http://paul.senate.gov Important information from Senator Rand Paul. en-us Copyright 2013 Rand Paul Fri, 24 May 2013 09:39:04 EST The controversial immigration-reform bill that passed the SenateJudiciary Committee this week is expected to be considered by the Senate in June. Many see measures contained in this bill, such as a strong E-Verify and a 'photo tool,' as a means to control unlawful immigrants' access to unlawful employment. I worry that they go too far. I think there are better ideas that err on the side of individual privacy while still strengthening our borders. We should scrap a national identification database and pass immigration reform that secures the border, expands existing work-visa programs and prevents noncitizens from access to welfare. These simple ideas will eliminate the perceived need for an invasive worker-verification system and a government citizenship database. I am against the idea that American citizens should be forced to carry around a National Identification Card as a condition of citizenship. I worry that the Senate is working to consider a series of little-noticed provisions in comprehensive immigration reform that may provide a pathway to a national ID card for all individuals present in the United States - citizens and noncitizens. These draconian ideas would simply give government too much power. Forcing Americans to carry around an identification card to affirmatively prove citizenship offends our basic concept of freedom. Wanting to avoid a 'papers please' culture in our country is also why conservatives oppose federal universal gun background checks. We oppose such measures not because we don't believe in common-sense rules or regulation - but because we are wary of giving the federal government this kind of centralized power over our daily lives. I am against government lists of those who own or have transferred a firearm for the same reason I oppose any pathway to a national ID. I don't think that government should have the awesome power of monitoring the legal activities of American citizens. That is not a proper role of the federal government - or any level of government, for that matter. I am opposed to immigration reform that contains the photo tool that is contained in the Interior Enforcement and Employment Verification System title of the bill. In the name of preventing the 'unlawful employment of aliens,' the Senate legislation has a provision that 'enables employers to match the photo on a covered identify document provided to the employer to a photo maintained by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services database.' This, too, is troubling. This sounds like a national picture database of all citizens, where the states house the picture and the Department of Homeland Security is the clearinghouse for worker verification. A national database of citizens raises the question: What activities will require someone to present their papers? A national ID allows more power to gravitate to Washington and a greater likelihood that power will be abused. I will fight to remove the photo tool from this legislation because I think it will become a national ID. We already know the federal government is rife with false positives on the no-fly list and the National Instant Check system for gun buyers. Why would we be foolish enough to think that a massive database of all citizens would not have the same problems on a grander scale? We have a Second Amendment that must be protected. We also have a Fourth Amendment that must be protected. Citizenship means that the government is supposed to protect our rights, not take them away. We must have stronger borders, but there's no reason we can't have better security while respecting constitutional limits and liberties. In the past week, we have witnessed examples of the Obama administration spying on the media and Internal Revenue Service discrimination against Tea Party free speech. People around the world always have dreamed of emigrating to America, the Land of the Free. It is our job to make sure our country stays that way. Read more from the Washington Times HERE.   http://paul.senate.gov?p=news&id=824 Fri, 24 May 2013 09:31:00 EST Following President Obama's speech today on drone policy, Sen. Rand Paul issued this statement in response: 'I'm glad the President finally acknowledged that American citizens deserve some form of due process. But I still have concerns over whether flash cards and PowerPoint presentations represent due process; my preference would be to try accused U.S. citizens for treason in a court of law.' ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=823 Thu, 23 May 2013 16:08:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=822 Thu, 23 May 2013 13:26:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul today introduced the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act of 2013, which would extend Fourth Amendment guarantees to electronic communications and requires specific warrants granted by judges in order to obtain this information.   'In today's high-tech world, we must ensure that all forms of communication are protected. Yet government has eroded protecting the Fourth Amendment over the past few decades, especially when applied to electronic communications and third party providers,' Sen. Paul said. 'Congress has passed a variety of laws that decimate our Fourth Amendment protections. In effect, it means that Americans can only count on Fourth Amendment protections if they don't use e-mail, cell phones, the Internet, credit cards, libraries, banks, or other forms of modern finance and communications.'   'Basic constitutional rights should not be invalidated by carrying out basic, day-to-day functions in a technologically advanced world and this bill will provide much needed clarity and reassert Fourth Amendment protections for records held by third parties.'   ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=821 Thu, 23 May 2013 13:22:00 EST Sen. Rand Paul today introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2013. This bill would protect an individual's right to privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones. While the use of drone aircraft and technology continues to expand in all areas of the government, the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act will ensure the protection of every American citizen's right to personal privacy. 'The use of drone surveillance may work on the battlefields overseas, but it isn't well-suited for unrestrained use on the streets in the United States. Congress must be vigilant in providing oversight to the use of this technology and protection for rights of the American people. I will continue the fight to protect and uphold our Fourth Amendment,' Sen. Paul said.                                                                               The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2013 also: ·         Prohibits the use of drones owned or funded by the federal government in an evidence-collection or surveillance capacity unless a warrant authorizing the action has been obtained. ·         Includes the following exceptions: o   patrol of national borders; o   when there is imminent danger to life; o   high risk of a terrorist attack. ·         Specifies that no evidence obtained or collected in violation of this Act can be used/admissible as evidence in a criminal, civil, or regulatory action. ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=820 Wed, 22 May 2013 16:15:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul this afternoon took to the Senate floor to prevent Senate Democrats from using back-door procedures to increase the debt ceiling or raise taxes. Earlier last week, Sens. Paul, Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) stated their intention to object to the budget reconciliation process until Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) would agree to not use procedural tricks to raise the debt ceiling. Below is the video and transcript of Sen. Paul's floor speech. CLICK HERE TO WATCH SEN. PAUL CALL FOR A TRANSPARENT BUDGET PROCESS   TRANSCRIPT: SENATOR PAUL: Reserving the right to object, it's now been 59 days that the opposition is trying to orchestrate a back-room deal to raise the debt ceiling. Raising the debt ceiling is an incredibly important debate, shouldn't be done in a back room by a few people, shouldn't be done through parliamentary trickery or chicanery. It should be done full out in the open under the rules of the Senate. We are now borrowing $40,000 a second. We are borrowing $4 billion a day. We must borrow from China to run the ordinary functions of our government. In fact, it's worse. We borrow from China to send money to China. We borrow from China to send money to Pakistan. We build bridges in Pakistan with money borrowed from China. It can't go on. No American family can continue to spend money endlessly that they don't have. All we're asking for is a common-sense resolution that says we can't keep borrowing. So what we're asking is, and what I ask is unanimous consent, that the Senator modify her request so that it not be in order for the Senate to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit. And I ask that as a unanimous consent order. SENATOR MCCAIN: Madam President, I reserve the right to object to the modification and I will object in just a moment. And I would point out to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that for four years, four years, we complained about the fact that the Majority Leader, who I see here on the floor, would refuse to bring a budget to the floor of the United States Senate. Then in what most of us believe was a proud moment - I thought it was a pretty tiring experience at my age of voting all night - we approved or disapproved of 70 meaningless amendments but the fact is we did a budget and all of us patted each other on the back and we were so proud we did the budget and by golly, now we'll move with the House of Representatives and we will have a budget hopefully at least begin negotiations with the House of Representatives, which is a majority of Republicans, not Democrats, Republicans. So we decided we are going to do that. But now we are going to, according to the objection that was just, uh, the unanimous consent that was just asked for in an unprecedented way put restrictions on the conferees. Now the way that we usually do it, which is what I'm about to do is that is we instruct the conferees. We don't require the conferees because that's why we appoint conferees and that's why we approve or disapprove the result of that conference. That's how our laws are made. And that's how our budgets are made. So what do we keep doing? What are we on my side of the aisle keep doing? We don't want a budget unless - unless we put requirements on the conferees that are absolutely out of line and unprecedented. So all I say to my colleagues is, can't we after all those hours - I forgot what hour in the morning it was -- after all those votes, after all that debate, after all that discussion and we came up with a budget and now we won't go to conference. Why is that? So I'll object to the modification that the Senator from Kentucky just asked for in a moment, but I would first ask consent that the original request by the Senator from Washington include two motions to instruct the conferees, one related to the debt limit and one related to taxes. That's the way we should do business in the United States Senate, is instructions to the conferees. Now, the Senator from Washington may not like those instructions, but the fact is that those are the way we do business. Not require the conferees to take certain measures. And so if my colleagues on this side of the aisle think that we are helping our cause as fiscal conservatives by blocking going to a conference on the budget, which every family in America has to be on, because of certain requirements that they demand, then we are not helping ourselves with the American people at all. So I will object to the modification proposed by the Senator from Kentucky. I would first