Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to invoke the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act requires that upon request from a Member of the Senate or a Member of Congress, that there will be a vote on whether or not troops should be put into harm's way or into a conflict without the approval of this body.

Our Founding Fathers felt very clearly on this that we should not go to war without a vote of the legislature. They wanted to make sure that the Executive or the President was prohibited from going to war without the authority of the legislature.

We have drifted away from that. There really hasn't been a valid declaration of war since World War II. We have, at times, taken votes to authorize a use of military force. They call them an AUMF. We did when we went into the Iraq war. So we did the voting properly. It was still a disastrous mistake to go there.

But we never have voted on being in Syria. We never have voted on having troops in the middle of the Syrian civil war in which hundreds of thousands of people have died, millions of people have been displaced. We owe it to the soldiers who are in Syria--the U.S. soldiers, the young men and women in Syria--to have a debate and have a vote.

Now, the Senate doesn't want to do this. They are only doing this under duress because I am forcing them to vote on this issue. I have the power because it is called a privilege vote. They can't deny me this vote or this debate.

This will put the Senate on record: Are you for having troops in Syria? If so, why? What are they doing in Syria? I fear that they are merely a tripwire to a greater war or to a tragedy should a terrorist attack occur. They have become the target for the Iranian proxies. Will we ever learn?

As the fire of war spreads across the Middle East, the Biden administration sends aircraft carrier strike groups into the region without the debate of Congress about whether the United States should be further enmeshed in these region's conflicts. And will there be a debate at all?

For the past two decades, the wisdom of Washington foreign policy, the establishment, has embroiled our country in one war after another, impervious to the catastrophic consequences resulting from this adventurism. Some 7,000 U.S. servicemembers lost their lives in post-9/ 11 conflicts, tens of thousands more live with missing limbs, burn scars, or are confined to wheelchairs, to say nothing of the mental wounds of war. More than 30,000 veterans committed suicide since Washington's misguided project to remake the Middle East.

While our soldiers carried out their missions with honor, the Washington establishment has consistently failed them. Both Democrat and Republican Commanders in Chief repeatedly have ordered our troops into ill-advised conflicts with no vital national interest and no possibility of victory.

Syria is but one example. In 2014, the Obama administration entangled the United States in yet another endless war in the Middle East without congressional authorization, without a definition of victory, and without an exit strategy.

Operation Inherent Resolve was ostensibly intended to destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, an abhorrent terrorist organization that was only able to thrive because of the chaos created by the Iraq war, by Bush's foolish invasion of Iraq.

The U.S.-led coalition carried out a significant air campaign again ISIS targets, conducting more than 11,000 airstrikes in Syria alone. But of course our intervention didn't stop there. President Obama unilaterally deployed boots on the ground, sending 300 Special Forces into Syria. My comments at the time were: Who goes to war with 300 people? Who sends 300 soldiers to a battle of thousands and thousands of troops? It was a terrible military strategy and still is.

By the end of 2017, the Pentagon revealed that we had, in fact, 2,000 American troops stationed on the ground in Syria. There were tens of thousands of Turkish troops; there are Syrian Kurds; there are Assad's troops; there are Russian troops; and we have got a couple thousand troops, sitting ducks, in the middle of this chaos.

Congress enacted the War Powers Act in 1973 to prevent this exact type of situation. At the time, the Nation was emerging from the national tragedy of the Vietnam war. That war was never declared as such. Yet it cost the lives of 58,000 Americans. Vietnam started with a few hundred U.S. military advisers but subsequently escalated to a point where there were over 540,000 troops, U.S. troops, in Vietnam.

The calamity of Vietnam prompted Congress to resolve that the President should never again be permitted to enter the United States into a prolonged war without congressional authority. The President doesn't have this constitutional authority. The President does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally declare war anywhere at any time for any reason. It is the prerogative of Congress; the Constitution is clear.

Congress must heed the lessons of the past and seize abdicating their constitutional warmaking power to the executive branch. If we are going to deploy our young men and women in uniform to some farflung corner of the planet and ask them to fight and potentially give their life for some supposed cause, shouldn't we, as their elected representatives, at least have the courage to debate the merits of sending them there? Shouldn't we debate if the mission is achievable? Shouldn't we debate what the mission actually is, what the purpose for having the troops actually is, and if it is possible for them to accomplish that mission?

The Syrian civil war is one of the greatest tragedies of our time. For the past 12 years, the Syrian people have endured unimaginable suffering. That country has been torn apart, beset by conflict from within and without.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates the war has cost the lives of 600,000 people. The United Nations claims that more than 6.8 million people are internally displaced and another 5.2 million people live as refugees abroad.

It is a disaster.

Today, some 90 percent of the Syrian population lives in poverty. The war, which began as a civil uprising of the Syrian people against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, quickly transformed into a global catastrophe as other countries, militias, and terrorist groups turned Syria into their own proxy battlefield.

Like Vietnam, Syria should serve as a powerful warning of the dangers of Presidential overreach and the dangers of mission creep.

The American people are told that the United States is in Syria to fight ISIS, but we are not fighting ISIS. ISIS is gone. We also have been directly attacked by the Syrian government and pro-Assad forces. It is a much more complicated situation. We have targeted Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard and Iranian-backed proxies. We have targeted every stripe of jihadist and militia group we could find in the region, which is lots.

In 2018, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo admitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the United States has even killed a couple hundred Russians who were in Syria as part of the Wagner Group. We also had our troops take fire from our own NATO ally Turkey. Just this past September, we returned the favor by shooting down an armed Turkish drone that came within 500 yards of U.S. forces. It is, obviously, a conflict; it is, obviously, a war; and it is, obviously, a dangerous place to have a few hundred troops with no clear-cut mission.

None of these conflicts were debated or authorized by Congress. Nine American servicemembers have been killed in Syria, and not once has this body debated the merits of our troops being deployed in harm's way there. The only reason the debate occurs today is because I am forcing them to have the debate. They would rather wash their hands of this and say: President--Republican, Democrat, whoever you are--you take care of it. We are washing our hands of this. We have no responsibility.

But, today, the Senate will take responsibility. Those who vote against my motion will be voting to have troops in Syria, and it will be their responsibility if calamity occurs.

There is a bipartisan agreement that the executive branch does not have authorization for military action, or at least there has been in the past. In 2017, the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said in an interview--he's a Democrat--said:

The President does not have authorization from Congress to

use force against the Syrian regime. He should come to

Congress and get the authorization for use of military force.

He has to come to Congress and the American people and tell

them what the game plan is. How do we get a resolution?

This was Democrats in 2017. Fast forward to Democrats today, and they say: No big deal. We have got a Democrat President. We don't want to appear to be critical of him. So even though we used to say there needs to be congressional authority when there was a Republican President, we no longer say that. Now we are just peachy keen with whatever happens.

If it was true in 2017, it is still true in 2023. Congress should either authorize a war or we should come home.

The Biden administration continues to say that we are there to defeat ISIS. Well, the ISIS caliphate was completely eradicated in 2019. Four years later, we still have 900 troops in Syria.

The administration claims it seeks an ``enduring'' defeat of ISIS. Not surprisingly, they don't define what ``enduring'' means. Obviously, it doesn't mean complete destruction of the ISIS caliphate, because the ISIS caliphate no longer exists. They hold no land. Our intelligence folks have said they don't even have the capacity to attack, much less have the desire to attack us now.

The administration's quarterly combined State and Defense Department inspector general reports that ``the majority of ISIS's branches likely lack the intent or capability to have direct attacks on the U.S. homeland.''

