Floor Statements

Mr. President, today we will be considering the nomination of Antony Blinken to be President Biden's Secretary of State.

The problem I have with this nomination is that, for decades now, we have been at war in Afghanistan. The war is now called ``the forever war.'' People lament that it goes on so long, and people say: How could it possibly keep going on?

Sixty-five to seventy percent of the American people, 65 to 70 percent of American veterans--veterans who served in the theater--say the war is enough. We should end the war in Afghanistan. How does it go on? We have got a new President. Are things going to change?

Here is the problem: Why do the wars continue? Why do the wars in Syria and Libya and Somalia and Afghanistan continue? Because the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Mr. Blinken has been a full-throated advocate of military intervention in the Middle East for 20 years. We are fooling ourselves if we think we are going to get a new policy. We are going to get more of the same.

In his hearing, I said to him: ``The problem isn't that we don't compromise or that we don't have bipartisan consensus; the problem is we have too much bipartisan consensus for war.''

For 20 years, he has advocated for military intervention. He advocated for the Iraq war, as did the President. President Biden was also an advocate of the Iraq war.

Now, later on they said: Well, the war wasn't that great of an idea, but we were lied to by George Bush and the intelligence, and I am willing to admit there is some truth to that. But there is a bigger lesson here. The lesson is that regime change doesn't work.

They often get unintended consequences, and you often get the opposite of what you think you are getting. They said: We must go to Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein because he is a terrible dictator. Well, yes, he was a despot, a dictator, an autocrat. You know, he wreaked havoc on his people, probably gassed the Kurds--many different horrible things. And yet, when he was gone, what did we get? We got a power vacuum. We got more terrorism. We are back in there 10 years later because the government is nonfunctional. And what is the final result? Iran is stronger.

What does everybody talk about? Iran, Iran, Iran. Why do we worry about Iran? Well, because we toppled their biggest adversary. We used to have a balance of power between Iraq and Iran--despot on one side, despot on the other but at least a balance of power.

But who is Iran's best ally now? Iraq. Think about it. Iraq is allied with Iran. Iraq is also allied, in many ways, with Russia, as well as us, but they have also asked us to leave. They are like: Oh, thanks for our freedom, but you all can take off now.

But who supported the war? President Biden, Antony Blinken. We are back where we were 20 years ago.

Now, like I say, there is some retrenchment, there is some backing off of the position, but I don't hear from either President Biden, Candidate Biden, or from Antony Blinken that regime change is wrong.

Now, if it were wrong, you would expect there was a learning from the Iraq war, and they would say: OK. Now that we are in charge, we won't do the same.

But it turns out, when we had an Obama administration, with Blinken and the other military interventionists, in a supposedly progressive administration, we got more war. They went into Libya. Once again, the same sort of idea--the idea that regime change works, and that we will topple this terrible dictator, Qadhafi, and out of the mist, out of the embers, out of the fire will arise Thomas Jefferson. The Thomas Jefferson of Libya will take over and freedom will reign. It didn't work out so much.

So Mr. Blinken, in his hearing, admitted as much. He said: Well, maybe we overestimated the possibility that there would be rivals to replace him. Do you think?

But, see, this is sort of the expected pattern of the Middle East. The Middle East doesn't have this 1,000-year English tradition of trying to control central power, dating back to even before the Magna Carta.

But even 350 years ago, the English had a revolution trying to restrain the power of the King; 250 years ago we had our revolution to further restrain the power of the King. We have this longstanding tradition.

But in the Middle East, there is more of this tradition of tribalism, and so you have an iron fist, but when you get rid of the iron fist, it is replaced by another iron fist or nothing--by chaos.

So in Libya you get rid of Qadhafi--supported by President Obama Vice President Biden, Antony Blinken. You have the toppling of Qadhafi, but what did you get? Chaos. More terrorism. It is unclear even whom we support--whether we support the current government, the U.N. government, or General Haftar, or whom we support.

The Middle East is divided, arms are flowing in on both sides, and like we always do, we fan the flames by shipping arms to everybody in the region as well. It didn't work.

So Mr. Blinken acknowledges: Yes, we underestimated the possibility there would be a rival government or a rival faction strong enough to rule Libya. Well, yeah.

So did they learn their lesson? No. About this time or a little bit later, they decided: We must go into Syria. So they spent about $500 million--$500 million--to train about 60 fighters. They did it in a remote area of Syria and they got them trained and they spent their $500 million and they sent 10 of them into battle. They were all captured or killed in the first 20 minutes. Five hundred million to train sixty of the so-called moderates. But guess what. The same holds for Syria that held for Iraq, that held for Libya, that now holds for Syria. Guess what. Another despot.

