss the mission of our military. We are piling on more debt, some in the name of national security. Yet I think it weakens us with every moment. The vote today will be on a 2-year debt ceiling with no limits. The details do matter. Raising the debt ceiling with no limits would be like telling your kid: OK, you can have a credit card, but there will be no limits on what you spend. Just spend it on whatever you want, in whatever amount, and in 2 years, I will just pay the bill for you. Nobody would do that with their family money, and no country should act that way. We can't keep going on like this. Where are all the fiscal conservatives? What happened to the tea party movement, which was bipartisan and was concerned citizens rising up and saying: I don't want something from government. What I want is a government that is responsible, a government that spends what comes in, a government that doesn't keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and putting us further at risk. What happened to that movement? That movement elected some of these people. You heard these people. Don't you remember, when President Obama was President, the Republicans all clamoring and saying ``trillion-dollar deficits'' for multiple years. Every year, they would say: President Obama wants to spend and borrow and spend and borrow. I heard it in my State. I heard it from the very people who today will vote for this monstrosity. Some of them will actually vote for my amendment to give themselves cover. They will say: Oh, yeah, I was for the Paul amendment. But then they are also going to vote for the deal that will bankrupt our country. What happened to these people? They all thought debt was bad when it was President Obama's debt, but they are not ecumenical, and they are not very much into self-examination. They are not interested in the debt now that Republicans are complicit. But before we make this about Republicans, remember that there is not a Democrat in Washington who cares about the debt. The difference between the parties is that the Democrats are honest. They are very honest. They don't care about the debt. Look, they are all over the stage, falling all over themselves, trying to give free healthcare to illegal aliens. They are all on the stage trying to talk about giving Medicare for All when we can't even afford the Medicare for Some. So Democrats don't care. The country should know that Democrats do not care about the debt. But here is the problem: The only opposition party we have in the country is the Republican Party, and they don't care either. They just come home, and they are dishonest and tell you they care, and then they vote for a monstrosity. Today's vote will be a vote for a monstrosity, an abomination, the ability to borrow money for over 2 years until guess what intervenes. Why are we going to wait 2 years with no limits on borrowing? There is this little thing called an election. They don't want to be in public voting to raise the debt ceiling an unlimited amount or a vast amount again, so they are putting it off to beyond the election. Both parties are complicit, though. Nobody wants to vote on this again. People talk about draining the swamp. You can't drain the swamp unless you are willing to cut the size and scope of government. That is the swamp. The swamp is this morass that is millions of people up here organized to involve themselves in the economy. Most of them could disappear from government, and no one would notice. The only thing you would notice is less money coming to Washington and more money remaining in the States. It is a little bit of what happened with the tax cut. But in addition to the tax cut returning to people their own money, we should also quit spending money we don't have up here. During the tax cut, I, for one, said: You have to cut spending. I offered amendments during the tax cut to cut spending. Do you know what happened? I got four votes. Four people in the Senate cared about the debt on that particular vote. After we passed the tax cut, there is a provision that says there will be automatic spending cuts if the taxes were to bring in less revenue. Guess what. I forced a vote to keep that rule in place. I got nine votes because most people don't care. No Democrat cares about the debt. The Republicans falsely tell you they care, and the vast majority will vote for this monstrosity today. Today, I will offer an alternative. Some say: Well, you conservatives won't vote to raise the debt ceiling at all, and we will go bankrupt, there will be turmoil in the markets, and it will be a disaster. So what I am offering for conservatives today is that we will raise the debt ceiling under a couple of conditions. We will raise the debt ceiling if you adopt, in advance, significant spending cuts, caps on spending, and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. See, here is the road, and here is, I guess, the beginning and the end of the dishonesty around here. If we had a vote today, we would have some people saying: Why don't we vote on the balanced budget amendment? We all love to vote for it. We don't really mean it. We don't really care about balancing the budget. We are not for it because we are Big Government Republicans. But we love to vote for the balanced budget amendment because I can go home and tell people: Yeah, I voted for the really crazy, monstrous budget deal to expand the debt, but I also voted for the balanced budget amendment. Well, here is our deal. We don't want to vote on the balanced budget amendment; we want adoption of the balanced budget amendment. So if you will cut spending, if you will cap spending, and if you will pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, I will vote to raise the debt ceiling--but only if those things are done. People say: Well, if we don't raise the debt ceiling without any reform, the country--the markets will go into turmoil. Well, guess what. We bring in $3 trillion, and we spend $4 trillion. What does that mean? We