http://paul.senate.gov Important information from Senator Rand Paul. en-us Copyright 2012 Rand Paul Wed, 16 May 2012 08:25:41 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=522 Tue, 15 May 2012 16:35:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C - Today, the U.S. Senate voted on a series of amendments to the Export-Import Reauthorization bill (H.R. 2072), including one introduced by Sen. Rand Paul that would prohibit Ex-Im financing to countries that own U.S. debt. The amendment failed, with a vote of 89-9. Prior to the vote, Sen. Paul took to the Senate floor to describe the benefit of adopting his amendment and ending corporate welfare. CLICK HERE TO WATCH SEN. PAUL DISCUSS HIS EX-IM AMENDMENT IN THE SENATE     TRANSCRIPT: First, we borrow billions of dollars from China, India, and Saudi Arabia then we loan it back to them again. Republicans rightly complain that we're sending taxpayer money to the President's major donors at Solyndra and Bright Source. Now Republicans need to be consistent and say we're not going to send Ex-Im loans to even bigger companies who are even more profitable. If it is wrong for the government to choose winners and send your money to corporations, we should say it's wrong and we should vote against this. Anybody remember the President threatening to increase taxes on corporate jets? Ex-Import banks are now going to increase the loans for corporate jets tenfold. My amendment will stop this charade. My amendment will stop sending taxpayer dollars overseas to countries who we already are borrowing money from. It makes no sense, and the time has come to stop it.     ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=521 Tue, 15 May 2012 16:31:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C - On Tuesday, U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Ed Whitfield announced a path forward to preserve 1,200 jobs at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Ky. Today's agreement of a plan by the Department of Energy (DOE) is the culmination of years of hard work by the Kentucky delegation, the DOE and the Paducah community. This proposal is a win-win-win for taxpayers, workers and national security as it will reduce the amount of waste at the plant that will ultimately need to be disposed and save the federal government nearly $150 million in avoided maintenance costs for the Paducah plant, extend nearly 1,200 jobs, and create a source of uranium that can be used for our national security needs.  Additionally, keeping this plant open provides a pathway to ensure our nation continues to have a domestic enrichment supplier to meet our national security needs. 'I'm pleased there is an agreement that will allow 1,200 hard working employees to continue to work for another year at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.' Senator McConnell said. 'I am encouraged that all parties involved were able to come together and agree on a deal that will provide some certainty to the workers and the community. They have been waiting far too long. This plan will give the workers and the city additional time to prepare for the future as DOE works to transition the facility. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Paul and Congressman Whitfield, the Administration, and all parties who worked with us to help provide this agreement for the people of Paducah.' 'Through the hard work and combined efforts of Sen. McConnell, Rep. Whitfield, and myself, I am proud we were able to preserve the 1,200 jobs in Paducah for one final year,' Senator Paul said. 'I am pleased the various parties have come together to execute an extension of work at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant for one year and preserve 1,200 jobs,' Congressman Whitfield said.  'In 2007, I first introduced legislation to use these tails to extend the life of the Paducah plant.  Since then, I have worked tirelessly to see this day become a reality.  But there is more to be done. We must continue to work together to ensure a viable transition plan is developed as this plant faces eventual closing.' This one year transition also will allow time for public officials and the community to formulate plans for productive use of the DOE site once uranium enrichment activity ceases.  While today's announcement is important, it is critical that this planning be accelerated so that the workforce and the community prepare for the eventual closing of operations.   ####   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=520 Tue, 15 May 2012 16:18:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=519 Thu, 10 May 2012 15:56:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C - Today, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor to oppose the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Below is the video and transcript of his speech.  CLICK HERE TO WATCH SEN. PAUL'S FLOOR SPEECH     TRANSCRIPT:   The ordinary middle-class family is struggling to get a home loan. Tens of thousands of homeowners have lost their homes or are struggling to make payments on their home loans. Meanwhile, Congress steadily dishes out billions of dollars in taxpayer-subsidized loans to large, profitable companies. Eighty percent of these loans, these Export-Import loans, are given to companies that are in the Fortune 500. So we're giving taxpayer loans to very profitable companies.   I'm a great believer in capitalism, in the jobs that corporations create. I defend profit and the benefit that accrues from leaving that profit large any in the private sector. I'm not one who clamors for punitive taxes, I'm not someone who thinks we need to punish corporations, but at the same time don't construe that to mean that I believe we should be subsidizing profitable corporations.   I don't think taxpayer-subsidized loans should go to profitable companies. Now, President Obama has been passing out loans to his campaign donors. He's been using a campaign trough that he has set up over at the Department of Energy.   