Ron Paul on Homeland Security Republican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President

Sub-sections under Homeland Security:
• Imperialism
• Voting+Sponsorships
• Other issues under Homeland Security

We supported Taliban; differentiate them from al Qaeda

PAUL: I served in the air force for five years during the height of the Cold War from '62 to '68. I was over in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. I would like to point out one thing about the Taliban. The Taliban used to be our allies when we were fighting the Russians. The Taliban's main goal is to keep foreigners off their land. It's al Qaeda--you can't mix the two--al Qaeda want to come here to kill us. The Taliban just says we don't want foreigners. We need to understand that, or we can't resolve this problem in the Middle East. We are going to spend a lot of lives and a lot of money for a long time to come.

Getting bin Laden OK; Iranian nukes not OK

A: Well, I think that's a misquote. I don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I voted to go after bin Laden. Yes, the president is the commander-in-chief, but he's not the king. We would have saved ourselves a lot of grief if we only had gone to war in a proper manner, and the proper manner is the people elect congressmen to make a declaration of war. But we went into Afghanistan. We went into Iraq. We're involved in so many countries. Now they want to move on to Syria. And there's some that can't wait until they start bombing Iran.

Q: What about sanctions on Iran?

A: Sanctions themselves always leads up to war. And that's what we're doing. And this just pushes Iran right into the hands of the Chinese. So our policy may be well intended, but it has a lot of downside, a lot of unintended consequences, and, unfortunately, blowback.

17,000 troops for Baghdad embassy? Come home!

A: I want to extend the tax cut, because if you don't, you raise the taxes. But I want to pay for it. And it's not that difficult. In my proposed budget, I want to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from overseas. The trust fund is gone. But how are we going to restore it? We have to quit the spending. We have to quit this being the policemen of the world. We don't need another war in Syria and another war in Iran. Just get rid of the embassy in Baghdad. We're pretending we're coming home from Baghdad. We built an embassy there that cost a billion dollars and we're putting 17,000 contractors in there, pretending our troops are coming home. I could save [billions] and we don't have to raise payroll taxes.

The Patriot Act is unpatriotic; it undermines our liberty

PAUL: I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. I'm concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack. Timothy McVeigh was a vicious terrorist. He was arrested. Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally, it's a crime and we should deal with it. We dealt with it rather well with McVeigh. But why I really fear it is we have drifted into a condition that we were warned against because our early founders were very clear. They said, don't be willing to sacrifice liberty for security. Today it seems too easy that our government is so willing to give up our liberties for security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.

GINGRICH: Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That's the whole point.

Waterboarding is torture: illegal, uncivilized, and immoral

Cain: I don't see it as torture. I would return to that policy.

Bachmann: I would be willing to use waterboarding. I think it was very effective. Barack Obama is allowing the ACLU to run the CIA.

Paul: Well, waterboarding is torture. And it's illegal under international law and under our law. It's also immoral. And it's also very impractical. There's no evidence that you really get reliable evidence. Why would you accept the position of torturing 100 people because you know one person might have information? And that's what you do when you accept the principal of torture. I think it's uncivilized and has no practical advantages and is really un-American to accept on principal that we will torture people that we capture.

Enhance national security by slashing military spending

PAUL: I think it would be enhanced. I don't want to cut any defense. And you have to get it straight. There's a lot of money spent in the military budget that doesn't do any good for our defense. How does it help us to keep troops in Korea all these years? We're broke. We have to borrow this money. Why are we in Japan and Germany? Because we pay for it. We're broke. To cut military spending is a wise thing to do. We would be safer if we weren't in so many places. We have an empire. We can't afford it. The empires always bring great nations down. We spread ourselves too thinly around the world. This is what's happened throughout history, and we're doing it to ourselves. I say it's time to come home.

We can blow up the world 20 times and we can't cut a penny?

PAUL: Well, I think we're on economic suicide if we're not even willing to look at some of these overseas expenditures, 900 bases, 150 different countries. We have enough weapons to blow up the world about 20-25 times. We have more weapons than all the other countries put together essentially. And we want to spend more and more, and you can't cut a penny? I mean, this is why we're at an impasse. I want to hear somebody up here willing to cut something. Something real. This budget is in bad shape and the financial calamity is going to be much worse than anybody ever invading this country. Which country is going to invade this country? They can't even shoot a missile at us.