can pay for $3 trillion on a daily basis without borrowing. So if tomorrow we didn't raise the debt ceiling, what would happen? We would spend $3 trillion. Every Social Security check could go out, every soldier could be paid, and everybody on Medicare could be taken care of. That is probably about it, to tell you the truth, because we spend too much damn money. We spend money we don't have. But you could provide the essentials to people--Social Security, Medicare, pay our soldiers, and maybe a few other things--if you just spent what came in. Isn't that what we should do? Isn't that what responsible people do? Does any American family routinely spend a third--25 percent more than comes in? Does anybody spend $4 for every $3 that comes in? Nobody does that. Nobody in their right mind does that, but your government does it. And who is at fault? Both parties. They are complicit. They scratch each other's backs. They both are terrible on the deficit. Both parties are bad. Both parties are ruining our country. My amendment is called cut, cap, and balance--cuts spending, puts caps back in place that they can't exceed, and says that if we vote now on a balanced budget amendment and if it passes and if it is sent to the States, then we would raise the debt ceiling. Most people around here don't want any linkage. It is not that they will just complain that my budgetary reforms are too harsh; they will complain that they don't want any. So there won't be any alternative. There won't be someone saying: Well, those are too much, and we would rather have just a little bit. No, they don't want any restraint. The budget monstrosity, the deal, the abomination we will vote on today will have no limits--no dollar limits. I was arguing this last week on another particular issue, and from across the country, I got reamed by the leftwing mob who says: Why are you doing is this? Why couldn't you do it on another matter? We do it on every matter. Those of us who are fiscally conservative are saying that we shouldn't spend money we don't have. I am doing it again this week, saying that we should not spend money we don't have, that it is irresponsible, and that we are eroding the very foundation that has made America great. I will vote against this budget deal. I will present cut, cap, and balance. Cut, cap, and balance is a responsible way to raise the debt ceiling by cutting spending, capping spending, and also passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I hope my colleagues will consider that.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, today I will offer an amendment to pay for the spending in this bill. This is not something unusual. I do this day in and day out. It has been part of the reason I ran for office--that we shouldn't add more debt to our country without trying to pay for it by maybe reducing spending from wasteful spending. In the last week or so, we have seen a manufactured crisis. Rarely has there been a manufactured crisis so intense--a fake furor instigated by partisans more concerned with scoring points than telling the truth. But, for some of us, the truth is still important. The mob and demagogues in this body accuse me of holding up this bill for political points. They obviously don't know much about politics, because there certainly hasn't been any political gain by my holding this bill for debate and amendment. But I think it is important we do this, rather than rush through and everybody says: No questions asked, please. It sounds a little more like an authoritarian atmosphere than it would be a democracy, to actually have debate, discussion, and amendments. That is all we have asked for. In fact, last week when we were granted the amendments, we said to the other side: Let's have the vote--last week. And all of those who were in such a furor, all those who were so hysterical that the world was ending said: Oh, we cannot vote on it--it was not convenient last week--because some of our Democrat Members have already gone home for the weekend. So when the mob was told last week they could have the vote, they said no. It is a manufactured crisis. As of today, the fund in question has $2 billion in it, and no one is being denied medical care. So let's have an honest debate. Let's have an honest debate about whether it matters to this country whether we are $2 billion in debt, and whether or not, when we have new spending programs--no matter how charitable, no matter how needed--whether or not we are going to pay for them by reducing spending in wasteful programs. It is perhaps a historical anomaly that this bill appropriates unlimited funds for a virtually unlimited time period. What would you think if someone came to you, they had a good cause, and they said: You know, my neighbors' house has burnt down, and I want to help them, and I want to give them unlimited money for an unlimited period of time? That wouldn't be wise. No one would do that. So why do we, in our hysteria, throw out all common sense and say that we are going to approach this as if we don't have a problem? We have this enormous problem in our country. We are borrowing over $1 million a minute. My amendment today is to offer to pay for the $10 billion in the first 10 years. Realize that this bill as written is not a 10-year bill. It is a 72-year bill. It goes to the year 2092. To my knowledge, we have never, ever had a bill that was unlimited in the dollar amount and unlimited in the time period. Mine would be to pay for the first 10 years of this. The pay would come by reducing mandatory spending by 0.06 percent. That is 6/100th of 1 percent of other mandatory spending. At the same time, we would exempt Medicare, Social Security, and Veterans Affairs from cuts. We would exempt the vast bulk of mandatory spending, but we would still say: If this is a wise expenditure of money, if we need more money for this fund, we would simply take it from something that is less pressing. No matter how good a cause may be, it makes no sense to