Very wealthy multimillionaires and billionaires are getting loans through the Department of Energy; Solyndra, Brightsource, people heavily involved in the President's campaign have been getting subsidized loans. Republicans have been rightly criticizing the President for these loans, for these Department of Energy loans; to Solyndra, Brightsource and others.   Republicans have been correct in criticizing the President for trying to pick the winners and losers in the energy production. Yet now a majority of the Republicans are poised to vote for their own set of taxpayer-subsidized loans through the Export-Import bank.   In fact, they want to increase the Export-Import loans by nearly 50 percent and pick the winners and losers now in the export business. The horse traders may disdain consistency, but the American people value principled and consistent opposition to deficit financing.   The American people know hypocrisy when they see it. The American people know corporate welfare when they see it. The Export-Import bank in fact provided an $18 million to a steel mill in China. Our steel industry has been in decline for decades, and I would loan $18 million to our competitors?   Who in their right mind would subsidize our Chinese competitors with loans? It makes no sense. Can you think of anything more insulting than loaning money to our competitors? Well, come to think of it, I might. We actually give foreign aid to china. We actually send china economic development assistance. Is it any wonder that Congress has an 11 percent approval rating?   Many Americans are trying to hang on to their homes, struggling to make their payments on their own home mortgage, while very profitable big business is being given subsidized loans by the government. It makes no sense. What gives?   To add insult to injury, we are borrowing money from the same countries that we are lending the money to. So we borrow money from India, because I would run a deficit of the over $1 trillion a year, we borrow known from India and then we're sending it back to them in the form of taxpayer-subsidized loans. It makes no sense.   Ex-Im loans like the loans to Solyndra and Brightsource are simply forms of crony capitalism. With trillion-dollar annual deficits, surely we can vote to end corporate welfare. If companies are making billions of dollars in profit, can we at least end the welfare that we're sending to these corporations?   I urge a vote against reauthorizing the Ex-Im bank, and I hope my Republican colleagues will see the inconsistency of criticizing the President on one hand for his capitalism and then turning around and doing the same thing.   So I support not reauthorizing the Export-Import bank, admitting it is corporate welfare and trying to save the taxpayers some of their hard-earned money. Thank you Mr. President and I suggest the absence a quorum.       ###     http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=518 Thu, 10 May 2012 15:51:00 EST Reports of the Tea Party's death have been exaggerated greatly. Oh sure, Harry Reid may say it's dead, and he clearly wishes it were so. The upset victory of Richard Mourdock in Indiana indicates the Tea Party is alive and well. Something remarkable happened Tuesday night in Indiana. Voters from nearly every part of the Republican Party came together to vote for change. Not just any change - change from a well-liked 36-year incumbent. Let me note here that I mean no disrespect to my departing colleague, Richard G. Lugar, who is a gentleman and has served honorably. But this kind of change does not happen very often in politics. Ninety-six percent of incumbents win. Defeating an incumbent is extraordinary and is evidence of an electorate that thinks government debt should be controlled. The chattering class complains about the death of the center and bipartisanship. We are told a safe seat has been endangered. The reality is no such thing. We win as Republicans when we paint in bold colors. We win when we stand up for issues such as smaller government, constitutional principles, true liberty and the protection of life. We win when we take strong stands for the Second Amendment and the right to work. We succeed when our vision is clear and our principles are sound. What happened on Tuesday was not one angry group of voters rebelling. It was not one or two conservative groups pushing an agenda. It was all of them, acting as one, urging the Indiana GOP to nominate someone who would stand with them. I was in a similar situation in 2010. Throughout my primary, it was said ad nauseam that I could not win a general election. It was said that a candidate who stood with the Tea Party and fought so strongly against the Washington establishment would become roadkill in November. I won comfortably as voters saw and responded to a genuine message of change. The message was that of the Tea Party and constitutional conservatism. This is the message Mr. Mourdock will bring forward this fall, and I look forward to him fighting alongside me next year in the U.S. Senate. The Tea Party sprang up out of two main events in 2008-09: the TARP bailouts and Obamacare. These were huge new reaches for big government. They were massive intrusions into running the private sector. They were against everything we as a party were supposed to stand for. Senators and candidates who either were on the wrong side of these issues or simply did not stand up and fight have been deservedly running for cover ever since. The Tea Party is not a single-issue group. Rather, it is a group that is fed up with an attitude in Washington. Tea Partyers are fed up with politicians who spend money we don't have, racking up trillion-dollar deficits year after year. They are tired of politicians who do not see limits in the powers of Congress and the federal government to intrude into our lives. They are sick of being told they have to accept a mealy-mouthed version of what they believe and what they know we must do to save our country. We must balance our budget sooner rather than later, or we will face ruin. This will require entitlement reform. Tuesday, Hoosiers voted for a candidate who publicly pledged to support the Tea Party budget in the Senate, which balances in five years. We must repeal Obamacare and ensure that nothing like it passes ever again. Hoosier