Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is important to honor key leaders who have made a positive impact in their communities. Pastor William ``Bill'' Wade is the shepherding and care pastor at Living Hope Baptist Church in Bowling Green, KY. He has been married to Dianne Harbin of Vicksburg, MS for 41 years. They are blessed with two grown children, Joey Wade and Katy Owen. They also have two grandchildren, Clare and Judson Owen. Pastor Bill received his master of religious education degree in December 1981 from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

Pastor Bill is a leader who cares deeply for those within his sphere of influence. It is this caring heart that motivated him to establish a counseling center in Bowling Green in 2016. His vision was to provide anyone who is hurting in the community the opportunity to receive free biblical counseling. His leadership has provided counselors who are prepared to help those struggling with addiction, those with marriage difficulties, those caught in debilitating conflict, and those contemplating suicide. As an extension of his love for the community, he served alongside first responders as a chaplain during the search and rescue efforts following the December 2021 devastating tornados in Bowling Green, in which 18 individuals lost their lives and hundreds lost their homes. Pastor Bill's primary goal that individuals will begin to experience God every day and live out a God-honoring life.

In addition, he led efforts to open a pregnancy support center in 2019 in Bowling Green to care for those mothers and fathers who feel overwhelmed by unexpected news that a baby is on the way. Much-needed care is provided during the pregnancy and after delivery. Many mothers have since decided to continue their pregnancy, bringing forth the joy of new life to celebrate. These two organizations are known collectively as the Centers for Hope. Through Bill's wise and caring efforts, his dream has become a reality, and lives have been forever changed for the better. Pastor Bill's legacy will remain strong for many generations to come.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, for a year and a half, we have been offering my colleague a compromise in the passage of this bill. We could pass this bill today, immediately. All we have been asking is that it not only protect Federal judges but protect Members of Congress as well. I haven't heard a cogent or even any argument for why it couldn't.

It is a very simple compromise. To pass things unanimously takes compromise. It takes people coming together and people agreeing. But there hasn't been any movement; there hasn't been any compromise; and I am still open. We can pass this today to include Members of Congress.

If recent years have taught us anything, it is that members of the legislative branch need protection as well as those in the judiciary. That was clear in 2011 when Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was tragically shot while she was doing the most important part of her job--meeting with constituents. Words cannot express how happy and inspired I was to see that Congresswoman Giffords was in the Chamber with her husband, Senator Kelly, when he was sworn in as a Member of this body. Well, words also cannot express the pain felt by the families of the people who were killed that day and wounded. That should have been a wake-up call to protect Members of Congress and, in doing so, to better protect the people around them.

Yet, just a few years later, a shooter nearly killed Congressman Steve Scalise during a practice for the charity baseball game. I was there. A young man was shot 10 feet from me. I said at the time that our lives were saved by the Capitol Police. Had they not been there, things could have been much worse.

Extending the provisions of this bill to Members of Congress would better protect us and our families and our constituents. I have been offering this for 2 years. My amendment, which I will offer through unanimous consent, simply extends the same protections that it would offer to the judicial branch to the legislative branch.

This is not a new request. In December of 2020, when we discussed this bill on the floor, I offered this compromise. I said I would work together with the other side to try to get a bill that we could pass. But we haven't gotten anywhere. If we want this to pass, let's compromise. Let's come together and figure out a way that we can get this to pass.

I know of no argument or no constituency that is coming to Washington, saying: We don't want Members of Congress to be protected. There is no such constituency. There is no such argument, and there is no reason we couldn't pass this today. It has been almost 2 years. Let's pass this bill today. As I have said over and over again, I support this bill and the provisions, and I don't believe it ought to be blocked merely because Members of Congress also need protection.

With that being said, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his request to include my amendment to the Menendez substitute amendment, which is at the desk; that the amendments 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.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, we have been trying for a year and a half. Our staff has offered to meet with the opposition's staffs. We have not had one meeting. They have not accepted a meeting much less a compromise--a year and a half.

This could pass today by simply accepting this. There is a promise to do it at a later date when we have waited a year and a half? A year and a half went by because no one would meet with us. We have not had one meeting. We have offered to meet with the staffs of both of the authors of this, and we have not been granted a meeting. There has been no discussion of this between staff and no discussion of a compromise.

We would take a compromise. I don't understand. There has been no argument made today as to why Congress couldn't be added to this bill. They could have added this to the bill or talked to us over a year and a half. No one has talked to us. Other than to come for the public theater, no one has tried to get this thing passed.

I object.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize Beans Cafe and Bakery of Dry Ridge, KY, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.

The road to entrepreneurial success is rarely a straight and narrow path, as Richard Hayhoe and his wife could tell you. The couple moved to northern Kentucky from Canada in 2010, intent on flipping houses for a living. However, their dream of entering the housing market did not turn out as imagined and in 2011, opportunity presented itself. As Richard looked around his adopted hometown, he saw a struggling doughnut shop with a big ``For Sale'' sign posted, and decided to act. Thus, Richard Hayhoe's Beans Cafe and Bakery was born.

Opened in late 2011, Beans Cafe and Bakery offers some of the finest confections available in Kentucky. Between fresh donuts, muffins, and a variety of other pastries, customers are not left wanting, as his store provides just about any morning pick-me-up one could hope for. In addition to keeping their ovens busy, Beans Cafe of course keeps their coffee pots full so that their regular customers can enjoy a fresh cup on their morning commute. Despite their name, Beans Cafe and Bakery is not just a popular breakfast site; it is a one-stop shop for any meal: breakfast, lunch, dinner, and dessert. Beans Cafe boasts a delicious menu of sandwiches on their signature bread, wraps, soups, and salads. Beans Cafe and Bakery also has plenty of options for dessert, including ice cream and hand-spun milkshakes perfect for a warm summer evening spent with family and friends.

Soon after Beans Cafe and Bakery opened their doors, residents of Dry Ridge came in droves. Oftentimes, Richard found their reputation preceded them, as local hotel and bed-and-breakfast owners insisted their travelers make time for Beans Cafe. When the Ark Encounter exhibit opened nearby in 2016, that new flood of visitors helped to propel an already growing business into a new phase of expansion, moving to a different location right off the highway. Beans Cafe and Bakery has only continued to grow since then, even opening up a separate kitchen space in order to meet the ever-growing demand for their delicious baked goods.

In addition to their excellence in the kitchen, Richard Hayhoe has made Beans Cafe and Bakery a place for community involvement, hosting a monthly get-together for Christians wanting to engage in the realm of public policy and local government. Beans Cafe and Bakery also offers classes for junior bakers, providing a fun and educational atmosphere for young children to learn about the baking craft.

When Richard Hayhoe came to Kentucky, he ventured south from his native land to pursue a career that he soon realized was not all that it was chalked up to be. Instead of giving up on Dry Ridge or Kentucky entirely, he stayed and made his home by opening a business that caters to its residents. Richard Hayhoe is the embodiment of the type of perseverance inherent to small business owners. That is why Beans Cafe and Bakery has seen such success; it is led by a dedicated and hard- working team who know how to treat their customers right. Congratulations to Richard and the entire team at Beans Cafe and Bakery. I look forward to seeing their continued growth and success in Kentucky.