borrow from China to pay for our immediate concerns. Spending someone else's money is not charity. Spending borrowed money is just not wise or sound governance. Being a legislator should be about making choices, about deciding priorities. For example, which is more important--spending $275 million teaching foreign countries how to apply for U.S. foreign aid and teaching foreign countries how to get our money and how to fill out the grant process? Is that more important than the spending in this bill? We will never know because the people who promote this bill aren't willing to cut any spending. They are not going to look at waste. We wonder why we have waste run from top to bottom in our government? Because no one is willing, even for a good cause, to say: Why don't we cut out some of this waste? Why don't we quit spending money teaching foreigners how to apply to get more of our money? To pay for more pressing concerns, shouldn't someone ask whether it is wise to spend $300,000 studying whether Japanese quail are more sexually promiscuous on cocaine? That is your money. So when somebody is being asked for a good cause, ask why we couldn't eliminate money we are spending on awful things that should never have been wasted in the Federal Government. To pay for more pressing concerns, shouldn't someone ask why we continue to spend $50 billion a year building bridges and roads and hotels and gas stations in Afghanistan? Perhaps that money could be better spent here at home. The debate today is not over the spending of the money. It is over, when we do spend money--even for a good cause--whether or not we should cut corresponding money that we are wasting around the world, much of it not helping American citizens and much of it going to foreign countries and foreign people. To pay for more pressing concerns, shouldn't someone ask why we had a study last year that spent $2 million seeking to know the question: If someone in front of you in the cafeteria line sneezes on the food, are you more or less likely to pick up the food and eat it? Seriously, this is where your tax dollars are going. If we have a better cause, and we want to fund this fund we are talking about today, couldn't we say we will not spend $2 million next year studying whether, if someone sneezes on your food, you are more or less likely to take the food? Shouldn't we be forced as a Congress to make decisions, instead of just saying: Well, it is a good cause. So, therefore, we should not use our brain. We should put on blinders. We shouldn't think about it, and we should just say: Well, it is a good cause so let's just borrow the money from China. Do you think that helps us as a country? Isn't part of legislating trying to prioritize spending, not just adding to the debt? The leftwing mob maintains that Republicans have lost the moral high ground and can't talk about debt anymore because we supported a tax cut. Poppycock. This is misinformation. This is fake news. This is plainly people just not paying any attention to what goes on around here. During the tax cut, which I supported, I offered cuts to mandatory spending to pay for the tax cut. The media seems to have forgotten this. But I forced a vote on the floor to say: Yes, we may be cutting taxes and, if it affects the deficit, we should pay for it. Interestingly, though, the leftwing mob doesn't want to admit that when we actually cut tax rates, we actually got more money. The revenue coming in last year was actually greater than the previous year. The tax cut didn't add to the deficit. The deficit went up because we continue to spend money and we actually added more spending. The curve of spending increases actually rose faster than the revenue coming in. When the tax cut happened, I offered an amendment to cut spending to pay for it. This is a fact. The leftwing mob and all of their buddies in the media can do and say whatever they want. It is a free country, but it is an absolute out-and-out lie that Republicans who voted for this tax cut also were not concerned with spending. I, for one was, and I offered an amendment to cut spending. The tax cut also was passed under a law we have had on the books for some time. It is called the pay-go law. This is a law that should be working even on a bill like this current bill. But we exempt ourselves from it all the time. The current bill actually exempts the pay-go rules: If you increase spending by $10 billion, you have to decrease it by $10 billion somewhere else. It has been on the books for a long time, but like everything else Congress does, they try to bring in rules to say: Do you know what? We are going to try to control the debt and spending by forcing ourselves, when we come up with some new spending of $10 billion, that we will have to come up with something to cut to pay for it. What happens is, Congress just waives the rules. It is not that we don't have rules that should help with the budget; we have hundreds of rules. The pay-go rule is a good rule, but it gets ignored. We passed the tax cut. If the projections were that the deficit was going to go up, guess what, the pay-go rules would say there has to be automatic spending cuts across the board. This is something I support. So what happened? About a month after the tax cut, a big spending bill comes through here. Both parties are guilty, Republicans and Democrats. They love to spend money more than anything else. A big spending bill comes through, and guess what. They waive the rule on pay-go. At that time, I also brought up an amendment that said: Hey, you guys shouldn't waive the pay-go rule. If the tax cut causes the debt to go up, we should cut spending across board. Let's be very clear around here. There are those of us who have been consistent from day one that the debt does matter. There is no particular animus toward this bill. In the last year, I have done this probably a half dozen times. In the last 2 years, I have probably done it two dozen times. That means every spending bill. A