Search for...
Follow @ontheissuesorg
OnTheIssuesLogo

Rand Paul on Homeland Security

 


2010: decrease DOD budget by $164B; 2015: increase by $190B

Q: When you first came to the Senate, you proposed decreasing defense spending by about $164 billion, but in the past couple of weeks, you have proposed increasing by $190 billion. Why the change?

PAUL: I have proposed several 5-year budgets. And for me, the most important thing of the 5-year budgets has been to balance. The last one I produced did actually increase defense spending above the military sequester. But I did it by taking money from domestic spending. My belief has always been that national defense is the most important thing we do, but we shouldn't borrow to pay for it.

Q: But by proposing an increase in military spending before you announce for president, it could look like pandering.

PAUL: Well, 3 or 4 years ago, we did the same thing. So we have been for quite some time proposing increases in military spending, but always the point is that I believe any increase in spending should be offset by decreases in spending somewhere else.

Source: CNN SOTU 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Apr 12, 2015

Provide veterans support tools to adjust to civilian life

As a physician, it is particularly upsetting to me when I hear of bad experiences our veterans have had with the Department of Veterans Affairs. These experiences represent a failure of one of our most basic obligations - to provide for those who have worn the uniform and shouldered the burdens of war.

We owe it to the men and women who have served in combat to provide them with quality care for injuries sustained in defense of this nation. We must provide our veterans the necessary support tools as they adjust back to civilian life.

We consider all veterans, service members and their families to be an important part of our local communities. As President, I will continue to support veterans and service members of this country. It is my strong belief that we must protect those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our nation.

Source: 2016 presidential campaign website, RandPaul.com, "Issues" , Apr 7, 2015

National defense should be unencumbered by nation building

At CPAC, Paul defended his non-interventionist foreign policy positions. He argued that the U.S. should be less involved in foreign affairs in order to build up a stronger defense.

"When I look at government, I think the most important thing we do at the federal level is defend our country, without question," he stressed. "I envision an America with a national defense unparalleled... and unencumbered by nation building."

Source: CBS News on 2015 Conservative Political Action Conf. , Feb 27, 2015

Kids are concerned with privacy & the surveillance state

Sen. Rand Paul will drop by a College Republicans reception, then pose for hundreds of pictures at a "liberty reception" hosted by the Young Americans for Liberty. In an interview with POLITICO to preview his CPAC remarks, Paul offered backhanded advice to Jeb Bush: "A lot of kids are concerned with privacy, and the fact that he's come out to be a big advocate for the surveillance state and the dragnet, collecting all the phone records--if he's smart, he won't probably bring that up at CPAC."

"Younger voters in particular don't like hypocrisy," Paul continued. "Him saying recently down in Florida that he would still incarcerate people even for medical marijuana, and then it turns out--him basically acknowledging that he'd been using recreational marijuana as a kid. I don't think anybody faults him for youthful indiscretions. But if you look at the people who end up getting caught up in the war on drugs, they're often not elite kids at prep schools. They're poor kids with no school."

Source: Poltiico.com on 2015 Conservative Political Action Conf. , Feb 26, 2015

We've over-militarized our foreign policy

Secretary Gates got it right when he said that we've over-militarized our foreign policy. Should we be engaged in trying to encourage stability in the world? Absolutely. But we must think before we act.

Hillary's war in Libya is a prime example of acting without thinking. In Libya, jihadists swim in our embassy pool, and we are now more at risk from terrorist attacks than ever before.

Unfortunately, both parties too often seek military intervention without thinking through the possible unintended consequences. Many Republicans complain that we didn't send US ground troops or we didn't stay long enough.

The Middle East is in the midst of a 1,000-year war between Sunni and Shia--superimposed on a century-old war pitting a barbaric aberration of Islam against civilized Islam. We are foolish to believe we will solve this puzzle. We must defend vital American interests, but we must not be deluded into believing that we can remake the Middle East in an image of Western Democracy.

Source: Tea Party response to the 2015 State of the Union address , Jan 20, 2015

Military should be second to none; so audit the Pentagon

To defend the Bill of Rights, we must have a strong national defense. I believe national defense is the single most important, Constitutional obligation of our Federal Government. We should have a military that is second to none in the world, and ready to defend us from all enemies.

To defend ourselves, we need a lean, mean fighting machine that doesn't waste money on a bloated civilian bureaucracy. The civilian bureaucracy at the Pentagon has doubled in the past 30 years, gobbling up the money necessary to modernize our defense. That's why I will propose the first ever Audit of the Pentagon, and seek ways to make our defense department more modern and efficient.