voters nominated the candidate who stood the strongest for the Constitution and for freedom. We must fight to continue the small battles we already have won. Hoosier voters rewarded the candidate who pledged to keep the earmark ban and rejected the senator who just weeks ago voted to restore earmarks. There is much hand-wringing also about outside groups in races such as these. Outside groups like the Tea Party groups, National Right to Work, Club for Growth and others certainly played a large role in this race, and this is as it should be. These groups are not special-interest groups lobbying for favors. They are principled organizations fighting for the government to leave them alone. The candidate who stood for such issues was rewarded and will be asked to stand for them again this fall.Already the establishment cries that Richard Mourdock will not compromise - but compromise has been the name of the game for decades. Compromise leads to ever-escalating military and domestic spending. Washington needs statesmen, not horse traders. Our country needs principled leaders who will stand up and say no to trillion-dollar deficits. I look forward to a class of Republican freshman senators next January who fit the bill of statesmen - and we will see this strong breed come forth out of primaries in the next few weeks and become victorious in November.   Read more at The Washington Times.     http://paul.senate.gov?p=blog&id=517 Thu, 10 May 2012 10:55:00 EST Reports of the Tea Party's death have been exaggerated greatly. Oh sure, Harry Reid may say it's dead, and he clearly wishes it were so. The upset victory of Richard Mourdock in Indiana indicates the Tea Party is alive and well. Something remarkable happened Tuesday night in Indiana. Voters from nearly every part of the Republican Party came together to vote for change. Not just any change - change from a well-liked 36-year incumbent. Let me note here that I mean no disrespect to my departing colleague, Richard G. Lugar, who is a gentleman and has served honorably. But this kind of change does not happen very often in politics. Ninety-six percent of incumbents win. Defeating an incumbent is extraordinary and is evidence of an electorate that thinks government debt should be controlled. The chattering class complains about the death of the center and bipartisanship. We are told a safe seat has been endangered. The reality is no such thing. We win as Republicans when we paint in bold colors. We win when we stand up for issues such as smaller government, constitutional principles, true liberty and the protection of life. We win when we take strong stands for the Second Amendment and the right to work. We succeed when our vision is clear and our principles are sound. What happened on Tuesday was not one angry group of voters rebelling. It was not one or two conservative groups pushing an agenda. It was all of them, acting as one, urging the Indiana GOP to nominate someone who would stand with them. I was in a similar situation in 2010. Throughout my primary, it was said ad nauseam that I could not win a general election. It was said that a candidate who stood with the Tea Party and fought so strongly against the Washington establishment would become roadkill in November. I won comfortably as voters saw and responded to a genuine message of change. The message was that of the Tea Party and constitutional conservatism. This is the message Mr. Mourdock will bring forward this fall, and I look forward to him fighting alongside me next year in the U.S. Senate. The Tea Party sprang up out of two main events in 2008-09: the TARP bailouts and Obamacare. These were huge new reaches for big government. They were massive intrusions into running the private sector. They were against everything we as a party were supposed to stand for. Senators and candidates who either were on the wrong side of these issues or simply did not stand up and fight have been deservedly running for cover ever since. The Tea Party is not a single-issue group. Rather, it is a group that is fed up with an attitude in Washington. Tea Partyers are fed up with politicians who spend money we don't have, racking up trillion-dollar deficits year after year. They are tired of politicians who do not see limits in the powers of Congress and the federal government to intrude into our lives. They are sick of being told they have to accept a mealy-mouthed version of what they believe and what they know we must do to save our country. We must balance our budget sooner rather than later, or we will face ruin. This will require entitlement reform. Tuesday, Hoosiers voted for a candidate who publicly pledged to support the Tea Party budget in the Senate, which balances in five years. We must repeal Obamacare and ensure that nothing like it passes ever again. Hoosier voters nominated the candidate who stood the strongest for the Constitution and for freedom. We must fight to continue the small battles we already have won. Hoosier voters rewarded the candidate who pledged to keep the earmark ban and rejected the senator who just weeks ago voted to restore earmarks. There is much hand-wringing also about outside groups in races such as these. Outside groups like the Tea Party groups, National Right to Work, Club for Growth and others certainly played a large role in this race, and this is as it should be. These groups are not special-interest groups lobbying for favors. They are principled organizations fighting for the government to leave them alone. The candidate who stood for such issues was rewarded and will be asked to stand for them again this fall.Already the establishment cries that Richard Mourdock will not compromise - but compromise has been the name of the game for decades. Compromise leads to ever-escalating military and domestic spending. Washington needs statesmen, not horse traders. Our country needs principled leaders who will stand up and say no to trillion-dollar deficits. I look forward to a class of Republican freshman senators next January who fit the bill of statesmen - and we will see this strong breed come forth out of primaries in the next few weeks and become victorious in November.   