month ago, it was spending for the border. I support money to be spent on the border, but I don't support doing it if it adds to the deficit. The amendment I have today is identical to the amendment I had a month ago, saying: Border spending, even if you want to do it, we should cut money from somewhere else where it is not as much needed and where it is being wasted. I did it 3 months ago for the hurricane disaster relief. Every bit of new spending--it doesn't matter whether it is a good cause, bad cause, or an in-between cause, we need to not keep adding to the debt. This is a problem. We borrow over $1 million--close to $2 million every minute. This is a problem for our country. We are eroding the foundation of this country with so much debt--$22 trillion in debt. The tax cut was passed under the pay-go rules. I voted not to suspend the pay-go rules. I voted to actually have spending cuts to offset any increase in the deficit from the tax cut. The establishment of both parties moved to waive this pay-go requirement. I forced a vote, and only eight Senators voted, which shows you where the real problem is. Why does the deficit go up so much? There is not one Democrat in Congress who cares a flip about the deficit. Not one Democrat in Congress will lift a finger to refrain from government spending. Therefore, everything--you name it, they are for it. The problem is, Republicans aren't so good on this either. There are only a handful of Republicans who actually care about the debt, and many of them will vote consistently to raise the debt limit and vote to add new debt. Today's vote, though, is but a prelude of next week's vote. This is the preliminary. This is the introduction to our problem in our country, over $10 billion. Next week, it is the enormity of the entire budget. Next week, both parties--and watch this closely. People say: Oh, Republicans can't get along with Democrats. Guess what. They get along just swell when it comes to spending money and adding to the debt. This bill will pass overwhelmingly today without any concern for the debt or paying for it. Next week will be even worse. We have something called the debt ceiling. Every time we spend more money that comes in, in taxes, it approaches a debt ceiling, and the debt ceiling says you can't borrow any more money. So conservatives say: Well, we should reform our ways and quit giving away money to Afghanistan and Mexico and all these different countries. We should have reform involved with raising the debt ceiling. What is going to come about next week is no debt ceiling for 2 years, until after the next Presidential election. It is a terrible idea. It is fiscal insanity. They also will vote to forever get rid of the sequester caps. In 2011, amongst the tea party movement, when more people became concerned about the deficit spending, we actually came in and had a reform. For the first time, we didn't cut spending; we slowed down the rate of growth of spending. In doing so, the deficit was narrowing. For a couple of years, we were doing better. Then what happened was basically both parties once again came together. The Republicans said: We want to be in every war overseas we can possibly get involved in, and we want to have more money spent on the military. The liberals said: We need more money for welfare. Guess what. They are not at odds. You scratch my back; I will scratch yours. The Republicans and Democrats agree on one thing: Spending money is the most important thing they can do. The deficit doesn't matter. So when we come back, when we address this issue next week, what we are going to find is they are going to explode the debt ceiling. There will be no limits on the debt ceiling for 2 years, and they are getting rid of all pretense of having any spending caps. A majority of Republicans, unfortunately, will even vote to get rid of the budget caps and to eliminate the debt ceiling for 2 years. This is sad. Today, though, the Senate has a chance to vote to pay for this $10 billion bill with very modest reductions in mandatory spending-- reductions that actually exempt Medicare, Social Security, and Veterans Affairs. Americans, particularly conservatives, need to sit up and watch closely how their Senators vote, for today's vote is about whether your representative really cares at all about the disaster that is our $22 trillion debt. Amendment No. 929 Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 929 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it has long been my feeling that we need to address our massive debt in this country. We have a $22 trillion debt. We are adding debt at about $1 trillion a year. Therefore, any new spending that we are approaching, any new program that is going to have the longevity of 70 or 80 years should be offset by cutting spending that is less valuable. At the very least, we need to have this debate. I will be offering up an amendment if this bill should come to the floor, but until then, I will object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I am offering a reservation to these treaties that would maximize the benefit for individuals and businesses that are impacted by these tax provisions. My proposed reservation would establish only for the United States-- and only for our tax purposes--an effective date of January 1, 2019. By entering into these treaties, the United States and our partners are committing to the same set of tax rules and solving the problems of double taxation that plague businesses that operate in several countries. Senate debate on the merits of these treaties has taken many years, and there is no reason to punish American companies that paid their foreign taxes but then were double-taxed by the IRS due to the lack of a ratified treaty. As I have said many times, I support the benefit of these treaties. I wish we added privacy protections, but I do support the benefits of avoiding double taxation. I also support making whole those who have been double-taxed, and I think it