Directing the Removal of United States Armed Forces From Hostilities Within or Against Venezuela That Have Not Been Authorized By Congress--

Floor Speech

What I will offer is legislation that instead of closing government down further, begins to pay those who are working. It pays our soldiers, pays our air traffic controllers, pays everyone who is showing up for work. I think this should become a permanent feature of our government.

I think it is disruptive, I think it is unfair, and I think it is wrong that we don't pay the workers that show up. A better way than isolating different groups and punishing different groups is actually to pay those who are working. I think, if we do this, pass this legislation, this would never be a problem again.

We are going to run into disagreements in the future. We are going to have times when the government shuts down. There is no reason we shouldn't be paying our government workers.

I ask the Senator to modify his request, so, instead, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 191, S. 3012; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. I think it is actually a universal sentiment among both parties and among the American people, particularly among the soldiers, that we ought to continue to pay the soldiers and continue to pay the workers.

I am, perhaps, the most conservative Member of the Senate. I vote to cut spending on everything--I think we spend way too much--but I am not for cutting the salaries of people who have a contract and who are doing their work. Now, I probably would not hire new people, and I would probably let the Federal Government shrink gradually through attrition because I think we need to be smaller, but if you work for the government and you are doing your job and you have a contract, I think you ought to be paid.

So I don't think it is clear that the President wouldn't support this. I think it is actually quite confusing that this is being objected to by the Democrats, and I think, actually, it would be nice to let the Democrats, you know, have a round at this and explain to us why they don't want to pay the air traffic controllers.

Look, we can have a dispute over spending. I think the Republican proposal spends too much, and I think the Democrat proposal spends too much, but I think we ought to pay the workers while we are working out the debate over what the spending level ought to be.

I think it is actually an untenable position of Democrats to come before this body and say: Oh, we want to give subsidies to people who make $225,000 a year. That is what they are arguing for. The ObamaCare subsidies are not the basic subsidies. These are add-on subsidies that started 2 years ago. If you make $100,000 a year, the Democrats want to give you $13,000. Meanwhile, people who make $20,000 and are on food stamps are not going to get food stamps, but somebody making $100,000 is going to get $13,000. That doesn't sound like the Democrats are for the working class or for the poor. It sounds like the Democrats are for the people making $200,000 a year to get a subsidy.

But in the midst of all this, with pressure, I think the Democrats could be made to understand and support paying the government workers. I mean, I just think it is something eminently reasonable, and I think it is something very passable. I don't see the President objecting to this. I think the President would sign this in a heartbeat.

Now, the proposal was made, and I just simply made a proposal that would pay everybody. So the Senator from Louisiana has objected to paying everyone, and I don't quite understand this. We could pay everyone. We could have paid everyone had he agreed to my motion. My motion was to pay everyone--to pay the soldiers; to pay the air traffic controllers; to pay the staff; to pay everybody who is working. Yet there was an objection. So I don't understand what is going on here.

Should the emphasis be to pay fewer people or more people? Why would we try to punish certain groups of people instead of paying all of the people who are working? Why would we not do that?

So I don't understand the process we have gone through here. We just had a chance to pay all of the people. We had a chance to pay the air traffic controllers; we had a chance to pay the soldiers; we had a chance to pay all of the government workers--and then there was an objection. So I don't understand what we are going through here.

I, for one, believe that the workers should be paid. I, for one, believe that we should fix this permanently. The bill that I have presented is not just to pay them one time; it is to pay all workers all the time who are under contract and who show up for work whether there is a shutdown or not. It is a permanent payday for those who do their jobs. That was the fix. It is not a niche bill. It is not to punish one group or the other group. It is to say, if you are working and there is a disagreement on the spending levels, that all workers are paid. I don't understand the objection, and I will continue to support paying all the workers all the time they are at work whether there is a shutdown or not.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, for decades, the globalists in Washington have led our country into one disastrous foreign war after another. Whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now potentially Venezuela, the formula is always the same: Proclaim that the regime of the targeted country poses such a threat to the American way of life that the only thing we can do is go to war. Tell them that our intervention is a noble effort, one that would bring security at home and liberty to foreign lands. Topple the government and declare a new age of freedom. The warmongers have recycled these experiments in regime change again and again. And what has it brought? Instability, chaos, suffering, and resentment.

It is the height of arrogance to think we can forcibly remove the dictatorship in Venezuela and expect a different result. We should learn from history. Liberty cannot be imposed at the point of a foreign bad act. The United States maintains the most formidable military in human history. Of course, we have the capability of overthrowing the Maduro regime, just like we had the power to overthrow Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qadhafi.

But what comes next? Is anyone thinking about the potential blowback that such a campaign could entail? Overthrowing the Maduro regime risks creating more regional instability, not less. The breakdown of state authority may create a power vacuum that the very drug cartels the administration is ostensibly trying to destroy could exploit.

Just as our misguided interventions in the Middle East led to the proliferation of terrorist organizations, this could happen in Venezuela, but this time with the proliferation of organized crime. We could swell the ranks of the cartels with new recruits. Remember what happened in Iraq, the de-Baathification of Iraq. Removing all of the previous government soldiers, they had no place to go. They were used to being paid, they wanted money, and they went and worked and became terrorists.