ask consent that the original request by the Senator from Washington include two motions to instruct the conferees, one related to the debt limit and one related to taxes. SENATOR PAUL: Reserving the right to object, we're talking about two different issues here. We've passed budgets year in, year out, we continue to pass budgets. Of course, the budgets on our side don't raise taxes, the budgets on the other side raise taxes by a trillion dollars. There are parliamentary rules for how we address separate issues such as the debt ceiling. What we're concerned about and all we're asking the opposition to do - including opposition within both parties to do - is that the debt ceiling vote be a separate vote and that it not be stuck in in the dead of night in a conference committee with very few people selected by very few people. We have a big party on our side that can include people with many different opinions, some who are very concerned about the debt ceiling and the direction of our country, some who are concerned very much about the debt, so much so that our resilience will not flag. We will maintain the position that throwing our country into further debt is wrong for the country. I think most Americans can understand that. We're $16 trillion in debt. We're passing this debt on to our children. It's inexcusable. Somebody must make a stand and several of us are making a stand, not against a budget but saying we cannot keep raising the debt ceiling. We cannot keep adding debt to our country. This burden is going to be passed on to our kids and grandkids. We're making a stand here and so I object to the modification.   ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=819 Tue, 21 May 2013 18:33:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=818 Tue, 21 May 2013 16:59:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul today applauded the U.S. House of Representatives for passing the Freedom to Fish Act, which protects fishing access at the tailwaters of dams along the Cumberland River. The act places a two-year moratorium on the Army Corps of Engineers' plan to install physical barriers in several locations, including at the Barkley and Wolf Creek Dams.   'I am thrilled that Congress has taken action to protect Kentucky's residents and businesses from the Army Corps' burdensome plan,' said Sen. Paul. 'This is an encouraging day for Kentucky anglers, recreational enthusiasts, small businesses and lake communities. I'll continue to fight alongside Kentuckians in stopping government overreach.'   Sen. Paul was an original co-sponsor of the bill, which passed the U.S. Senate last week. Rep. Ed Whitfield, who had introduced companion legislation in the House, guided the bill's passage in that chamber. The act must be signed by the president before it becomes law.   ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=817 Tue, 21 May 2013 16:24:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C. - This morning, Sen. Rand Paul attended the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee hearing that called for executives of Apple to testify on the company's tax practices. In the hearing, Sen. Paul defended the job-creating efforts Apple has made and lambasted his fellow Members for perpetuating a U.S. tax code that hinders corporate growth and productivity. Following his opening statement, which can be found HERE, Sen. Paul had the opportunity to question witness J. Richard Harvey, a tax attorney and professor. Below is their exchange. CLICK HERE TO WATCH SEN. PAUL QUESTION A WITNESS DURING HSAGC HEARING   TRANSCRIPT: SEN PAUL: I think we need to restate for the record and be very clear here that neither this panel or anyone in the committee has said that Apple broke any laws.  They are brought before this committee and harangued and bullied because they tried to minimize their tax burden legally. I would argue that it would probably be malpractice for them not to do so. If you have a publically held company and you have shareholders and your mandate to your CFO is please maximize our taxes I am guessing that would probably be something shareholders wouldn't accept. I don't know of any taxpayers who really do that. I don't know of anybody on this panel who tries to maximize their tax burden. I mean my question for Mr. Harvey : Do you take any deductions on your taxes? MR. HARVEY: Obviously I do. SEN PAUL: Do you choose to maximize your tax burden or minimize your tax burden? MR. HARVEY: Uh minimize it. SEN PAUL: Do you think you're a bad person for doing that? MR. HARVEY: Absolutely not. SEN PAUL: If you were advising as an accountant and an expert in tax law, if you were advising a corporation and your mandate was to do what is best for their shareholders, would you advise to count all their profit here at home at 35% or to try to do as much as they can legally to pay their taxes at a lower rate elsewhere? MR. HARVEY:  Well as I said in both my written and my oral testimony, certainly what Apple did does not appear in any way to be illegal. I think the question is a policy question as to whether they should be allowed to do it in the future. SEN PAUL: Yeah and as a policy question talking about taxes, I think, is an appropriate thing for Congress. Bringing in an individual company and vilifying them for doing something that is in every business' mandate is objectionable. That's why I object to these entire hearings because talking about policy is one thing. For example; Trillion dollars overseas, do you want to bring it home? We have examples. We did it for one year at 5%, we brought in about 30 billion dollars. We actually limited how much could come in. I say make it permanent. But make it permanent and make it low enough that people do it. If you permanently do this at 5% the money will come home. But money goes where it's welcome. If we want to have high taxes we are going to continue along this. Everybody talks about tax reform. Just do it. Other countries just do it. We have a 35% corporate income tax. We are chasing people away from us. If the outcome of