But who are the people fighting against the despot? The most fierce fighters in Syria all along were al-Nusra and al-Qaida. The more jihadists, the more vicious and violent and the better the fighters were.

Were there doctors and lawyers and academics and people who want a secular form of government? Sure. But the people out there fighting and the people winning the battles were the jihadists.

So there was always the danger, if you get rid of Assad, we get another jihadist regime.

So we have to think through the policy of this. But Blinken and Biden both supported the Iraq war. It was an utter failure. They admit as much. They supported the Libyan deposing of Qadhafi and war. Then they acknowledge: Well, maybe it wasn't the best--but then they don't take any learning or knowledge from that and say: Maybe we shouldn't go into the next one--Syria. And yet, they went into Syria.

And what Blinken's response is should tell you a little bit about the danger of what we may get from Blinken as Secretary of State.

He said the problem in Syria was not doing too much but doing too little. He said: What we really should have done is gone in with full might. If we had put 100,000 troops in there, like we did in Afghanistan and like we did in Iraq, if we would have used sufficient enough force, we could have toppled Assad. But in the end, he said: We didn't do enough.

So the lesson to Blinken and Biden and this administration isn't that regime change doesn't work; it is that if we are going to do it, we need to go bigger. We need to go all in.

I would posit that regime change doesn't work; that we should not support evil regimes. If they are despots or dictators, we shouldn't arm them. But I am not for toppling every one of them

either because I am not so sure what you get next.

So how would this be in the real world? Saudi Arabia has shown themselves to be an autocratic, anti-woman, anti-modern administration that would actually kill a journalist and dismember him. They were rewarded by the previous administration with arms. Terrible idea.

But what would we do if there was a rational, realistic--more realism in foreign policy? We would not topple the Government of Saudi Arabia, but we might not sell them arms. I think that would be a reasonable thing.

We also might not sell them arms because they were committing atrocities and killing civilians in the war in Yemen. But if you look back at the war in Yemen, the Obama-Biden administration did not have very strong opposition to the war in Yemen. They do now, but in the beginning, they didn't.

And so the supplying of weaponry and bombs and smart bombs to Saudi Arabia occurred under the Obama-Biden administration and then continued under the Trump administration.

So we have to ask ourselves: We have so many unintended consequences; how will we ever make things different?

Now, our Founding Fathers envisioned something different. Our Founding Fathers envisioned that war should be difficult. It was James Madison who said that the executive branch is most prone to war and, therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature. To declare war was to be split between the House and the Senate and by a majority vote to declare war. We don't do that. It is passe. Oh, that is an anachronism, some say.

And when Antony Blinken was asked about this, when he was asked about a use of authorization of force--he was asked: Do you need it? And this was when he was working for the Obama-Biden administration. And he said: Oh, we would welcome discussion and debate and advice from the Senate, but, you know, we don't really need it.

Now, he is not alone in this. This isn't a Democratic or Republican thing. This is most of the foreign policy establishment in both parties, particularly once they work for a President. They will tell you, yes, they will listen to your advice. Oh, we really welcome your coming down. Please come down. We would love to sit down and have tea. But, really, don't tell us what to do. We can do whatever we want under article II.

And you think, well gosh, that sounds harsh. It sounds like you are describing Blinken as some sort of John Bolton. Yeah. There are similarities, but there are similarities between both parties when they get to the executive branch that they don't think they need Congress's permission. This is a real problem.

So some in the Senate have tried to narrow the definition of where a war would be, and I looked at their narrower definition last time and I said: Well, yeah, you would narrow it from the whole world to 24 countries. I don't want to be at war in those 24 countries either.

Think about it. We have more military action in Africa right now than we do in the Middle East. Somalia, Mali, all throughout Africa we have got troops.

We had four soldiers die a little over a year ago in Mali, and people were like: We have 800 soldiers in Mali? No one even knew. People on the Armed Services Committee were like: We have 800 soldiers in Mali? And yet that goes on without our permission. Without a vote of the people's representatives, without consulting the people at all, it just goes on and on and on.

So my opposition of Mr. Blinken to be Secretary of State is not so much because I oppose the administration; it is because I oppose the bipartisan consensus for war.

If we are ever to end these wars, we are going to need to not keep nominating the same retreads who have gotten us into these wars.