Guantanamo prisoners are just suspects; not terrorists yet

PAUL: Are you all willing to condemn Ronald Reagan for exchanging weapons for hostages out of Iran? We all know that was done.

SANTORUM: Iran was a sovereign country. It was not a terrorist organization.

PAUL: Oh, they were our good friends back then, huh?

SANTORUM: They're not our good friends. They're a sovereign country, just like the Palestinian Authority is not the good friends of Israel.

PAUL: Reagan negotiated for hostages.

SANTORUM: We've negotiated with hostages, depending on the scale, including the Soviet Union. But there's a difference between releasing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay in response to a terrorist demand.

PAUL: But they're all suspects. They're not terrorists. You haven't convicted them of anything.

SANTORUM: That is certainly a proper role for the United States.

Military spending is not necessarily defense spending

GINGRICH: I think that we are greatly underestimating the threat to this country.

PAUL: First thing I would like to do is make sure that you understand there's a difference between military spending and defense spending. I'm tired of all the militarism that we are involved in. And we're wasting this money in getting us involved. And I agree, we are still in danger, but most of the danger comes by our lack of wisdom on how we run our foreign policy. So I would say there's a lot of room to cut on the military, but not on the defense. You can slash the military spending. We don't need to be building airplanes that were used in World War II--we're always fighting the last war. But we're under great threat, because we occupy so many countries. We're in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We're going broke.

Abolish the TSA; let airlines establish security

PAUL: The airlines that are responsible for carrying their cargo and their passengers. I mean, why should we assume that a bureaucracy can do better? And look at the monstrosity we have at the airports. These TSA agents are abusive. Sometimes they're accused of all kinds of sexual activities on the way they maul people at the airport. So the airlines could do that.

Q: I'll give them your best at LAX tonight.

PAUL: I would think the airlines should treat passengers as well as a company that hauls money around, and they protect their money. They have private guards. [The airlines] could do that. Just remember, 9/11 came about because there was too much government. Government was more or less in charge. They told the pilots they couldn't have guns, and they were told never to resist. They set up the stage for all this. So, no, private markets do a good job in protecting--much better than this bureaucracy called the TSA.

Many terrorists have been properly tried in US courts

BACHMANN: Because terrorists who are from foreign countries who commit acts against US citizens do not have any rights under our Constitution.

PAUL: She turns our rule of law on its head. She says that the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts, but, therefore, a judgment has to be made. They're ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist? I thought our courts recognized that you had to be tried. And we've done this. We've brought individuals back from Pakistan and other places. We've given them a trial in this country, near 300, we tried and put them in prison. So this idea that we have to reject the rule of law, when you assume somebody is a terrorist, they can be targeted for assassination, even American citizens, that affects all of us eventually. You don't want to translate our rule of law into mob rule.

Waterboarding doesn't achieve anything

SANTORUM: Under certain circumstances or any circumstances?

Q: Under any circumstances that you could imagine.

SANTORUM: Sure.

JOHNSON: I would not.

PAUL: No, I would not, because you don't achieve anything.

SANTORUM: Well it's just simply not true, Ron. The fact is that what we found is that some of this information that we find out that led to Osama Bin Laden actually came from these enhanced interrogation techniques.

PAUL: Not true.

SANTORUM: And by the way we wouldn't have been able to launch a raid into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden if we weren't in Afghanistan.

CAIN: I heard Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say it very clearly a few months after 9/11 2001 after the tragedy, the terrorist have one objective, to kill of us and so, yes, I believe that we should do whatever means possible in order to protect the people of this nation, that's their ultimate goal.

Assassination policy targeting citizens is unconstitutional

On Feb. 3, 2010, the Director of National Intelligence admitted that indeed such a policy existed. As he put it: "Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives." No longer trying to keep assassination top secret and even admitting it can involve an American citizen is a bold and scary change in attitude. Many people now believe that it is proper under the law, necessary for our security, and condoned.

Conscription is not part of Constitution nor free society

Hated for freedom? No, hated for invading their countries!

Patriot Act is radical departure from 4th Amendment

100 detainees have died of torture under US custody

Politically convenient wars are not at all necessary

Conscription is unconstitutional--including National Service

Lesser forms of the draft, such as compulsory “national service” are based on the sam unacceptable premise. Young people are not raw material to be employed by the political class on behalf of whatever fashionable political, military, or social cause catches its fancy. In a free society, their lives are not the plaything of government.

