http://paul.senate.gov Important information from Senator Rand Paul. en-us Copyright 2013 Rand Paul Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:45:06 EST WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, the U.S. Senate voted on Sen. Rand Paul's amendment to S. 744, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, known as the 'Trust but Verify Act of 2013.' Sen. Paul's amendment, introduced earlier this month, would make immigration reform conditional on Congress voting on whether the border is secure, requiring completion of a border fence in five years and a protection against the federal government establishing a national identification card system for citizens. Click HERE for more details on the 'Trust but Verify' amendment. The motion was tabled with a vote of 37-61. 'I am disappointed that the Senate rejected my amendment to fix one of the fundamental flaws of the bill. My amendment would have added real, verified border security, and made the promises of the bill's authors credible to the American people. I hope Congress can produce immigration reform that actually solves the problems in our current system. Unfortunately, now, the Senate bill does not. I will continue to work to solve our immigration problems. I hope I am able to support a good bill, but it is now clear the House will have to lead the way,' Sen. Paul said.   ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=863 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:33:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul spoke on the Senate floor today to urge his colleagues to support his amendment, 'Trust but Verify,' currently being offered to the Gang of Eight's Immigration Reform Bill. Sen. Paul's amendment, introduced earlier this month, would make immigration reform conditional on Congress voting on whether the border is secure, requiring completion of a border fence in five years and a protection against the federal government establishing a national identification card system for citizens. Click HERE for more details on the 'Trust but Verify' amendment. Below is the video and transcript of Sen. Paul's floor speech. CLICK HERE TO WATCH SEN. PAUL'S FLOOR SPEECH ON 'TRUST BUT VERIFY TRANSCRIPT: Mr. President, I rise to speak today about my amendment No. 1200, 'Trust but Verify' to the comprehensive immigration reform bill pending before the Senate.  I'm in full support of immigration reform, as are most of the Members of this body and most Americans. But part of that reform is that we insist on border security.  Recently, the authors of this bill made clear that legalization will not be made contingent on border security.  Most conservatives believe just the opposite: That legalization absolutely must depend on securing the border first.  'Trust but Verify' does exactly that. It makes documentation of undocumented workers contingent on border security.  I believe that the American people should not rely on bureaucrats or a Commission to enforce border security. We've been promised security in the past and it never happens.  My amendment is different than other amendments because I want Congress to institute border security, not wait for a plan from the administration.  With 'Trust but Verify', Congress will vote every year, for five years, on whether or not the border is secure. The power to enforce border security will be in our hands, and it is Congress that will be held accountable if we fail.  If Congress believes that the border is not secure, then the processing of undocumented immigrants stops until it is secure.  To be clear, my amendment does not replace any triggers in the underlying bill - it adds new conditions to build on the border security measures already in the bill.  The only way to put real pressure on the Department of Homeland Security is to have tough triggers that ensure that the border is secure before immigration reform can proceed.  My amendment is titled the 'Trust but Verify Act of 2013.'  My amendment legislates exactly how we secure the border. The current bill simply requests a plan to secure the border.  This legislation requires 100 percent border surveillance capability, a 95 percent apprehension rate for those trying to cross our border illegally, completion of a double-layered fence consistent with the Secure Fence Act and full transparency of these programs for the public.  This amendment ends the practice of releasing people caught crossing the border illegally.  Legalization of undocumented workers is allowed to commence at one year if Congress agrees that border security targets are being met.  The resolution will be simple and will state every year 'It is the sense of Congress that the United States border is increasingly secure' and Congress will determine if the Department of Homeland Security has met the goals that Congress has written into law.  My amendment mandates that one hundred percent exit tracking for United States visitors is accomplished.   One of the biggest problems our nation is experiencing is that individuals here on temporary visas tend to overstay and some never exit the country.  My amendment solves that problem.  My amendment has two important national security elements.  One provision sets up a 'Student Visa National Security Registration System' as a means to track young men and women in the country on student visas.   Also, individuals here under asylum or refugee status must register in a program providing increased screening and a means to make sure that the federal government has an idea where people in these programs reside.  