Read more at The Washington Times.   http://paul.senate.gov?p=news&id=516 Thu, 10 May 2012 10:50:00 EST On Tuesday, May 8, I had the honor of testifying with Congressman Broun before a House Natural Resources Subcommittee on our bill to repeal and change parts of the Lacey Act. I was pleased that the hearing was organized by the committee, and also pleased to see so much interest from both the witnesses and the general public regarding the fact that this law is causing innocent Americans to have their businesses raided by armed federal agents, their property seized, and even to be sent to federal prison. However, I was disappointed to read Rep. Earl Blumenauer's (D-Ore.) piece on this site yesterday titled 'Truth Takes A Back Seat in Lacey Act Hearing.' In that piece, Rep. Blumenauer called me a liar and proceeded to set forth a series of unsubstantiated claims. If you're going to call someone a liar, the very least you can do is attempt to make it look like you've read everything you cite and perform the bare minimum research required to make such accusations.Rep. Blumenauer cites one of the cases I mentioned in my testimony yesterday -- that of Abner Schoenwetter and David McNab, who were sentenced to eight years in federal prison for violating Honduran regulations regarding lobsters. Rep. Blumenauer writes that my outrage about the prosecution of these men is unjustified, stating that: The two fishermen were doing far more than carrying lobsters in the wrong containers -- they were found guilty by a jury of conspiracy, smuggling, and money laundering. Their convictions were upheld by a U.S. federal district court and also by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. If Rep. Blumenauer would take the time to actually read the Circuit Court case he mentions, he would see that I am not exaggerating regarding the reasons these men were sent to prison. Yes, these men were convicted of conspiracy, conspiracy to violate a foreign fishing regulation. Blumenauer fails to understand that the injustice is in convicting Americans for allegedly breaking a foreign law which even the Honduran government argued was not a valid law. The injustice is in expecting Americans to be culpable for breaching foreign laws promulgated in a foreign language. The injustice is that due process entails fair notification. How can we expect fair notification of laws passed in foreign lands -- indeed the Lacey Act binds us to all future laws in foreign lands. 'If the lobsters were not imported, transported, and sold in violation of Honduran law, there could be no Lacey Act violations. Accordingly, if the lobsters were brought into the United States legally and were not criminally-derived property, there could be no smuggling or money laundering violations.' U.S. v. McNab 331 F.3d 1228, 1232 (11th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added). The regulations included such 'horrible' offenses as packing lobsters in plastic bags instead of boxes, and lobsters possessing tail lengths of less than 5.5 inches. One of the witnesses during the hearing yesterday mentioned that the whole scenario sounds like something out of a Kafka novel. He's right. I invite Rep. Blumenauer to read many of the thoroughly researched articles that have been written regarding this travesty of a case by the Heritage Foundation. See here, here, and here. He might also enjoy reading the book, One Nation Under Arrest: How Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors, and Activist Judges Threaten Your Liberty, which provides further details regarding this case. I am sure that once Rep. Blumenauer reads this case and realizes that he unfairly slandered these innocent men in his report yesterday, he will reconsider his position and support S. 2062 and HR. 4171. I would welcome his support.   Read more at The Huffington Post.   http://paul.senate.gov?p=blog&id=515 Thu, 10 May 2012 10:48:00 EST On Tuesday, May 8, I had the honor of testifying with Congressman Broun before a House Natural Resources Subcommittee on our bill to repeal and change parts of the Lacey Act. I was pleased that the hearing was organized by the committee, and also pleased to see so much interest from both the witnesses and the general public regarding the fact that this law is causing innocent Americans to have their businesses raided by armed federal agents, their property seized, and even to be sent to federal prison. However, I was disappointed to read Rep. Earl Blumenauer's (D-Ore.) piece on this site yesterday titled 'Truth Takes A Back Seat in Lacey Act Hearing.' In that piece, Rep. Blumenauer called me a liar and proceeded to set forth a series of unsubstantiated claims. If you're going to call someone a liar, the very least you can do is attempt to make it look like you've read everything you cite and perform the bare minimum research required to make such accusations.Rep. Blumenauer cites one of the cases I mentioned in my testimony yesterday -- that of Abner Schoenwetter and David McNab, who were sentenced to eight years in federal prison for violating Honduran regulations regarding lobsters. Rep. Blumenauer writes that my outrage about the prosecution of these men is unjustified, stating that: The two fishermen were doing far more than carrying lobsters in the wrong containers -- they were found guilty by a jury of conspiracy, smuggling, and money laundering. Their convictions were upheld by a U.S. federal district court and also by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. If Rep. Blumenauer would take the time to actually read the Circuit Court case he mentions, he would see that I am not exaggerating regarding the reasons these men were sent to prison. Yes, these men were convicted of conspiracy, conspiracy to violate a foreign fishing regulation. Blumenauer fails to understand that the injustice is in convicting Americans for allegedly breaking a foreign law which even the Honduran government argued was not a valid law. The injustice is in expecting Americans to be culpable for breaching foreign laws promulgated in a foreign language. The injustice is that due process entails fair notification. How can we expect fair notification of laws passed in foreign lands -- indeed the Lacey Act binds us to all future laws in foreign lands. 