this committee's hearing is 'Evil Apple. Let's go get them. Let's go get companies like this and let's raise their taxes .' Guess what? Their corporate headquarters may no longer be in Cupertino they may be in Dublin with all their employees. They are the type of company, high-tech companies, that can relocate around the world. They aren't dependent upon large manufacturing forces. So if you want to chase them out, bring them here and vilify them. It's exactly the wrong thing to do. We should be giving them an award today. We should be congratulating them on being a great American company and hiring people and not vilifying them for obeying the law. I mean they are obeying the law. No one is accusing them of breaking the law. They're doing what their shareholder's ask which is to maximize profit. We have created this Byzantine and bizarre tax code and chased them overseas. It's been going on a long time. But just fix it. We could fix it- There are 70 votes right now in the Senate for having a 5 percent repatriation tax. Those votes exist, but everybody says, oh, that's the sweetener for overall tax return because so many people agreed to it. Why not just pass it tomorrow? Same with the corporate income tax. We've made ourselves beholden to things like the CBO. They're like, well the CBO will score that as a loss of revenue. Well one, the CBO doesn't know a lot of times up from down in the sense that you could change the corporate tax. There is such a number that you can lower it to that you'll get more revenue. I don't know what that number is, but that number does exist. We're at 35 percent and you have a couple trillion dollars overseas, there is some number you lower it to where less money goes overseas and less people set up - their companies have the taxes overseas. So, there are many ways you can do this. Repatriation would bring a lot home. But, if we take it that this is a vendetta against American companies for trying to maximize profit, I think we really have missed the boat here. And, really, I say once again, should be a giant mirror sitting there. We should be looking at ourselves, we should be talking about what we do. Overall tax reform - everybody wants to do it, but they say oh, it has to be revenue neutral. That to me is absurd as well. That means we're just going to punish some people more and punish some people less. Why don't we try to reward the economy? Why don't we try to reward shareholders? Why don't we try to reduce taxes as a stimulus to the economy? Leave it with the people who earn it. So, I'm very frustrated by the whole proceeding particularly because of all these accusations. They're simply doing what every company does because if they're not, why don't we have the next hearing of companies who come in and their chief goal is, their stated goal is to maximize their tax burden. I want to see one company come before here and tell us that their goal is different than Apple's, that their goal is to maximize their tax burden. Taxes are simply a cost. And they try to minimize them legally. I do too. I take a home mortgage deduction, I take my kid deductions, I take all the deductions I can legally take. This kind of vilification's gone on before. FDR did it; the President did it in his campaign. This is something that's not good for the country. It pits one of us against another and I think Senator Johnson really put it well when he said, who are these people, is there a Mr. Apple out there? No, it's us. You know, if you have a mutual fund, you probably have some Apple shares, if you're a teacher with a pension fund you own Apple shares. If you're a fireman with a pension fund, you probably own Apple. Apple's a great American company and I don't know if they'll even know they breakdown, but I think it's interesting. Probably the vast majority, I would guess 70-80 percent of the stock may be owned by Americans. And so, what are we doing when we want to punish Mr. Apple? Who are we punishing? We're punishing ourselves. And if we want to grow America, we want more companies to succeed in our country, make money welcome. Money goes where it's welcome, and as much as you want to stuff the genie back in the box, and say you must do this in America, companies can and will go everywhere. So let's make it a good place to work. Let's not vilify our American companies. And so what I would say, let's keep in mind what we're talking about today is not breaking of law, what we're talking about is the company doing what every company in America does, and that's trying to  minimize their tax burden. Thank you.   ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=816 Tue, 21 May 2013 12:52:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C. - This morning, Sen. Rand Paul attended the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Subcommittee hearing that called for executives of Apple to testify on the company's tax practices. In the hearing, Sen. Paul defended the job-creating efforts Apple has made and lambasted his fellow Members for perpetuating a U.S. tax code that hinders corporate growth and productivity. Below is the video and transcript of Sen. Paul's opening statement:   CLICK HERE TO WATCH SEN. PAUL OPENING REMARKS HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE HEARING   TRANSCRIPT: I am offended by the tone and tenor of this hearing. I am offended by a $4 trillion government bullying, berating and badgering one of America's greatest success stories. Tell me one of these politicians up here that doesn't minimize their taxes. Tell me a chief financial officer that you would hire if he didn't try to minimize your taxes legally. Tell me what Apple has done that is illegal. I am offended by a government that uses the IRS to bully groups such as the Tea Party but I am also offended by a government that convenes a hearing to bully one of American's success stories. I am offended by the spectacle of dragging in here executives from an American company that is not doing anything illegal. If anyone should be on trial here, it should be Congress. I