The only way they can get at us is if we are there. So, ISIS hasn't controlled territory for 4 years. They lack the capability and intent to attack the U.S., and those remaining members of ISIS--there are, indeed, still radical extremists--they are surrounded by numerous state and non-state actors who also seek to eradicate them. Between the Turks, the Syrian Kurds, the Syrian government, none of them are happy to have ISIS there if it should try to arise again.

It seems to me, though, that our 900 troops have no viable mission in Syria; that they are sitting ducks; they are a trip wire to a larger war; and without a clear-cut mission, I don't think they could adequately defend themselves. Yet they remain in Syria, and they remain vulnerable to attack by other groups.

Our troops in Syria regularly come under attack--not from ISIS, but from Iranian-backed militias. Since Joe Biden took office, Iranian- backed proxies have attacked U.S. forces in Syria

and Iraq more than 160 times. They attack us because we are in close proximity to them; and they couldn't attack us, frankly, if we weren't there.

These attacks have accelerated following Hamas' monstrous October 7 attack on Israel. Since October 17, U.S. troops have been attacked at least 76 times--40 times in Syria and 36 times in Iraq.

According to the Pentagon, a total of 60 U.S. military were injured in these attacks. Of those, at least 32 were at the al-Tanf garrison in southeastern Syria, where our soldiers suffered various injuries including traumatic brain injuries.

The U.S. responded with a series of strikes on facilities used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and its proxies in Syria and Iraq.

During his time in office, President Biden has carried out strikes on Iranian proxies on at least eight separate occasions. Each time, the White House claimed that the strikes were necessary to deter further attacks.

How many times do our troops need to be attacked for the administration to realize that we are not deterring anyone?

Does anybody believe the ninth air strike will make a difference or do the trick?

We are actually a target. We are a trip wire. We are a place they can actually reach by being there with no clear-cut mission.

In 2019, Joe Biden, as Presidential candidate, promised to end the forever wars in the Middle East, saying:

Staying entrenched in unwinnable conflicts only drains our

capacity to lead on other issues that require our attention.

I wish he still had the same belief.

But 900 troops sitting in the middle of the Syrian desert does not advance U.S. interests or provide deterrence. In fact, their presence does the exact opposite. Their presence invites the Iranian proxies to be able to reach them with attacks. This is the only way these groups can strike at the United States. It is the only way they can get attention. If they kill each other, no one seems to pay attention; if they kill Americans, they pay attention. So why would we plop Americans down in the desert within a few dozen miles of these folks and allow them to be attacked? We actively are providing Iran leverage to direct proxies to attack U.S. forces. This is the sort of strategic genius-- so-called genius that the Washington establishment parades around as prudent foreign policy.

Our troops' presence also risks getting us dragged into a wider regional war. Imagine if these recent attacks resulted in the deaths of 60 of our servicemembers--not injuries but deaths. How would the Biden administration react to that? History is replete with major wars breaking out for less.

President Biden would do well to channel the wisdom of President Ronald Reagan.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan withdrew U.S. troops from Lebanon following the Beirut Marine Corps barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. military personnel. Remarking on the decision in his autobiography, Reagan wrote:

In the weeks [immediately] after the bombing, I believed

the last thing that we should do was to turn tail and leave.

Yet the irrationality of the Middle East politics forced us

to rethink our policy there. If there would be some

rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot

better off. If that policy had changed towards more of

neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would

still be alive today.

President Reagan made the right decision in 1984, and we now have the chance to make the right decision in 2023, without any more American servicemembers being injured or killed.

The American people have had enough of endless wars in the Middle East. The American people have had enough of the uniparty--the ``demopublican'' party directing their sons and daughters to fight and risk their lives in these internecine conflicts when the United States is not directly threatened and no vital U.S. interest is at stake.

My War Powers Resolution that I put forward today offers the American people an opportunity to see how clearly their elected Senators view our unconstitutional, unnecessary, and dangerous presence in Syria.

This vote makes it impossible for Senators to avoid voting or stating their opinion on having troops in Syria. Today's vote essentially puts every Senator on record as being either for or against having U.S. troops in Syria.

I urge all my colleagues to muster the courage to reclaim their constitutional responsibilities by voting to remove U.S. troops in Syria. Let's finally bring our troops home.

With that, I move to discharge S.J. Res. 51 from the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on S.J. Res. 51.

Reserving the right to object, there is a certain amount of irony in seeing Republicans come to the floor proposing mandates on business to Republicans picking winners and losers. Mandating that all cars have AM radio is antithetical to any notion of limited government and has nothing to do with the debate over free speech.

The debate over free speech is whether or not government can place limitations on speech. It has nothing to do with whether or not you have a right to have your opinion in the New York Times or whether you get to listen to radio. It really has nothing to do with the debate over free speech.

The debate over free speech, as listed in the First Amendment, is that government shall pass no law. It has nothing do with forcing your manufacturers to have AM radio. This legislation attempts to insert Congress's judgment into a question best decided by American consumers. This isn't about consumers turning on or off the radio; this is about consumers deciding which car they want to buy, what they want to pay for it, and what they want as the extras in the car.

American families are already struggling, and this bill is yet another private sector mandate that would cost car buyers even more money. This bill mandates that AM radio be included in vehicles manufactured in the United States, imported into the United States, or simply shipped in interstate commerce.

What happens when government places mandates on the private marketplace? Consumers pay more. To provide AM radio in electric cars, manufacturers must include equipment to counteract the electromagnetic interference between the battery and the AM radio waves. The equipment necessary to fix this problem, at a minimum, costs several hundred dollars per vehicle.

According to the Consumer Technology Association, even a small automotive production line would incur costs above $15 million to comply with this mandate. The sponsors of this legislation know this bill will increase costs for car buyers. That is why they included a provision that also prohibits carmakers from charging a fee or an additional payment for access to AM broadcast stations.

So it is not just a mandate that you have to have AM; it is a mandate that you can't charge for AM radio. It is more than one mandate on car manufacturers, and it will add to the cost of the car.

Well, that sure is an interesting thought. They think they are going to prevent this by saying that the car manufacturer can't charge for AM radio, but people will still pay more for their cars. If the mandate is imposed, one way or another, people will pay for this cost. It just doesn't disappear.

When angry consumers then complain about the ever-increasing cost of cars, the proponents of this bill will inevitably shrug their shoulders and say: Don't blame us. We passed a bill to force car companies to incur an additional cost, and then we told them they weren't allowed to charge you, but they did anyway.

When the government imposes costs on manufacturers, the government inevitably imposes costs on the consumers. No bill can shield consumers from the higher costs imposed by government. And Congress already imposes significant costs on all taxpayers by forcing the many to subsidize the few who own electric cars.

Electric car vehicles make up a small but growing percentage of vehicles on the road. They comprise about 2 percent of all vehicles, and nearly 6 percent of the vehicles sold last year were electric. Most of these electric cars are subsidized by the taxpayer.

If you want to get to the root of this problem, if you don't want government subsidizing something that bans your favorite form of entertainment, quit subsidizing them. So I have a great deal of sympathy for AM radio. I love AM radio, but I don't want to give up on our philosophy and just say: Well, because it is something we like, we are going to mandate it.

If you want to get to the root of the problem, quit subsidizing the car manufacturers, quit subsidizing electric cars if they are going to disfavor our speech. That is a way of empowering speech and promoting speech that doesn't involve giving up on our principles that mandates on business are not a good idea.

The electrical vehicle tax credit forces all of us to subsidize the small number of electrical car owners. This subsidy, by incentivizing the purchase of electrical cars, does threaten AM radio.

If you want to really get rid of this, quit subsidizing electric cars. So instead of attacking the crux of the problem here though, this legislation adds a government mandate to force car manufacturers to install AM radios and increase the price of cars.