is the right thing to do to backdate these to the beginning of the year. My proposed reservation would grant these companies and the IRS the additional benefit of having a uniform tax for 2019. To give an example of a company in my State that would benefit, North American Stainless cannot pay dividends without being subject to double taxation. If we were to make this retroactive, we would not punish this company in my State. It is disappointing to me that the senior Senator from Kentucky led the opposition to this amendment because it would stand to greatly benefit a Kentucky company. It also would stand to greatly benefit many companies around the country if we were simply to make this retroactive. We talked to the countries involved, and there is not one country that expressed any reservation about this. It is with great disappointment that I have to oppose the senior Senator from Kentucky, who is opposing this amendment and rallying those in the body to prevent this from being retroactive. This would in no way slow down the treaties, and it is inappropriately said by some that it would. These treaties would go through with flying colors, and the reservation would apply only to our country. I hope those who are thinking about how to vote on this will consider voting to make these treaties start in January 1 of this year.

Mr. PAUL. I call up my amendment No. 921.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress: Ava Kester, Taylor Ecleberry, Jesse Green, Zach Pennington, Hayden Crosby, Kathleen Dudgeon, and Samuel Grise.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 924.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, for several years now, I have been working on tax treaties that we have with other countries to try to protect Americans' privacy. I think it is very important that your personal information--what you buy with your credit card, what checks you write, and what you do with your bank account--is private. It is yours, and it is not to be sifted through or rummaged through by the government. I am very, very concerned that, over time, particularly with technology, the IRS is gaining too much power at the push of a button to simply sift through our bank accounts looking for anomalies. I think it is important that we protect Americans who live overseas. About 8 million Americans live overseas, and I think the vast majority of them are law-abiding citizens. This debate has been going on for several years now. I first tried to engage the Obama administration in this. We had meeting after meeting but no meaningful engagement. Currently, we have been involved in negotiations with the Trump administration, which has been more open to discussions of how we protect Americans' privacies. Unfortunately, these negotiations were sabotaged by the Republican leader, who chose to bring these tax treaties forward at a time when we were in the middle of negotiations. This is very disappointing to me because I think we were at the point of actually achieving a deal that would protect the privacy of Americans. This process has been severely damaged and short-circuited by the Republican leader's choosing to push this forward and destroy the negotiations that we were having at the time. When we look at these treaties, and we say, ``well, how could we make them better,'' there are ways that we could actually make them better. There are also ways that these treaties could have come up at any point in time in the past. No one Senator can really block legislation. The fact that this legislation hasn't come up for several years is really due to the fact that the Republican leader has failed to engage in any meaningful compromise or discussion over these. The treaties are being brought up against my objections now. So they could have been brought up against my objections 2 years ago, 4 years ago, or 6 years ago. Really, the fault and the responsibility for the delay of these tax treaties lies squarely at the foot of the Republican leader, who has failed to engage on this subject and has, rather, chosen at the end just to rush them through without any meaningful debate. Americans are constitutionally guaranteed to be free from unreasonable, suspicionless search--or at least we used to be. Today this Chamber begins consideration of four tax treaties, and each one of them contains provisions that would violate the fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches. To be sure, these treaties would bestow benefits to the United States and our trading partners, and those provisions have my support. In fact, I have said for years now that I support the gist of the treaties and that they try to prevent double taxation and they make it easier for companies to do business overseas, as well as to do business in our country. That is why I have said from the beginning: Let's negotiate a settlement. Let's try to put taxpayer protections into the treaties. But at every point we have been stymied. I don't think the benefits of these treaties should come at the grave expense of violating the rights of every American with a foreign bank account, regardless of whether there is a shred of evidence that a crime has been committed. These treaties make it easier for tax authorities, such as the IRS, to obtain an American citizen's bank deposit account information. Previously, the IRS could only obtain such information if it was necessary to address a tax dispute, but that is not the standard these treaties will keep. In the past, there had to be at least an accusation of wrongdoing, an accusation of fraud, or an accusation that a taxpayer was doing something against the law. These treaties, though, would allow the IRS--the government Agency that instills terror in every citizen it contacts, the government Agency that has almost limitless power to put anybody out of business--to obtain individual bank account records if that information is ``foreseeably relevant'' or ``may be relevant.'' Think for a minute what the standard is