By Sen. Rand Paul While I'm a big supporter of home schools, many single parents who work aren't able to teach their kids at home. Even some parents with advanced educational degrees simply don't want to teach their kids at home or believe their kids will listen more consistently to someone outside of the family. Some families are dysfunctional because of poverty or mental illness or lack of education and are not prepared to teach their kids at home. For some children, their best chance of witnessing a functional, civilized situation is at school. In short, hundreds of thousands of children will receive a substandard education if we abandon in-person schools for another term. If the government schools decide not to meet in person in the fall, I think every parent should have the right to take their tax dollars to the school of their choice. Currently, federal education dollars are divided up between school districts. This week, I introduced legislation (the Support Children Having Open Opportunities for Learning [SCHOOL] Act), which I will also propose as an amendment to the next COVID bailout bill, to let the dollars follow the student to whatever school their parents choose. The choices would include homeschool, the local public school or another public school that has in-person classes, or a private or parochial school. It's hard to imagine why anyone would oppose letting parents decide the school of their choice. Imagine if the government ran grocery stores the way they run our schools. You don't pay for your groceries; you pay a tax, and the government sends it to the store closest to your home. You don't get to decide which store or what you want. You show up, and they give you a bag of groceries -- doesn't matter what you need or want. There would be a grocery board to decide what they stocked, and a grocery superintendent would hire and fire everyone there, regardless of what the customers thought. What do you think the quality of your food and store would be? Seems pretty obvious to most people, yet that is how we run elementary and secondary education in this country and have for many years. It's produced some pretty bad results, but what it's also producing now is an unworkable situation for too many people. The COVID situation cries out for a better solution. My legislation would allow certain federal education dollars to follow the student, with the parents deciding which school their children attend, not the school system. School choice also allows low-income and disadvantaged students who live in crime-ridden neighborhoods to escape their decaying schools and go to high-performing schools capable of meeting their needs and changing their futures. My legislation takes certain funds appropriated for students under current law through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and allows them to follow the child to the school of their choice, whether the school is learning in person or remotely. It allows the parents and students to choose between public school, charter school, private school, and home school. It would allow these funds to be used for direct tuition payments, curriculum materials, technological materials, tutoring, or education classes outside the home. It would also pay for support for special education needs. Finally, my legislation ensures that students choosing any of the above options for schooling could still benefit from a federally funded school food program. Parents and students are having a hard time right now. There is much uncertainty and confusion. While we might normally be school shopping right now, instead we are waiting for the latest update as to when -- or IF -- our schools might reopen, what they might look like if they did, and how much turmoil this next school year may bring to our children's lives. There is a better way, and I'm proposing we take a giant step in that direction. Empower parents. Help students. Support their choices and needs. As we seek relief from the dangers and troubles of COVID, let's not forget our kids, and let's not abandon parents to a one-size-fits-all government monopoly.

By Senator Rand Paul It has been almost 20 years since our country went to war in Afghanistan. After 9/11, the American population rightfully demanded our forces take action against those who attacked us. Had I been in Congress I would have voted for that action. When a country goes to war it should have a desired end state that delivers a better state of peace. It should have a theory of victory that can deliver that end state. It should align the ends, ways, and, means to that theory of victory; and continually, honestly measure and track progress of the war's conduct. This is what we teach to our strategists and future general officers at our war colleges. Why then, after almost two decades of war, do we still not have any of this in a coherent fashion? We are still no closer to victory nor do we even really have a realistic idea of what victory looks like. We haven't been honest on the conduct of the war. We have continuously shifted our war aims. We have paid staggering opportunity costs, racked up our debt, and lost countless lives. And yet, some continue to argue to "stay the course". Even the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that we were debating here in the Senate this past week had a Sense of the Senate opposing a "precipitous" withdrawal from Afghanistan. To that I ask, "what course are we staying?" And how can leaving after 20 years qualify as "precipitous"? During the NDAA debate, I was proud to offer a bipartisan amendment which would have ended America's longest war and provided bonuses to those who have deployed in support of the Global War on Terrorism, empowering America to redirect the savings from ending nation-building in Afghanistan to the country's needs at home. The amendment, which a bipartisan majority eventually voted to table, was based on my American Forces Going Home After Noble (AFGHAN) Service Act, which I first introduced with Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) in March 2019. Senator Udall joined me in offering the amendment to the NDAA as well. The bottom line is we cannot wait another day to figure out how to end the war in Afghanistan. We went to war to destroy or kill Al Qaeda. We said we would remove the Taliban if they didn't deliver Al Qaeda. We have done that. Those who say we need to stay in Afghanistan to fight international terrorism need to start thinking out of the box and finding a new way to address that problem. Do we really have to build a country in order to control the ground, so we can fight against the potential of international terrorist attack? Afghanistan will never be a Jeffersonian Democracy. We will never be able to bomb or build our way to making that happen. Equally, the Taliban, and transnational terrorism no longer present such an existential threat to the U.S. that we need to continue fighting an endless war. It's time to embrace a new coherent, comprehensive counterterrorism strategy that returns our military "Over the horizon." It's time to bring our forces home. Sadly, we continue to flail and spend money that, quite frankly, we no longer have. I say, instead of spending another $50 billion in Afghanistan next year, let's end the war and use a fraction of the savings to thank those who sacrificed. The American people are ready to declare victory and welcome our troops home. Its why President Trump's message has resonated with so many. He said it's time to come home, and the people agree. When will Congress listen to us?

By Senator Rand Paul The Roman Judge Lucius Cassius is reported to have often used the phrase: "Cui bono" or "who benefits?" That very question needs to be asked in examining why an intelligence officer in our government committed a felony by releasing classified information alleging that the Russians are paying bounties for the Taliban to kill American soldiers Who benefits? Well, obviously partisan anti-Trump Democrats, and their facilitators in the media, are beside themselves with glee. This felonious leak furthers their campaign narrative that President Trump is either ill-informed or uninformed about intelligence and unwilling to take a hard line against Russia. At least on the surface, that seems to characterize most of the frenzy about the unverified, anonymous raw intelligence. To the media, it is simply fodder for their Trump Derangement Syndrome. But in examining the leaker's motives, it is important to ask further: Who benefits? Sure, the usual partisan Democrats benefit. But let's not miss that the war caucus (a.k.a. the Never-Trump neocon warmonger playgroup) is using this leaked rumor to advocate for staying indefinitely in Afghanistan. As President Trump tries to end America's longest war, the usual forever war advocates like Liz Cheney are using this so-called "intelligence" to criticize the president for trying to end the Afghan War. The Defense Authorization bill before the Senate bashes the president's push to end the war by stating that any attempt to leave Afghanistan after nineteen years would be "precipitous." If the leak is not a complete fabrication, it could endanger our agents or their sources in the field. But, it's even more important to understand the felony leaker's motives. If the leaker is part of the neocon collaborative that seeks perpetual war, realize that leaking any information, whether verified or not, that can foment fear of Russia in Afghanistan also impedes President Trump's desire to end the war. Too bad not a single Democrat in Washington remembers their once-upon-a-time opposition to forever wars. To Democrats in Congress, it seems more important to beat up President Trump as "weak" on Russia than admit that the Russian bounty leak may well be motivated by war advocates hidden deep, deep within our very own intelligence community. That is an inconvenient truth that formerly anti-war Democrats now completely ignore.