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

Mr. President, the United States has the largest economy in the world and also has the largest government apparatus in the world. This year, we will bring in $4.8 trillion and will spend about $5.8 trillion, and yet we will have no budget this year. How inexcusable, how embarrassing it is for a country--the largest country in the world, the largest government in the world, the largest bureaucracy in the world--to have no budget. Is it any wonder that we are $30 trillion in debt?

Most small businesses have a budget. Most businesses in our country have a budget and a prediction for what will come in and what will go out for the year, and this year there will be no budget. Not only will there be no Democratic presentation about it, there will be no Republican presentation as a party.

So today I will introduce my budget. This is a budget that balances in 5 years. The reason we chose 5 years is that the constitutional amendment to the budget amendment--the constitutional amendment that would balance the budget--balances in 5 years. We voted on that amendment previously in this body, and the Democrats, in unison, opposed it. They were opposed to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The Republicans were unanimous in voting for the balanced budget amendment, constitutional amendment. In that amendment, the text of it would balance the budget in 5 years. So you would think, if all 50 Republicans are on record as being for a balanced budget amendment that balances in 5 years, that all 50 Republicans would be for a balanced budget, a budget that actually balances in 5 years.

Now, why is it important to have a budget? Well, you ought to have a blueprint or a plan for what your government is going to do, so it is inexcusable not to have any budget at all.

But also we have another problem that we are facing in our country: We are facing the problem of inflation. Every American is seeing it. You are seeing your gas prices go through the roof. You are seeing your prices at the grocery store going through the roof.

Why do we have inflation? Well, inflation comes from debt. When the United States runs up a debt, it is sold. Foreign countries buy the debt, Americans buy the debt, but the biggest purchaser of our debt is the Federal Reserve.

When the Federal Reserve buys the debt, do they buy it with money that they have sort of laying around? Do you go to the Federal Reserve, and some guy opens a big safe, and here is the money to buy the debt? No. The Federal Reserve doesn't have any money, so the Federal Reserve simply prints up the money and buys the American debt. But what does that mean? When the Federal Reserve prints the money to buy the debt, this floods the system with money. So we are flooded with money right now. In the last 2 years, we borrowed $6 trillion, so $6 trillion is entered into the system.

When you look at the amount of money that is being created, there is a measurement of money supply called the M2. If you look at it on an annualized basis, it has been going up at 15 percent a year.

So inflation is an increase in the money supply. It is an increase in the money supply because they are buying the debt. So it is all related to spending.

It is inexcusable that we will have no budget this year. It is inexcusable that the projection is for a trillion-dollar deficit in 1 year and yet there won't even be a budget plan. There will be no plan to try to make the deficit less or to try to manage our money.

But with this debt comes inflation. We are suffering from the worst inflation we have had in 40 years. Who suffers the most from inflation? The working class, those who are on fixed income, those who are retired, they are getting creamed by this. People are spending over $100 filling up their gas tank now. This is a real problem.

So a balanced budget is not an academic exercise. It is not something that is theoretical. Our deficit has real impacts. Our deficit is leading to inflation. So what I have proposed for the last several years is a balanced budget, a budget that balances gradually over 5 years by having across-the-board cuts.

When I started introducing this budget several years ago, you could simply freeze spending, and if you froze spending, we would grow out of the deficit. By 5 years, by not increasing spending, you would have a balanced budget. That was rejected by all the Democrats and about half of the Republicans.

So then we went another year or two, and spending increased. As spending increased and got worse, a freeze would no longer balance the budget in 5 years, so we introduced the Penny Plan. The Penny Plan was to cut 1 percent a year for 5 years, and it would balance. But still the Congress ignored my admonition on this, and the spending got worse.

In the last couple of years, it has had to have been increased by a two-penny plan, meaning a 2-percent reduction in spending each year for 5 years would still lead to balance in 5 years. But Congress once again has ignored that.

So last year when we introduced the 5-year plan to balance the budget, it was called the Five Penny Plan. You had to reduce spending by 5 percent each year for 5 years.

This year, it has gotten even worse. The $6 trillion spending spree of the last 2 years when they locked down the economy and basically bankrupted almost every business in the country--when that occurred, there was massive spending, massive debts, and now, this year, in order to balance the budget, it would take a 6-percent cut.

But I would like to put this in perspective. If you ask people in Washington, their heads explode because they could never conceive of ever reducing spending. In fact, spending hasn't gone down really ever in real terms in recent history because the government grows and grows and grows. Your economy may shrink, your income may shrink, you may be unemployed, but the government gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

So if we want to tame government, if we want to get government to live within its means, if we want government to balance its budget, it would take some work. People in Washington seem to think, oh, it could never happen, but if you talk to a business man or woman who has ever been through a recession or ever been through tough times, they will tell you that sometimes a business has to reduce by 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent, to live within their means.

What we are calling for here is not no government. We are not even calling for a minimal government. What we are calling for is a government that lives within its means. Right now, living within its means would be a government that brings in $4.8 trillion, which is how much tax revenue comes in, would spend $4.8 trillion. So still the vast majority of things the government does, it could still continue to do, but it would have to spend less. We would have to have real restraint in spending.

The best way to perceive it is this: Imagine the thing that you want from government that you think is so popular, nobody could touch. Let's take for example research for cancer or research for Alzheimer's disease, something that so many people advocate, so many people are emotionally charged with.

Well, when people come to Washington and they ask me about ``I have this'' or ``My parents have this, and I want research money to go to this,'' what I typically will say to them is ``You know we are out of money. You know that we have this massive deficit, and it has led to this great inflation that is across the land. What if we told everybody that they had to have a little bit less?'' They look at me and they say ``Well, what would that mean?'' and I say ``Well, let's say that your research project--the cancer research or the Alzheimer's research--got $100 million last year. In order for all of us to tighten our belt, in order for all of us to balance the budget so we can be stronger, in order to tame the inflation that is eating us alive, you would get $94 million next year.''

So we are not talking about sort of eliminating whole facets of government; what we are talking about is everybody would have to deal with less.

There is so much waste throughout government. You look at the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation is one of the most wasteful Agencies in government.

You go back 50 years, and you look at William Proxmire. In the early 1970s, William Proxmire began giving an award called the Golden Fleece Award. What he would give an award for was wasteful spending, and almost always, it came to the National Science Foundation. One of the first ones he gave an award for was $50,000 to discover what makes people fall in love. He just thought it was ridiculous that we would be spending money on that, and I agree. But it didn't get better; it got worse.

The National Science Foundation has never had a reduction in its money. It always gets more money. This year--and this is why this is a bipartisan problem--the Republicans and Democrats got together, and we nearly doubled the income or nearly doubled the appropriations for the National Science Foundation.

What are some other kinds of great research coming out of this organization?

Well, they did a study to see whether or not selfies make you happy. So if you take a selfie of yourself smiling and then look at it later in the day, does that make you feel better about yourself? That would cost a little over a million dollars.

They did a study also on the mating call of male Panamanian frogs. They said: Well, we want to know whether the country frogs have a different mating call than the city frogs. As someone who comes from the country, I can tell you there is a different mating call in the country than there is in the city. But that cost us about half-a- million dollars.