here. So if you happen to be an American who does business overseas, if it may be relevant, the government can look in your bank account. Really, the standard is ``may be relevant'' to the Tax Code, ``may be relevant'' to a question, instead of ``is relevant'' to an active investigation concerning wrongdoing by a taxpayer. I think this is a big mistake. It is going to lead to bulk transfer of information from countries back and forth. We live in an era where some people leave one country or another, hoping to get away from totalitarianism and hoping to get away from the snooping authorities that may well debit their account or control their account based on their political behavior. I think it is a mistake to allow the information to be transferred back and forth without any kind of standard. The standard is ``foreseeably relevant,'' or ``may be relevant.'' What kind of standard is that? Historically, the standard required, at the very least, is an accusation of a crime. It will no longer require that. Will it require suspicion of a crime? No, it will require anything the government asks that it may be relevant to the treaty, that it may be relevant to the Tax Code, which is basically no standard at all. No American overseas will have any kind of protection of their privacy. Some recent international court decisions have provided an idea as to what meets this new standard. According to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, under the new standard of these new tax treaties and the ``foreseeably relevant'' standard, an information request will only be denied if the link between the requested data and the information is improbable. No consideration is necessary as to whether there is reasonable suspicion of a crime. People can go after the information, basically, based on no accusation of a crime or no suspicion of a crime. It will be a fishing expedition. Perhaps we should thank the Swiss Federal Supreme Court for effectively telling us what we already knew, that the ``foreseeably relevant'' standard is really no standard at all. At a time when the United States is over $22 trillion in debt and running annual trillion-dollar deficits, these treaties would empower the IRS to obtain sensitive bank account information under the weakest of pretenses. In short, the information is exchanged with no questions asked, no reasonable suspicion, and no due process in an effort to swell the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. I am outraged by this. The Senate should be outraged, and the American people should be outraged that their liberties are so cavalierly cast aside to accommodate the IRS's perpetual search for more taxpayers to shake down. My amendment to the treaties would end bulk exchanges of financial records by simply mandating that the United States and our treaty partners would exchange information only if an identified individual is subject to an individual investigation related to the enforcement of the Tax Code. I am not against going after people not paying their taxes, but I am against going after the 8 million Americans who live overseas and are just trying to abide by the laws and just trying to earn a living. While those who have evaded their tax obligations must be held to account, the power to search and seize is not absolute in the United States or in any free country. A government dedicated to securing the blessings of liberty does not allow the IRS to rummage through our bank accounts hoping to find a crime. Obtaining the deposit account information of an American should be done on an individualized basis without resorting to indiscriminate sweeps of sensitive information gathering. I urge every Senator to stand up for the Fourth Amendment rights of all Americans and to support my amendment. My amendment would simply do this. It would put a standard into the treaties that says that there has to be suspicion. You have to individualize an investigation. You can't push a button and search through 8 million Americans' bank records overseas. If we allow this to go without personal privacy protections, we are setting ourselves up for a dystopian nightmare, where the government looks at every transaction, every purchase, and everything we do in our lives. It is a big mistake to let this go. There is no reason why this couldn't be corrected. I have spoken to the countries involved, and they have assured me that there is not a problem at all with making these amendment changes to the treaties. Yet they have fallen on deaf ears. It is a sad day for Americans taxpayers and a sad day for privacy that these tax treaties are being rushed through. I strongly object and hope other Senators will consider voting for taxpayer privacy.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, due to my concerns related to violations of the Fourth Amendment, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver of any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 113-4. I cannot support action that provides for the bulk collection of the financial records of U.S. citizens. The benefits of the treaty agreement should not come at the grave expense of endangering regular foreign investment and violating the constitutionally protected right of every American to be free from unreasonable suspicionless searches. Previous tax treaties were more focused on information specific to suspicions of fraud and required serious allegations of tax wrongdoing to be supported by evidence. The new bulk collection provisions, however, demand Americans' records under a vague standard that allows the government to access personal financial information that may be ``relevant'' through information exchanges between the U.S. and foreign governments. This new, lower, and ambiguous threshold would allow government access to bank records for hardly any reason at all. I do not condone tax cheats, but I cannot support an effort that punishes every American in pursuit of those that have actually broken the law. Accordingly, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver or any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 113-4.