frankly think the Committee should apologize to Apple. I frankly think Congress should be on trial here for creating a bizarre and byzantine tax code that runs into the tens of thousands of pages, for creating a tax code that simply doesn't compete with the rest of the world. This committee will admit: Apple has not broken any laws. Yet, they are forced into a show trial at the whims of politicians, when in fact; Congress should be on trial for chasing the profits of great American companies overseas. You haul before this committee one of America's greatest success stories and you want applause? I say, instead of Apple executives, you should have brought in a giant mirror, so we could look at the reflection of Congress because this problem is solely and completely created by the awful tax code. If you want to assign blame, the Committee needs to look in the mirror and see who created this mess, see who created the tax code that drives American companies overseas. Our corporate tax is more than double Canada's. I never thought I would be complimenting Canada's tax code - our tax code is double Canada's. Our corporate tax is over ten points higher than Europe. Instead of saying theirs is too low, why don't we set about to work that ours is too high. Apple has 600,000 jobs they've created, American jobs and we want to drag them before this committee to chastise them. I find it abominable. Just in my state, we have $700 million in sales from Dow Corning. They make Gorilla Glass. They were virtually out of business. In the 1990s, Apple struggled - if I had to guess, unfortunately, I didn't guess enough to invest in Apple, but the thing is that in the '90s, people were worried they might go out of business. You know they had one computer that wasn't doing well and then all of a sudden the innovation that came about. And we want to bring them forward and chastise them for their success. A couple years, we did repatriation of foreign capital. If we want the capital to come home, don't double tax it. We tax it 35 percent. Let's tax it at 5 percent.  I have a bill that would repatriate profits from foreign companies at 5 percent and put it into infrastructure. Our country is woefully short of money for infrastructure. But you're not going to get it at 35 percent--- you are getting zero. Let's make it 5 percent and create and infrastructure fund. There are probably 70 votes for that in Congress but nobody will bring it up. Why? They saw, 'Oh it's the sweetener for overall tax reform, which is illusive and a hill too tall to climb that it never seems to get here.' Why not tomorrow pass it? Why do you think people are frustrated with Congress? Because we don't do the right thing. Everybody admits, even those that want to drag Apple before this committee, they admit that the tax code is our problem. But if we had repatriation at 5 percent, then they would bring money home. Why don't we just pass it? Instead it has to be revenue neutral, scored by the CBO - just pass it if it's the right thing to do. I would say what we really need to do is to apologize to Apple, compliment them for the job creation they are doing, and get about doing our job. Look in the mirror and let's make the tax code better, fairer, and more competitive world-wide. Money goes where it is welcome and currently our tax code makes money not welcome in our country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ###    http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=815 Tue, 21 May 2013 11:30:00 EST When the U.S. Senate held an investigatory hearing on 'Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code' recently, a subcommittee summoned an Apple corporation spokesman to appear. I was offended by the very idea. I scoffed at the notion that a $4 trillion bureaucratic monster-aka the federal government-would attempt to bully, berate and badger one of America's greatest success stories. In the late 1990s, Apple was struggling to find its place among America business, as sales diminished and the niche of Apple products had yet to be defined. The company overcame this insurmountable challenge by not only thriving, but by becoming one of the largest companies in the world. Today, more than 600,000 American jobs rely on Apple. Apple's job creating machine extends across the United States. The iPhone uses Gorilla Glass, which is manufactured in Kentucky by Corning. Today, Corning-and Kentucky-benefit from nearly $700 million in sales, employing more than 300 people thanks to Apple. Rather than berating Apple, we should celebrate the jobs Apple continues to create. I think the federal government owes an apology to Apple. Instead of Apple, Congress should be on trial for having the crummiest tax code imaginable; for having a byzantine tax code that runs into the tens of thousands of pages; for creating a tax code that simply doesn't compete with the rest of the world. The Senate subcommittee admitted that Apple had not broken any laws. Yet, they are forced into a public trial at the whims of politicians, when in fact, Congress should be on trial for chasing the profits of great American companies overseas. The Senate hauled before a committee one of America's greatest success stories-and wanted what? Applause? Instead of harassing Apple executives, members of the Senate should have brought in a giant mirror if they wanted to see who is responsible. Our corporate tax is more than double Canada's. Our corporate tax is over 10 points higher than Europe. And the federal government has the gall to blame an American business for protecting itself from excessive taxation? Repatriation of capital from successful companies like Apple could bring billions of dollars in tax revenue. I have introduced a bill to let companies like Apple bring home profits at 5 percent and put that money into infrastructure. Around 70 Senators would probably support my proposal. But it languishes. Because Congress argues that my proposal is the sweetener for overall tax reform-and for them, overall tax reform is just too tall a hill to climb. Today, we