'If the lobsters were not imported, transported, and sold in violation of Honduran law, there could be no Lacey Act violations. Accordingly, if the lobsters were brought into the United States legally and were not criminally-derived property, there could be no smuggling or money laundering violations.' U.S. v. McNab 331 F.3d 1228, 1232 (11th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added). The regulations included such 'horrible' offenses as packing lobsters in plastic bags instead of boxes, and lobsters possessing tail lengths of less than 5.5 inches. One of the witnesses during the hearing yesterday mentioned that the whole scenario sounds like something out of a Kafka novel. He's right. I invite Rep. Blumenauer to read many of the thoroughly researched articles that have been written regarding this travesty of a case by the Heritage Foundation. See here, here, and here. He might also enjoy reading the book, One Nation Under Arrest: How Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors, and Activist Judges Threaten Your Liberty, which provides further details regarding this case. I am sure that once Rep. Blumenauer reads this case and realizes that he unfairly slandered these innocent men in his report yesterday, he will reconsider his position and support S. 2062 and HR. 4171. I would welcome his support.   Read more at The Huffington Post. http://paul.senate.gov?p=news&id=514 Thu, 10 May 2012 10:45:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=513 Tue, 08 May 2012 16:29:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C - Today, Sen. Rand Paul testified at the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs Subcommittee hearing regarding the Freedom from Over-Criminalization and Unjust Seizures Act of 2012 - or FOCUS Act, which was introduced in the House by Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.). Earlier this year, Sen. Paul introduced the FOCUS Act in the Senate. This legislation aims to amend the Lacey Act, a law that currently allows the federal government to apply foreign law to American citizens and businesses. Below is the video and transcript of the hearing.   CLICK HERE TO WATCH SEN. PAUL TESTIFY ON THE FOCUS ACT     TRANSCRIPT: Thank you Chairman Fleming, and thank you for inviting me over here to talk about this important issue. When I first heard about the raid at Gibson Guitars I was appalled that this could happen in the United States of America; That we would send in federal agents from Fish and Wildlife [Services] with automatic weapons to invade a company that hires 2,800 people around our country. These are law-abiding people that are making guitars. There are no grizzly bears in downtown Nashville or in Gibson Guitar that we need to be concerned with. I was aghast when I learned that what they were accused of was not breaking a U.S. law. They were accused of breaking a foreign law.  The more we looked into this, I was then incensed to find out that the foreign law they were accused of breaking has nothing to do with conservation, has nothing to do with the rainforest. That all that hyperbole about rainforest and conservation has nothing to do with the issue here. They're accused of breaking an Indian labor law. This is a law that says the wood has to be finished in India. The same wood can come here, they just want the jobs over in India and not over here. They have actually said, in their legal pleadings, that if Gibson Guitar would finish the wood over there they won't be in violation. So if we send the jobs we have in Nashville over to India everything is fine? This is ridiculous. I could not believe we have a law on our books saying we have to obey all foreign laws. How could that possibly be an American law and how could that possibly be constitutional. Not just all past foreign laws, we've agreed to obey all future foreign laws.  There was a case a few years ago of two fisherman off the coast of Florida - Abner Schoenwetter and David McNab. They got six years in prison for breaking a law that wasn't a U.S. law, but for breaking a Honduran fishing regulation. There's something from the tradition of due process that you have to have fair notice and it comes out of our common-law tradition. How are you supposed to have fair notice of a Honduran law? What if you don't speak Spanish? What if you don't speak Mandarin and its Chinese fishing regulation? We're expected to obey all the laws of the entire world? It really smacks at our sovereignty and smacks at the concept that we create the laws in our country and that we're of any importance here, than we're going agree to accept all past and future laws of foreign countries? So I think really this is something that is long overdue and it really grieves me that we put two people in jail for six years for breaking laws of a foreign country. And in their case, the Honduran government actually came and testified on their behalf and said they hadn't broken the laws. One of the laws that they were accused of breaking was that the fish were not in cardboard, they were in plastic. You know to put someone in jail for that - you can be put in jail a year for each one of these misdemeanor crimes. What if you brought in 30,000 lobsters and they found 10,000, you could get 10,000 years in prison. It is out of control, it's outrageous, and we need to do something to stop it. Really you need to say look, if we're in favor of the environment, and I am, and you want to protect against illegal logging or protect certain species, if you don't people cutting off the horns of a rhinoceros and importing it; make a law, that's what were here for. Make the law, but then it would be a U.S. law, but don't say that we're going to accept all the laws in Kenya or that we're going to accept all the laws of South Africa. That is absurd on its face, its Pandora's box, we've gone too far. There now are forty-five hundred federal crimes; the Constitution only authorizes us to deal with four crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and a couple of other crimes, laws against nations. But it doesn't authorize us to be involved in all of this. We can have some restrictions on importation, but I see no reason to have criminal penalties. Our bill is very simple; we get rid of all reference to obeying foreign laws, which doesn't do anything to the Lacey Act. You still have restrictions in the Lacey Act and if you need more, pass them. But don't obey foreign laws and it says we should have civil penalties, not criminal penalties.  