FactCheck: US spends $572B on foreign operations, not $1T

Pres. Bush’s proposed fisca 2009 budget includes $572 billion for defense spending. Even if we called the entire defense budget an overseas cost of maintaining an empire--and then kicked in the entire $50.6 billion budget for the State Department and international programs-- Paul is still $378 billion short.

The Paul campaign cites a 2006 think-tank article which included a number of items that one might generally not think of as defense spending: including the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, 1/3 of the funding for the FBI and 1/2 of NASA’s funding. The numbers also include medical and retirement pay for veterans and a large portion of interest on the debt.

Military is not in good shape; we have a de facto draft

We don’t need any troops abroad--they don’t help our defense

A: I don’t know the exact number, but more than we need. We don’t need any.

Q: It’s 572,000. And you’d bring them all home?

A: As quickly as possible. They will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany & troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I’ve been in high school! It doesn’t make any sense

Suicide terrorism stops when we stop intervening abroad

Q: Under your doctrine, if we did not have troops in the Middle East, would al Qaeda leave us alone?

A: Not, not immediately, because they’d have to believe us. But what would happen is the incentive for Osama bin Laden to recruit suicide terrorists would disappear. Once we left Lebanon in the early ‘80s, suicide terrorism virtually stopped, just like that. But while we were there, suicide terrorism killed our Marines. We have to understand how we would react if some country did to us exactly what we do to them, and then we might have a better understanding of their motivation, why somebody would join the al-Qaeda. Since we’ve been over there al-Qaeda has more members now than they did before 9/11. They probably had a couple hundred before 9/11.

A: No, it’s both. It’s sort of like if you step in a snake pit and you get bit, you know, who caused the trouble? Because you stepped in the snake pit or because snakes bite you?

In wartime, people willing to sacrifice liberty for security

A: When you have war--whether it’s a war against drugs war against terrorism, war overseas--the mentality of the people changes and they’re more willing to sacrifice their liberties in order to be safe and secure. So, yes, right after 9/11 my reaction was, “it’s going to be a lot tougher selling liberty.” But I’m pleasantly surprised that I’m still in the business of selling liberty and the Constitution and there’s still a lot of enthusiasm for it. I might have been too pessimistic immediately after 9/11 because, in a way, it has caused this reaction and this uprising in this country to say, “Enough is enough. We don’t need more Patriot Acts, we don’t need more surveillance of our people. We don’t need national ID cards. We don’t need the suspension of habeas corpus. What we need is more freedom.”

No presidential power for secret surveillance

A: Absolutely not.

Q: Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

A: No.

Habeas corpus always applies, even to Guantanamo

A: I strongly disagree with him because I think it was absurd. If we can’t deny habeas corpus it infers that you have habeas corpus. So I would strongly disagree with his whole interpretation of habeas corpus.

Q: Do you think that that extends to non US citizens in US custody overseas, i.e. Guantanamo?

A: I think that might depend upon the circumstances of declared war, and what the circumstances might be.

Q: The context would be Gitmo, the case before the Supreme Court.

A: I would think then that we should, under those circumstances, follow the principles of habeas corpus.

We have a de-facto draft; we can achieve more in peace

This whole idea, we’re going through the same argument, the light at the end of the tunnel. We did this in the ‘60s when I was in the service. And we finally left Vietnam, tragically. But we do much better in peace with Vietnam. We trade with them. They have become Westernized. What we achieved in peace we couldn’t achieve in war.

Protect against terrorism by understanding their motivations

It’s not because we are wealthy & prosperous & free. They come here because we are in their country. Permanent bases [in Iraq & elsewhere in the Arab world] just mean that we have expanded the opportunity for the terrorists to come here because there is greater motivation. So, if we want to protect ourselves against terrorism, we have to understand what motivates them. Even Wolfowitz admitted this. He said that the base in Saudi Arabia was an instrumental part of what motivated Osama bin Laden. So if we ignore that, it is at our own folly.

Q: When you made that point at the debate the other night, there were some boos that came out from that Republican audience. Are you in step with Republican voters?