Another study was $2 million to find out if the person in front of you sneezes on the food in the cafeteria, are you more or less likely to take that food?

Another study was three-quarters of a million dollars, studying whether or not Japanese quail, on cocaine--whether or not they are more sexually promiscuous when they use cocaine.

I mean, the studies go on endlessly.

So what did Congress do? Instead of telling them: Why don't we give them one penny less; why don't we give them 99 percent of their budget, or this year why don't we give them 94 percent of the budget, instead we gave them 200 percent of their budget. Do you think the National Science Foundation is going to be more frugal now that we have nearly doubled their budget?

But this is the kind of great ideas that are coming out of Congress, and this one turned out to be a bipartisan idea. All of the Democrats and half the Republicans voted to nearly double the size of the National Science Foundation. So you will get more waste, more abuse, and more debt.

The thing is, we bring in a lot of money. We bring in $4.8 trillion. Could we not simply spend what comes in? Part of the problem also is most of the bills are not read. Most of the appropriations bills come in here at the last moment, are 2,000 pages, and no one gets to read them until hours beforehand.

And so what they do is they have renewed programs year after year. There is a process up here where we authorize spending. So one committee is supposed to say, is the spending working, and then the other committee appropriates the money. We don't even bother to reauthorize these things. We just keep reappropriating the money year after year.

Someone will have this great idea and say, well, we need to do something about homelessness, and everybody will say, well, that is such a well-meaning--they intend to do it, and they will do it. But nobody looks up the fact that we already have 80 other programs doing the same thing.

Nobody ever looks at whether the program is working. Nobody ever figures out whether anything that we are spending on money is viable and doing us any good, and so it just adds up.

People come and say: Oh, well, this is something we have to do. We have to send $40 billion to Ukraine. Where does it come from? If you really think it is such a great idea, why don't we have a Ukraine war tax? Why don't we do $500 per taxpayer, and you would have enough for Ukraine. No, they just want to add it on the tab.

But it is worse than that. It is so irresponsible that the party in charge will produce no budget. So we have nearly $5 trillion coming in; nearly $6 trillion going out the door, and there will be no budget. It is inexcusable.

We have the largest economy in the world. We have the largest government

in the world, and we will have no budget this year. So what I have done and will continue to do is to produce a budget that balances in 5 years; this is consistent with the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

And the other reason we do 5 years is that some people have come forward in the past and said that we will balance it in 10. It becomes so long and unbelievable with the cuts in years 9 and 10 that they never happen; that it really hasn't become a good document even when budgets are put forward.

I think if we were to balance our budget, I think we would be a stronger Nation. It is the way we would combat inflation. If you see the people representing the party in power, the Democrats, you see them on TV, they are scratching their heads; they have no idea. They are like we have tried everything. But they don't even understand the problem. They have no idea where inflation is coming from.

Inflation comes from debt. When the Federal Reserve buys the debt, that creates the inflation. Because the Federal Reserve has no money, the money is printed up, and the money floods the system.

But it is also part of a bait and switch. These are people who run for office and say: We will bring you free things. We will bring you baubles. We will bring you manna. We will give you free stuff. We all instinctively know that nothing in life is really free.

So the free stuff that they are going to bring to you is paid for through inflation.

So we have to get away from this. We have to get to the point where we say that we are smarter than this. When a politician calls you up and says: Give me your Social Security number and I will send you a thousand dollars, that is what this is. It is an internet scam. It is a phone scam.

They are asking for your vote by saying: We are going to give you free stuff. There is no free lunch. There is nothing in life that you will get without working. But what we have done is political parties and politicians--sometimes in both parties--offer free stuff to people. But right now we are paying the penalty. We are paying the piper. We are paying the inflation tax.

And the inflation tax is a tax because we have overspent. Inflation will continue to get worse until we begin to reduce the debt. You have got to quit digging the hole. We have this massive hole of debt, and we have to quit digging the hole deeper. So this budget will be a budget that balances in 5 years, and I recommend a ``yes'' vote.

Motion to Proceed

And with that, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 397, S. Con. Res. 41.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize The Foxhole of Smiths Grove, KY, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.

Take a look at any small town American Main Street, and you will likely see a common trend: small businesses are a bastion of creativity. All around the country, entrepreneurs break out into new ventures based on an idea that is uniquely theirs, and they work hard to support the enterprise that is their dream. Such is the story of Kellie B. Long and her store, The Foxhole. Founded in 2017, Kellie set out to open a store that offered a wide variety of items, from clothes and jewelry, to furnishings and tableware. In the years since her opening, the store has grown in its product variety, staff capacity, and customer reach. Though The Foxhole is well-loved by the residents of Smiths Grove, customers travel from all across Kentucky to peruse items that could only be found at this unique shop.

When customers walk in the door, they are surrounded by Kellie's unique vision for what defines beauty and creativity. This entrepreneur does not rely on products that are freshly made or unused; she curates a wide array of distinctive items that cannot be found in the typical clothes or home goods store. Moreover, Kellie appreciates the quality of a product that has been loved by a previous owner, and she takes pride in her keen eye for identifying items that deserve to be loved again. Her store offers products that are notably vintage, along with lightly used items, as well as the occasional new and custom-made products. Despite the fact that her store is filled with products that are hard to find and potentially irreplaceable, Kellie is not shy or finicky about welcoming all clientele, even making the store dog friendly for those who cannot part with their pups. Furthermore, Kellie participates in ``Second-Saturdays,'' which is a communal outdoor shopping experience for the residents of Smiths Grove. Second-Saturdays bring out food trucks, vendors, and entertainment for locals to shop, eat, and enjoy with their neighbors and friends.

Her participation in Second-Saturdays is not the only way Kellie stays involved in the community. Outside of her regular commercial activities, The Foxhole offers the occasional Bible study for residents of Smiths Grove to gather and share in their religion and faith. And though her Bible study is not a routine part of The Foxhole's activities, Kellie makes sure to incorporate her giving spirit into the running of her business. Every year as Americans observe Memorial Day, Kellie opens up her business to a greater cause, by donating 10 percent of her Memorial Day weekend sales to the Wounded Warriors project. Kellie understands that we all have a veteran in our life, and she does her part in giving back to the community that gave their all.

In addition to their annual sales donations to charity, Kellie is sensitive to whatever needs may arise from her Kentucky neighbors. After devastating tornados struck western Kentucky in late 2021, Kelly donated 21 percent of all of The Foxholes' sales recorded in the last 2 weeks of December to the Bowling Green Tornado relief fund. Kellie ensures that The Foxhole is a place where customers can find beautiful and unique items, while promoting community involvement and goodwill to all who dawn her storefront.

I want to congratulate this upstanding entrepreneur for her dedication to her community and for her drive to bring creativity and beauty to her corner of Kentucky. Congratulations to Kellie Long and the entire team at The Foxhole. I look forward to seeing their continued growth and success in Kentucky.

Madam President, the Kentucky Chapter of the National Association of Women Business Owners--NAWBO--provides dynamic opportunities for women to network with other business owners, mentor one another, develop partnerships, and incubate and foster that next big idea. It is composed of women of all ages and levels of experience from all sectors of the marketplace.

