Unanimous Consent Requests

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, Paducah, KY, is a town of 26,000 people on the banks of the Ohio River, known for its barbecue, character, and community. At the heart of that community, for more than 70 years, is the Oscar Cross Boys & Girls Club. What began in the 1950s as a small group of men under the leadership of local parole officer Oscar Cross has since grown into a Paducah institution, serving boys and girls from ages 6 to 18.

Through financial responsibility lessons, health education, literacy programs, and community service projects, the club offers kids much more than just a safe place to go after school. It provides stability, mentorship, and life skills that shape their future.

The future of the club, however, is limited by something as simple as paperwork. The building that houses the Oscar Cross Boys & Girls Club sits on a 3\1/2\-acre lot owned by the city, constrained by a Federal restriction that prevents the property from being transferred to the Boys & Girls Club. As a result, much needed renovations to improve and expand the space they are in is out of reach, kneecapping growth.

According to the club's executive director Andrew McGlenon, transferring the property would allow for renovations and new facilities like a gym and classrooms that would nearly double the daily attendance from 100 to 200 kids.

Congressman Comer and I have introduced legislation to lift the outdated restriction and allow the city of Paducah to transfer the mere 3\1/2\ acres to the club, as has been requested by the city, the club, and the community for several years now. There is no policy change here. It simply seeks to take care of a community back home.

In fact, this is how a unanimous consent request should be used. All parties want to see the land swap effectuated. The only thing the Senate needs to do to ensure that the Boys & Girls Club can better serve its community is to allow this bill to pass today. This isn't a sweeping policy change. This isn't a national regulation. This is something local for a local boys and girls club. I can't imagine why it would be objected to. Passing this bill today will ensure that a cornerstone of Paducah's youth continues to serve generations to come.

1276 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

There are some questions about these smart refrigerators: Are they so smart that they hook themselves up to the internet unbeknownst to the person? The refrigerator shows up in your house and somehow a cord surreptitiously comes out the back and plugs into the cable or it somehow hooks up to your router; it knows your password and has Bluetooth? How do you get a smart refrigerator that spies on you without your hooking it up to the internet? So that is a question.

But the other question and sort of the mistaken notion here is that somehow, when you voluntarily agree to give information, that that is something that libertarians object to. Libertarians object to the government spying on you. If you voluntarily agree to share your information, that has never been something the libertarians object to.

For example, the internet is predicated upon your anonymous information being shared on your purchases. Sharing of information is not something libertarians object to. They object to the government snooping on you and getting your information.

So having a national mandate that you are going to enforce on the refrigerator manufacturers--that you are going to fine them and if they don't pay, they will be held in contempt for--I just don't see that as a very Republican idea to be introducing national regulations.

To say that is equivalent to the Boys & Girls Club--you are going to hold the Boys & Girls Club unless I agree to a national regulation on the smart refrigerators that are surreptitiously somehow hooking themselves up to the internet and spying on us? It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. It also, to most people with common sense, would not seem to be equivalent. I would never in my right mind come to the floor to object to the Boys & Girls Club of Texas. I don't think they are equivalent.

But if you have 30 bills or 100 bills that want to have nationwide regulations--your a.m. radio bill. You want to mandate to the car manufacturers that they have a.m. radio. Why? Technology has gone beyond this in many ways. We have Teslas now, and nobody in their Tesla is going to tune in through an antenna. But, you know, to get an antenna into a Tesla and get it to work, you have to coat the battery with this special coating. It costs a couple hundred dollars. Your bill says that the manufacturers can't charge more for that. So if I sell Teslas and I have to spend $300 to get an a.m. antenna radio working in my Tesla that nobody is going to use, that you are going to mandate on behalf of people who really have a vested interest, a monetary interest, in a.m. radio--there are questions that should be asked, and that should be debated, and that is controversial enough not to be a unanimous consent. A Boys & Girls Club kind of sounds to me like a unanimous consent agreement.

The mistaken notion we have around here is that we want to pass hundreds and hundreds of pieces of legislation that affect policy. What I get every time is ``Well, this legislation only adds $50 million'' or ``It is only going to be $500 million'' because millions of dollars don't matter anymore; nationwide regulations don't matter anymore. Well, it does.