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, due to my concerns related to violations of the Fourth Amendment, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver of any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 114-1. I cannot support action that provides for the bulk collection of the financial records of U.S. citizens. The benefits of the treaty agreement should not come at the grave expense of endangering regular foreign investment and violating the constitutionally protected right of every American to be free from unreasonable suspicionless searches. Previous tax treaties were more focused on information specific to suspicions of fraud and required serious allegations of tax wrongdoing to be supported by evidence. The new bulk collection provisions, however, demand Americans' records under a vague standard that allows the government to access personal financial information that may be ``relevant'' through information exchanges between the U.S. and foreign governments. This new, lower, and ambiguous threshold would allow government access to bank records for hardly any reason at all. I do not condone tax cheats, but I cannot support an effort that punishes every American in pursuit of those that have actually broken the law. Accordingly, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver or any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 114-1.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, due to my concerns related to violations of the Fourth Amendment, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver of any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 112-1. I cannot support action that provides for the bulk collection of the financial records of U.S. citizens. The benefits of the treaty agreement should not come at the grave expense of endangering regular foreign investment and violating the constitutionally protected right of every American to be free from unreasonable suspicionless searches. Previous tax treaties were more focused on information specific to suspicions of fraud and required serious allegations of tax wrongdoing to be supported by evidence. The new bulk collection provisions, however, demand Americans' records under a vague standard that allows the government to access personal financial information that may be ``relevant'' through information exchanges between the U.S. and foreign governments. This new, lower, and ambiguous threshold would allow government access to bank records for hardly any reason at all. I do not condone tax cheats, but I cannot support an effort that punishes every American in pursuit of those that have actually broken the law. Accordingly, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver or any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 112-1.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, due to my concerns related to violations of the Fourth Amendment, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver of any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 111-8. I cannot support action that provides for the bulk collection of the financial records of U.S. citizens. The benefits of the treaty agreement should not come at the grave expense of endangering regular foreign investment and violating the constitutionally protected right of every American to be free from unreasonable suspicionless searches. Previous tax treaties were more focused on information specific to suspicions of fraud and required serious allegations of tax wrongdoing to be supported by evidence. The new bulk collection provisions, however, demand Americans' records under a vague standard that allows the government to access personal financial information that may be ``relevant'' through information exchanges between the U.S. and foreign governments. This new, lower, and ambiguous threshold would allow government access to bank records for hardly any reason at all. I do not condone tax cheats, but I cannot support an effort that punishes every American in pursuit of those that have actually broken the law. Accordingly, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver or any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 111-8.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, I have offered a modest compromise amendment to this legislation. I stand ready and open to negotiate and discuss this. We have often discussed it in private and in public. I will object until we can get to negotiating terms, and we can hopefully pass this bill once we enter into a dialogue.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 902.

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, today we will consider funding to address the humanitarian crisis on the border. The spending bill will be $4 billion. While there is a humanitarian crisis at the border, we also have in our country a debt crisis. We are adding debt at about $1 trillion every year. The overall debt is $22 trillion, and the interest on the debt that we have to pay every year is exploding such that it is crowding out other spending. While I do agree that there is a humanitarian crisis at the border, we must not ignore the debt crisis that faces our country. We should not borrow the money and pull out the credit card, yet again, every time a crisis occurs. Congress has an obligation to find lower priorities to cut to pay for higher priorities. I thought that is what legislating was about. You are supposed to say that right now we have a crisis at the border. So maybe we are not going to send welfare to foreign countries. Every American family has to make these decisions. Why doesn't Congress? What Congress does is simply add it to the bill your kids and your grandkids will be paying. I am proposing to actually pay for this by taking the money from a part of the budget that is being wasted and put it into the humanitarian crisis