Do we seriously not see the folly of this exercise, particularly from a conservative point of view? Let me be perfectly clear. Government intervention in the economy cannot be the solution to problems caused by government intervention in the economy. We have this problem because government subsidizes these electric cars. We are going to fix it by then mandating some other government rule. One mandate does not cancel out another and will not make the situation better.

At some point, we have to remember that we are Members of Congress, not the central planners of the automobile industry.

With that in mind, I offer a solution to get the government's foot off the neck of taxpayers. Let's let the free market decide where consumers can operate. Let's let people without subsidies, without coercions, without the government getting involved, let's let them pick. Do you want a car with AM radio or do you want an electric car without an AM radio, but let's don't subsidize one or the other.

Rather than mandate the installation of AM radio, let's stop subsidizing the purchase of electrical cars and the removal of AM radio. Let's let the consumers tell the manufacturers, through hundreds of transactions a day, what their preferences are.

So I ask unanimous consent to strike the mandate imposed by this legislation and empower car buyers by modifying the request forward to replace the text with my language that would repeal the electric vehicle car tax.

So I would ask that the Senator modify his request and that the Paul substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I object.

Mr. President, to continue spending money at the current levels will inevitably lead to the bankruptcy of our great Nation. My amendment, in order to stave off such a terrible fiscal outcome, would cut approximately 1 percent of our budgetary spending and help to put us on the path toward fiscal responsibility.

In June of this year, the national debt surpassed $32 trillion. Then, in September, the national debt surpassed $33 trillion. You heard that right. It took Congress 90 short days to add $1 trillion in debt. Unless we change course, the debt will consume us.

America's future as a nation is not threatened from without but from within. Our mounting debt will ultimately force a day of reckoning. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that we will add an average of $2 trillion in debt every year for the next decade. Using Congressional Budget Office projections, the U.S. Government will add over $5 billion to its debt pile every single day for the next 10 years.

We borrow over $176 million every hour. We borrow $3 million every minute, and we borrow $50,000 every second. It is only a matter of time before the world wakes up and refuses to buy our debt.

This reckless level of borrowing and spending is patently unsustainable. The ever-increasing heights of our debt mean a weak economy, high inflation, and confiscatory tax rates. In other words, today's spending threatens tomorrow's prosperity.

According to William McBride of the Tax Foundation, ``outside of the pandemic years, this year's federal deficit is the highest in U.S. history.''

McBride continues:

Figures from the Congressional Budget Office for fiscal

year 2023 indicate that the federal deficit grew by about $2

trillion.

McBride also states that ``while tax revenue has increased 28 percent since the prepandemic year of 2019, spending has increased about 46 percent and the deficit has more than doubled. Annual deficits are headed toward [even] $3 trillion'' a year if we don't wake up and do something about it.

McBride concludes:

In sum, the federal budget continues on a perilous course.

. . . Now would be a good time for our political leaders to

present a coherent plan for dealing with the debt problem

before it becomes an urgent crisis.

That is why I am here on the floor today. Americans are starved for a voice of fiscal sanity. Americans understand far better than the Nation's elites that time is running out. Americans will pay dearly for Congress's inability to say no to every cause, every line item, every pinstripe lobbyist. We will pay more to Uncle Sam in the form of taxes. We will pay more for groceries because of high levels of inflation that will destroy our purchasing power. And we will find a generation of kids who won't leave their parents' homes because businesses cannot afford to hire them.

It doesn't have to be this way. America can once again be a rising nation, and we can take that first step toward a brighter future today. My amendment will make across-the-board reductions except for defense and veterans' benefits. Additionally, the amendment would cut $30 billion from the Biden administration's attempt to sic the IRS on American taxpayers to squeeze even more money out of those who earned their hard-earned dollars.

All told, my amendment would save taxpayers $60 billion, which is only about 1 percent of all budgetary spending. It is a small and modest reduction in spending, but it is a step in the right direction.

This is not the first time I have offered an amendment to save the taxpayers money. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have, time and time again, offered balanced budgets and plans that would shave pennies--mere pennies--from every budgetary program to restore our fiscal health, and, every time, these proposals are rejected by the Senate. The result of failing to act then is that, today, we now vote in the shadow of a mountain of debt.

It is time that we rise up. Rise up and tell your Members of Congress that enough is enough. It is time to take a stand while the restoration of American prosperity is still within our grasp. By the time this continuing resolution expires, the people who ask for your vote next year will have added another $1 trillion to the debt. It is time to take a stand.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment and call up amendment No. 1366 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, I yield back my time, and I call for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, we are here once again faced with the proposal to ban TikTok and to forbid millions of Americans from expressing their opinion.

This is not a subject that we should entertain lightly. If there is a better national strategy to permanently lose elections for a generation, I have not heard of it. Banning TikTok, a social media app used by 150 million Americans, primarily young Americans, is a recipe for electoral disaster for Republicans.

This GOP strategy comes just after an election year in which a national survey indicated that 71 percent of young women and 53 percent of young men voted for the Democrat candidate for Congress. Now, admittedly, many Democrats have also joined Republicans in calling for this ban, but like most issues, the blame tends to stick to Republicans more.

The banning TikTok strategy also comes while the GOP simultaneously complains of liberal U.S. social media companies canceling and censoring conservatives. So without a hint of irony, many of these same ``conservatives'' now agitate to censor viewpoints they don't like.

So on the one hand, Republicans complain about censorship, while with the other hand, these same Republicans advocate to censor social media apps that they worry are influenced by the Chinese. The concern over TikTok seems to be over what the social media app might do. Propagating hysteria and fear of subtle communist subversion from the People's Republic of China through a social media app in the 21st century, is similar or akin to basically McCarthyist paranoia.

Today, in a move that Chairman Mao himself would approve, the Senate considers banning a platform because it seems one Member doesn't approve of how it handled content about the war between Israel and Hamas.

Just this week, the Senator from Missouri wrote to Secretary Yellen:

While data security issues are paramount, less often

discussed is TikTok's power to radically distort the world-

picture that America's young people encounter.

The Senator from Missouri wants to censor TikTok users who are biased against Israel. The Senator from Missouri wants to ban the speech of young TikTok users he disagrees with. Sounds more like a Chinese solution than an American one.

The Chinese solution to combating speech those in power do not like is to ban it. In fact, TikTok is banned in China. So is YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook.

There is an app similar to TikTok called Douyin that operates in China, but it is heavily censored. Try to search for ``Tiananmen 1989'' on Douyin, and nothing will come up.

The American solution, with the high value that our country places on the free exchange of ideas, is to counter flawed ideas--flawed ideas-- or falsities with more speech and better arguments that persuade and reveal the truth.

Do we really want to emulate China's speech bans? Do we really want to intrude into the lives of Americans and deprive them of their First Amendment right to receive and consider information?

The ham-fisted ban under consideration today empowers the government to determine what Americans are allowed to see, hear, and contemplate. The headline of an opinion piece recently by John Tamny says it all: ``Nauseating Harassment of TikTok Presumes Americans Will Be Saved From Chinese Authoritarianism If U.S. Politicians Act Like Chinese Authoritarians.''

A ban on TikTok is what they do in China. You are worried about Chinese communism and Chinese authoritarianism, and you want to ban speech in our country? It is inconsistent with our very American primary principles. TikTok must be banned, the censors say, because they are owned and controlled by the Chinese Communist Government. In actuality, TikTok is owned by international investors and two Chinese software engineers who designed the app.

Does TikTok do the Chinese Government's bidding? Well, go to the app and search for Falun Gong, the anti-communist religious sect that is persecuted in China. Go to TikTok and search for videos advocating Taiwan's independence, criticism of Chinese Premier Xi Jinping. These videos are all over TikTok that are critical of Chinese positions. That is why TikTok is banned in China.