A: I would say that since 70% of the American people want out of the war, and they are tired of it, the Republicans better pick somebody who is opposed to the war or have a new foreign policy, or they can’t win.

Violating habeas corpus will be used against us

Protect military chaplains’ right to pray in preferred faith

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Eliminate FBI & DHS; interpret intelligence intelligently

A: Well, you might ask a better question. Before 9/11, we were spending $40 billion a year, and the FBI was producing numerous information about people being trained on airplanes, to fly them but not land them. And they totally ignored them. So it’s the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that is the problem. So, increasing this with the Department of Homeland Security and spending more money doesn’t absolve us of the problem. Yes, we have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering. But we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information.

Governments orchestrate fear to throw their weight around

When the people of a nation are fearful and insecure, it allows bullies in government to throw their weight around with promises of safety. Confidence and true strength, by contrast, encourage humility.

The success of government propagandists promoting war is nothing new. The public is too easily led to support war based on concocted fear. Getting into a war is a lot easier than getting out. It is not in the nature of government to admit mistakes and confess that any war, no matter how disastrous, should be ended.

DHS is unmanageable bureaucracy--eliminate it

A: DHS is a monstrous type of bureaucracy. It was supposed to be streamlining our security and it’s unmanageable. I mean, just think of the efficiency of FEMA in its efforts to take care of the floods and the hurricanes.

Q: You would eliminate DHS in the midst of a war?

A: We should not go to more bureaucracy. It didn’t work. We were spending $40 billion on security prior to 9/11, and they had all the information they needed there to deal with the threat, and it was inefficiency. So what do we do? We add a gigantic bureaucracy, which they’re still working on trying to put it together, and a tremendous amount of increase in f

Be cautious about warrantless searches & habeas corpus

A: I would work very hard to protect the privacy of American citizens, being very, very cautious about warrantless searches. And I would guarantee that I would never abuse habeas corpus.

Criticizes use of war on terror to curtail civil liberties

We’d be as furious as Muslims are, if our land was occupied

GIULIANI: There’s an Islamic, terrorism threat against us. It’s an existential threat. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy. It has to do with their ideas, their theories, the things that they have done and the way they’ve perverted their religion into a hatred of us. Our foreign policy is irrelevant--totally irrelevant.

PAUL: Try to visualize how we would react if they did that to us, if a country, say China, came that great distance across the ocean, and they say, “We want you to live like us. We want you to have our economic system. We want bases on your land. We want to protect our oil.” Even if we do that with good intentions--even if the Chinese did that with good intentions, we would all be furious.

ROMNEY: Ron, you’re reading their propaganda.

Grouping terrorists together damages relations with Muslims

ROMNEY: Is it such a mystery as to why they attack America? We’re the strongest nation in the world.

GIULIANI: Ron, it’s simply not true. Islamic terrorists killed over 500 Americans before September 11, going back to the late 1960s. They have also killed people recently in Bali, in London. They have launched attacks in Germany. I could go on and on. The attack on Leon Klinghoffer.

PAUL: You paint all Islamics the same way, and this is a dangerous thing. What you’re doing is damaging our relationship by destroying our relationship with all Muslims. That’s what you’re doing.

GIULIANI: I do not accept that criticism.

We can’t fight for freedom if we impose Patriot Act

Unfortunately, we have lost faith and confidence in the system of government with which we have been blessed. Today too many Americans support the use of force to spread our message of hope and freedom.

A powerful bureaucratic military state negates all efforts to preserve those conditions that have served America so well up until recent times. That is not what the American dream is all about. Without a change in attitude, the dream dies: a simple changes the restates the principles of liberty enshrined in our Constitution will serve us well in solving the problems we face. The people are up to the task; I hope Congress is as well.

Conscription is forced servitude--no draft for illegal wars

The plan for “universal liability to serve” once again is raising its ugly head. The dollar cost of the current war is staggering, yet plans are being made to drastically expand the human cost by forcing conscription on the young men who have no ax to grand with the Iraqi people and want no part of this fight.

Justifying conscription to promote liberty is one of the most bizarre notions ever conceived by man. Forced servitude, with the risk of death and serious injury as a price to live free, makes no sense. What right does anyone have to sacrifice the lives of others for some cause of questionable value?