So I will vote against Mr. Blinken because I am against war. I am against war that is not declared by Congress. I am against war that is executed primarily by the President. I am against them doing it without the permission of the people.

So I will oppose Mr. Blinken's nomination. I don't think I will get many people from the other side. It is difficult to vote against nominees of one's own party, but I will say that if we are ever to end war, we need to have a real discussion in this body about when we go to war, whether or not we have to declare war, and we have to talk about whether our involvements have worked in the Middle East, whether or not there are unintended consequences. Instead of saying ``Oh, it was all George Bush's fault. It was faulty intelligence''--yeah, yeah, there is some truth to that, but it is really about regime change. It is about the idea that we know what is best for everyone else and that by putting a new regime involved in a country in the Middle East, somehow it is going to be better. It usually turns out worse.

So I hope my colleagues will today consider voting against Mr. Blinken because I think he is more of the same.

Mr. President, this impeachment is nothing more than a partisan exercise designed to further divide the country. Democrats claim to want to unify the country, but impeaching a former President, a private citizen, is the antithesis of unity.

Democrats brazenly appointing a pro-impeachment Democrat to preside over the trial is not fair or impartial and hardly encourages any kind of unity in our country. No, unity is the opposite of this travesty we are about to witness.

If we are about to try to impeach a President, where is the Chief Justice?

If the accused is no longer President, where is the constitutional power to impeach him?

Private citizens don't get impeached. Impeachment is for removal from office, and the accused here has already left office.

Hyperpartisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol, the likes of which has never been seen in our Nation's history.

Instead of doing the Nation's work, with their new majorities in the House, the Senate, and the executive branch, Democrats are wasting the Nation's time on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office. It is almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump. Without him as their boogeyman, they might have to legislate and to actually convince Americans that their policy prescriptions are the right ones.

Democrats are about to do something no self-respecting Senator has ever stooped to. Democrats are insisting the election is actually not over, and so they insist on regurgitating the bitterness of the election.

This acrimony they are about to unleash has never before been tried. Why? Because calmer heads have typically prevailed in our history and allowed public opinion to cast blame where blame is deserved.

This sham of an impeachment will ostensibly ask whether the President incited the reprehensible behavior and violence of January 6, when he said: ``I know everyone here will soon march to the Capitol to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.''

``Peacefully and patriotically''--hardly words of violence.

But what of Democrat words? What of Democrat incitement to violence?

No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the

shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise and a volunteer coach. The shooter nearly pulled off a massacre--I was there--because he fervently believed the false and inflammatory rhetoric spewed by Bernie and other Democrats, such as: ``The Republican healthcare plan for the uninsured is that you die.''

As this avowed Bernie supporter shot Steve Scalise, nearly killing him, and shot one of our coaches and two or three of our staff, he screamed: ``This is for healthcare!''

Ask me or anyone if that is incitement.

No Democrat will ask whether Cory Booker incited violence when he called for his supporters to get ``up in the face of Congress people''--a very visual and specific incitement.

No Democrat will ask whether Maxine Waters incited violence when she literally told her supporters: ``If you see a member of the Trump [administration] at a restaurant, [at] a department store, [at] a gas station, or any place, you create a crowd and you push back on them.'' Is that not incitement?

My wife and I were pushed and surrounded and screamed at by this same type of mob that Maxine likes to inspire. It is terrifying to have a swarm of people threatening to kill you, cursing at you, and literally holding you hostage until police come to your rescue. That night we were assaulted by the crowd, I wasn't sure if we would survive even with the police protection. But no Democrat has ever considered impeaching Maxine for her violent rhetoric. In fact, Republicans, to our credit, have never once thought it legitimate to censure or impeach these Democrats.

No Republican has sought to use a government to hold these Democrats responsible for Antifa and Black Lives Matter violence that has consumed our cities all summer, resulting in over $1 billion of destruction, looting, and property damage. Not one Republican said, ``Oh, let's impeach the Democrats who are inciting this'' because it would be ridiculous.

Many on the Democrat side of the aisle cheered them on. Kamala Harris famously offered to pay the bill for those who were arrested. I wonder if she will be brought up on charges of inciting violence for that now that she is Vice President. Should Kamala Harris be impeached for offering to pay for violent people to get out of jail who have been burning our cities down? No. No Republican has offered that because we are not going down the road the Democrats have decided, this low road of impeaching people for political speech.