This year, as NAWBO Kentucky continues to celebrate three decades of success stories that are as diverse as our Commonwealth, its members have established a series of awards to recognize women business owners who have excelled. These include the Woman Business Owner of the Year, the Next-Gen Women Business Owner of the Year, the Public Policy Catalyst of the Year, NAWBO Corporate Partner of the Year, and the NAWBO Member of the Year.

Christine Smalley, owner of Fort Thomas Coffee, was named the Woman Business Owner of the Year. FTC opened in March of 2019 and will expand in June of 2022, to include a wine and cocktail bar and a business center. Christine's husband Justin and their two children Kaelan and Cadence have been embraced by their community as ``The Hot Chocolate House,'' by serving hot chocolate instead of candy to their neighbors on Halloween. To this day, trick-or-treaters will make plans weeks ahead to visit the Smalley household and it delights the family to no end.

Brooke Corder, owner of Squeaky Cleaners, was awarded as the Next-Gen

Women Business Owner of the Year. Brooke has developed what was once an idea into a beautiful dream with her housekeeping, residential, and commercial cleaning services business in Louisville that opened in February of 2020.

Adriane Polyniak, owner of the Kentucky Cannabis Company, was awarded the Public Policy Catalyst of the Year. Based in Midway, this family- owned business has been involved in multiple policy changes that have been beneficial to women business owners. Some of these policies include the legalization of hemp, Shawna's Law, and improved access to cannabis research.

The NAWBO Corporate Partner of the Year was awarded to Wiser Strategies, a public relations and communication firm in Lexington, KY. President and APR Nancy Wiser has worked with NAWBO on many projects, including the NAWBO website and media relations efforts that made the EPIC event possible.

Vanessa Pennoyer, founder and owner of Go2Girl, LLC, was awarded the NAWBO Member of the Year. Vanessa helps diverse-owned businesses seek and obtain certification by navigating the time-consuming portal process. Vanessa has also been involved with NAWBO for years and stepped up this year to assist with all marketing efforts, as well as assistant duties.

I am proud to salute the Kentucky Association of Women Business Owners on its 30th anniversary and to honor these awardees.

Mr. President, every Member of Congress vividly remembers his or her path toward engagement in our government. Some have been more circuitous than others, but we all remember how that spark was ignited and how action ensued.

Katherine Wetherton, a freshman at the University of Louisville, hopes to kindle that passion for civic engagement in young women, and part of her strategy was to write a book targeted toward middle and high school students entitled, ``She Rocks the Vote.'' She distributes it through the seminars and workshops she conducts for students and at the Little Free Library that she built and installed in her hometown in Oldham County.

A results-focused young woman, Kate was active in Girl Scouts for 13 years and completed her Girl Scout Gold Award, which is achieved by only about 5 percent of Girl Scouts. And while she

has big plans for her education, including graduate school, she doesn't intend to stop connecting girls and young women with the information and skills they need to become involved at every level of government.

I am proud to recognize Kate for her accomplishments and leadership, and to encourage her future endeavors.

Today, we will have a bill before us ostensibly titled and ostensibly about the subject of domestic terrorism.

But this bill would be more accurately called the Democrat plan to brand and insult our police and soldiers as White supremacists and neo- Nazis. How insulting.

I have met our Nation's policemen. I have visited with policemen across Kentucky, through our big cities and small, and I have not met one policeman motivated or consumed with any kind of sort of racial rage. What I have met are proud policemen and women who care about the people that they protect in our society, but also who care about their fellow officers.

I have not met one policeman who would not defend their partner: Black, White, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. I don't see the kind of sort of insulting rage that the Democrats have for our police.

I have met our country's young soldiers and marines. I don't meet racists. I don't meet White supremacists. I don't meet neo-Nazis. I meet young men and women who are courageous enough to defend our country. And what an insult it is to put a bill before this House that says: Oh, somehow our marines are consumed with White supremacy and neo-Nazism. How insulting.

In fact, I don't think you could look at a group of young men and women who are more adapted to the times, who are more accepting of their fellow man. And I have never--I have never--heard of a marine saying: Oh, I am not going to carry my fallen colleague out because he is African American. I have never heard of an African-American marine saying: I am not going to carry out my fellow marine because they are White.

If there is any kind of grouping in our country more accustomed to treating people because they are your fellow soldier and your friend, it is the military. To insinuate that the military is consumed with White supremacy is an insult. To insinuate that our soldiers are somehow these terrible people, these neo-Nazis and White supremacists, that we are going to get a new government Agency to police the marines--the marines are a proud part of our military. Our soldiers are a proud part of our country. These are the people who do not see color, who do not see race, who do not see religion. These are the people who don't leave their fallen.

Do you think the marines go around saying ``Oh, we are going to leave our fallen if they have a certain race or religion''? You don't see that. The marines, the soldiers in our country, the people who defend our country, the people who defend and love our country, are the least consumed with any kind of notion of race. How insulting.

This bill states as if it were a fact in the beginning of section 5 that this bill will create ``an interagency task force to analyze and combat White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of the uniformed services and federal law enforcement.'' This is not just an insult to your local police or to the Marines or to the Army and to the Navy; this is an insult to the FBI; it is an insult to the Capitol Police. This bill says that they have been infiltrated. This says that our police are consumed with some kind of race rage.

It is untrue, and it is slander, and it is scandalous, but it is predictable. This is the party that wants to defund the police. But this party not only wants to defund the police, they think the police are full of hatred and racism. It is not true.

Every policeman in our country, every soldier in our country should look at this bill and say: Who are these people? White supremacy and neo-Nazism infiltration of the Marines? That is not true. It is an insult to every marine in our country. It is an insult to every soldier in our country. It is an insult to every policeman in our country. It is an insult to the Capitol Police.

I don't see this in our country. I actually see our armed services as probably one of the areas where people intermix regardless of race and religion better than any segment. These are our young men and women who live in close quarters in barracks. These are our young men and women who go overseas. These are our young men and women who have given arms and legs, and I don't hear examples--I don't know of an example of some guy who says: Oh, yeah, we were blown up by an IED, but we decided to leave that guy because he is of a different race. How insulting.

So you are going to have a task force to investigate our soldiers. This is a Federal task force that is going to go in and investigate our soldiers for White supremacy--I guess read their emails, read what websites they go to--because the implication is they are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. That is what this will set up. It will set up more government Agencies that presume your guilt. But it is an insult to our armed services, to our police, and to anybody who works in law enforcement.

One might well ask if Democrats now believe that the U.S. military and Federal, State, and local police departments are all corrupted. Are there White supremacists and neo-Nazis running around our country?

Look, when I visit even the larger cities in Kentucky, when I visit the Louisville Police Department, guess what. I see African Americans and Whites working together and Brown, Hispanic--whatever you want to call people--all working together. I see high-ranking people in our department who are African American. I don't see that everybody is running around hating each other. I see Black officers and White officers who work together as partners, who care about each other and would defend to the last breath their partner if they were shot in the line of duty. I have seen the officers who have been shot, Black and White. I don't see any of them saying: Oh, yeah, well, we are not going to do anything because that person is of a certain race.