Source: Tea Party response to the 2015 State of the Union address , Jan 20, 2015

Transparency is mostly good; we should not have torture

Sen. Rand Paul--someone who has spoken out against waterboarding as torture before--declined to weigh in on how the [newly-released Senate report on torture] reflected on former president Bush, giving a cautious statement when caught outside his Senate office: "It's important that people take a stand and representatives take a stand on whether they believe torture should be allowed. I think we should not have torture," Paul said. "Transparency is mostly good for government. The only thing I would question is whether or not the actual details, the gruesomeness of the details, will be beneficial or inflammatory."

Florida's Sen. Marco Rubio weighed in with one of the strongest responses, in a joint statement with Idaho's Sen. Jim Risch, calling the release of the report "reckless and irresponsible" and demanding a more current detention and interrogation policy. Sen. Ted Cruz said "Senate Democrats have endangered Americans" by releasing the report.

Source: MSNBC 2014 coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Dec 11, 2014

Need NSA reform, but not the USA Freedom Act

Republicans have a rift with the tech industry over domestic spying. More than a year of work by tech leaders like Facebook and Google to curtail the National Security Agency's surveillance authorities failed this month in part because Sen. Rubio joined Sen. Paul, usually a supporter, in voting against it.

A high-stakes vote over the future of the NSA further tested Republicans' relationships in the Valley. Paul and others had supported a major overhaul of the agency's authorities to collect Americans' communications in bulk--but the senator shocked tech giants and civil-liberties groups when he pulled support at the last minute, as the USA Freedom Act reached the Senate floor for a key procedural vote. Rubio long had stated his opposition, citing emerging terrorist threats and the need for more intelligence.

Paul defended his vote on surveillance reform, stressing in an interview he "couldn't vote for it because it reauthorized the PATRIOT Act"--a law he described as "heinous."

Source: Politico.com 2014 coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Nov 29, 2014

Multiple requests for security at Benghazi were ignored

Q: You have blamed Republicans and Democrats, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for the prosecution of foreign policy. If she's a candidate for President, is this the main argument against her candidacy?

PAUL: I think if you want to be Commander-in-Chief the bar you have to cross is will you defend the country--will you provide adequate security--and that's why Benghazi is not a political question for me. To me it's not the talking points--that's never been the most important part of Benghazi--it's the six months leading up to Benghazi where there were multiple requests for more security--and it never came. This was under Hillary Clinton's watch. She will have to overcome that--and we will make her answer for Benghazi.

Source: Meet the Press 2014 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Jun 22, 2014

Benghazi disqualifies Hillary from the presidency

Q: On Hillary Clinton, you said, "she will be made to pay for Benghazi." How?

PAUL: She will have to explain how she can be commander and chief when she was not responsive to multiple requests for more security in the six months leading up. She wouldn't approve a 16-person personnel team and she would not approve an airplane to help them get around the country. In the last 24 hours, a plane was very important and it was not available. These are really serious questions beyond talking points that occurred under her watch.

Q: Benghazi is disqualifying for her?

PAUL: I think so. The American people want a commander-in-chief that will send reinforcements, that will defend the country, and that will provide the adequate security. And I think in the moment of need--a long moment, a six-month moment--she wasn't there.

Source: Meet the Press 2014 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Jun 22, 2014

Don't let people who make money off weapons define policy

Q: Some tapes of you have emerged recently. You were very critical of Dick Cheney. You suggested that he was opposed to going into Baghdad in 1991:

(VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton, makes hundreds of millions of dollars as CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government it's a good idea to go to Iraq. (END VIDEO CLIP)

Q: Do you really think that Cheney was motivated by his financial ties to Halliburton?

PAUL: I'm not questioning his motives. I don't think Dick Cheney did it out of malevolence, I think he loves his country as much as I love the country.

Q: But you said we don't want our defense to be defined by people who make money off the weapons.

PAUL: There's a chance for a conflict of interest. At one point in time, he was opposed going into Baghdad. Then he was out of office and involved in the defense industry and then he became for going into Baghdad.

Source: ABC This Week 2014 series of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Apr 13, 2014

National defense is important, but no blank check

Q: You were against the resolution on Iran and nuclear weapons. On these issues you are more closely associated with the left.

PAUL: I think that's an incorrect conclusion, you know. I would say my foreign policy is right there with what came out of Ronald Reagan.