Should Republicans impeach the Democratic mayor of Seattle who incited and condoned violence by calling the armed takeover of part of her city ``a summer of love''? Did any Republicans try to impeach her?

Then on June 8, the New York Post, citing U.S. Justice Department statistics, reported that more than 700 law enforcement officers were injured during the Antifa-Black Lives Matter riots. There were at least 19 murders, including 77-year-old retired police officer David Dorn. Yet Democrats insist on applying a test of incitement to a Republican that they refuse to apply to themselves.

I want the Democrats to raise their hands if they have ever given a speech that says ``Take back; fight for your country.'' Who hasn't used the word ``fight'' figuratively? And are we going to put every politician in jail? Are we going to impeach every politician who has used the word ``fight'' figuratively in a speech?

Shame. Shame on these angry, unhinged partisans who are putting forth this sham impeachment, deranged by their hatred of the former President. Shame on those who seek blame and revenge and who choose to pervert a constitutional process while doing so.

I want this body on record, every last person here: Is this how you think politics should be?

Look, we have now got crazy partisans on the other side of the aisle trying to censor and remove two of the Republican Senators for their political position. Look, I disagreed. I don't think Congress should overturn the electoral college. But impeaching or censoring or expelling a Member of Congress you disagree with--is the truth so narrow that only you know the truth? We now have the media on your side saying there is only one set of facts, one set of truths, and you can only interpret it this way.

Now we have seven Senators on the other side trying to expel, censor, or impugn two Senators on this side. I defend them, not because I defend their position--I disagreed with their position--but you can't impeach, censor, or expel people you disagree with. What is this coming to?

In a few minutes, I will insist on a vote to affirm that this proceeding we are about to enter is unconstitutional, that impeachment of a private citizen is illegal and essentially a bill of attainder, and that no sense of fairness or due process would allow the judge in the proceeding to be a partisan Democrat already in favor of the impeachment.

A sham this is. A travesty. A dark blot on the history of our country. I urge my colleagues to reconsider this kangaroo court and move forward to debate the great issues of our day.

With that, I would like to relinquish the last moment or two of my time to the Senator of Wisconsin.

Mr. President, article II, section 4 of the Constitution says: ``The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''

Article I, section 3, clause 6 states: ``When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.''

As of noon last Wednesday, Donald Trump holds none of the positions listed in the Constitution. He is a private citizen. The Presiding Officer is not the Chief Justice, nor does he claim to be. His presence in the Chief Justice's absence demonstrates that this is not a trial of the President but of a private citizen.

Point of Order

Therefore, I make a point of order that this proceeding, which would try a private citizen and not a President, a Vice President, or civil officer, violates the Constitution and is not in order.

Mr. President, I voted against the confirmation of Janet Yellen to be Treasury Secretary. Dr. Yellen is well known as an academic, as an economic policy adviser to President Clinton, and as Chair of the Federal Reserve. In all of these positions, she has proven herself to be wrong on fiscal, monetary, and economic policy.

At her confirmation hearing, she vigorously supported the additional $2 trillion stimulus package President Biden has put forward. Her argument is that this time is different--but since the great recession, big spenders have not receded from that argument, even during the times of unprecedented spending growth in the Trump administration. Moreover, we know what the problem is in our economy today: government-mandated business closures. The economy contracted by nearly one-third in the second quarter of 2020 when lockdowns were in full force, but in the third quarter, the summer, when restrictions were relaxed, the economy made nearly a full recovery. This clearly indicates that our economy is not in need of stimulus; it needs fewer tin pot dictators in Governors' mansions.

Much more troubling than Dr. Yellen's call for more spending is her dismissal of the harms of continued borrowing. She has said that borrowing and spending is not a problem because interest rates are low. And the key part of her argument is that stimulus will generate more growth than interest will cost to borrow. That is the definition of ``modern monetary theory.'' She did not use that phrase because it is so obviously wrong-headed. Modern monetary theory is self-conflicted because proponents of it, like Dr. Yellen, say we can borrow in good time, but they never say we need to be austere in bad times. In fact, bad times are when they call for even more borrowing and spending.

Modern monetary theory is nothing more than window dressing on a deep-seeded desire to always spend more, no matter what, and its proponents hope to reap electoral benefits now and to leave office before the bill comes due. Well, the bill is coming due. The Congressional Budget Office already estimates that interest on our current debt will begin growing at nearly 22 percent annually in just 6 years. What does that mean? Higher taxes or Venezuela-style inflation-- Probably both. I simply cannot support a candidate who seeks to inflict such pain on the American people in just a few short years for an entirely unneeded stimulus today. We know what works--opening the economy. We know what does not work--modern monetary theory.