All drafts are unfair. All 18- and 19-year olds are never drafted. By its very nature, a draft must be discriminatory. All drafts hit the most vulnerable young people, as the elites quickly learn how to avoid the risks of combat.

Explore reasons behind terrorist attacks on US

Without an understanding of why terrorism is directed towards the US, we may as well build a prison for ourselves with something called homeland security, while doing nothing to combat the root causes of terrorism. Let us hope we figure this out soon.

Reassess “mutual security” treaties; our allies never aid us

We should reassess all our military treaties. They are called “mutual security” treaties, but no one expects our allies to come to our assistance if we are attacked. We have been forced to stand alone and bear all the cost of our defense and most of the cost of the defense of our allies.

Military Keynesianism? Blowing up bombs is economic negative

Military Keynesianism invites mercantile policies. Frequently, our armies follow corporate investments around the world and have for more than a hundred years. It's no secret that many believe we're in the Middle East to protect "our" oil. Military Keynesianism is justified by our foreign policy of occupation and nation building and preventive war. Innocent people die, property is destroyed, and the world is made a more dangerous place.

Islamists attacked us for US bases on Arab lands

PAUL: As long as this country follows that idea, we're going to be under a lot of danger. This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this, and they're attacking us because we're free and prosperous, that is just not true. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit--they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians fair treatment, and you have been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years. Wouldn't you be annoyed? If you're not annoyed, then there's some problem.

Neither Dems nor GOP will cut one nickel from militarism

A: You have to allow liquidation of debt, eliminate the malinvestment. Then you go back and you can get growth again by having a better tax structure, lower taxes, invite capital back into this country, get a lot less regulations. And under those conditions, you can have growth again.

Q: And you can get it through a divided Congress?

A: Well... the divided Congress will exist for a long time to come. Yes, you would have to get it through a--you'd have to get it through a divided Congress. But the one thing is, if you approach it constitutionally and if you approach it on the principles of liberty, you can bring people together. If we have to cut, maybe we wouldn't be so--so determined that you can't cut one nickel out of the militarism around the world. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans want to cut that. So if you want to cut, you have to put the militarism on the table, as well.

American Empire is big government war & militarism

We can't keep troops in 135 countries & 900 bases forever

Now, there's been a lot of talk about the budget deficit. The military is not equated to defense, defense spending is one thing, military spending is what Eisenhower called the "military industrial complex" and we have to go after that. Government is out of control and it's very hard for us to get a handle on it.

We’re broke and we just can’t continue to police the world

Stop policing the world and we can get rid of income tax

A: A lot.

Q: Over a trillion dollars.

A: That’s good. We could save hundreds of billions of dollars if we had a sensible foreign policy. If you’re going to be the policeman of the world, you need that. You need the income tax to police the world and run the welfare state. I want a constitutional-size government.

Q: Would you replace the income tax with anything else?

A: Not if I could help it. You know, there are some proposals where probably almost anything would be better than income tax. But there’s a lot of shortcomings with the, with the sales tax. But it would probably be slightly better than the income tax--it would be an improvement. But the goal is to cut the spending, get back to a sensible-size government.

Bring all troops home from abroad & save $100B’s every year

A: To operate our total foreign policy, when you add up everything, it’s nearly a trillion dollars a year. So I would think if you brought our troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars. You can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman over the world. We should have the foreign policy that George Bush ran on. You know, no nation building, no policing of the world, a humble foreign policy. We don’t need to be starting wars. That’s my argument.

9/11 resulted from blasphemy of our bases in Saudi Arabia

A: Well, read what the ringleader says. Read what Osama bin Laden said. We had a base in Saudi Arabia that was an affront to their religion, that was blasphemy as far as they were concerned. We were bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve interfered in Iran since 1953. Our CIA’s been involved in the overthrow of their governments. We side more with Israel and Pakistan, and they get annoyed with this. How would we react if they were on our land? We would be very annoyed, and we’d be fighting mad.

Pre-emptive war policy is a grave mistake

Pre-emptive war is not part of the American tradition

A: I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote pre-emptive war. I do not believe that’s part of the American tradition. We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just- war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security!

We have to come to our senses about this issue of war and pre-emption and go back to traditions and our Constitution and defend our liberties and defend our rights, but not to think that we can change the world by force of arms and to start wars.

Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense

A: You do it by understanding of what the goal of government ought to be. If the goal of government is to be the policeman of the world, you lose liberty. And if the goal is to promote liberty, you can unify all segments. The freedom message brings us together; it doesn’t divide us. I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we’re fretting day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force, and we’re getting ready to go to war. But the principle, the moral principle, is that of defending liberty and minimizing the scope of government.

Jihadists attack because we have bases in their countries

ROMNEY: Unfortunately, Ron, you need a thorough understanding of what radical jihad is, what the movement is, what its intent is, where it flows from. And the fact is that it’s trying to bring down not just us, but it’s trying to bring down all moderate Islamic governments, Western governments around the world, as we just saw in Pakistan.

Costs of war always higher than expected & go on for decades

1. The costs of war are always much more than anticipated, while the benefits are much less.
2. The cost of war is more than just the dollars spent; it includes death, injuries, and destruction along with the unintended consequences that go on for decades.
3. Support for offensive wars wears thin, especially when they are not ended quickly.
4. The Iraq war has been going on for 15 years with no end in sight.
5. Ulterior motives too often preempt national security in offensive wars.
6. Powerful nations too often forget humility in their relationships to other countries.
7. World history and religious dogmatism are too often misunderstood and ignored.
8. World government is no panacea for limiting war.
9. Most wars could be avoided with better diplomacy, a mutual understanding of minding one’s own business, and respect for the rights of self-determination.

Conscription is a trait of totalitarian government

The Founding Fathers never granted constitutional authority to the Congress or the President to conscript an army. In 1865, the states approved the 13th Amendment which provides that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.” Denying that conscription is anything but involuntary servitude is a distortion of clear language and intent of this amendment.

Opposes Patriot Act & Iraq War

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

Congressional Summary: To prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content, including:
1. broadcasting, transmitting, and programming over noncommercial educational radio broadcast stations
2. cooperating with foreign broadcasting networks
3. assisting and supporting noncommercial educational radio broadcasting
4. paying dues to such organizations
5. or acquiring radio programs for public broadcast.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Blackburn, R-TN]: This bill gets the Federal Government--and Federal taxpayers--out of the business of buying radio programming they do not agree with. This is a bill that is long overdue. Regardless of what you think of NPR, its programming or statements by its management, the time has come to cut the umbilical cord from the taxpayer support that has become as predictable as an entitlement program. Much has changed in the media landscape since the 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.

Voted NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. CONYERS: Earlier this year, in the Protect America Act, PAA, amendments were made to FISA, giving the Government enhanced flexibility to collect foreign intelligence information. But the broad scope of the authority without up-front court approval raised grave concerns about the need for more safeguards of innocent Americans' communications. The RESTORE Act improves upon the PAA by providing a series of checks and balances while still allowing maximum flexibility. The RESTORE Act does not require individual warrants when persons are abroad, but it is firm that a FISA warrant is required to obtain communications of people in the US.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Rep. KING of N.Y.: Electronic surveillance is one of the strongest weapons in our arsenal. The real enemy is al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism, not our own government working so hard to protect us. The PAA updated FISA and struck the appropriate balance between protecting our citizens from terrorist attacks and protecting our civil liberties. Today's bill, the RESTORE Act, marks an undeniable retreat in the war against Islamic terrorism. It limits the type of foreign intelligence information that may be acquired and actually gives foreign targets more protections than Americans get in criminal cases here at home.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Bill passed, 213-197.

Voted YES on Veto override: Congressional oversight of CIA interrogations.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. REYES: This legislation goes a long way towards strengthening oversight of the intelligence community, which the President seems to consistently want to fight. That's why the President vetoed it. He wants the authority to do whatever he wants, in secret, with no oversight or authorization or without any checks and balances. Well, I don't agree. The Constitution gives us a role in this process. We do have a say in what the intelligence community does. That's why we need to override this veto.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Rep. HOEKSTRA: This bill fails to give the intelligence community the tools that it needs to protect the American people from radical jihadists. The debate on this authorization bill is not about a single issue, [waterboarding], as some would have you believe. It is about the need to ensure that we give the right tools to our intelligence professionals in this time of enhanced threat.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Veto override failed, 225-188 (2/3rds required)

Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts.