And these are policy differences, and these are honest. These aren't because I dislike you or I dislike your legislation. I don't want a national regulation on refrigerator people. I just don't want it, and I don't see a need for it, and I think it is a reasonable position to take, but it has nothing to do with the Boys Club.

I would promise you, if you have anything to do with Boys & Girls Clubs or any kind of small, parochial interest, you haven't seen me. I don't come to the floor to object to that. But something that is on policy, I do object to, and I have questions about how the refrigerators are surreptitiously hooking themselves up and spying on people.

The thing is, when you go to buy one of these refrigerators, they charge you more, I would assume, for a smart refrigerator, so my guess is they advertise they are smart so they can charge 200 bucks more. I don't know how you are getting a refrigerator with a microphone and the ability to connect to the internet without knowing it because they charge you and it is an incentive for them to advertise this.

So I don't understand where the problem is, nor do I understand how they hook themselves up, so therefore I do object.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the interesting thing we hear--you know, because typically you don't hear it from Republicans--nationwide mandates on refrigerators, nationwide mandates on car manufactures, penalties and Federal punishment if we don't comply with the way of thinking that is prescribed by these bills. What we didn't hear, though, was any kind of objection to the idea or explanation of how your refrigerator is going to spy on you.

I think it sort of assumes the notion that people are not competent, not smart enough to make any decisions on their own, that Big Brother has to help them out with it.

You have to imagine that someone is buying a smart refrigerator that is going to cost you a couple hundred bucks more than a non-smart refrigerator, is going to cost you more--I can't imagine it isn't advertised. So let's say you pay $200 more for your refrigerator than you would normally, you get a smart one, and you take it home. I still didn't hear any explanation of how it spies on you. How does it spy on you unless you hook it up to the internet? Short of that, your refrigerator is not spying on you. ``Big Refrigerator'' is not spying on you. They are offering you a service if you choose to use it, and you have to choose to use it. You could also choose not to buy it.

Regulation like this are the regulations of the left and of Big Brother, who thinks that Americans are incompetent and can't make their decisions. But regulations like this add up, and they add to the cost of refrigerators, they add to the cost of appliances.

Just go to California. In California, you will see a tag on everything that says ``doesn't cause cancer anywhere else in the United States but may cause cancer in California'' because they have over- labeled everything to death.

It really isn't the business of the Federal Government to be involved with this.

They need to be committed to the rules of fraud. They shouldn't be able to sell something to you that is hooking itself up to the internet. But if you have to hook it up--if you have ever Bluetoothed something, you have to do something. The internet just doesn't come and grab your picture on the refrigerator or listen to your microphone. It has to be hooked up to the internet. You have to do this.

So there ought to be some thought that goes into this.

I am disappointed that you choose to hurt the Boys & Girls Club, but what is the alternative? I have to just say: I won't use my brain. I won't think about the consequences of this bill. I won't think about how it goes against our philosophy of adding more Federal regulations. I won't think about the cost to corporations. I won't think about the nonsensical assertion that it is going to spy on you without you knowing it because it is going to hook itself up to the internet. I am supposed to ignore all that and take that in order to get a deed for a Boys & Girls Club. I find this a false equivalency and insincere.

Every objection I have to every one of your other bills is a debatable item based on philosophy. If you have a philosophical difference with this, come to the floor and tell us why you hate the Boys & Girls Club of Paducah, but don't come to us and say: Well, you have to accept a regulation on refrigerators in order to help the Boys & Girls Club--which doesn't cost anything. It is a bizarre, arcane thing. The Federal Government, I think, owned the land, gave it to the city, and said the city couldn't transfer it 50 years ago. The Boys & Girls Club has been on this land for 50 years, but they don't have the title, so we are trying to give them the title through legislation.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that, because it doesn't affect nationwide policy, shouldn't have to go to committee, shouldn't have to come to the floor, shouldn't have to tie up a lot of time. These are the things we can dispense with. But a nationwide regulation on cars shouldn't be adopted without debate and without the normal procedure of the Senate. This is a special procedure. We only do things unanimously that typically we agree on.

If we want to have sense of the Senate to recognize John Lewis or a sense of the Senate to recognize some individual, those are the kinds of things we do unanimously, but we don't typically do policy or regulations for the whole country unanimously.

So I hope there is a better way out where we can think about treating and figuring out what levels of legislation rise to the ability of having a serious debate over and what things are parochial and really could be passed unanimously.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source