Mr. President, today we honor the life and legacy of a great Kentuckian, James ``Jim'' Milliman. Jim was born October 29, 1942, in Norwalk, OH. He led a life of faith, passion for the law, and an unmatched enthusiasm for Notre Dame football. Jim attended Notre Dame, then earned his law degree from the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law, which is where he would embark on a brilliant career as a lawyer.

Jim began his legal career at Middleton-Reutlinger Law firm, where he most notably appeared in the U.S. Supreme Court confirming his defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. He would continue his work fighting for the little guy always advocating for equal justice under the law. After a long successful tenure practicing law, Jim shifted to being my State director. With Jim's guidance, my staff and I have been able to fight for Kentuckians in Washington and throughout the State. The feats we have accomplished would not have been possible without the mentorship of Jim Milliman.

Jim passed January 5, 2021. A true testament to his impact on people, Jim's eulogy was not given by any of his law partners, business, or political friends--he had plenty--but by Muhammed Lasege, a former University of Louisville basketball star from Nigeria whose college career was cut short due to eligibility issues. A successful businessman himself, he told the story of how Jim provided guidance and hope when his basketball dreams were crushed. He described their relationship of a father-son bond, despite the fact that Jim never had a son and Muhammed never knew his father.

While our hearts are heavy acknowledging Jim's passing, we reminisce with great joy remembering all our accomplishments, but most of all our friendship. May Jim Milliman rest in peace.

Mr. President, our Founding Fathers believed strongly in the civilian control of our military. Having escaped from the tyranny of the British crown, they did not want the powers of government and military to be fused. In America, the people would control their Armed Forces. This standard has endured, and was enshrined in law in 1947. Congress had to pass a waiver to the 1947 law in 2017, and we are being asked to do it again in 2021. I hope that this is the last time Congress will be asked to pass such a waiver.

Civilian control of the military goes beyond the basic question of how long ago a nominee wore the uniform. It is also a question of whether the nominee is enmeshed in the interests of our vast defense contracting industry, an industry whose bottom line depends on an expansive American military posture and, with it, an ever-growing defense budget. Going from firing the missiles to selling the missiles is technically a move into a civilian role, but nothing more. It is every bit as corrosive to the principle of civilian rule for the head of the Pentagon to churn from the military to the boardroom to the Pentagon, working with many of the same people at every step along the way.

General Austin retired from the Army in 2016, and he immediately joined the board of United Technologies, which was acquired by Raytheon. He was very well-compensated for his work there, and is reportedly due a buy-out of up to $1.7 million when he leaves Raytheon and his other work and returns to the Pentagon. All we are doing by confirming these types of nominees, no matter their other qualifications, is tightening the ever-increasing bonds between the military and the contractors who serve it. It is getting hard to see where one stops and the other begins. No pledge of recusal from a nominee will solve this larger problem. We are not limited to selecting our Secretary of Defense from the world of defense contractors, and our country would be better off if we stopped. However, with regard to experience and expertise, I do not question General Austin's qualifications and will vote to allow the President his choice.

Madam President, the Director of National Intelligence must demonstrate commitment to restraining the vast power of our intelligence agencies. They should not view themselves as an enabler or facilitator of

agencies that already operate without public scrutiny. We do not need another Washington insider in this position, someone who will go along to get along, helping to further the expansion of secret government powers.

What we need is someone who is a skeptic of these powers. After years of revelations of government spying on Americans and the exposure of the unconstitutional applications of these powers, I had hoped that the President would submit a nominee that understands the importance of regaining the public's trust, to pledge transparency and accountability.

The President's nominee, Avril Haines, does not meet that profile. She played a key role in formulating the government's legal authority to conduct summary executions by drone and was reportedly summoned in the middle of the night to approve lethal drone strikes. As Deputy Director of the CIA, she declined to punish any of the CIA employees who spied on the Senate as it was investigating the CIA's torture programs. Her record is that of an insider, someone who will defend the broken status quo. I will not support more of the same unconstitutional policies, and I oppose her confirmation.

I wrote a speech for today. I was planning to say that I fear the chaos of establishing a precedent that Congress can overturn elections. Boy, was I right. Chaos, anarchy--the violence today was wrong and un-American.

The vote we are about to cast is incredibly important. Now more than ever, the question is, Should Congress override the certified results from the States and nullify the States' rights to conduct elections?