Where do you think the tens of thousands of Venezuelan soldiers and desperate civilians will turn when their livelihood suddenly disappears? It may be the drug cartels. In its hubris, Washington may very well empower the cartels and make the drug problem in our hemisphere worse. Certainly, any war will exacerbate the already precarious humanitarian crisis in Venezuela and lead to mass migration into neighboring countries already struggling under the strain of millions of refugees. And rest assured, many of those who flee the disaster of the war that will come will make their way to the United States.

Most consequentially, any military operation comes with the risk that American servicemembers will be killed or wounded. We owe it to our servicemembers to only send them into harm's way when vital American interests are at stake. Who is in charge of Venezuela does not constitute such an interest.

We have seen chaos emerge from our misguided wars before. We overthrew Saddam Hussein thinking Iraq will be transformed into this great Jeffersonian democracy. Instead, what occurred was an insurgency that led to some of the most brutal sectarian violence in living memory. Washington's foolish invasion empowered radical jihadists and ultimately led to the rise of ISIS, which posed a much greater threat to Americans than Saddam Hussein ever did.

A similar story unfolded in Libya. In 2011, our forces aided the rebels to oust Muammar Qadhafi. The result was a brutal 6-year war that saw the proliferation of jihadist groups and widespread human rights violations, including the resurgence of slavery. Weapons were spread throughout Africa. Our intervention helped spur mass migration into Europe and contributed to widespread instability across Africa as weapons flowed from Libya into the Sahel and Sub-Sahara, where they continued to fuel conflicts and terrorism to this day.

Libya is still highly unstable, and the conflict constantly threatens to reignite. Like Saddam and Qadhafi, Maduro is unmistakably a dictator. He is a bad guy. He suppresses freedom of speech. He controls his people. There is no free voting. He treats people poorly, and that is an understatement.

But there are a lot of bad guys in the world. There are a lot of dictators. There is a lot of socialism leading to starvation. It doesn't mean that the United States should carelessly risk its blood and treasure to go and topple every one of them. As we have seen all too well in recent decades, foreign military interventions often end up making things worse. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Imagine the anarchy that followed our wars in the Middle East. Do we really want to risk creating similar conditions in our own backyard? With over 10,000 U.S. troops, 8 warships, a Virginia-class submarine, and dozens of F-35s already in the Caribbean, the USS Gerald Ford strike group surging toward the region, the stage for folly is set. We are told that only drug dealers are the target of U.S. operations, but the consolidation of the largest U.S. force in the Caribbean in 35 years suggests that regime change may very well be the intended goal.

The use of lethal force and our massive military buildup is an invitation to retaliation. Attacked countries often attack back. It is our soldiers in the field of battle--not the Senators on this floor-- who will bear the brunt of the retaliation. By then, the time for debate will have passed. The Senate will have once again excused itself from the responsibility of governing, and the United States will once again be at war.

Those who argue that small boats in the Caribbean are so dangerous that they warrant being blown out of the water must explain why, when some of the individuals happen to survive, they are not detained. The drugs are not scooped up and tested. The survivors are simply sent back to their country of origin. Wouldn't we ask whom they work for? Wouldn't we detain them? Wouldn't we present evidence to a court and say what should be done with these survivors? We summarily shoot them when we don't know who they are. But once we pick them up, we don't summarily kill them. We don't even try them.

The United States has now repatriated two survivors to Colombia and Ecuador. If, as we are told, these groups constitute a threat to our security equal to al-Qaida, that they are somehow narcoterrorists, then why are we allowing these individuals to go home? The truth is that these arguments are nonsensical. Drug traffickers aren't equivalent to al-Qaida, and the executive branch does not have the authority to kill at will anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason.

Repatriating survivors of the strikes suggest that the administration's lawyers are not so confident that their arguments about article II authority will survive legal scrutiny--or perhaps they are not confident that they could even bring drug convictions in a court.

In addition to the strategic malpractice of pursuing regime change in Venezuela, there is also the inconvenient fact that the President simply does not have the authority to unilaterally launch wars. The Founders had the foresight to recognize that the executive branch is the branch most prone to war, and they therefore made it clear in the Constitution that Congress maintains the exclusive power to declare war.

Part of President Trump's broad appeal was his strong contempt for the neocons on the right and the liberal internationalists on the left who never met a war they didn't want someone else's children to fight. He rightfully criticized those in Washington who supported nation- building fantasies throughout the Middle East; yet now certain individuals within the administration seek to lead the President astray.

I would advise President Trump to remember the wise words of his inaugural address, when President Trump said:

[W]e will measure our success by the wars we never get into.

President Trump, do not allow the warmongers in Washington to drag you into an unnecessary war of choice. Washington has spent decades, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives trying to remake other countries in our image. The American people are sick and tired of their elected representatives in Congress standing idly by saying: Nothing to see here; the President can do whatever he wants, while their sons and daughters are sent to fight wars in distant lands.

As the administration authorizes covert CIA action in Venezuela and surges U.S. forces to the region, including our most advanced aircraft carrier, the risk of imminent involvement in hostilities is evident.

It is time that the first branch of government puts America first. The majority party of this institution should stand by the principles of restraint as espoused by President Trump's promise to the American people. Honor and statesmanship should prevent the Senate from sitting idly by while elements within his administration blunder America into another foreign war. The American soldiers, their families, and the American people deserve a debate and a vote before we send our Armed Forces into war.

If you agree that our soldiers and their families deserve at least this much, vote yes on this resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source