could vote to lower the corporate income tax, but we won't. Today, we could vote to let profits come home at 5 percent, but we won't. Instead of doing the right thing, we drag businessmen and women before the Senate to berate them for trying to maximize their profits for shareholders. Money goes where it is welcome. If you want more money to be earned in the United States-make profit welcome here. Until that time arrives, count me out of any government dog and pony shows that badger business. If our elected officials are going to bully successful American business, then I want no part of it. Apple has done more to enrich people's lives than our federal government will ever do. Technology is a revolutionary force that continues to change the world in so many ways. The best thing the government can ever do is get out of the way. To the Apple executives who were forced to parade before the Senate-I apologize for the theater of the absurd you had to endure. I want you to know that I will do everything in my power to make our tax code simpler and more competitive, and I will not be a party to witch hunts that mistake cause for effect. If there is anyone to blame here, it is Congress-and the tax code it created. Click HERE to read more from Rare.    http://paul.senate.gov?p=news&id=814 Tue, 21 May 2013 11:11:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=813 Tue, 21 May 2013 10:29:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=812 Tue, 21 May 2013 10:26:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=811 Mon, 20 May 2013 12:08:00 EST Earlier this week, I introduced a bill that would reform the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Fatca).Originally tacked on as the 'pay-for' to a 2010 bill to incentivize hiring, Fatca was intended to crack down on overseas tax evasion.That's not been the reality, however.Instead, the Treasury Department has chosen to manipulate Fatca to establish an international financial snooping scheme that violates the Constitution, disregards the mutual respect of sovereignty among nations, increases the national debt, and threatens America's economic competitiveness.Fatca, with little fanfare, made sweeping changes to privacy laws.It required every non-American financial institution - banks, credit unions, pension funds, stock and investment firms, etc. - to register directly with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and agree to provide specified financial data on the accounts of any 'U.S. Person.'What came next was all too predictable: rather than expose themselves to Fatca's new withholding penalties, these overseas financial institutions simply began shutting down the accounts of their American depositors and selling off American investments.However, once this initial coercion effort by the IRS began to backfire, the Treasury Department decided to work around the problem by cutting deals with foreign governments instead of each individual foreign financial institution.These deals, known as 'intergovernmental agreements,' are not nearly as innocuous as many Fatca supporters would have you believe. Indeed, they are a significant departure from normal standards and practices.Before, the IRS would exchange financial data with overseas revenue services once some sort of 'suspicious activity' signaling tax evasion had been identified.The intergovernmental agreements that Treasury is now negotiating (again, under the guise of Fatca) would erode this already dubious standard even further by agreeing to share any and all information that 'may be relevant' to an investigation.This phrase - 'may be relevant' - actually replaces the suspicious activity standard with no standard at all, and provides no protections regarding what information may be exchanged with a foreign government.In other words, the Treasury Department, without the consent and authority of Congress, will force U.S. financial institutions to provide the bank account information of private customers to foreign nations upon demand.This is a blatant betrayal of privacy, and it must not stand. These intergovernmental agreements automatically assume that any individual who holds an asset in a foreign institution is trying to evade taxes.The IRS cannot be allowed to betray the confidence of the American people in this way without (at the very least) the assent of their elected representatives in Congress. Congress has never authorized the Treasury Department to make such all-encompassing commitments on behalf of the United States, under Fatca or any other law.It is an abdication of duty for Congress to stand by idly while the Treasury Department unilaterally rewrites our tax treaty obligations and compromises the private data of millions of law-abiding Americans.This is why I have for many months objected to the passage of the U.S.-Switzerland tax treaty: the U.S. Senate is not the Treasury Department's rubber stamp.By introducing this bill to repeal part of Fatca, I am not championing 'offshore tax evasion' by rich American 'fat cats.' Nor do I oppose legitimate tax enforcement.What I oppose is a law that is claimed to fight tax evasion but does not do so. I oppose a law that runs roughshod over constitutional standards, not to mention common sense.There are reasonable - and constitutional - ways to combat tax evasion. But Fatca is neither reasonable nor constitutional, nor is it workable in any meaningful sense.My bill seeks to restore the privacy protections that have been put in jeopardy by the Treasury Department's unconstitutional actions, and to limit the impact of Fatca's most harmful provisions.Ultimately, my bill seeks to restore and protect the privacy protections that are a birthright to every American.In my opinion, that is the very least that the Congress should be able to do. Click HERE to Read More At Investor's Business Daily.   