The vote today is not a protest; the vote today is literally to overturn elections. We have been told that this is a protest, that this is about an electoral commission. No, it is not. It is about whether to seat the electors certified by a State. It is not about an electoral commission. It is not about a protest. You can go outside if you want to protest. This is about overturning a State-certified election.

If you vote to overturn these elections, wouldn't it be the opposite of States' rights Republicans have always advocated for?

This would doom the electoral college forever. It was never intended by our Founders that Congress have the power to overturn State- certified elections. My oath to the Constitution doesn't allow me to disobey the law. I can't vote to overturn the verdict of States. Such a vote would be to overturn everything held dear by those of us who support the rights of States in this great system of federalism that was bequeathed to us by our Founders.

The electoral college was created to devolve the power of selecting Presidential electors to the States. The electoral college is, without question, an inseparable friend to those who believe that every American across our vast country deserves to be heard.

If Congress were given the power to overturn the States' elections, what terrible chaos would ensue every 4 years. Imagine the furor against the electoral college if Congress becomes a forum to overturn States' electoral college slates.

It is one thing to be angry. It is another to focus one's anger in constructive ways. That hasn't happened today, to say the least.

We simply cannot destroy the Constitution, our laws, and the electoral college in the process.

I hope, as the Nation's anger cools, we can channel that energy into essential electoral reforms at the State level. America is admired around the world for our free elections. We must--we absolutely must fix this mess and restore confidence and integrity to our elections. We must.

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

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

Mr. President, for several years now, I have been working on tax treaties that we have with other countries to try to protect Americans' privacy. I think it is very important that your personal information--what you buy with your credit card, what checks you write, and what you do with your bank account--is private. It is yours, and it is not to be sifted through or rummaged through by the government.

I am very, very concerned that, over time, particularly with technology, the IRS is gaining too much power at the push of a button to simply sift through our bank accounts looking for anomalies.

I think it is important that we protect Americans who live overseas. About 8 million Americans live overseas, and I think the vast majority of them are law-abiding citizens.

This debate has been going on for several years now. I first tried to engage the Obama administration in this. We had meeting after meeting but no meaningful engagement. Currently, we have been involved in negotiations with the Trump administration, which has been more open to discussions of how we protect Americans' privacies. Unfortunately, these negotiations were sabotaged by the Republican leader, who chose to bring these tax treaties forward at a time when we were in the middle of negotiations. This is very disappointing to me because I think we were at the point of actually achieving a deal that would protect the privacy of Americans. This process has been severely damaged and short-circuited by the Republican leader's choosing to push this forward and destroy the negotiations that we were having at the time.

When we look at these treaties, and we say, ``well, how could we make them better,'' there are ways that we could actually make them better. There are also ways that these treaties could have come up at any point in time in the past. No one Senator can really block legislation. The fact that this legislation hasn't come up for several years is really due to the fact that the Republican leader has failed to engage in any meaningful compromise or discussion over these.

The treaties are being brought up against my objections now. So they could have been brought up against my objections 2 years ago, 4 years ago, or 6 years ago. Really, the fault and the responsibility for the delay of these tax treaties lies squarely at the foot of the Republican leader, who has failed to engage on this subject and has, rather, chosen at the end just to rush them through without any meaningful debate.

Americans are constitutionally guaranteed to be free from unreasonable, suspicionless search--or at least we used to be. Today this Chamber begins consideration of four tax treaties, and each one of them contains provisions that would violate the fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches.

To be sure, these treaties would bestow benefits to the United States and our trading partners, and those provisions have my support. In fact, I have said for years now that I support the gist of the treaties and that they try to prevent double taxation and they make it easier for companies to do business overseas, as well as to do business in our country. That is why I have said from the beginning: Let's negotiate a settlement. Let's try to put taxpayer protections into the treaties. But at every point we have been stymied.

I don't think the benefits of these treaties should come at the grave expense of violating the rights of every American with a foreign bank account, regardless of whether there is a shred of evidence that a crime has been committed.

These treaties make it easier for tax authorities, such as the IRS, to obtain an American citizen's bank deposit account information. Previously, the IRS could only obtain such information if it was necessary to address a tax dispute, but that is not the standard these treaties will keep. In the past, there had to be at least an accusation of wrongdoing, an accusation of fraud, or an accusation that a taxpayer was doing something against the law. These treaties, though, would allow the IRS--the government Agency that instills terror in every citizen it contacts, the government Agency that has almost limitless power to put anybody out of business--to obtain individual bank account records if that information is ``foreseeably relevant'' or ``may be relevant.''