on the border. Should we provide care and shelter to immigrants at the border or should we be paying for clown shows and a traveling circus? Should we provide food for the children that remain at the border or should we pay to support the businesses of deported immigrants? Listen carefully. When we catch people coming across the border illegally, we send them back to the country and say: Don't worry. We will send you money to help you start a business. They break our law, and we give them money to start a business back in their home country. If you ask politicians here, the answer is: Fund it all. Just put it on the credit card. We will just keep borrowing. Your kids and grandkids will pay for it. I mentioned some of these examples that I would cut, but let's hear about some more. Where is your money going? Where is the money coming from so that we could actually pay for this crisis at the border? My amendment rescinds the remainder of this year's funds for the Inter- American Foundation. You may not have heard of this, but last time this bill was authorized was in 1985. For over 24 years, we haven't done anything. We haven't even looked at the program. We just keep feeding it money. What do they fund in the Inter-American Foundation? Let's see. They spend money to support small businesses of deported immigrants. One time we asked them: Do you at least exclude criminal deportees? They had a blank look on their face, and they didn't have an answer. They aren't excluding people we deport because they have committed a crime in our country from receiving American welfare. This group spent $1.2 million helping people in Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador to improve their ``spending strategies.'' Does that sound like a good use of money? If we need money at the border, let's quit sending it south of the border to improve the spending habits of those in Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador. These funds also subsidized guinea pig farmers in Peru, a llama fair in Bolivia, and advertisements to buy carbon credits in Mexico. If we have a crisis at the border--both sides of the aisle have now finally woken up to there being a crisis--let's spend it on the crisis and not be supporting a llama fair in Bolivia or a guinea pig farm in Peru. This same group that I would like to take the money from to spend it on the border spent half a million dollars to ``jump start'' the Haitian film industry. Does that sound like a national priority to anybody? If we want to treat people in a more humanitarian fashion on the border and we need to spend some money down there, maybe we could not be supporting the Haitian film community. This group spent $300,000 to help Brazilians get off Brazilian welfare. That might be better spent talking to Americans about American welfare. Yet we had no business in sending that money to Brazil. Is any of this a higher priority than what we are doing at the border? I would say not. Is it more important to pay for the cost of the situation on the border or should we also be sending foreign welfare abroad? The United States spent $223 million to fund a highway in Afghanistan. We found out afterward that the security that our government hired to protect the people while they were building the road at $1 million a year were actually funneling the money to a terrorist group, called the Haqqani network, our sworn enemy. The Haqqani network is known for killing our soldiers, but we were paying those in the Haqqani network for being security guards while we wasted millions of dollars in building a highway in Afghanistan. I would say let's spend that money at home. The road we have now built for the Afghanis is in such disrepair after only a few years that they can't afford to maintain it, so we are asking you to cough up a little more money. They need $22 million to keep the highway in good repair. We spent $273 million on a development grant program that didn't actually do anything. It taught foreign people how to fill out grants to get more money from us. It is not enough that they are fleecing you and sending your money to all of these boondoggle projects around the world; we have a program to teach foreigners how to get more welfare from us. This amendment takes $4 billion that they want to spend on the border and says: That is fine. Let's do it. Yet let's take it from foreign aid. Let's take it from foreign welfare. Let's take it from llama fairs and guinea pig shows in Peru. It is utterly ridiculous. This program has not been looked at since 1985. If we eliminate the program, we can pay for the money they want to spend at the border. That is what it would mean to be responsible legislators--to make priorities, decide where to spend the money, and not just simply run up the tab and say: Your kids and grandkids can pay for it. I recommend a ``yea'' vote on offsetting the spending for this supplemental spending bill, and I hope Americans will watch to see who votes to offset this by cutting wasteful foreign welfare.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we are going to spend over $4 billion today, and I just propose that we pay for it. There is a humanitarian crisis at the border, but there is also a debt crisis. We spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, on wasteful projects. Let's take it from foreign aid welfare and spend it on our southern border. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars subsidizing guinea pig farmers in Peru, a llama fair in Bolivia, and advertisements to buy carbon credits in Mexico. There was $273 million spent trying to teach foreigners how to fill out grant applications to get more welfare from the United States, $300,000 to help Brazilians get off of Brazilian welfare, and half a million dollars spent jump-starting the Haitian film industry. There are billions of dollars that we can spend on the southern border, but we should take it from somewhere and not add it to the debt of our kids and our grandkids.