This bill is an insult to every police officer in this country. This bill is an insult to everyone in our armed services. This bill says that the armed services have been infiltrated by White supremacy.

So if you are a soldier in our country, if you are a policeman in our country, you need to let your Congressman or Senator know that you are not a White supremacist and that it is an insult for the Democrats to call you a White supremacist. It is an insult for the Democrats to say our police force is full of White supremacy, that our armed services is full of this.

Everybody in this country who works in law enforcement should be outraged by this bill and should respond and say: No, that is not me, and that is not any of my colleagues. That is not what the Kentucky police force is about. That is not what the National Guard is about. That is not what the Marines are about. What an insult. What an insult.

So what do they do? They set up a new Department in Homeland Security. Isn't Homeland Security Federal too? Have they not been infiltrated as well?

See, the implication of this bill is that all people are bad, that there is this great and worrisome thing that is infecting America--when the opposite is true.

I was born in the 1960s. Every decade has gotten better. People get along better. We have more intermarriage between races. We have more integration within churches. I see less and less of this that everybody is saying is now infecting us.

But they don't realize that they are insulting everyone. They are insulting the police. They are insulting our marines. They are insulting our armed services.

The bill creates two other Departments. These essentially are Departments that are going to be the thought police of the military.

We just took down the ``Ministry of Truth,'' which was in the Department

of Homeland Security. It took a couple of weeks for them to finally be ashamed that they were going to try to censor speech, and the Biden administration has canceled it or at least put it on pause. But this bill will create two other Agencies, two other thought police offices at the Department of Justice and the FBI--seems like a self-defeating choice since elsewhere in the bill, we are told that Federal law enforcement is completely infiltrated by White supremacists and neo- Nazis.

But, again, none of the bill makes sense. It doesn't make sense because it was a bill that was never intended to become law and won't. It is a dumb Washington talking points memo masquerading as legislation, but it is also a grave insult to anyone involved in law enforcement, anyone involved in the military. But congressional Democrats have gotten so radical, so extreme, so out of touch with the American people, that when they read it, they think this is something worthwhile to do. It is a messaging bill for today.

This bill will fail today, though, because the Democrats' message-- hate the police; defund the police; the police are terrible people; the military are terrible people--to slander the military and the police as racist and White supremacist has been roundly rejected by the American people and will continue to be.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the Wainstein nomination be withdrawn and that the confirmation vote on the nomination occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader or his designee in consultation with the Republican leader.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the rest of the votes for this evening be 10-minute votes.

Mr. President, I opposed the confirmation of Bridget Brink to be U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine because of her support for the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. Ambassador Brink believes in expanding NATO to any country who would like to join, including Ukraine.

An important part of diplomacy is understanding your adversary. When I questioned Ambassador Brink about the eastern expansion of NATO, however, she expressed her belief that Russian President Vladimir Putin merely uses the NATO question as a pretext for actions he would take anyway. I strongly disagree. We must evaluate our leaders' actions, as well as the actions of our adversaries, on the world stage.

Putin is an aggressor and must be condemned, but we cannot allow our revulsion for his invasions to blind us to the fact that our adversaries react to the actions of the West. For years, Putin stated that any attempt to expand NATO to Russia's borders would be perceived as a direct threat. Fifteen years ago, Putin asked, ``Against whom is this expansion intended?'' Yet, a year later in 2008, NATO promised that Ukraine and Georgia would one day join the alliance. Russia's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine are not a coincidence, but I left my meeting with Ambassador Brink believing that she is not willing to reflect upon the actions of the West and how they would be viewed by Russian eyes.

Putin has no justification for embarking on a war and invading another country. I fully support the Ukrainians in their fight against Russia. Russia's brutal use of its military to achieve its objectives is unacceptable. But we must understand the reasons why he chose to invade in the first place.

When the Cold War ended, the United States had the benefit of the wisdom of foreign policy officials who took Russia seriously. George Kennan warned that NATO expansion would ignite a new cold war. Henry Kissinger proposed a peaceful coexistence in which Ukraine pursued a policy of neutrality, with one foot in the West and one foot in the East. Jack Matlock, our Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, called the current crisis ``predictable'' and, in 1997, warned Congress that he believed that NATO expansion ``could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.''

Those wise voices are either gone or retired. Had we listened to their warnings, today's crisis might have been averted. But the State Department is now filled with officials who refuse to listen to adversaries or consider how our actions may make peace more difficult to obtain.

Although I opposed the confirmation of Bridget Brink to be Ambassador to Ukraine, I wish her luck in representing the United States and finding a path to a peaceful end to the conflict.

Madam President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize the small business, Druther's Restaurant of Campbellsville, KY, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.

Steve McCarty, owner and operator of the last remaining Druther's restaurant in the world, understands the importance of commitment and passion when managing a business. His dad built the Campbellsville store in 1970, originally named Burger Queen before the company's rebrand to Druther's in 1980. It was an independent franchise fully owned by the McCarty family. Steve developed a love for the Druther's business at a young age, as he began working there at only 15 years old. At its peak of success, the Druther's franchise had around 200 locations spanning from Florida to Missouri, as well as international locations and a devoted consumer base. In light of financial woes burdening the

company in the early 1990s, the owners decided to sell their business to Dairy Queen, leaving 12 independent franchises remaining. Despite this drastic change within the company, Steve and his family wanted to continue the Druther's tradition and keep their independent restaurant open. Having now worked at Druther's for over 45 years, Steve McCarty is the embodiment of dedication and persistence as he works day in and day out to preserve the Druther's story.

To this day, Steve will have restaurant-goers come and visit Druther's from all over the country, seeking a taste of the classic food they once cherished. Druther's has maintained the same menu ever since its installation in 1970, only adding additional items to create a wider selection for customers. Throughout its operation, Druther's has always been and continues to be a shining example of what makes a great restaurant: tasty food, excellent service, and an unspoken familiarity among staff and customers. Along with its excellent food and atmosphere, Druther's is committed to giving back to the people of Campbellsville and the surrounding areas. Steve and his team have been a part of several charitable initiatives, including donating to the Toys for Tots program, sending food to Taylor County High School in Campbellsville, and providing free hot meals to all Taylor County residents affected by tornadoes in December of 2021.

Druther's continues to provide a sense of joyful nostalgia that their loyal customers love. The restaurant's devotion to keeping the magic of the brand alive is evident among their staff, as Steve works alongside several employees who have been there for over a decade--a testament to both Steve as a business owner and to the wonderful work environment he has cultivated since Druther's founding.

The old-fashioned and welcoming nature of Druther's makes it the perfect time-capsule for Kentuckians to re-live cherished memories of days gone by. Druther's unwavering commitment to high quality and service is the reason why people from all over the country are willing to travel hundreds of miles to enjoy their delicious food. This restaurant demonstrates the important role small businesses play within a tightknit community, providing joy and support to their friends and neighbors alike. Congratulations to Steve and the entire Druther's team. I wish them the best of luck and look forward to watching their continued growth and success in Kentucky.

Madam President, today the Senate is considering a bill to give $40 billion to Ukraine. This bill brings up the questions of both constitutionality and also affordability.