TikTok is banned in China, but you want to ban it in the United States. We are going to become like the Chinese to prevent the Chinese from taking over our country?

As Drs. Mueller and Farhat of Georgia Tech write, ``If nationalist fears about Chinese influence operations lead to a departure from American constitutional principles supporting free and open political discourse, we will have succeeded in undermining our [very] system of government more effectively than any Chinese propaganda could ever do.''

We will be doing what the Chinese want. If you are worried about becoming Chinese communists, you will now be emulating them by banning speech. To those who were worried that the Chinese Government might somehow have access to millions of American teenagers' info, realize that all social media, regardless of whether their ownership is foreign or domestic, sucks up all your personal data, and this is what people provide voluntarily.

And, people, if you don't want your information--don't join these groups. If you are going to ban TikTok, what is next? Arguably, several domestic apps censor conservatives more. I know because I have been censored and banned by American companies. I have got no love lost with any of these companies. I have a host of complaints about domestic social media platforms that cancel conservatives, but I am not in favor of banning them or forcing them to accept my opinion. They are private companies. They have speech rights. I have speech rights, but I don't have the right to force them or to ban them if they don't post my stuff.

If you don't like TikTok or Facebook or YouTube, don't use them. But don't think any interpretation of the Constitution gives you the right to ban them. The First Amendment isn't necessary to protect speech that everybody likes or everybody accepts. The First Amendment exists to protect speech that might be unpopular or might be controversial.

I hope saner minds will reflect on which is more dangerous, videos of teenagers dancing or the President of the U.S. Government banning speech. For me, it is an easy answer. I will defend the Bill of Rights against all comers, even, if need be, from Members of my own party.

I object.

Madam President, the bill before us to ban TikTok is clearly infringement of the First Amendment. It would ban 150 million people who regularly post on TikTok from expressing themselves.

It is without question speech. These folks, the 150 million users of TikTok, would have standing in court to sue over infringement of their speech.

This isn't about who was advocating for this or that in the Middle East or in Israel or in the Hamas situation. The Supreme Court has looked at speech over time, and there is some speech that is not protected.

But in Europe, they have gone one step further, in the sense that they ban all kinds of speech in Europe. You have certain opinions that can't be expressed. We have never done that in our country. You can have a foul, despicable opinion in our country, and we counter it with better ideas. We counter it with better speech. It is very, very dangerous to the primary principles of our founding, of our government, of our Bill of Rights, of the Bill of Right that is listed first, and that is freedom of speech. And my hope is that this will not be seen as a serious proposal and will be rejected.

Mr. President, I rise to honor and pay tribute to one of the most patriotic and dedicated Kentuckians I have had the pleasure of knowing, Mrs. Bobette Franklin.

A Bowling Green, KY, native, Bobette is a graduate of Western Kentucky University. She married Steve Franklin, and they made their home in Bowling Green. They have been married for 24 years and have a son, Noah, who is their pride and joy.

Upon being elected to office in 2010, I set out to hire a director of constituent services for my State office in Bowling Green. I asked for recommendations for the very best and received one clear answer from many: Bobette Franklin. Bobette began her congressional career in constituent services with Congressman Ron Lewis and, upon his retirement, continued her career with Congressman Brett Guthrie. I was thrilled when Bobette accepted my offer to lead my constituent services operation. My constituent services team is second to none and would not be known for their stellar reputation throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky without Bobette's leadership. Anyone who knows Bobette knows she takes tremendous pride in her work and strives to excel in all aspects of her life. Her commitment to excellence and attention to detail is evident in every interaction she has with Kentuckians who need assistance, no matter the size or scope of the request. During Bobette's tenure in my office, she has overseen more than 20,000 constituent service cases, which has directly impacted thousands of Kentuckians and people across the Nation.

While Bobette has served Kentuckians in numerous ways, her outstanding reputation is most evident through her outreach and advocacy for veterans. Bobette has received numerous awards from the veteran community. In 2016, the Southern Kentucky Veterans Council presented her with its Distinguished Service Award for over 20 years of devoted service assisting veterans. And earlier this year, the Department of Defense Joint Executive Council of Veterans presented her with an award in recognition of her work for veterans and their families across Kentucky.

After 29 years of Federal service and nearly 13 years in my office alone, Bobette has decided to retire and close this chapter in her lifelong commitment to serving her community and her country. I will always be thankful to have had Bobette as a part of my team from the very beginning. Thank you, Bobette, for your service to Kentucky and to this country.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up to 4 minutes of debate equally divided on Senate amendments Nos. 1217 and 1347.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1217 and ask that it be reported by number.

The Federal Reserve effectively controls the economy but without scrutiny. No other institution has so much unchecked power.

The Fed demonstrated its unlimited authority during the pandemic. The Fed printed money, purchased government-backed securities, and doled out massive amounts of money to favorite industries. The result added almost $5 trillion to the Fed's balance sheet, the largest in our history.

When Dodd-Frank ordered a limited, one-time audit of Fed actions, the Government Accountability Office uncovered that during the financial crisis, the Fed doled out over $16 trillion to domestic and foreign banks. This kind of inflationary bailout should not be kept secret from the public.

While the Fed's easy money policies make the rich richer, the side effect is high inflation. As Milton Friedman famously explained, ``Inflation is taxation without legislation.''

Congress cannot control the Fed's actions, but Fed actions can cost Americans dearly. Just ask any parent who has to feed his or her family during historically high inflation rates.

My amendment would require a full audit of the Fed within 1 year. It is time for the Federal Reserve to operate in a manner that is transparent and accountable to the taxpayers. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1347 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, the national debt just recently surpassed $33 trillion. That is $280,000 per household. Unless we change course, the debt only increases.

CBO predicts trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. We borrow over $176,000,000 every hour, $3,000,000 is borrowed every minute, and $50,000 every second. It is out of control.

Net interest payments are anticipated to double, from $475 billion to a trillion dollars by fiscal year 2028. Interest will be the largest item of expenditure for the Federal Government.

Americans could pay dearly for Congress's inability to say no to the welfare and warfare state. It could mean confiscatory tax rates, high inflation, and a weak economy. But it doesn't have to be this way.

My amendment begins the path toward fiscal health by saving the taxpayers $30 billion. My amendment also cuts $25 billion that the Biden administration wants to use to sic the IRS on taxpayers to squeeze them for even more money. That is a reduction of $55 billion for what the government is on track to spend.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I call up my amendment, No. 1121, and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, our Declaration of Independence asserts that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. While voters may elect Members of Congress, Americans are increasingly governed by bureaucrats they do not know, will never meet, and cannot hold accountable.

In 2022, the Biden administration imposed $117.1 billion in regulatory costs on the American people. Unelected, unknown, and unaccountable bureaucrats should not unilaterally develop the most significant public policies that impose costly burdens on American families and businesses.

To restore republican accountability to our government, Senator Lee and I propose that we adopt as an amendment a bill that I have introduced for several years called the REINS Act. The REINS Act would require Congress to affirmatively approve every new major rule proposed by the executive branch before it is permitted to become effective.

By passing the REINS Act, the American people, through their elected officials, will reclaim the ability to prevent unnecessary government interference in everyday life.

I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted privileges of the floor until December 15, 2023: Seamus Creighton-Kirk and Adam Weiss.

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

Mr. President, so much senseless violence, so much death and destruction, shouldn't we at least avoid wars of choice? Shouldn't we at least not go looking for trouble in every corner of the planet?

With the Middle East on fire, what sense does it make to have over 1,000 troops in Niger? Does it make sense to station over 1,000 troops in a country ruled by a military junta? Does it make sense to scour the back roads of Africa droning potential villains?

Today, the Senate will debate and vote on whether U.S. troops should remain engaged in hostilities in Niger. It should not go unnoticed that Congress never voted to send troops to Niger in the first place.