I don't think we should be putting Americans in jail for this. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.   ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=512 Tue, 08 May 2012 15:54:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=511 Tue, 08 May 2012 15:54:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield, (R-KY-01), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, and U.S. Rep. Brett Guthrie, (R-KY-02), introduced the Services Members and Communities Act of 2012. This legislation will provide a more accurate count of our deployed service members in the national census conducted every 10 years. Reps. Whitfield and Guthrie introduced legislation in the House today, and Sen. Paul introduced the legislation in the Senate yesterday.  'Support for the troops doesn't end with the service members themselves,' Sen. Paul said. 'Families and communities provide a vital role in supporting the men and women of the Armed Forces in harm's way. By counting deployed service members according to where they actually live, this creates a better representation of the population and ensures communities have the needed resources to support these soldiers and their families.'  Rep. Whitfield said, 'No community should be short changed in the Census count, especially our communities that serve members of our military fighting for our nation. This bill will allow the service members who are deployed during the Census count to be counted toward the communities in which they most recently lived. This is especially important for those communities with military bases. It ensures the communities receive their rightful benefits based on their populations.'  Rep. Guthrie said, 'I'm glad to be able to support this bill that will have a measurable effect on defense communities around the country, like Fort Campbell and Fort Knox. These communities deserve credit, on the books and off the books, for housing our military men and women, and they certainly shouldn't be penalized when our troops are abroad. The Census needs to reflect our military communities' commitment to freedom and democracy.'  This act will fully and accurately count all members of the Armed Services, especially those service members who are deployed. This legislation will allow deployed service members to be counted in the communities in which their permanent duty station or home is located on the date of the census.  Under current Census Bureau policy, service members deployed for overseas operations are counted in two separate ways. Sailors and some members of the Marine Corps, if deployed on a U.S. naval vessel, are counted from the home port of the respective ship, which may not be the same state or region where those sailors and Marines were stationed.   All other deployed service members are counted at the address given at the time of enlistment. With thousands of troops deployed overseas, the communities surrounding military bases are not accurately counted and missing out on vital federal funds that can be used to support the families of our service members.    ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=510 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:09:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C - Today, the U.S. Senate completed a series of votes on amendments to the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2012 (S.1789), which included five amendments introduced by Sen. Rand Paul. Of his five amendments, two were agreed to.   The first successful amendment, No. 2027, requires the consolidation of U.S. Capitol complex post offices by the U.S. Postal Service, reducing the current number of offices (seven) to two - one in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate.   'Successful reform of the Postal Service requires a shared sacrifice, and the U.S. Congress should not be immune to this while communities across the country are faced with potential post office closings,' Sen. Paul said.   The second successful amendment, No. 2029, requires a report on Congressional interference in the Postal Service and how it hinders the Postal Service from operating efficiently and profitably. This report is in addition to a requirement in S.1789 that calls on the Postal Service to submit to Congress a plan for becoming profitable by 2015 and ensuring long-term financial stability.   'The U.S. Congress is not here to run a business - and it should not with the potential profitability of a business like the Postal Service. This additional report would outline the Congressional and regulatory burdens currently placed on the Postal Service, and provide a solution for Congress to help - not hinder - its operability and profitability,' he continued.   ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=509 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:14:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=508 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:59:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=507 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:09:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C - Sen. Rand Paul today issued a letter to House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) requesting an investigation into special permissions granted by the Administration for government agency conferences held in Las Vegas, Nev. Below is the text of Sen. Paul's letter, and attached is a copy of the 2009 correspondence mentioned below.   