There was an essay written in 1867 that was published in Harper's Magazine. It was called ``Not Yours To Give.'' It is the story of Davy Crockett as a Congressman in the late 1820s. Like most stories of that vintage, some will argue that the story is an accurate rendition while others may say it is apocryphal. The moral of the story, however, is incontestable.

Davy Crockett only served two terms in Congress, but on one day in Congress he was confronted with a bill to give money to the widow of a military officer. Davy Crockett arose and gave this speech.

Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the

deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the

living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but

we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy

for a part of the living to lead us into an act of

injustice to the balance of the living.

We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of

our own money as we please in charity; but as members of

Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the

public money.

Davy Crockett continued:

I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this

bill, but I will give one week's pay--

I will give my check for 1 week, and if every member of

Congress were to do this, it will amount to more than this

bill asks for.

When Crockett finished, there was silence, and, remarkably, the bill failed. When later asked for an explanation, Davy Crockett explained.

He said:

Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps

of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when [we

saw] a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a

large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as

we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses

were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides,

some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The

weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and

children suffering, I felt that something

ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was

introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put

aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it

could be done.

Later in the year, when Davy Crockett was back in Tennessee, he ran into a constituent by the name of Horacio Bunce. Crockett asked him for his vote, and Horacio Bunce responded thusly. He said:

You had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not

vote for you again.

Your vote last winter shows that either you have not the

capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are

wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it

because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held

sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man

who wields power and misinterprets the Constitution is more

dangerous the more honest he is.

Horacio Bunce continued. He said:

No, Colonel, there's no mistake.

The newspapers say that last winter you voted for this bill

to give $20,000 to some who suffered from a fire in

Georgetown. Is that true?

Congressman Crockett answered him:

Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me

there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and

rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of

$20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children.

Horacio Bunce replied to Congressman Crockett. He said:

The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is

the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man. . . .

[W]hile you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing

it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had

the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of

discretion with you, and you had as much right to give

$20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one,

you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution

neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at

liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe,

or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you

may think proper.

No, Colonel [Crockett], Congress has no right to give

charity. Individual members may give as much of their own

money as they please, but they have no right to touch a

dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many

houses had been burned in this county [in Tennessee] as in

Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress

would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief.

Bunce informed Crockett that if each Congressman had shown their sympathy for the fire victims by giving 1 week's pay, it would have nearly covered the cost, but it was easier simply to give other people's money.

Bunce continued:

The people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for

relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what

was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress,

by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do

these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for

nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a

violation of the Constitution.

``So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution

in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught

with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to

stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution,

there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.''

Today, we are faced with a vastly greater sum of money than $20,000. We are faced with $40 billion to be gifted to Ukraine--a noble cause, no doubt; a cause for which I have great sympathy and support but a cause for which the Constitution does not sanction or approve of.

Now, we could ask, as Davy Crockett did, if each Member of the Senate would like to contribute individually to Ukraine, but, of course, that would simply serve to demonstrate the enormity of the gift. To come up with $40 billion, each Senator would need to give $400 million--not a likely scenario. It is much easier to spend such exorbitant amounts if you are spending someone else's money.

But even if the Senators won't agree to contribute their own money, surely we are a rich country and can afford it. Well, not exactly. The U.S. debt now approaches $30 trillion. In the past 2 years alone, we have added nearly $6 trillion in new debt. Inflation roars throughout the land. Grocery bills are punishing the working class and poor, and gas prices exceed $5. Even before the pandemic bailouts, our country was running a trillion-dollar annual deficit just to pay for its routine commitments.

Putting aside the constitutionality of the $40 billion to Ukraine, isn't there a more fiscally responsible way this could be done? What about taking the $40 billion from elsewhere in the budget?

The United States spends more on our military than the next eight countries combined. Couldn't Congress simply shift over the $40 billion and not add to the debt? If the defense of Ukraine is really in our national security interests, shouldn't the gift come from our military budget?

What about cutting wasteful spending? My office catalogued over $50 billion in waste. I don't know about you, but couldn't we cut programs like the million-dollar study to see if taking selfies of yourself while smiling and then looking at these selfies later on--if that makes you feel good? Couldn't we cut the budget of the National Science Foundation that spends billions of dollars studying such burning questions as ``Do Panamanian city frogs have a different mating call than country frogs?'' Couldn't we maybe cut the $2 million the NIH spent studying cafeterias to see, if someone in front of you sneezes on the food, whether you are more or less likely to eat that food? Couldn't we maybe cut the money spent on Japanese quail, studying whether or not they are more sexually promiscuous or not when you give them cocaine?

If we are not willing to cut the budget at all, couldn't we ask the American people to step up and pay a war tax? If this is really for our national security, it should be very popular with the people. Why don't we offer to tax them in exchange for this?

Guess what. The American people don't want to cut spending anywhere in the budget--at least their representatives don't. They don't want to pay any taxes for this. They just say ``Put it on my tab.'' But we have been doing that for decades, and that is why we have a $30 trillion debt, and that is why we have roaring inflation.

If you want to pay for this with a tax, you could triple the gas tax. I am guessing that is going to be really popular and people really want to send this money so badly that they would be willing to triple the gas tax. If we were honest, that is what the people who are for this would propose. That would guarantee $5 gas for the foreseeable future.

Alternatively, Congress could raise the income tax about $500 for every American taxpayer. I am sure that would be popular. And for the people who think it is a great idea to send $40 billion overseas, why don't they just be honest with people and tax them? Here is your bill, Mr. and Mrs. America, $500 a taxpayer. Then it would be paid for. No, it is like everything else: Put it on our tab. Well, Uncle Sam's tab is full. It is complete.

To be clear, I am not for raising taxes to finance Ukraine's defense, but it is irresponsible to simply borrow more money. To borrow the money from China simply to send it to Ukraine makes no sense and makes us weaker, not stronger.

But let's be honest--most of Congress doesn't seem to care about the debt, doesn't seem to care how much money we shovel out the door and out of the country. Why? Because it is not their money. Every day, Milton Friedman's statement has proven correct--that nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as their own.

I doubt the big spenders in Congress will ever consider spending any of their own money. But Americans across the land should sit up and notice and attach blame to these profligate spenders.

In the past 3 months, bipartisan majorities, Republicans and Democrats, have added over $100 billion to the debt. Now these same big spenders are proposing another $50 billion next week to bail out restaurants--restaurants that have been primarily injured by overzealous Democratic Governors and their edicts.

There are ramifications to this mountain of debt. Make no mistake, inflation is here, and it is rip-roaring and on the rise. Just as aiding the victims of fire in Georgetown during the days of Davy Crockett ignored the misfortune of the suffering people in lands too distant from Washington to be noticed, so, too, does today's deficit spending to be sent overseas ignore the pain and suffering and the inflation that is caused by that debt on everyday American families.

Inflation is simply an increase in the money supply. It comes from the Federal Reserve buying U.S. debt. M2 is a measure of the money supply. For the last 3 years, it has been going up at about a 15- percent rate. So we shouldn't really be surprised that there is inflation because inflation is an increase in the money supply. In January of last year, the annualized rate of the M2 expansion, the monetary expansion, was 27 percent.