Think for a minute what the standard is here. So if you happen to be an American who does business overseas, if it may be relevant, the government can look in your bank account. Really, the standard is ``may be relevant'' to the Tax Code, ``may be relevant'' to a question, instead of ``is relevant'' to an active investigation concerning wrongdoing by a taxpayer. I think this is a big mistake. It is going to lead to bulk transfer of information from countries back and forth.

We live in an era where some people leave one country or another, hoping to get away from totalitarianism and hoping to get away from the snooping authorities that may well debit their account or control their account based on their political behavior. I think it is a mistake to allow the information to be transferred back and forth without any kind of standard. The standard is ``foreseeably relevant,'' or ``may be relevant.'' What kind of standard is that?

Historically, the standard required, at the very least, is an accusation of a crime. It will no longer require that. Will it require suspicion of a crime? No, it will require anything the government asks that it may be relevant to the treaty, that it may be relevant to the Tax Code, which is basically no standard at all. No American overseas will have any kind of protection of their privacy.

Some recent international court decisions have provided an idea as to what meets this new standard. According to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, under the new standard of these new tax treaties and the ``foreseeably relevant'' standard, an information request will only be denied if the link between the requested data and the information is improbable. No consideration is necessary as to whether there is reasonable suspicion of a crime. People can go after the information, basically, based on no accusation of a crime or no suspicion of a crime. It will be a fishing expedition.

Perhaps we should thank the Swiss Federal Supreme Court for effectively telling us what we already knew, that the ``foreseeably relevant'' standard is really no standard at all.

At a time when the United States is over $22 trillion in debt and running annual trillion-dollar deficits, these treaties would empower the IRS to obtain sensitive bank account information under the weakest of pretenses. In short, the information is exchanged with no questions asked, no reasonable suspicion, and no due process in an effort to swell the coffers of the U.S. Treasury.

I am outraged by this. The Senate should be outraged, and the American people should be outraged that their liberties are so cavalierly cast aside to accommodate the IRS's perpetual search for more taxpayers to shake down.

My amendment to the treaties would end bulk exchanges of financial records by simply mandating that the United States and our treaty partners would exchange information only if an identified individual is subject to an individual investigation related to the enforcement of the Tax Code. I am not against going after people not paying their taxes, but I am against going after the 8 million Americans who live overseas and are just trying to abide by the laws and just trying to earn a living.

While those who have evaded their tax obligations must be held to account, the power to search and seize is not absolute in the United States or in any free country. A government dedicated to securing the blessings of liberty does not allow the IRS to rummage through our bank accounts hoping to find a crime.

Obtaining the deposit account information of an American should be done on an individualized basis without resorting to indiscriminate sweeps of sensitive information gathering.

I urge every Senator to stand up for the Fourth Amendment rights of all Americans and to support my amendment.

My amendment would simply do this. It would put a standard into the treaties that says that there has to be suspicion. You have to individualize an investigation. You can't push a button and search through 8 million Americans' bank records overseas. If we allow this to go without personal privacy protections, we are setting ourselves up for a dystopian nightmare, where the government looks at every transaction, every purchase, and everything we do in our lives. It is a big mistake to let this go.

There is no reason why this couldn't be corrected.

I have spoken to the countries involved, and they have assured me that there is not a problem at all with making these amendment changes to the treaties. Yet they have fallen on deaf ears.

It is a sad day for Americans taxpayers and a sad day for privacy that these tax treaties are being rushed through. I strongly object and hope other Senators will consider voting for taxpayer privacy.

I call up my amendment No. 921.

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

Madam President, I am offering a reservation to these treaties that would maximize the benefit for individuals and businesses that are impacted by these tax provisions.

My proposed reservation would establish only for the United States-- and only for our tax purposes--an effective date of January 1, 2019. By entering into these treaties, the United States and our partners are committing to the same set of tax rules and solving the problems of double taxation that plague businesses that operate in several countries.

Senate debate on the merits of these treaties has taken many years, and there is no reason to punish American companies that paid their foreign taxes but then were double-taxed by the IRS due to the lack of a ratified treaty.

As I have said many times, I support the benefit of these treaties. I wish we added privacy protections, but I do support the benefits of avoiding double taxation.

I also support making whole those who have been double-taxed, and I think it is the right thing to do to backdate these to the beginning of the year. My proposed reservation would grant these companies and the IRS the additional benefit of having a uniform tax for 2019.