Presidents of both parties have used the September 11, 2001, authorization to use military force to justify wars in dozens of countries from Afghanistan to Libya, to Syria, to Somalia, to Yemen. Niger is but 1 of over 20 countries that the U.S. conducts military operations in, supposedly justified by the 9/11 authorization to use military force.

The impetus for this War Powers Resolution in 2001 has nothing to do with the situation of Africa today. This War Powers Resolution today, though, is related to the July 26 coup in which members of Niger's Presidential Guard, including some officers who were trained in the United States, removed the democratically elected President, Mohammed Bazoum, from power.

Now, the surrounding states around Niger are unhappy with this. The Economic Community of West African States is an organization of 15 countries. They have declared their intention to intervene militarily in Niger if President Bazoum is not restored to power.

We are in the middle of a potential war, with 1,100 troops in Niger, where a democratically elected President has been deposed, and they are being ruled by a military junta and still our troops are there.

In September, two other countries--Mali and Burkina Faso--that have experienced their own armed coups in recent years, signed a mutual defense pact to defend the military junta in Niger.

Niger's new leaders have put its military on maximum alert, citing an increased risk of attack. For its part, the Economic Community of West African States--15 countries--has imposed sanctions, instituted a no- fly zone, and closed border crossings. Recent reports indicate that Nigerian troops have been deployed along the border of the country Benin.

The Sahel is a powder keg, and we have over 1,000 military troops and personnel sitting in the middle of it. The Middle East is on fire, and yet we have 1,100 troops sitting in the middle of a potential war that we could be drug into. American forces face a very real

risk of being caught in the crossfire of a regional African war. That is all we need, is another war.

What are we doing in Niger? As I mentioned earlier, Congress never voted to send troops there. Congress never authorized the use of military force. Yet, on multiple occasions, U.S. forces in Niger have engaged in firefights with hostile groups. Sadly, American lives have already been lost.

My colleagues may recall that on October 4, 2017, four U.S. soldiers--SFC Jeremiah Johnson, SSG Bryan Black, SSG Dustin Wright, and SGT La David Johnson--were ambushed and killed while on a mission near the village of Tongo Tongo, Niger. This tragic incident was the largest loss of life for U.S. forces in Africa since the 1993 Black Hawk down incident.

At the time, the New York Times reported in a piece called ``An Endless War'' that two senior U.S. Senators, a Republican and a Democrat--both of whom still serve in this body--were surprised to learn that the United States even had troops in Niger. This is how distant we have become from controlling our intervention in war--that people in the body, in the upper body of the Congress, don't even know we have troops in certain countries. We lose soldiers in countries, and nobody even knew we were there. There has been no vote of Congress. There has been no support of the people. This is being done by an administration--the previous administration, the one previous to that, and the current administration.

These Senators were surprised because Congress has abdicated its constitutional war powers to the executive branch. These Senators were surprised because this institute is content to allow the President to sidestep the Constitution and unilaterally deploy U.S. forces anywhere in the world, anytime, for any reason, by citing a virtually limitless interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF.

The country of Niger--the junta, the coup, the discord in Niger--has nothing to do with the attack on 9/11/2001. This attack prompted Congress to authorize war against those who attacked us on 9/11. It was passed in the days following the tragic events. The AUMF was narrowly tailored to bring justice to those responsible for attacking us on 9/ 11, but an ever-aggrandizing executive deliberately misinterprets--both Republican executives and Democrat executives deliberately misinterpret this AUMF as a limitless document to empower the President to go to war everywhere, all the time, forever.

Administrations of both parties cite this 2001 authorization for use of military force to continue U.S. military operations against various groups in 20 different countries. The majority of these countries--I would say all of these countries--had absolutely nothing to do with 9/ 11. Many of the groups we are targeting have no connection to 9/11. Many of them didn't exist in 2001, and many of their members weren't even born in 2001. Using an AUMF from 22 years ago--an authorization to get the people who attacked us on 9/11--to justify a war in Niger is a ridiculous notion and should be rejected out of hand.

Deferring the decision as to when, where, and why our country goes to war is a dereliction of duty. Think about it. Our young men and women whom we send into harm's way who may give up their lives anywhere around the world--don't they deserve a debate? Don't they deserve a vote? Don't the 1,100 troops in Niger deserve that we debate on the floor of the Senate whether they should be there or not? God forbid they are your sons or your daughters, and they lose their lives in a remote corner of Africa, and there has never been one debate on the floor over whether or not we should even be there.

The Middle East is on fire, and we have 1,100 troops in Africa. These military interventions have been carried out across Africa, across the Middle East, and they have cost thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and have made us less safe and less prosperous. In many cases, our interventions have been counterproductive, destabilizing, and have helped to create the conditions for Islamic extremism to prosper.

Does anybody remember our intervention in Libya? I know many policymakers in this city think that is ancient history, but that Obama-led offensive helped to destroy the country of Libya. The U.S.- led coalition toppled the government of Muammar Qadhafi, killed hundreds of civilians, fomented anarchy which still exists today throughout the country of Libya, and opened the floodgates for widespread extremist terrorism to spread throughout the region.

If you look objectively, is there more or less terrorism in Libya than before we got rid of Qadhafi, before we intervened and the French and all of the countries intervened? There is more terrorism now. It is more of a problem. Libyans today are unambiguously worse off than before the intervention, than before the war.

In 2010, the U.N. Human Development Index ranked Libya 53rd in the world and 1st in Africa. This year, after the war, after 10 years of chaos, after 10 years of anarchy, Libya ranks near the bottom of all countries. They are 104th in the world. The country is a mess. It is destroyed. It has two governments. It has become a foundation for extremism throughout Africa.

We need to think about our interventions before they occur.

In 2010, the World Bank assessed Libya's per capita GDP as $11,600. Ten years later, the per capita GDP is almost half of that--$5,910.

The U.N. Human Rights Office reports that the execution and torture of civilians in Libya happen on a regular occurrence. The U.N. has also identified the existence of open slave markets, where migrants and refugees transiting Libya are bought and sold as slaves. Thank goodness the developed world came in to remove the government of Libya and civilize the country that is now a huge mess and a huge sore.

The disasters the Obama administration helped unleash in Libya have had longlasting consequences in the entire region. Libyan arms, including heavy weaponry such as anti-aircraft guns and surface-to-air missiles, have been traced to criminals and terrorists across the region.

So we destroyed any sense of stability in Libya; the chaos spread throughout; and now we say: Oh, now we need to kill all the people who are spreading throughout the region who came from Libya.

We have traced their weapons to terrorists in Niger, in Mali, in Tunisia, in Syria, and in Algeria. Tragically, they are now showing up in Gaza. Some of the weapons in Gaza being launched against Israel are weapons that came out of the war in Libya.

The United States now uses Niger as a drone base to kill and try to clean up the mess that the United States and others created in Libya. The war in Libya that we, the French, and other countries participated in that left a power vacuum, that left a mess, spilled terrorists over into other countries. So what do we do? We create a drone base in Niger to kill these people. What happens when you kill the wrong people? What happens when the drone lands on a wedding, and 22 innocent people die at a wedding? What do you think happens to their relatives? How many terrorists are created for every innocent civilian killed?

You only have to think back to Afghanistan, the mess of leaving Afghanistan. I was for leaving Afghanistan, but it was a terrible military blunder. When we did, the executive branch, to save face--what did they do? They droned somebody. They just droned the wrong person. They droned a humanitarian aid worker and a bunch of kids. What do you think that does for terrorism? When you drone an aid worker and their kids, do you think you get more terrorism? Hell yes, you do. You get 10 more terrorists for every civilian you kill.