We should remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were here on visa overstays.  This amendment is fully paid for in section 13 by using the funding for the Border Security Commission and Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust fund.  If my amendment is implemented, there will be little need to fund a new commission to find solutions to our border security problem through the creation of yet another commission.  One big problem with immigration reform is the dire need to reform our immigration court system.  My amendment empowers immigration judges to have the power to implement orders.   Both the left and right agree that the immigration court system is a mess with little rights for those accused of entering illegally and little power of immigration judges to enforce deportation orders.   My amendment would convert our courts from administrative courts to Article I courts with enhanced jurisdiction.  My amendment protects the privacy of all Americans by placing in law protections against citizens being subject to invasive biometric identification cards.  Most Second Amendment supporters rightly see universal background checks as a step too far in invading citizen's personal business. Any national ID, biometric or otherwise, raises the same constitutional concerns.  Finally, my amendment does not allow the processing of registered provisional immigrants until Congress votes that the border is secure, then limits the number to 2 million per year.   This will allow the Department of Homeland Security to do an effective job of conducting background checks of the estimated 11 million-12 million people who will be part of this massive new program.  If Congress votes that the border is not secure, the processing of people into the Registered Provisional Immigrant category will not start until the Department of Homeland Security fulfills the promise of securing the border to the satisfaction of Congress and the American people.  We desperately need immigration reform-but part of fixing the system is fixing our broken borders.  I ask my colleagues to support Senate Amendment 1200 'Trust but Verify.'  Mr. President, I yield the floor.   ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=862 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:04:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=861 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:42:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=860 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:41:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=859 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:37:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=858 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:08:00 EST WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul today introduced the 'Secure the Vote' Amendment to S. 744, which he previously announced on June 5.  'Secure the Vote' ensures that individuals on work visas or given status under the bill are not allowed to vote in federal elections until they become citizens. The amendment will provide new procedures to enable states to check that individuals gaining status or a work visa are not illegally registered to vote.  'Not only would this amendment prevent voter fraud, it would also clear up the problem created by today's Supreme Court decision. My amendment requires states to check citizenship before registering people to vote in federal elections,' Sen. Paul said.   ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=857 Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:21:00 EST Sen. Rand Paul today released the following statement in response to the United States Supreme Court ruling in Alleyne v. United States, which requires that facts underlying a mandatory minimum sentence must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. 'Today's Supreme Court decision is a promising step forward in reining in mandatory minimum sentencing in our courts. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and I recently introduced the Justice Safety Valve Act, which is designed to combat the injustice in many federal criminal laws, which have mandatory minimum penalties attached. Mandatory minimum sentences violate the bedrock principle that all people should be treated as individuals - not grouped in to a one-size-fits-all mandate.'   ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=856 Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:08:00 EST   Here are two statistics that disturb me, and should startle everyone: • African Americans in Kentucky are six times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana possession. • While African Americans are 13 percent of the total U.S. population, they make up 37 percent of the prison population. What is the reason for these disparities? In both cases, using a federal government, one-size-fits-all approach to address these issues is a primary culprit. The problem is Washington's habit of undermining the system our Founding Fathers created, which left as much power as possible in the hands of local and state officials, and sought to treat people as individuals, not as groups or classes of people. In the case of arrests, federal agencies have hamstrung local law enforcement agencies by requiring them to meet numerical arrest goals in order to secure funding. Morally, this is troubling. In practical terms, instead of local enforcement agencies spending their time investigating serious felony crimes, they concentrate on minority and depressed neighborhoods to