1. Improving the Quality of Contracts--to restrict the contract period of noncompetitive contracts to the minimum period necessary to meet urgent requirements; and not more than one year unless the the government would be seriously injured.
2. Increasing Contract Oversight--to make publicly available (on websites) justification documents for using noncompetitive contract procedures.
3. Promoting Integrity in Contracting--to prohibit former federal officials from accepting compensation from contractors as lawyers or lobbyists.

Proponents support voting YES because:

In Iraq, we were told we needed Halliburton to get a contract without any competition because they were the only ones who know how to put out oil well fires. So they got a contract on a cost-plus basis even though they had a history of overcharging the taxpayers. And then later we found out that they didn't do anything about putting out oil well fires in the first Gulf war; it was Bechtel, not Halliburton. Contractors were given special treatment by not having healthy competition.

In dealing with Hurricane Katrina, and we have seen the same mistakes again: No-competition contracts; cost-plus contracts. We have seen what the result has been: Wasted taxpayer dollars. This bill requires that if there is an emergency to give a contract, give it. But then have bidding within a year.

Opponents support voting NO because:

We support transparency and accountability in decision-making, but this bill asks for audit reports that are only advisory. To provide those to Congress not only gives you too much information, a lot of it can be misleading and can increase the number of contract disputes.

When you are fighting a war, you need to move quickly. You don't give a 6-month appeal to the folks that lose the competition. You don't give small business set-asides because there is one thing you don't have, you don't have time.

Voted NO on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terrorism. That means we have to have intelligence agencies and capabilities that are agile, that are responsive to changes in technology, and that also protect the civil liberties of Americans. Let me make an analogy. With modernization, we replaced Route 66 with Interstate 40. We no longer have the stoplights and the intersections. We created on ramps and off ramps and concrete barriers to protect the citizens where traffic was moving very quickly. That is like what we are trying to do here--FISA needs modernization.

Opponents support voting NO because:

We are legislating in the dark. We do not even know what the President is doing now because he will not tell us. The New York Times exposed that the administration had authorized secret surveillance of domestic conversations. When exposed, the President claimed he was operating under inherent powers, but court decisions have found that the President cannot simply declare administration actions constitutional and lawful, whether or not they are.

Yet rather than finding out what is going on, this legislation retroactively legalizes whatever has been going on. The President already has broad latitude to conduct domestic surveillance, including surveillance of American citizens, so long as it is overseen by the FISA court.

This bill does not enhance security, but it does allow surveillance without the traditional checks and balances that have served our Nation well.

Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.

• This bill could have and should have required a dedicated funding line for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The 9/11 Commission recommended this board to serve as a civil liberties watchdog on the potential erosion of the basic constitutional rights. Now, 15 months later, we find our concerns about basic civil rights to have been well founded, but the oversight board is barely up and running [and is not funded].
• Many of us believe that when the President authorized the NSA surveillance of Americans, he broke the law, plain and simple.
• We are talking about the most basic fundamental civil liberties that protect the American people, and the Republican leadership will not even let us debate it. What are they afraid of?
• If you believe that this President should have the ability to spy on Americans without a warrant and without going to the FISA court, then they should write that bill and bring it to the floor, then have a debate and a vote.

The resolution's proponents say:
• We have had the good fortune in this country for the last 4 1/2 years to have not had another terrorist attack on our soil, and it is not because they haven't tried. The reason for that success boils down to two things: the courage of our soldiers and the quality of our intelligence. Exceptional intelligence is the first line of defense for America in the long war on terrorism.
• I think as a responsible body we have to start out by getting the facts. That means hard work that is done largely in secret. Oversight is under way, and, for the most part, the National Security Agency has been very forthcoming.

Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists.

• Title I: Amendments to Federal Laws to Protect Against Terrorist Entry - defining more factors relevant to credibility determinations in asylum cases.
• Title II: Improved Security for Driver's Licenses and Personal Identification Cards - setting minimum security requirements, including the incorporation of specified data, a common machine-readable technology, and certain anti-fraud security features. Title III: Border Infrastructure and Technology Integration - studying ground surveillance technologies.

Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses.

Voted NO on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence.

Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns.

Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill.

Voted YES on deploying SDI.

End draft registration; all-volunteer forces .