There is no reason in the world we should be in the heart of Africa with drones, killing people.

Unfortunately, it is rarely asked if our interminable military interventions create the very terrorists we seek to destroy. It is a question this body needs to answer.

When four of our soldiers were killed in Niger, many believed they were on a mission to track down a person named Doundou Chefou. According to the previous Nigerian Government, Doundou Chefou is a terrorist, but before he took up arms, he was a cattle herder of the Fulani Tribe who had no hatred for the Nigerian Government or the U.S. Government. Members of a rival Tribe,

the Tuareg Tribe, became mercenaries for Qadhafi. Once Libya was destroyed, guess what. They decided to come back to Niger. They were attacking the cattle herder, Chefou.

These are local disputes that have to do with armed mercenaries coming from Libya into Niger. So what do we do? We get involved in that, and tragically American lives were lost getting involved in something when maybe our country never should have been there to begin with.

After Qadhafi was deposed, the mercenaries from Libya returned home to Niger, but they were now armed with weapons of war. They turned these arms on the Fulani Tribe to pillage their cattle. This was a dispute over thieves taking people's cattle. Do you think that necessitates a predator drone to be dropped on these people? Do you think that somehow we are eliminating terrorism by droning people involved in a cattle dispute? Although it may not be justified, should we be surprised that Chefou turned to people who happened to be Islamist for guns and training?

Do the proponents of Western military intervention not understand that we may be creating the terrorists we seek to destroy? Do we not see the folly of our adventurism that transforms cattle herders into jihadists?

U.S. troops have been stationed in Niger since at least 2013. There has been no vote. The Constitution is clear: We do not fight wars without the approval of Congress. Yet, for a decade, we have had troops over there. Both parties, Republican and Democrat, gradually increased and gradually increased. We drone people. We sometimes drone parents. Sometimes we drone people at a wedding. Ten years later, our presence in Niger has multiplied, and not once has this body debated the merits of our mission there, let alone authorized the use of military force.

We will debate it today not because they are interested in the subject, not because they wish to put an imprimatur on war, not because they think they have any responsibility to our soldiers or any responsibility to the people in Africa whether we should be there; we will debate it today because I forced them to debate it. This is a privileged motion, and they can't stop me. This debate over whether or not there should be a war in Africa--a war in Niger--or whether any of our troops should be there is only because I forced them to debate this. They want nothing to do with this. In fact, they would just as soon rely on a resolution from 2001. They want nothing to do with this. They want no responsibility. They want to wash their hands of this. Then one day, when they wake up and discover that four soldiers have died in a country they didn't even know we were involved with, they say: Not my problem. That is a Presidential thing.

That is not what the Constitution intended. The Constitution intended that we would be involved and that the loss of life and the sending of our troops overseas would be our responsibility and that we would be reticent to do it. Instead, we do nothing; we turn the other way. And when our soldiers die in a heroic fashion, fighting for a cause where the symbolism of the cause is just, there has been no debate. They say: Oh, we voted on that before you were born. You were born long after 2001, but somebody, somewhere, once upon a time, voted for a resolution in 2001, and that is good enough. We wash our hands.

Well, today, we will vote. This will put the Senate on record, and they will be responsible for their vote. Will they vote to end our presence in a country that is now run by a military coup? a country where there is threatened war from all sides? Will we enter into a war that is clearly a war of choice or will we say: No. Maybe it is time to get the heck out of there, to get the heck out of the middle of a war.

Either way, I will put them on record today--but not because they want to but because they are forced to debate this issue because I bring it to the floor.

We have learned that the soldiers who perished tragically in 2017 in Niger were on a mission authorized by section 127e of title 10 of the United States Code. What is that? It is a piece of the law that unfortunately has been put forward by the legislature to give the President the power to do whatever he wants up to $100 million, the authority to expend up to $100 million during a fiscal year to ``provide support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating authorized ongoing military operations.''

Those are a lot of fancy words to say the President can do anything he wants anywhere in the world because we gave him this power. But there is something in the Constitution that says we cannot delegate our power. The Constitution doesn't allow the legislature to delegate their power to the Executive.

We can't give up our warmaking power. This is unconstitutional. You cannot allow just little wars to happen, up to $100 million per year, without any vote. That is giving up the authority the Constitution gave to us. It is clearly unconstitutional and should be repealed.

In short, this section of legal code provides the Pentagon unilateral authority to wage secret wars anywhere in the world without any oversight by Congress and even less public scrutiny. Unfortunately, the loss of four of our soldiers illuminates the fact that our troops who are operating under this authority are also in harm's way.

Earlier this month, the Biden administration finally formally declared that a military coup took place in Niger. Once that declaration was made, the United States was statutorily required to suspend all foreign and military assistance. You would think that would include having 1,000 troops there.

A senior administration official stated to CNN that the counterterrorism operations will remain paused, as will all U.S. training activities to build the capacity of the Nigerian forces.

It seems as if our troops have no mission. Someone should explain why we are still leaving them in the middle of a war. French President Emmanuel Macron recently announced that France will end its military presence in Niger and bring some 1,500 soldiers home. We should also bring our 1,000 troops home.

To commit America's military to fight wars on behalf of the Nation is the most consequential and humbling responsibility that Congress is entrusted with. Can we not, at the very least, muster the courage to have a debate? If America's interest in Niger is of such vital importance that we ask our young men to fight and potentially pay the ultimate sacrifice to defend it, we at least owe our soldiers a debate in Congress--not, ``Your grandparents debated this,'' ``Your parents debated this,'' or, ``Another generation debated this,'' but that we are willing to debate, here and now, whether or not we should be at war in Niger.

A ``yes'' vote on my resolution gives each of us an opportunity to go on record and tell our constituents that we will no longer stand idly by as the President sends their sons and daughters into harm's way to fight wars, with no clear objective, with no definition of victory, with no exit strategy, and with no constitutional authorization.

I encourage my colleagues to vote yes to take America out of hostilities in Niger.

Motion to Discharge

Mr. President, I move to discharge S.J. Res. 44.

Mr. President, the opponents of the resolution have stated here today on the floor that no troops are involved in combat in Niger. I think the families of the four soldiers who died over there would be surprised to find out that their loved ones who gave their lives were not involved in combat. What an insult.

They would also be surprised--or people would be surprised--to find out that killing someone with a drone is not combat. One of the main bases we have in Niger is a drone base for killing people. So if it is not combat to kill people with a drone and it is not combat to have four soldiers die, I am not sure what combat is. But this is clearly combat. It is clearly wrong. It clearly has not been authorized. It should not be authorized.

The argument has also been made by opponents of this resolution that they want us there; that all of Africa is in open arms and wants us there. Well, guess what, the people who rule the country of Niger don't. They asked the French to leave, and the French are leaving. All 1,500 troops are leaving. They have asked us to leave. Maybe we should take their advice.

It is not a democratically elected government. So the military junta that took over and put the President in jail wants us to leave. The people who want us to stay are in other countries who have threatened war with Niger for imprisoning the President. There is a conflict. There have been 17 military coups in this part of the world. This part of Africa, in the last decade, has had 17 coups and, guess what, 11 of the coups are led by people trained in the United States.

This is a policy that is not working. We think it is a benign policy. It is a terrible policy. We are bringing them here, training them; they are going over and deposing the democratically elected President. Don't be fooled. There is combat there. Four of our soldiers have died, and it is an insult to their families to say it is not combat.

They don't want us; the juntas asked us to leave; and I would support this resolution, which says we need to bring our troops home.

Mr. President, opponents of this resolution say we are not involved in combat and that drones aren't killing people. Guess what. All those records are secretive. They are all classified and put away from the American people. We have no idea what they are doing with drones. I tend to doubt it, and I do think drones have killed people.