Q: But Reagan went through a huge defense buildup. One of the first things you did when you got elected was propose a nearly $50 billion cut to the Pentagon, bigger than the sequester.

PAUL: The sequester actually didn't cut spending; the sequester cut the rate of growth of spending over 10 years.

Q: But the point is you proposed curbing defense spending more than the sequester.

PAUL: Even though I believe national defense is the most important thing we do, but it isn't a blank check. Some conservatives think, oh, give them whatever they want and that everything is for our soldiers and they play up this patriotism that--oh, we don't have to control defense spending. We can't be a trillion dollars in the hole every year.

Source: ABC This Week 2014 series of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Apr 13, 2014

Deploy missile defense in Eastern Europe but they pay for it

Paul defended his foreign policy, which tends to be less interventionist than other Republicans': "I think on a lot of these issues, yes, that I'm well within the Republican tradition," Paul said. "I think that we do need to have a stronger presence and project stronger ideas of cultivating freedom around the world. And I also agree, though, with Ronald Reagan, who often said, or in one of his inaugural speeches said to potential adversaries, Don't mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.'" Paul said he favored sanctions against Russia and the deployment of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, but that "Europe should pay for it."

Paul's remarks were at least a change in tone from last month, when he said that, "Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don't think that is a good idea."

Source: The Hill weblog 2014 coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Mar 11, 2014

NSA monitoring is an affront to 1776 sons of liberty

The sons of liberty who fought against British soldiers writing their own warrants, would today, make a bonfire of secret orders issued by federal police. The sons of liberty risked everything to guarantee your right to a trial by jury. They would today, call out to the president, they would say, 'we will not be detained, spied upon nor have our rights abridged. We will not submit and we will not trade our liberty for security, not now, not ever.'

Yet, as our voices rise in protest, the NSA monitors your every phone call. If you have a cell phone, you are under surveillance. I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business.

I believe this is a profound constitutional question: can a single warrant be applied to millions of American's credit cards? Your government says you don't own your records, that your Visa statement does not belong to you. I disagree, the 4th Amendment is very clear, warrants should be issued by a judge, warrants must be specific to the individual.

Source: Speech at 2014 CPAC convention , Mar 8, 2014

Allow challenges to NSA in open court, not FISA court

Q: What about clemency for Edward Snowden?

PAUL: I don't know whether any information has been distributed to foreign powers, and that would be a great deal of concern. But I'm also concerned that the national defense director lied to Congress. He's seriously damaged out standing in the world. Now, we're seen to be spying not only on foreign leaders, but there's an accusation that we spied on the pope, as well.

Q: Do you think the NSA should get out ahead of all of this and put out everything they knew Snowden to have?

PAUL: Maybe. But I think the fundamental question about whether or not this is constitutional or not should not be decided by the administration, nor by a secret FISA court. It needs to get into the Supreme Court. I've introduced a FISA bill that would allow cases like this to be challenged in open court. And we should determine once and all whether or not a single warrant can apply to every American. I don't think it does and I think the Supreme Court will side with us.

Source: ABC This Week 2013 interviews: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Nov 3, 2013

Give trials to Guantanamo detainees

OBAMA (VIDEO CLIP): I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any US citizen with a drone, or with a shotgun without due process.

PAUL: I was pleased with his words, However, there still is a question in my mind of what he thinks due process is? You know, due process to most of us is a court of law, it's a trial by a jury. For example, last year we passed legislation that I voted against, and that's detaining citizens indefinitely without a trial, and sending them to Guantanamo Bay.

Q: The president did speak about closing Guantanamo. Do you think it should be closed?

PAUL: No. I think it's become a symbol of something though, and I think things should change. For example, I think the people being held there are bad people. What I would do though is accuse them, charge them, and try them in military tribunals, or trials. And I think that would go a long way toward showing the world that we're not going to hold them without charge forever.

Source: ABC This Week 2013 interviews: 2016 presidential hopefuls , May 26, 2013

Filibuster to establish no drones on citizens in America

Q: In your filibuster of 13 hours, you argued against the president's drone policy. You got this letter from the Attorney General: "Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that, is no." You said you were happy with that letter, but doesn't it leave a loophole, if the American is "involved in combat"?