increase their drug arrest statistics. The American Civil Liberties Union, which reported on the arrest statistics, highlighted the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. This federal program distributes millions of dollars a year to local law enforcement agencies. Arrest numbers are a performance measure used in doling out the money. We are literally sending our money to Washington where an overgrown bureaucracy is encouraging racial profiling before the money is allowed to be sent back to us. We should keep more of our money and decision-making power closer to home - and put an end to practices that encourage discrimination. Federal sentencing laws have a disproportionate effect on the African-American community, too. Black men are more than twice as likely as whites to face mandatory minimum sentences. One in three black men may spend time incarcerated. It's not just crime patterns that are to blame. There are significant disparities in sentencing outcomes for blacks and whites arrested for the same type of crimes. Here's the kicker: Mandatory minimums don't actually do anything to keep us safer. In fact, judges will tell you that mandatory minimums do much harm to taxpayers and to individuals, who may have their lives ruined for a simple mistake or minor lapse of judgment. Oftentimes when this happens, families lose sources of income and support, communities are torn apart, and less money is available for community police and other effective crime-fighting tools. When a crime is committed, it should fall to the local prosecutor, judge and jury to determine the guilt or innocence, as well as determine the just punishment for the crime. In the current system of federal mandatory-minimum sentencing, the authority is taken away from the jury and judge, and given by the legislature to the executive. Prosecutors already have tremendous power because they collect the evidence and choose which crimes to charge. If a mandatory penalty is attached to that crime, the prosecutor then exerts much influence over the entire procedure, including the sentence. If alleged drug users George W. Bush and Barack Obama were subject to today's mandatory minimum statutes in their youth, they could've been imprisoned for sentences for well over a decade. Once released, they would've had trouble finding a job, much less becoming president. It makes no sense to put our young people in prison for extended sentences over one mistake. Recently, I joined my colleague Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, in introducing a bill that would authorize judges to disregard federal mandatory-minimum sentencing on a case-by-case basis. Some might think it is unusual for a conservative Republican to join a liberal Democrat on such a bill, but contrary to popular belief, the protection of civil liberties and adherence to the Constitution should be a bipartisan effort. Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat, has introduced companion legislation in the House. I have met with Reps. Scott and John Conyers, D-Mich., both members of the Congressional Black Caucus, to discuss this issue. I join the African-American community in its outrage at Washington's discriminatory policies and practices and I am eager to work with its representatives in Congress to bring about meaningful reform. Let's have a real dialogue about these issues and make the changes necessary to ensure that the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments are secure for all Americans. Read more from the Courier-Journal HERE.   http://paul.senate.gov?p=news&id=855 Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:42:00 EST On Thursday, I held a news conference announcing my intent to pursue legal action against the federal government for infringing on Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. The National Security Agency's collection of Verizon's client data probably only scratches the surface. A court order that allows the government to obtain a billion records a day and does not name an individual target is clearly beyond the scope of the Fourth Amendment, which states clearly that warrants must be specific to the person and the place. Joining me Thursday to show support for this action were U.S. Reps. Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Mick Mulvaney, Louie Gohmert and Mark Sanford, along with representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union, FreedomWorks, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Campaign for Liberty, as well as constitutional scholar and lawyer Bruce Fein. Mr. Gohmert joked about standing next to the ACLU, but he pointed out that upholding the Constitution is not about Republican versus Democrat or conservative versus liberal. It is about liberty versus power. It recognizes and attempts to limit the inevitable arrogance of power. President Obama says that we can trust his administration not to abuse the mountains of data he admits it gathers. Perhaps we can also trust the Internal Revenue Service not to target those who speak out against the government. Perhaps we can also trust the Justice Department not to seize the phone records of Associated Press reporters. Our Founders never intended for Americans to trust their government. Our entire Constitution was predicated on the notion that government was a necessary evil, to be restrained and minimized as much as possible. Indiscriminate monitoring of citizens' records is precisely the kind of general warranting we fought a revolution over. The Colonists did not appreciate a British government