April 18, 2012   The Honorable Darrell IssaChairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government ReformB350A Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515   Chairman Issa,   I would like to bring to your attention to the attached letter, a June 2009 correspondence between Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, regarding special permission for government agency conferences to be held in Las Vegas, Nev. In this letter Senator Reid actively encourages the Administration to reverse recent policy on conferences in Las Vegas. In light of the recent extravagant spending within the General Services Administration, and the subsequent House and Senate hearings, I respectfully ask you to investigate how many government agency conferences, from any agency throughout government, were held in Las Vegas since the Administration reversed its previous policy. Sincerely,   Rand Paul, M.D. U.S. Senator     ### http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=506 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:35:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C - Following an attempt to introduce an amendment to end foreign aid to Egypt and recoup 'bail' funds paid to the Egyptian government to release American pro-democracy workers who are still facing prosecution there, Sen. Rand Paul Tuesday evening issued a letter to President Barack Obama highlighting the State Department's release of foreign aid funds to Egypt, which Sen. Paul urged against doing in a March 15 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In his letter to President Obama, Sen. Paul strongly urges the President reverse his State Department's decision to release aid to Egypt, and to hold all aid until such a time as the politically motivated prosecution of U.S. citizens has ended. Below is the text of that letter:     April 17, 2012   President Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20500   Dear President Obama, On March 15, I wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, urging your Administration to delay release of U.S. aid to Egypt. In that letter, I noted that while the Egyptian government had released the pro-democracy American workers who had been held captive for weeks in Egypt, they had not abandoned the prosecution. In fact, they had demanded signed statements saying our citizens would return for the trial. I also warned that the Egyptian government had not proved either its stability or its commitment to freedom and democracy. It had clearly not yet met the criteria set forth by Congress that would allow the aid to be distributed. It literally took the threat of losing that aid to get our citizens released in the first place. Why would we then foolishly believe the Egyptians would suddenly behave better after the Administration released billions in aid to its coffers? Our fears were unfortunately confirmed in recent days, as the Egyptian government has now begun the process of seeking arrest warrants for Americans, some of whom were in Egypt, some of whom were not even recently in Egypt - and all work for pro-democracy non-governmental organizations like Freedom House and the International Republican Institute. Your State Department is reported to be petitioning Interpol to dismiss the charges and not issue arrest warrants. Obviously, this is the right thing to do, and I support your request. However, this brings up a larger question. Your State Department is using as its reasoning that the charges from the Egyptian government are 'politically motivated.' If that is true, that is a sad statement on our recent decision to release their aid. Why would a country that is pursuing the 'politically motivated' prosecution of American citizens be eligible for every a single dime of U.S. foreign aid, never mind the $2 billion in taxpayer dollars about to be sent. The Egyptian government has, in the span of a few short months, arrested Americans, seized their property, and held them captive. They have demanded U.S. taxpayer-funded 'bail' money to release them. Now they have begun the process of international arrest warrants. As you know, I am often an opponent of foreign aid. I think it is a poor use of taxpayers' money, and has often gone to regimes that were either anti-freedom, or anti-American, or just plain corrupt. The situation with Egypt is, unfortunately, an excellent example. Whether or not you believe foreign aid is a good idea, can't we all agree that a country that is pursuing international arrest warrants for U.S. citizens for 'political purposes' should not get our aid? The system of foreign aid is broken. Congress placed specific conditions on aid to Egypt, but our State Department simply waived its obligation to hold Egypt to those conditions-an action that was not the intent or preference of Congress. Releasing Egypt's aid at this point is in defiance of all common sense. I urge you to reverse the decision to release aid to Egypt, and to hold all aid until such time as the politically motivated prosecution of U.S. citizens had ended. Sincerely,   Rand Paul, M.D. United States Senator     ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=505 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:25:00 EST   WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Rand Paul, both of Kentucky, today introduced and the Senate passed S.Res. 422, a resolution commending the University Kentucky Wildcats on their 2012 NCAA Men's Basketball Championship victory. The text of the resolution reads as follows: RESOLUTION Commending and congratulating the University of Kentucky men's basketball team for winning its eighth Division I National Collegiate Athletic Association championship.   