PAUL: If people are attacking the Twin Towers with planes, I never argued you wouldn't use drones or F-16s to repel that kind of attack. The problem is, a lot of the drone attacks are killing people not actively engaged in combat. If you are accused of being associated with terrorism, which could mean you are an Arab-American and you've sent e-mails to a relative in the Middle East, you should get your day in court. Did the president completely slam the door on not using drones? No, I think there's wiggle room in there, but we did force him to at least narrow what his power is and that was my goal.

Source: Fox News Sunday 2013 interviews: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Mar 24, 2013

13-hour filibuster against drone strikes targeting Americans

The message for the President is that no one person gets to decide the law, no one person gets to decide your guilt or innocence. My question to the President was about more than just killing Americans on American soil. My question was about whether Presidential power has limits.

President Obama who seemed, once upon a time, to respect civil liberties, has become the President who signed a law allowing for the indefinite detention of an American citizen. Indeed, a law that allows an American citizen to be sent to Guantanamo Bay without a trial. President Obama defends his signing of the bill by stating that he has no intention of detaining any American citizen without a trial.

Likewise, he defended his possible targeted Drone strikes against Americans on American soil by indicating that he has no intention of doing so. Well, my 13-hour filibuster was a message to the President. Good intentions are not enough. We want to know, will you or won't you defend the Constitution?

Source: Speech at 2013 Conservative Political Action Conf. , Mar 14, 2013

Only Judiciary can detain and drone, not the President

If we destroy our enemy but lose what defines our freedom in the process, have we really won? If we allow one man to charge Americans as enemy combatants and indefinitely detain or drone them, then what exactly is it our brave young men and women are fighting for?

There can be no justice if you combine the Executive and Judicial branch into one. We separated arrest and accusation from trial and verdict for a reason. In our country, the police can arrest, but only your peers can convict. We prize our Bill of Rights like no other country.

To those who would dismiss this debate as frivolous, I say tell that to the heroic young men and women who have sacrificed their limbs and lives, tell it to the 6,000 parents whose kids died as American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, tell them that the Bill of Rights is no big deal.

Yes, the filibuster was about drones, but also about much more. Do we have a Bill of Rights or not? Do we have a Constitution or not and will we defend it?

Source: Speech at 2013 Conservative Political Action Conf. , Mar 14, 2013

Military sacrifice spreads flame of freedom around the world

We speak often of those who fight for our freedom overseas, and we should. There are many sacrifices made by our men and women in the military to spread the flame of freedom around the world. Thanks to them, America has been a beacon of liberty and a grand example of freedom for people all over the world for 236 years.

Our Founding Fathers spent, and often gave, their lives to build a new country, where men could truly be free, a nation where the rights granted to us by our Creator could not be trampled on or taken by government.

Source: Government Bullies, by Rand Paul, p. 57 , Sep 12, 2012

Drones have executed people wrongfully, like death penalty

Q: Do you have concerns about the use of military drones?

PAUL: I am concerned about one person deciding the life or death of not only foreigners but US citizens around the world. And the chance that one person could make a mistake is a possibility. So having the president decide who he's going to kill concerns me. I would rather it go through the FISA court. They make the decision over weeks and months. They target people and go after them. I see no reason why there couldn't be some sort of court preceding, even a secret court preceding, to allow some protection. I mean, even in the US where we have the best due process probably in the world, we have probably executed people wrongfully for the death penalty. They have found out through DNA testing, many people on death row are there inaccurately. So I think when we decide to kill someone, that's obviously the ultimate punishment. We need to be very, very certain that what we're doing is not in error.

Source: CNN security blog interview: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Jun 12, 2012

Cut defense spending as part of cutting all federal spending

My proposal [for spending cuts] would have simply rolled back federal spending to 2008 levels by initiating reductions at various levels almost across the board. My proposal included cutting wasteful spending in the Department of Defense, especially considering that since 2001 our annual defense budget increased nearly 120%. Even subtracting the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pentagon spending was up 67%. These levels of spending were unjustified and unsustainable-- and yet too many Republicans also thought these Defense Department cuts made my proposal too "extreme."
Source: Now Or Never, by Sen. Jim DeMint, p. xiii , Jan 10, 2012

9/11 justified eliminating Taliban, but not nation-building

After Al Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, we rightly sought to bring to justice those who attacked us, to eliminate Al Qaeda's safe havens and training camps in Afghanistan, and to remove the terrorist-allied Taliban government. With hard work and sacrifice, our troops, intelligence personnel and diplomatic corps have skillfully achieved these objectives, culminating in the death of Osama bin Laden.