No one should be shocked we have inflation. We have rising prices in the grocery store. We have rising prices at the pump because we borrowed too much money. We went heavily in debt, and the Federal Reserve is buying the debt. All this so-called free money floods the market and chases prices higher. Adding to our debt will only make the problem worse.

Yes, our national security is threatened--not by Russia's war on Ukraine but by Congress's war on the American taxpayer. The vast majority of Americans sympathize with Ukraine and want them to repel the Russian invaders. But if Congress were honest, they would take the money from elsewhere in the budget or ask Americans to pay higher taxes or, Heaven forbid, loan the money to Ukraine instead of giving it to Ukraine. But Congress will do what Congress does best: spend other people's money. I, for one, will not. I will vote no. Somehow, somewhere, a voice of fiscal sanity must remain vigilant, must remain stalwart and steady in a sea of fiscal madness.

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

Madam President, I rise today out of a desire to protect the rights and the health of the young men and women who serve the Senate as pages.

I think we could all agree that the Senate wouldn't function well without pages. The very first Senate page was a 9-year-old boy named Grafton Hanson. He was appointed by Daniel Webster in 1829. In those days, the pages' jobs were to refill the inkwells and clean out spittoons. Fortunately, things have improved a bit for the pages. The work isn't quite as messy anymore, but it is still a high-pressure job for a high school student.

When I was here on the floor voting last week, I noticed that the pages were all wearing masks, but none of my colleagues were. I threatened to come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to end the mask mandate, and the next day, the mandate ended. Coincidence? Perhaps.

The new policy states, though, that the mask-wearing will become optional for pages who test negative. But once again, we see the masks on the floor.

I urge my colleagues to look around. The pages are still wearing masks. The COVID policy for the Senate pages requires the reinstitution of a mask mandate if they have supposedly been exposed.

Apparently, there are rules for the pages of the Senate, but not for the President of the Senate, Kamala Harris. When Vice President Harris was deemed potentially exposed to COVID, she not only presided over the Senate's confirmation vote of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, but was also seen at the White House with the President, the First Lady, and the Justice without a mask. Rules for thee but not for me.

Jen Psaki justified the Vice President's violation of the COVID guidelines by stating that it was an emotional day. I guess if you are feeling like it is an emotional day then you can do what you please, unless you are a page. The impressive thing about that absurd defense was that Psaki was able to say it with a straight--and maskless--face.

But an unseasoned mask mandate is not all that is required of the pages. According to the guidelines: ``All pages are required to be fully vaccinated; if their initial vaccination series was completed at least five months ago, pages are required to obtain [a] booster [shot]'' to participate in the Page Program.

From day one, our country's response to this pandemic has made the comfortable more comfortable, while the working class or kids or people with no power have to keep on working but have to obey rules that the adults don't have to themselves.

Now in the halls of Congress we have created a privileged class that can choose whether to get vaccinated and an underclass that has to abide by dictate. It makes absolutely no sense to mandate COVID vaccinations for teenagers who are healthy. It makes even less sense to mandate a booster. There is no scientific evidence that boosters are valuable, and there is scientific evidence that boosters increase the risk of a heart inflammation for young adolescent males.

A study published last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology examined over 23 million people ages 12 and up across Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. It concluded that the risk of myocarditis, an inflation of the heart, ``was more pronounced'' after a second mRNA vaccine dose, ``and the risk was highest among males aged 16 to 24 years.''

This is exactly why several European countries, including Germany, France, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, all restrict the use of mRNA vaccines for COVID--particularly for adolescents, particularly for adolescent males. The policy of our pages does not address this issue at all and blindly commands boosters.

In fact, if you read the policy, you could imagine an endless stream of boosters. Every 5 months that you haven't had another vaccine you would be required to get a booster.

Last fall, the director and deputy director at the FDA's Office of Vaccines Research and Review both resigned. Realize who these people are. They are on the vaccine committee. They are pro-vaccine. Both of them are actually pro-vaccine mandate. Yet, they resigned from the Government, as reported, ``citing White House pressure to approve third doses for all adults and writing damning op-ed's critical of the FDA's subsequent decision to do so.''

It became a political decision. The committee voted against extending boosters to kids, and then it was overruled by politicians at the White House. These two researchers, long esteemed, who have been on this committee for years, resigned in protest.

One of the op-eds that ran in the Washington Post was coauthored by Dr. Paul Offitt, a professor of pediatrics and director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

Once again--not an opponent of vaccines; a proponent of vaccines, a guy who has been on the vaccine committee for decades.

As a Member of the FDA's advisory committee, Dr. Offitt, though, did not support widespread boosting when the committee met to consider boosters for all adults in September and October. He and the two former FDA officials wrote: ``A healthy young person with two mRNA doses is extremely unlikely to be hospitalized with COVID, so the case for risking any side effects,'' the case for forcing them to take a third vaccine when their risk of COVID after two vaccines is nearly, if not virtually, zero, he says--or they said that the case for risking any side effects--such as myocarditis--diminishes substantially.

What happens is myocarditis is a rare event for vaccines, more common with young adolescent males. But you have to compare the risk of getting myocarditis with the vaccine to the risk of the disease. Young people who have been vaccinated twice--even without vaccines, young people, the death rate under 15 is 1 in 2.32 million. With the vaccine it is probably zero. We have studies of millions of people. We can't find kids that are dying or going to the hospital with two vaccines. And yet the policy for pages in this body is a booster--a mandated booster. It is actually malpractice. It is malpractice to give a booster, a third vaccine, to an adolescent male and probably to an adolescent female. There is no evidence it helps them.

Then the other argument goes like this: Oh, we don't want them to transmit it to people. Guess what? We have done a study on that, too. Vaccinated versus unvaccinated: 25 percent of the household will transmit it. It is the same for both groups. The vaccine protects you from hospitalization and death. It does not prevent transmission.

So we are going to vaccinate these kids to take care of the old folks in the Senate. It is not true. And they have already been vaccinated twice. The third vaccine--there is no scientific evidence. There is, however, evidence that it is a danger to them. And to ignore that danger, to be supportive of force I think is without question the wrong way to go.

In January, a piece in The Atlantic cited Dr. Offitt--once again, a vaccine supporter who has been part of the vaccine committee with the FDA for decades--as saying this:

Getting boosted would not be worth the risk for the average

healthy 17-year-old boy.

This is coming from an advocate of vaccines--not a denier, not someone who hasn't been vaccinated. His son has been vaccinated, I believe, twice. But he said he wouldn't do it for a 17-year-old. In fact, he advised his son publicly, who is in his early 20s, not to get the third dose.

What if I am wrong? What if Dr. Offitt is wrong? I don't know. What if it is a controversy? Wouldn't we allow it, maybe, in a free society, up to free individuals consulting with their parents whether you want to get them? But, no. Everything is about force. Everything is about mandates. Do as I am told, even when the science doesn't support it-- even when the science is arguable. Do it or we will fire you. Do it or we will send you home. I think it is a terrible example and, coming from the Senate, an awful precedent.

The Chicago Thinker is a paper for the University of Chicago, and the students there put it in a January 11 editorial. These are the kids who are being forced to do boosters as well:

If being ``boosted'' becomes a prerequisite for

participation in normal life, the vaccine's diminishing

efficacy means the booster campaign will never end.