To give an example of a company in my State that would benefit, North American Stainless cannot pay dividends without being subject to double taxation. If we were to make this retroactive, we would not punish this company in my State. It is disappointing to me that the senior Senator from Kentucky led the opposition to this amendment because it would stand to greatly benefit a Kentucky company. It also would stand to greatly benefit many companies around the country if we were simply to make this retroactive.

We talked to the countries involved, and there is not one country that expressed any reservation about this. It is with great disappointment that I have to oppose the senior Senator from Kentucky, who is opposing this amendment and rallying those in the body to prevent this from being retroactive. This would in no way slow down the treaties, and it is inappropriately said by some that it would. These treaties would go through with flying colors, and the reservation would apply only to our country.

I hope those who are thinking about how to vote on this will consider voting to make these treaties start in January 1 of this year.

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

Mr. President, due to my concerns related to violations of the Fourth Amendment, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver of any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 111-8.

I cannot support action that provides for the bulk collection of the financial records of U.S. citizens. The benefits of the treaty agreement should not come at the grave expense of endangering regular foreign investment and violating the constitutionally protected right of every American to be free from unreasonable suspicionless searches.

Previous tax treaties were more focused on information specific to suspicions of fraud and required serious allegations of tax wrongdoing to be supported by evidence. The new bulk collection provisions, however, demand Americans' records under a vague standard that allows the government to access personal financial information that may be ``relevant'' through information exchanges between the U.S. and foreign governments. This new, lower, and ambiguous threshold would allow government access to bank records for hardly any reason at all. I do not condone tax cheats, but I cannot support an effort that punishes every American in pursuit of those that have actually broken the law.

Accordingly, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver or any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 111-8.

Mr. President, due to my concerns related to violations of the Fourth Amendment, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver of any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 112-1.

I cannot support action that provides for the bulk collection of the financial records of U.S. citizens. The benefits of the treaty agreement should not come at the grave expense of endangering regular foreign investment and violating the constitutionally protected right of every American to be free from unreasonable suspicionless searches.

Previous tax treaties were more focused on information specific to suspicions of fraud and required serious allegations of tax wrongdoing to be supported by evidence. The new bulk collection provisions, however, demand Americans' records under a vague standard that allows the government to access personal financial information that may be ``relevant'' through information exchanges between the U.S. and foreign governments. This new, lower, and ambiguous threshold would allow government access to bank records for hardly any reason at all. I do not condone tax cheats, but I cannot support an effort that punishes every American in pursuit of those that have actually broken the law.

Accordingly, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver or any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 112-1.

Mr. President, due to my concerns related to violations of the Fourth Amendment, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver of any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 113-4.

I cannot support action that provides for the bulk collection of the financial records of U.S. citizens. The benefits of the treaty agreement should not come at the grave expense of endangering regular foreign investment and violating the constitutionally protected right of every American to be free from unreasonable suspicionless searches.

Previous tax treaties were more focused on information specific to suspicions of fraud and required serious allegations of tax wrongdoing to be supported by evidence. The new bulk collection provisions, however, demand Americans' records under a vague standard that allows the government to access personal financial information that may be ``relevant'' through information exchanges between the U.S. and foreign governments. This new, lower, and ambiguous threshold would allow government access to bank records for hardly any reason at all. I do not condone tax cheats, but I cannot support an effort that punishes every American in pursuit of those that have actually broken the law.

Accordingly, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver or any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 113-4.

Mr. President, due to my concerns related to violations of the Fourth Amendment, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver of any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 114-1.

I cannot support action that provides for the bulk collection of the financial records of U.S. citizens. The benefits of the treaty agreement should not come at the grave expense of endangering regular foreign investment and violating the constitutionally protected right of every American to be free from unreasonable suspicionless searches.

Previous tax treaties were more focused on information specific to suspicions of fraud and required serious allegations of tax wrongdoing to be supported by evidence. The new bulk collection provisions, however, demand Americans' records under a vague standard that allows the government to access personal financial information that may be ``relevant'' through information exchanges between the U.S. and foreign governments. This new, lower, and ambiguous threshold would allow government access to bank records for hardly any reason at all. I do not condone tax cheats, but I cannot support an effort that punishes every American in pursuit of those that have actually broken the law.

Accordingly, I will object to any unanimous consent request, motion, or waiver or any rule in relation to Treaty Doc. 114-1.