But over the past 10 years, our mission expanded to include a fourth goal: nation-building. That is what we are bogged down in now: a prolonged effort to create a strong central government, a national police force and an army, and civic institutions in a nation that never had any to begin with. Let's not forget that Afghanistan has been a tribal society for millenniums.

Source: 2011 official Senate press release, "Let's Not Linger" , Jul 4, 2011

The Patriot Act is intrusive; it's what the Founders feared

Sometimes conservatives seem to believe that giving the federal government unprecedented power in spying or warrantless wiretapping is somehow a positive development, but this is exactly the sort of intrusiveness the Founders feared most. This sort of invasiveness is also precisely the reason we have a Second Amendment protecting our right to keep and bear arms.
Source: The Tea Party Goes to Washington, by Rand Paul, p.124 , Feb 22, 2011

Put defense spending on the table for reducing budget

National security is a primary function of our federal government and I even think defense should be the largest part of our budget-a budget many would agree should be reduced overall. Everything must be on the table, and we cannot even begin to control spending without a serious re-assessment of America's military role in the world and how much we're willing to pay for it.
Source: The Tea Party Goes to Washington, by Rand Paul, p.135 , Feb 22, 2011

Defense should be largest part of much smaller budget

Government and our national debt grew exponentially under Reagan, something many Republicans like to blame on a Democratic congress or defense build-up, the latter of which increased 40% during his presidency. Of course, national defense is a primary function of our federal government and I believe should probably be the largest part of our budget--albeit a much smaller budget. Today, too many Democrats always want to cut the defense budget but never domestic spending, while too many Republicans always want to cut domestic spending while ignoring the defense budget. Americans who want to seriously reduce the debt, many inspired by the Tea Party, are beginning to realize we must look at the entire budget, leaving no stone unturned.
Source: The Tea Party Goes to Washington, by Rand Paul, p. 30 , Feb 22, 2011

How much of what is spent on defense is actual "defense"?

Of course we all recognize the need to fully fund military, to defend against any threats and defeat any enemies on the horizon. But we also need to recognize that America already spends nearly as much on defense as every other county on earth combined. Is this necessary? Are all of our foreign commitments necessary? What America spends on defense---it should be asked, how much of this qualifies as actual "defense"?--accounts for almost of total global defense spending. Is this right? We spend billions of dollars keeping and maintaining foreign bases--shouldn't our allies be shouldering some of the cost, particularly when it comes to their own defense? Much like entitlements, what we spend on our military has long been drastically out of sync with what we can actually afford, producing the same expensive results that always characterize big government.
Source: The Tea Party Goes to Washington, by Rand Paul, p. 31 , Feb 22, 2011

Remove waste from last decade's doubling of military budget

There is one compromise we will have to make as conservatives: We will have to look long & hard at the military budget. The most important thing that our government does is our national defense. But you cannot say that the doubling of the military budget in the last 10 years has been done wisely and there's not any waste in it. If you refuse to acknowledge that there's any waste can be culled from the military budget, you are a big-government conservative and can you not lay claim to balancing the budget
Source: Speech at 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference , Feb 11, 2011

Military should decide don't-ask-don't-tell policy

Democratic US Senate nominee Jack Conway says gays should be allowed to serve openly in the US military, while his Republican rival, Rand Paul, says the military should decide the issue. Kentucky's US Senate candidates were asked their opinions on the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the wake of this week's unsuccessful effort by Democrats in the US Senate to repeal it.

When Conway was asked whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, he said "yes," without elaborating.

Paul's campaign spokesman said in an e-mail without elaboration, "Dr. Paul believes this is a matter that should be decided by the leadership of the military, not through political posturing."

Republicans in the US Senate this week stopped a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" when Democrats attached an amendment seeking the repeal to a defense bill. Republicans said a Pentagon study on the impact of ending the policy should be completed before there is any move toward repeal.

Source: Lexington Herald-Leader on 2010 Kentucky Senate debate , Sep 23, 2010

Warrantless searches overstep Constitutional powers

In the last nine years, the Federal Government has expanded the scope of its power at an alarming rate, while blatantly ignoring the Constitution. Whether it's passing the 315 page Patriot Act without a single member of Congress ever reading the bill, proposing a National ID Card, establishing FISA courts and utilizing warrantless searches, or betraying the medical privacy of ordinary citizens, the Federal Government has overstepped its limited powers as stipulated in the Constitution.
Source: 2010 Senate campaign website, www.randpaul2010.com, "issues" , Sep 1, 2010

Treat armed service members like heroes

Defending our Country is the most important function of the federal government. When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted by and derived from free men and women.