http://paul.senate.gov?p=news&id=810 Fri, 17 May 2013 09:44:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Senate today passed the Freedom to Fish Act, S. 421, a bill that protects fishing access at the tailwaters of dams along the Cumberland River, prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from moving forward with a plan to install physical barriers in several locations, including the Barkley and Wolf Creek Dams. Sen. Rand Paul was an original co-sponsor of the bill, introduced by Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander. The Freedom to Fish Act also passed the Senate unanimously yesterday as an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act. Sen. Paul visited Lake Barkley in April to meet with local officials and constituents about the Army Corps' plan and to rally in support of the bill.'Passage of the Freedom to Fish Act today is a welcome alternative to the Army Corps' burdensome plan, which would hurt Kentucky residents and businesses,' Sen. Paul said. 'There is a deep and long love for fishing the tailwaters of the Cumberland River and I am glad we have taken action to help protect fishing access and Kentucky's economy.' http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=809 Thu, 16 May 2013 18:30:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=808 Thu, 16 May 2013 17:45:00 EST Today, Senators Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul called for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to pass a budget without using any procedural tricks to raise taxes or increase the debt limit. The Majority Leader does not deny that his intent to use a back-door procedure that would allow the Democrats to raise taxes and the debt limit under a 50-vote threshold, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold. 'We have no objection to proceeding to conference if the leader is willing to agree not to use it as a back-door tool to raise taxes or the debt ceiling.  We should not be complicit in digging this nation even further into debt on merely a 50-vote threshold,' the senators said. 'After refusing to pass a budget for four years, Democrats have proven themselves willing to abuse the budget process, including sneaking in provisions to add new taxes or raise the debt ceiling.  The American people deserve assurances from Senator Reid that he will not try to hijack this bill and add tax hikes and more debt at the eleventh hour. Sneaking in a debt limit increase would be particularly egregious because it is not a part of either the House- or Senate-passed budgets.' Knowing that under special rules a budget is not subject to a filibuster, members of Congress have in the past added measures to the budget during a budget conference that they know could not withstand a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. Senators Lee, Cruz and Paul have indicated they plan to object to beginning the budget reconciliation process until Senator Reid agrees not to use procedural tricks to pass new tax increases or a debt limit increase.     ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=807 Thu, 16 May 2013 17:23:00 EST When I filibustered over domestic drone use, critics said that I was being ridiculous. They said that no American had been killed by a drone on American soil and that no one was likely to be anytime soon. President Obama responded that he hadn't killed anyone yet and didn't intend to - but he might.That wasn't the point. The filibuster was about the limits of power. It was about how much authority the president imagined he had. Lincoln wrote that nearly any man can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man, give him power.I think Mr. Obama has failed that test of power. From the cover-up in Benghazi to letting the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) target the Tea Party to First and Fourth Amendment violations in obtaining records from the press, Mr. Obama has shown disregard for the Bill of Rights and his responsibilities as commander in chief.The handling of the tragedy in Benghazi continues to raise more questions than it produces answers. The White House's original story, that no one was told to 'stand down' on the night of the attack, was contradicted last week by Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens‘ deputy, Gregory Hicks. Mr. Hicks testified that he spoke with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on the night of the attack and that a special-forces unit was stopped from deploying.In January, we learned that Mrs. Clinton had not read the cables from Libya, in which Stevens, who feared for his safety, made multiple requests for additional security. The review board tries to shield Mrs. Clinton from blame by saying the decisions to deny security the ambassador requested occurred below her level.That is precisely her culpability. It is inexcusable that she left decisions concerning the security of our Libyan ambassador to underlings. This issue is far from over, but so far, this administration seems more worried about protecting its own than being honest about what really happened.Not to mention, who's to blame for it.Last week, the Internal Revenue Service admitted it intentionally targeted various Tea Party, conservative and libertarian groups, submitting them to audits or making them wait exceptionally long for tax-exempt status. If Benghazi represents abuse or misuse of power, the IRS stands in direct violation of the First Amendment - targeting American citizens for their political beliefs. The more we learn about this controversy, the clearer it becomes that anyone who dared to talk about spending, debt or anything related to our current state of government affairs from a conservative perspective was a target.One of the paramount freedoms Americans have is the ability to criticize their government without fear of retribution. This has been especially true when it comes to freedom of the press.When the news broke that the Justice Department had seized two months' worth of Associated Press reporters' phone records, it was just the latest in a growing line of abuses of power by this White House. AP head Gary Pruitt called this government seizure a 'massive and unprecedented intrusion' into how journalists research and gather news.It was, and