See, we know this. This is the truth of the matter. While the vaccine does help you to prevent hospitalization and death, we know it has diminishing efficacy, meaning that it wears off, so you have to keep getting boosted and boosted and boosted. But shouldn't we at least study it? Shouldn't we be honest with these kids in that their death rate is virtually zero with nothing? If you vaccinate them, it is zero, and then we have just got to keep vaccinating them. Just do as you are told. Submit to the State. Do whatever people tell you despite the science; despite three scientists from the FDA's vaccine committee saying it is not warranted; despite people arguing that it is actually malpractice and puts these young people at risk to make them get a third vaccine.

In December, Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. government is pushing Covid-19 vaccine boosters

for 16- and 17-year-olds without supporting clinical data. A

large Israeli population study, published in the New England

Journal of Medicine earlier this month, found that the risk

of COVID death in people under 30 with two vaccine shots was

zero.

The risk of death is zero, and we are forcing them to get a third shot for which we know, from large, million-person studies, there is a side effect of heart inflammation.

Even World Health Organization Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan said in January that there is no evidence right now that suggests healthy children and adolescents need booster shots.

So most of Europe has actually said don't take it because of the risk of myocarditis, and the head of the WHO says there is no health reason for which to do it. Yet the Senate thinks it is smart enough to mandate these kids. God forbid one of them dies. God forbid one of them gets myocarditis.

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist from Harvard Medical School, says that mandating people who have already had COVID to still get vaccinated ``makes zero sense from a scientific point of view, and it makes zero sense from a public health point of view.''

Furthermore, we now know the CDC released that, under age 11, 75 percent of the kids have already had it. So, in the age category of the pages and a little older than that, we are looking at a 70- to 75- percent chance they have already had it; they have already been vaccinated; their chance of death is zero. Yet it is not enough. They must submit--submit to the man; submit to the woman; submit to the State.

The science isn't there. It is all about submission.

Then we have weak lapdogs who just say: Go ahead and force them. We don't care. It is not very likely they will die. It is only a few out of 100,000 we may lose.

A study in The Lancet last September supported this view, stating:

Current evidence does not . . . appear to show a need for

boosting in the general population.

This is not just in kids. This is in The Lancet, saying there isn't evidence for boosting in the general population.

What has been accepted by most people is that boosting for those at risk--those of age, those with obesity, those with, you know, other risk factors--is not an unreasonable thing. For most of the people our age and older, the vaccine, without question, is safer than the disease, but the disease is so rare, so uneventful, and the death rate so low in children that you need a near-perfect vaccine to say: Take the vaccine versus the disease.

Even then, wouldn't you want to know if they had had it? Wouldn't we want the CDC to release, if you have had COVID or if you have had COVID and have been vaccinated, what your chances are of going to the hospital?

They actually did look at this for a large population study, and they found that, if you were vaccinated versus unvaccinated, you were 20 times less likely to go to the hospital. I still believe that to be true, and I think it is for the overall population. It is probably not measurable for kids because kids aren't largely affected by this.

Do you know what they also measured? They measured unvaccinated versus the unvaccinated who have had COVID--and guess what. You were 55 times less likely to go to the hospital. The disease is an incredibly potent source of immunity. If you have been vaccinated and had the disease, I think you would calculate that in.

Do you just blindly submit and just take 100 vaccines and take it every 6 months or would you want to talk to your doctor and say: Well, I had COVID in January, and I have had two vaccines. I am relatively thin and relatively healthy. What do you think?

Wouldn't there be a decision-making process?

When we are talking to children--the young men and women at the ages of 15 and 16 years old, many of whom have had COVID already and have already had vaccines--wouldn't we want them to be part of the decision making?

Wouldn't we say: What do your parents think?

Wouldn't we ask for parental consent?

This is insane what we are doing. We have taken off on a tangent where things that were once private decisions are now the realm of the State.

In the study in The Lancet, they stated that the ``[c]urrent evidence does not . . . appear to show a need for boosting in the general population, in which efficacy against severe disease remains high,'' and ``currently available evidence''--this is also from The Lancet-- ``does not show the need for widespread use of booster vaccination in populations that have received an effective primary regimen.''

So here we have a not insubstantial journal, The Lancet. Now, you can disagree. You can disagree with the New England Journal of Medicine. You can disagree with The Lancet, but for goodness' sake, wouldn't you at least admit that it is an argument and that when there is an argument that has valid facts on both sides of it that maybe the individual ought to get to decide?

The Lancet says:

Currently available evidence does not show the need for

widespread booster vaccination in populations that have

received an effective primary vaccination regimen.

There is absolutely no clinical data to support other than a bunch of bureaucrats who want to command you. There is no clinical data to say that 15- and 16-year-olds ought to get a booster--zero.

When we consider the rules for pages, we ought to ask: Will these policies be expected to continue indefinitely? And, if so, to what end? based on what data? When will they change?

We have got them in here wearing masks. The Vice President doesn't wear a mask when she is exposed. Look across all the pages of the news. Everybody has been exposed. I think we have had 8 to 10 Senators who have had COVID in the last couple of weeks. Do you think everybody who ran into them wore a mask for 2 weeks? No, nobody is doing it. Nobody is paying any attention to these people, but the pages are stuck under the thumb of these public health czars.

When we consider the rules, we ought to ask: When will this end?

When it comes to vaccines, though, they can benefit the vaccinated person, but it doesn't stop transmission. The best data we have comes from Denmark, where vaccines were not shown to have any impact on household viral transmission or the secondary attack rate. In other words, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, they both transmitted the disease equally.

It is no coincidence that the Scandinavian countries have moved on to a targeted testing and treatment regime. They are no longer just saying for everybody to submit and for everybody to do the same thing. They are targeting the disease and those who are at risk. They don't expect people to live in a state of constant fear under an endless public health emergency. Instead, public health officials issue recommendations about how those at risk can protect themselves. They give advice.

There was a time in the history of our country when public health officials gave advice, not dictates or mandates. Realize the policy we are adhering to is the same policy that Dr. Fauci espouses, and you know what his response was.

When the court struck down the mask mandate on planes, do you know what Dr. Fauci had the audacity to say? He said: How dare the courts involve themselves in public health. We are not smart enough. Nobody outside the realm of Dr. Fauci is smart enough, but how dare the courts or the Constitution adjudicate what is individual liberty, what is the responsibility of government, and whether the CDC has the power to have mask mandates--none of this.

How dare they? That was his response.

Some offered a different approach. Some offered a more targeted approach to this. It is what Dr. Scott Atlas called for when he was at the White House in the last administration, but his voice was deliberately drowned out by Dr. Fauci and others who attempted to govern by stick rather than carrot.

Public health measures should be backed up with proof that the benefits outweigh the burdens. There is no evidence of that when it comes to vaccination mandates, especially for teenagers, who as a group are less vulnerable to this virus than any Senator. That is why I am asking unanimous consent that the Senate pass my resolution to end all COVID mandates for pages and respect their privacy, their rights, their medical freedom, and their health for the young men and women who serve in this Chamber.

Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 631, which is at the desk. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.