I also think that we are using our ability to surveil and oversee the region to give them targets for their own drones. So, no, we are involved.

When they say that the people of Niger want us to stay, are they talking about the President who is in jail? The guy who was elected is in jail. Are they now saying it is justified to stay because a bunch of thugs who took over the government by military force want us to stay? What a crazy notion.

You are here on the floor today supporting the junta. You will support whatever it takes to stay there. You don't care whether it is a democratically elected government or a junta, but it is a mess. The surrounding countries support the President, who is in jail--some of them. Two or three of them who have had juntas themselves support the junta. It is a mess. The French are leaving because it is a mess.

There is no clear mission. Our mission was to train their troops. Are you going to train the junta's troops?

They have been declared a coup. Even the Biden administration has declared them a coup, and we are cutting off funding, but we are going to leave troops in the middle of a war. If they are killed by a terrorist attack, if hundreds of our soldiers are killed as they were in Beirut, I think people will rue the day you put our soldiers in the middle of a thankless situation, with no mission, no plan, and no approval by Congress.

I recommend a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the roll call vote, and I ask for the yeas and nays on this resolution.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, Senator Dianne Feinstein served the State of California in the Senate for over three decades. During that time, she emerged as a leading figure in the fight against America's use of torture on terrorist suspects and exposed the CIA's inappropriate spying on Congress.

One of her legacies will be her investigation into the torture of suspected terrorists after 9/11. She did what Congress is supposed to do: hold the executive branch accountable to the Constitution, to our laws, and to the American people. Her efforts culminated in a report over 6,000 pages long documenting a plethora of disturbing interrogation practices. When the report was released, Senator Feinstein stated, ``I came to the conclusion that America's greatness is being able to say we made a mistake, and we are going to correct it and go from there.''

Although Senator Feinstein was generally an ally of the intelligence community and the surveillance state, she declared war on the CIA and accused the Agency of improperly accessing a Senate computer network to tamper with her inquiry into the detention and interrogation program.

An investigation proved Senator Feinstein correct. The CIA's Inspector General concluded that employees improperly accessed--spied-- on the Senate Intelligence Committee's network. Then-CIA Director John Brennan, who initially declared that the CIA ``wouldn't do that'' and called the accusation ``beyond the scope of reason,'' apologized to Senator Feinstein for infiltrating her committee's computer network.

My colleagues would do well to emulate Senator Feinstein by demanding an end to unconstitutional surveillance, defending the separation of powers, and learning to adopt a healthy suspicion of the intelligence community.

Reserving the right to object, once again, we are asked to extend the flood program without any reforms to protect the taxpayers. Like many Federal programs, this Federal program is well-intentioned, but it may very well be the best real-life example of moral hazard.

We are told that the program is funded through insurance premiums, but the premiums are below the market rate, and so the program is eternally and consistently short of money.

A 2014 report by the Government Accountability Office found the flood program collected $17 billion less than the market would have required. For all practical purposes, the flood program is insolvent.

Just a few years ago, the flood program owed $30 billion to the taxpayers. Congress later cancelled $16 billion of that debt, but the flood program has not made any progress in repaying the taxpayers. The total now stands that the flood program owes $20 billion to the taxpayers with no way of repaying that money.

Perhaps the greatest insult to the taxpayers, though, is the lack of true limits on this delinquent program. There are no limits on how many claims can be filed or how much money can be received for a policyholder. So it isn't that I have a $3 million flood policy. You could have a $3 trillion policy. There are no limits. There are also no limits on how big your house could be. You could have a $10 million house, a $20 million house, a $50 million house, and the taxpayers subsidize your house.

Rather than encourage people to leave flood-prone areas, this program encourages people to stay and rebuild time and time again. In thousands of instances, the program encourages people to rebuild and rebuild and rebuild.

According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, over 150,000 properties have been rebuilt over and over again. In fact, 25 to 30 percent of flood program claims are made by the policyholders whose properties have flooded time and time again. Over 2,000 properties have flooded more than 10 times. One home in Batchelor, LA, flooded 40 times and received a total of $428,000 of flood insurance payments--40 times. No one should keep rebuilding in a house that floods 40 times. But the record, if you can believe it, isn't Batchelor, LA. It is Virginia, where one home flooded 41 times and received payments of over $600,000, all subsidized by the taxpayer.

Adding insult to injury, the Congressional Budget Office found that the flood program tends to benefit the wealthy and that 23 percent of the subsidized coastal properties were not even policyholders' primary residences.

Realize what this program is doing. It is subsidizing insurance for the rich and famous for their beach houses. There are no limits. It subsidizes people who have $10 million homes to get subsidized government insurance. It is true. The government forces the taxpayers to pay and rebuild the summer homes of the rich. In fact, sometimes it seems that the flood program caters directly to the wealthy. Nearly 80 percent of the National Flood Insurance Program policies are located in counties that rank within the top 20 percent of income.

Enough is enough. It is an insult to rob the taxpayers to give to the rich. This is why I offer an amendment that, if we could come to an agreement today, would require that the Federal program not insure your second house, not insure your beach house. If you live there--it is your only house--it will be included. If it is your second house, your beach house, it is not going to be included.

And we would set a cap on the amount. Who in their right mind thinks we should be subsidizing insurance for $10 million mansions? It is crazy that anybody would think that is what we should do.

I offer a compromise today. Extend the program. Let's keep the program. We will keep the program open. We won't miss a beat. But we will set some limits on the houses.

So what I would like to start with would be a cap of $250,000. Those houses below 250 would be subsidized, would get subsidized insurance. Up to 250, you buy your own.

Also my proposal would not allow you to use the insurance if this is your vacation home--if this is your secondary home.

So, Mr. President, I ask the Senator to modify his request so that the Paul amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the process is similar to what has been described but not exactly as has been described. The bill is sent out, everybody gets a chance to object. People who choose to object can come, that is also announced.

The objections are announced, and we come to the floor. If the Senator wanted to work together on this, this could be modified today and someone else would have to come to object, and that is announced to all 100 Senators and often works that way. But, today, what we have is a situation where I am offering an amendment to reform taxpayer- subsidized insurance, and it is being rejected by one Senator, not by all Senators, not in place of all Senators. They have a chance to come, it has been announced, they can come and object to this if they wanted.

But here is the thing, what I am trying to do is modify a program so that the average ordinary taxpayer does not have to pay for rich people's flood insurance for their beach houses.

About half of the houses that are insured in this program that loses billions of dollars every year, that is $20 billion in the hole, about half the homes are worth $500,000 or more.

Do you know any regular working folk that have $500,000 homes on the beach? No. If you have a $500,000 house on the beach, buy your own damn insurance. The taxpayer should not have to buy your insurance.

So I would ask the Senator--we can do this today; there are other Senators on the floor; they can come running from hither and yon, and they can object to this--but I would ask the Senator, let's modify the program so rich people don't get their houses insured by the government and subsidized by the taxpayer. We can change the limits to $500,000. That would cut out half of the homes in the United States, half of the beach houses, half of the rich people in our country who are getting subsidized insurance.

Make the limit $500,000. If we make it $500,000, the program will be half as big, and it will lose half as much money. Let's modify this program. So I would ask the Senator to modify his proposal with my amendment, and my amendment would say: You can't use the insurance for your second home, only your primary residence, and if you have a half- a-million-dollar mansion on the beach, guess what? You get to buy your own insurance. That is my modification, and I would ask the Senator to accept the Paul amendment that is at the desk.

Reserving the right to object. What I am trying to find here, is there a compromise? Is there some level of rich person that maybe the taxpayer could say: Enough is enough; they ought to pay their own way? Is there some level of rich person's mansion that maybe the average, ordinary taxpayer should not have to subsidize their insurance?