the lengths to which Mr. Obama has gone to circumvent the Constitution are staggering. It's as though the president thinks we no longer have a First Amendment protecting freedom of the press and free speech. It's as though he thinks we no longer have a Fourth Amendment that prevents illegal search and seizure. It's as though he and Mrs. Clinton think the State Department is no longer responsible for protecting our diplomats.It's as though we no longer have a Bill of Rights that guarantees American citizens the right to due process and a jury trial - and it took me 13 hours of standing and speaking to get the White House to finally, and begrudgingly, say we did. My filibuster was about drone use, but more importantly, it was about never giving government the benefit of the doubt. We cannot afford it, and the government never deserves it, as this administration continues to remind us in so many surprising and disturbing ways.With great power comes great responsibility. The greater Mr. Obama's power, the less responsible he becomes.Power corrupts. Absolutely. Read more from the Washington Times HERE.   http://paul.senate.gov?p=news&id=806 Thu, 16 May 2013 16:00:00 EST The Internal Revenue Service has admitted that it targeted groups with 'tea party' or 'patriot' in their names. We've since learned that a wider array of groups concerned about spending, debt, high taxes, government growth, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -- basically any conservative or libertarian issue you can name -- was targeted.President Obama said Monday that he was 'outraged' over the IRS' behavior. He said that those responsible should be held 'fully accountable.' I wonder when that will happen?On Wednesday, the president requested and received the resignation of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller -- but that is not enough. The executive branch has been aware of this scandal for nearly two years and now, only as a result of massive public pressure, the administration has found a scapegoat.he president did not announce that Miller was responsible, and we still don't know who came up with the idea to target the tea party. We have not been told whether Obama administration officials knew about the discrimination and if they allowed it to continue when they found out. Forcing out Miller is not the end of this scandal.Holding the guilty parties accountable is just the first step. But if the handling of the attack in Benghazi, Libya, is any indication, there are no guarantees this will happen.The IRS is under the president's jurisdiction. He needs to fully recognize the gravity of these charges.The IRS targeting citizens for political reasons is not simply another Washington scandal. At issue is something that strikes at the very heart of who we are as a people, what we believe as Americans and what this country has always stood for.The First Amendment was written to protect many different types of expression. But the Founding Fathers' primary concern -- and a first principle for every generation of Americans that followed -- was the protection of political speech. Apparently, the IRS was even targeting people who criticized how the country was being run.Protecting citizens' right to speak out against their government has always been an integral part of what separates us from tyrannical regimes. What the IRS did is how the KGB used to target dissidents. It is how they deal with troublemakers in China.It is not how we treat American citizens. Our Constitution guarantees it.This week, I introduced a Senate Resolution condemning the IRS' actions and calling for a full investigation into how the agency infringed upon the First Amendment rights of those targeted.Democrats put a hold on my resolution.We have learned that some officials knew about these indiscretions long before the recent denials. We wanted to investigate to find out who knew what, when, and for how long.We have learned that some tea party groups had unduly long wait times for tax-exempt status. Some eventually withdrew their applications out of frustration.In my home state of Kentucky, a 9/12 group filed for 501(c)(4) status in December of 2010. It received its first correspondence almost immediately, saying there would be a determination within 90 days.Fourteen months later, the IRS requested answers to 30 questions with sub-bullets -- 88 total separate inquiries -- and gave only a two-week period to comply.The Kentucky 9/12 Project's Eric Wilson estimated that it would have taken 5,000 pages to respond.Eventually, the IRS granted granted this group tax-exempt status -- after well over a year. We wanted to find out why they had to wait. We wanted to find out what groups, and how many, might have been victims of political discrimination.We wanted to ask for an independent authority to investigate and seek criminal charges against those who were involved in targeting Americans for their political views. We wanted to determine if the White House was aware and failed to take action.This is not about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal. It is about arrogant and unrestrained government vs. the rule of law. Imagine if the IRS had targeted liberal or progressive groups under the Bush administration. The First Amendment cannot be renegotiated depending on which party holds power.The power to tax is the power to destroy. These allegations concerning the IRS remind us yet again of the inherently destructive nature of leviathan. With Obamacare adding staff and hundreds of millions to the budget of the IRS, the new and intrusive powers granted to our nation's revenue collection service were worrisome enough. We should use this recent abuse of power as an opportunity to rein them in.Each congressman and senator, and even the president, took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is now upon us to determine if the IRS intentionally trampled the First Amendment rights of Americans who dared to dissent. Click HERE for CNN's story.   http://paul.senate.gov?p=news&id=805 Thu, 16 May 2013 12:37:00 EST