As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
• WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
• WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
• WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
• WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
1. US military should be deployed only where there is a clear threat to vital US interests and only with the consent of the US Congress.
2. No branch of the military should be put in harm’s way without a clear entrance and exit strategy and a goal, which when achieved, constitutes victory.
3. US military personnel should always be under US command.
4. US armed forces should be all-volunteer.
5. Military draft registration should be eliminated.

Federal duty to provide missile defense .

The Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
It is the duty of the federal government to provide a system to defend against missile attacks.

Rated 67% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues.

Peace Action, the merger of The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) and The Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for over forty years. As the nation's largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries. We are proof that ordinary people can change the world. At Peace Action we believe...

• That every person has the right to live without the threat of nuclear weapons.
• That war is not a suitable response to conflict.
• That America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.

The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Terminate Selective Service.

• Repeals the Military Selective Service Act.
• Prohibits the Office of Selective Service Records from being reestablished upon such repeal.
• Transfers the assets, property, and records held by the Selective Service System (SSS), as well as unexpended balances, to the Administrator of General Services.
• Requires that employees of the SSS be assisted to transfer to other positions in the executive branch.
• Prohibits any person from being denied a right, privilege, benefit, or employment position under Federal law on the grounds that the person failed to register under the Military Selective Service Act before its repeal.

Introductory statement by Sponsor:

Rep. PAUL: I am today introducing legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act. The Department of Defense, in response to calls to reinstate the Draft, has confirmed that conscription serves no military need. In his December confirmation hearings, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated his opposition to a military Draft. Secretary Gates' immediate predecessor, Donald Rumsfield, also publicly opposed reinstating the Draft.

Obviously, if there is no military need for the Draft, then there is no need for Selective Service registration. In 1993, the Department of Defense issued a report stating that registration could be stopped "with no effect on military mobilization and no measurable effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military recruitment."

Yet the American taxpayer has been forced to spend over $500 million dollars on an outdated system "with no measurable effect on military mobilization!" Shutting down Selective Service will give taxpayers a break without adversely affecting military efforts. I hope all my colleagues join me in working to shut down this un-American relic of a bygone era and help realize the financial savings and the gains to individual liberties that can be achieved by ending Selective Service registration.

Appoint chiropractors as commissioned officers.

A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should take immediate steps to appoint doctors of chiropractic as commissioned officers in the Armed Forces.

• Whereas the urgent needs of military personnel in the field of operations include access to the widest possible range of health care options, especially in the area of care of the spine and related structures of the body;
• Whereas providing military personnel in the field of operations with access to chiropractic care will increase the cost effectiveness of military health care expenditures by taking advantage of the conservative, drugless, and non-surgical care option offered by chiropractic care;
• Whereas back injuries are the leading cause of lost service time and disability in the Armed Forces;
• Whereas military personnel in the field of operations or on shipboard can access chiropractic care only through commissioned chiropractic officers;
• Whereas access to chiropractic care through commissioned chiropractic officers will enhance the combat readiness of military personnel by offering a non-pharmaceutical option for the health care needs of such personnel;
• Now, therefore, be it Resolved: That the Secretary of Defense should take immediate steps to establish a career path for doctors of chiropractic to be appointed as commissioned officers in all branches of the Armed Forces for purposes of providing chiropractic services to members of the Armed Forces.

Free postage for soldiers serving abroad.

Supply Our Soldiers Act H.R.704 1/27/2009 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00704:

Military spouses don't lose voting residency while abroad.

A bill to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to guarantee the equity of spouses of military personnel with regard to matters of residency, and for other purposes.
• Prohibits, for purposes of voting for a federal, state, or local office, deeming a person to have lost a residence or domicile in a state, acquired a residence or domicile in any other state, or become a resident in or of any other state solely because the person is absent from a state because the person is accompanying the person's spouse who is absent from the state in compliance with military or naval orders.
• Prohibits a servicemember's spouse from either losing or acquiring a residence or domicile for purposes of taxation because of being absent or present in any U.S. tax jurisdiction solely to be with the servicemember in compliance with the servicemember's military orders if the residence or domicile is the same for the servicemember and the spouse. Prohibits a spouse's income from being considered income earned in a tax jurisdiction if the spouse is not a resident or domiciliary of such jurisdiction when the spouse is in that jurisdiction solely to be with a servicemember serving under military orders.
• Suspends land rights residency requirements for spouses accompanying servicemembers serving under military orders.