So we have tried a half a million, which is about half the homes the ordinary working class people in our country have to insure, why don't we try--if we can't do a half a million, let's try mansions of $750,000. You would say, well, how many are there? Twenty-five percent of the national Federal subsidized insurance are homes of $750,000 a year. We are not talking about ordinary people now, we are talking about rich, rich, very rich people getting subsidized insurance from a program that loses billions of dollars and has to be bailed out every year. We have a government with a $1.7 trillion deficit. It goes on year after year. Nobody does anything. Just reauthorize it. Today we can make a compromise. So I offer the Senator a compromise: If $500,000 is too cheap and you want to insure half-a-million-dollar mansions, will you, at least, modify it to exclude mansions of $750,000 or more? I think that is the least we can do.

And I would ask unanimous consent to accept the Paul motion at the desk that indicates $750,000 as the limit for the insurance.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. It is certainly not my intention to denigrate rich people. I aspire to be one someday. But I don't aspire to ask for free stuff from the government if I ever become a rich person.

Why would we subsidize insurance of rich people? Is there no limit-- is there no limit--is there no possibility of compromise on some mansion that is too large to be in this program?

What about $10 million? We have tried $250,000. That was too little. You know, the insistence is we must insure these homes. We tried a half million. But the insistence is, no, everybody should get it.

I don't think rich people need subsidized insurance. The program loses billions of dollars every year. We have tried 750,000, but apparently there still is this need and this desire to insure rich people's beach houses.

Why don't we try one last time. We will try something that I think anybody could compromise to and anybody would accept, and certainly I wouldn't want to be the one justifying a program that gives people who have $10 million mansions insurance. Why not accept it and make someone on the other side support such a ridiculous policy?

So my final proposal today will be to ask unanimous consent that the Paul amendment at the desk would exclude $10 million mansions from government-subsidized insurance.

I think that is the least we can do. If we can get that compromise, it would bring at least some sense of sanity to this crazy program.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Let the record show from this discussion today that the Senator has objected to any limits on taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance, any limits: 250,000; 500,000; 750,000, even 10 million.

This is a program that loses billions of dollars every year. This is a program that can't work for the poor people because we have got so many rich people in it.

Half of the homes in the program cost over a half million dollars. So this is a problem. This is a program that loses money every year, and the Senator is unwilling to accept any limits on this.

There is this argument that somehow he is defending all the Democrat Senators who can't come here, but he could easily have said: I am not willing to object to this because these are reasonable proposals and force the Democrats to object to this.

But he has taken this upon himself to defend the status quo, to defend the inclusion of $10 million mansions in this program.

So I do object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. We can today renew the National Flood Program and reform it. All it takes is for the Senators assembled here not to object to the reforms.

I think that flood insurance provided by the taxpayer, subsidized by the taxpayer, shouldn't be for rich people or for their vacation home or their beach homes. Government has no business insuring rich people and their second homes. So I have some proposals to reform this system. We are being asked, though, to extend the flood program without any reforms, without any reforms to protect the taxpayers. Like many Federal programs, the flood insurance is well-intentioned, but it very well may be the best real-life example of a moral hazard.

The program covers over 5 million policyholders and provides over $1 trillion in coverage. We are told that the program is funded through insurance

premiums. But charging well below the market price of insurance and capping how much these rates can rise inevitably leads to shortfalls.

A 2014 report by the Government Accountability Office found that the flood program collected as much as $17 billion fewer in premiums than what the market would have dictated. So when the program inevitably found itself in need of money, in theory, it borrowed that money from the taxpayers, not that the taxpayers had any choice in the matter. They took it. As they often are, they were on the hook regardless of whether they wanted to be or not.

Just a few years ago, the flood program owed over $30 billion to the taxpayers. Congress later canceled $16 billion in debt, but the flood program has not made any further repayment to the taxpayers and now stands at over $20 billion in debt.

In short, it is a subsidy. It is a gift. It is the taxpayers giving people who have homes along the coast subsidized rates, and we all have to pay for it.

You might say: Well, maybe some poor people have no place to go; the government has a role in that, but a lot of these homes are people's second homes.

I say we should limit the insurance to houses under a certain amount, modest homes. Some guy has a $5 million mansion on the coast of Florida should not get his insurance through the government. We shouldn't all have to pay for the insurance for some somebody who has a $5 million home.

The taxpayers are expected to cough up money whenever the program needs it, but the program doesn't seem to be in a hurry to pay the taxpayer back. But perhaps the greatest insult to the taxpayer is the lack of true limits on the delinquent program. There are no limits on how many claims that can be filed and how much money can be received by a policyholder. Rather than encourage people to leave flood-prone areas, it encourages people to stay and rebuild.

And, in thousands of instances, the program encourages people to rebuild and rebuild and rebuild. According to the PEW Charitable Trusts, over 150,000 properties have been rebuilt over and over again. In fact, 25 to 30 percent of flood program claims are made by policyholders whose properties flood time and again.

There is no learning curve here. The government provides you something for a subsidy and you got your beach home and it keeps getting flooded and you just keep building if the government will pay for it. Have Uncle Sam pay for it. Have your neighbors pay for it.

Over 2,000 properties have flooded more than 10 times. They don't move; they just keep rebuilding in an area that is a flood zone.

One home in Batchelor, LA, flooded 40 times and received a total of $428,000 in flood payments. It would have been cheaper to buy him a new home in a neighborhood that doesn't flood.

Can you imagine having to withstand the ordeal of your home flooding 10, 20, 40 times? Well, the taxpayer doesn't have to imagine paying for it because they are stuck with the bill.

Adding insult to injury, the Congressional Budget Office found that the flood program tends to benefit the wealthy and that 23 percent of subsidized coastal properties were not even the policy owner's first house. We are talking about vacation houses that average, ordinary people who are suffering to go to the grocery store are having to pay for the insurance for some guy's vacation home.

Yes, it is true. The government forces the taxpayer to rebuild the summer homes of the rich. In fact, sometimes it seems that the flood program caters directly to the wealthy. Nearly 80 percent of these flood policies are located in counties that rank with the top 20 percent of income.

Enough is enough. It is an insult to rob from the taxpayer to give to the wealthy. That is why I offer an amendment that would require the flood program to cover only primary residences, no vacation houses, and establish a cap so that only modestly priced houses would be in it.

I agree that there is a disruption. If it ends immediately, there would be a disruption. We can have an interim.

My offer today, if accepted, if not objected to, would be: Today we fix this. We can stand right here today and fix this if there is no objection. We would continue the program only for primary residences, only under a certain amount, and it would continue. We would finally reform it. A long-awaited reform that people wanted for years could happen today if there is no objection.

So, therefore, I ask the Senator to modify his request so that the Paul amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Reserving the right to object, the statistics really do tell the story. Twenty-three percent of all homes that are insured under this program, whether they are in Louisiana or any other coastal State, are second homes or vacation homes.

I would be perfectly willing to negotiate what the actual price of the home is that can be in this situation, and I would offer to modify the amendment from $250,000 to $350,000 to allow more homes to be in. But saying the median is $433,000--well, the limit right now is infinite. There is no limit. You can have a $5 million vacation home, and the government is going to subsidize it.

If we don't subsidize these houses, does that mean we are discouraging people who have wealth or have second homes? No. This has nothing to do with that. It is saying the taxpayer shouldn't subsidize rich people.

The thing is, the reform will be objected to today, and there will not be any reform to this program, and these programs go on year after year because no one will bring to light what is actually happening here.

If you were to ask the American people today ``Do you think we should be subsidizing flood insurance for people's beach house,'' I think they would say ``No. Buy your own damn insurance if

you have a beach house. The government shouldn't be paying for it.'' So I object.