The men and women of our armed services deserve to be treated like the heroes that they are. No other group of federal employees is subject to such unfair treatment as our service men and women; and no other deserves the best.

Source: 2010 Senate campaign website, www.randpaul2010.com, "Issues" , Jul 19, 2010

Defense policy is influenced by the makers of weapons

Paul spells out his concerns about current U.S. foreign policy as well as abuses in the national defense procurement cycle. This leftist, um, libertarian-Republican questions the bedrock assumption held by many Republicans that it's possible to balance the budget by going after welfare queens is baloney. The reason: The military-industrial complex - which he mentions by name.

"We give billion dollar contracts to Halliburton and they turn around and spend millions on lobbyists to go ask for more money for government so it's an endless cycle of special interest lobbyists then the weapons we decide make--we're being influenced by the makers of weapons on which are the best weapons. That's a crime."

Source: CBS News, Coop's Corner, "Palin: Big Tent Republican?" , Feb 1, 2010

Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.

Congressional Summary: A bill to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Smith, R-TX]: America is safe today not because terrorists and spies have given up their goal to destroy our freedoms and our way of life. We are safe today because the men and women of our Armed Forces, our intelligence community, and our law enforcement agencies work every single day to protect us. And Congress must ensure that they are equipped with the resources they need to counteract continuing terrorist threats. On Feb. 28, three important provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will expire. These provisions give investigators in national security cases the authority to conduct "roving" wiretaps, to seek certain business records, and to gather intelligence on lone terrorists who are not affiliated with a known terrorist group. The Patriot Act works. It has proved effective in preventing terrorist attacks and protecting Americans. To let these provisions expire would leave every American less safe.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Conyers, D-MI]: Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows a secret FISA court to authorize our government to collect business records or anything else, requiring that a person or business produce virtually any type record. We didn't think that that was right then. We don't think it's right now. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. And so I urge a "no" vote on the extension of these expiring provisions.
Status: Passed 86-12

Reference: FISA Sunsets Extension Act; Bill H.514 ; vote number 11-SV019 on Feb 17, 2011

Supports banning homosexuals in the military.

Paul supports the CC survey question on banning homosexuals in the military

The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.

The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Enforcing the 1993 law banning homosexuals in the military"

Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q3a on Aug 11, 2010

Sponsored opposing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

Paul co-sponsored Resolution on UN

Congressional Summary:Expressing the conditions for the US becoming a signatory to the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

  1. the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty, and that the Senate should not ratify the ATT; and
  2. that no Federal funds should be authorized to implement the ATT.

Opponent's argument against bill:(United Nations press release, June 3, 2013):

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon str

Source: S.CON.RES.7 & H.CON.RES.23 : 13-SC007 on Mar 13, 2013

Other candidates on Homeland Security: Rand Paul on other issues:
Incumbents:
Pres.Barack Obama
V.P.Joe Biden
2016 Democratic Candidates:
Gov.Lincoln Chafee(RI)
Secy.Hillary Clinton(NY)
Gov.Andrew Cuomo(NY)
Mayor Rahm Emanuel(IL)
Gov.Martin O`Malley(MD)
Gov.Deval Patrick(MA)
Sen.Bernie Sanders(VT)
Dr.Jill Stein(MA)
Sen.Elizabeth Warren(MA)
Sen.James Webb(VA)
2016 GOP Candidates:
Amb.John Bolton(MD)
Gov.Jeb Bush(FL)
Dr.Ben Carson(MD)
Gov.Chris Christie(NJ)
Sen.Ted Cruz(TX)
Carly Fiorina(CA)
Sen.Lindsey Graham(SC)
Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR)
Gov.Bobby Jindal(LA)
Rep.Peter King(NY)
Gov.Sarah Palin(AK)
Sen.Rand Paul(KY)
Gov.Rick Perry(TX)
Sen.Rob Portman(OH)
Secy.Condi Rice(CA)
Sen.Marco Rubio(FL)
Rep.Paul Ryan(WI)
Sen.Rick Santorum(PA)
Donald Trump(NY)
Gov.Scott Walker(WI)
2016 Third Party Candidates:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg(I-NYC)
Gov.Gary Johnson(L-NM)
Gov.Jesse Ventura(I-MN)
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families/Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure/Technology
Jobs
Principles/Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War/Iraq/Mideast
Welfare/Poverty

Page last updated: Apr 19, 2015