Whereas, on April 2, 2012, the University of Kentucky Wildcats defeated the University of Kansas Jayhawks, 67 to 59, in the final game of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (referred to in this preamble as 'NCAA') Division I Men's Basketball Tournament in New Orleans, Louisiana;   Whereas the Kentucky Wildcats have won 8 national titles, the second most in NCAA Division I men's basketball history;   Whereas the Kentucky Wildcats are the only men's Division I college basketball program to have won NCAA National Championships under 5 different coaches;   Whereas freshman center Anthony Davis was - (1)     the recipient of the John R. Wooden Award, the Naismith Trophy and the Adolph Rupp Award, all for national player of the year; (2)     named the United States Basketball Writers Association player of the year, Associated Press player of the year, and Basketball Times player of the year; (3)     selected to the Associated Press All-America first team and was selected as the Most Outstanding Player of the NCAA Final Four tournament;   Whereas forward Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, guard Doron Lamb and center Anthony Davis were selected as members of the NCAA Final Four All-Tournament team;   Whereas senior guard Darius Miller of Maysville, Kentucky set a school record for career games played with the Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team at 152;   Whereas each player, coach, athletic trainer, and staff member of the University of Kentucky basketball team dedicated their season and their tireless efforts to their successful season of the team and the NCAA championship;   Whereas residents of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Wildcat fans worldwide are to commended for their long-standing support, perseverance, and pride in this team; and   Whereas Coach John Calipari and the University Kentucky Wildcats have brought pride and honor to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which is rightly known as the college basketball capital of the world:  Now, therefore, be it   Resolved, That the Senate- (1)   commends and congratulates the University of Kentucky Wildcats on its outstanding accomplishment; and (2)   respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit a copy of this resolution to the president of the University of Kentucky.     http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=504 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:02:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C - Sen. Rand Paul today took to the Senate floor to re-introduce his proposed amendment to eliminate foreign aid to Egypt until the Egyptian government ceases the prosecution of U.S. citizens. The amendment also recoups the bail money paid to free the American pro-democracy workers last month.   CLICK HERE TO WATCH SEN. PAUL'S FLOOR SPEECH   TRANSCRIPT: I rise today to introduce an amendment that would end aid to Egypt until they end the prosecution of our U.S. citizens. I offered this amendment earlier this spring when Egypt was detaining our citizens, these pro-democracy workers and was not letting them leave the country. Since then they have let them leave the country but sort of in an insulting fashion, in the sense that they have let them leave when we had to pay basically ransom. We had to pay about $5 million in ransom. $300,000 per person to let them leave Egypt. So they came home and Egypt still could only get paid if the administration certified they were pro-democracy. Within days Secretary Clinton released the said aid and said they were achieving their democratic goals. I wrote a letter to Secretary Clinton and asked her not to do this because the prosecution still goes on. These American citizens that were allowed to leave the country had to pay $300,000 in bail but had to sign a statement saying they're coming back for the trial. Everybody signed of said I doubt they're ever going back to Egypt for those show trials, but then it gets worse. It turns out that in December of last year President Obama signed an Executive order - this is order 135-24 - that gives Interpol, the international police organization, gives them immunity in our country. We also have an extradition treaty with Egypt meaning if you're accused of a crime in Egypt, we can send you back. The danger is, are these pro-democracy workers safe in the United States? You have Interpol agents in the United States who now have immunity; we have an extradition treaty with Egypt. There are definitely problems to allowing this to go on. This is an indication to me that maybe Egypt is not pursuing democratic goals and maybe certifying them as a democratic country is not in our best interest and maybe sending nearly $2 billion of taxpayer money to Egypt who continues to prosecute our citizens is not a good idea. I'll give you an example of what Interpol is doing. Interpol recently took a Saudi journalist from Malaysia and sent him back to Saudi Arabia. Do you know what the crime was? They were accused of blasphemy. They were accused of a religious crime of apostasy. Do you know what if penalty is? The death penalty. So we're now using the international police agency to go into a sovereign nation; someone is accused of a religious crime and sent back to a country where they can be put to death. This alarms me. People say that could never happen in America. Well, right now the President has allowed Interpol through an Executive order through the President's signature, has allowed interpol to have diplomatic immunity in our country. Some so for all I know Interpol could be at this very moment looking for American citizens in this country and trying to get those people and extradite them back to Egypt. This is a problem. This is why you don't want an international police force to operate within your sovereign nation. There can be cooperation but you don't want impunity and immunity for an international police force within your borders. So I will introduce again an amendment to this bill, and this amendment will say no aid to Egypt until they end this prosecution. No aid to Egypt until they end these red letter warrants that they ask on U.S. citizens to be extradited back to Egypt. We can't allow U.S. citizens to be sent to a foreign country to be tried in a country where blasphemy is a crime. Those are not American values; those are not American ways, and we can't allow U.S. citizens to be subject to foreign laws and foreign crimes. So I will ask today for a vote on an amendment that will end Egyptian aid or at least delay Egyptian foreign aid until they relinquish this persecution of our citizens. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back my time.   ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=503 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:02:00 EST