that could go door to door, searching anyone and everyone without probable cause or suspicion. Today, our government goes phone to phone, computer to computer and dares to call this lawful and constitutional. At a hearing on March 12, Sen. Ron Wyden asked Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, 'Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?' Mr. Clapper replied, 'No sir not wittingly.' We now know that the NSA did this wittingly. We know that Mr. Clapper was not telling us the truth. Are these government officials telling us the truth now when they claim they are not abusing our phone-data information? By what history or track record are we supposed to trust them? What does it say about us if we are willing to give government the benefit of the doubt, but that same government treats every American as a potential terrorist? No, the proper order of things in our constitutional republic is that the government is supposed to fear its citizens, not the other way around. So far, we have more than 250,000 people who have signed up to challenge the constitutionality of the generalized warrants. We expect many more. The Constitution is not a negotiable piece of parchment to be ignored or abused at the president's whim. Washington leaders are expected to obey and protect what they took an oath to uphold - and if this means taking them to court over it, so be it. Read more from the Washington Times HERE.   http://paul.senate.gov?p=news&id=854 Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:41:00 EST   WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul today offered the following remarks at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Road to Majority Conference in Washington, D.C.   Last year in Pakistan, 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by the Taliban for being a girl and for wanting to go to school.  If you haven't seen the YouTube video of Malala being interviewed on national television, speaking out for the education of girls, watch and you will be amazed at her poise and grace. Malala never met the great Urdu poet Parveen Shakir, who grew up in Pakistan when women could become highly educated and even Prime Minister. This line from one of Shakir's poems reminds me of Malala:  'They insist upon evaluating the firefly in daylight. The children of our age, have grown clever.'  Why would anyone want to kill this innocent young girl? Because Malala, in her young life, insisted on exposing the firefly to daylight.  Her 'crime,' as seen by the Taliban, is to believe in enlightenment, to believe that out of the darkness a flicker of tolerance can glow and grow to overcome ignorance.  Americans are seen by Pakistanis as infidels and invaders. We will not in a thousand years bring enlightenment to Pakistan, only Pakistan can do that.  When Pakistan begins to police Pakistan better, when girls who long for nothing but freedom and education are embraced -- rather than gunned down by murderous thugs -- then will progress finally be made.  My heart breaks for Malala and her family. It breaks for all those who suffer under violent oppression in the name of religion. It breaks for those who cannot grow up to be poets and teachers, but mostly it breaks for those who cannot speak without being gunned down by extremists.  I can only hope that the violence done to her will motivate those who believe in both Islam and peace and tolerance to stand unanimously and proclaim this violence does not represent them. That the Taliban does not represent them. That gunning down children in cold blood does not please their God.  The violence and intolerance against girls is also directed toward Christians. It saddens me to see countries that are supposedly our allies persecute Christians.  It angers me to see my tax dollars supporting regimes that put Christians to death for blasphemy against Islam, countries that put to death Muslims who convert to Christianity, and countries who imprison anyone who marries outside their religion.      There is a war on Christianity, not just from liberal elites here at home, but worldwide. And your government, or more correctly, you, the taxpayer, are funding it.  You are being taxed to send money to countries that are not only intolerant of Christians but openly hostile. Christians are imprisoned and threatened with death for their beliefs.  In Pakistan, Asia Bibi, a Christian, sits on death row. Her crime, according to her, is that she dared to drink from a glass that belonged to a Muslim co-worker.  According to her co-workers, she insulted the Prophet. In our country, we refer to such quibbling as gossip. In Pakistan, if you are a Christian, it can land you on death row.  Recently, in Pakistan, a 12-year-old with Downs syndrome was imprisoned and charged with a death penalty crime for burning the Koran.  After weeks she was released after a local Imam was accused of actually sprinkling pages from an Arabic book into a fire near the little girl.  Dr. Shakil Afridi is not a Christian but his imprisonment by Pakistan is nonetheless an injustice. He was tortured and held without charge for nearly a year.  He was shackled with his hands behind his back for months and he was finally imprisoned, likely for the rest of his life for the crime of helping America get Bin Laden.  How do your leaders respond? 90 % of them voted against my bill that would have put restrictions on this aid.  My bill said that Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan would get no more foreign aid from the US taxpayer unless they turned over the assassins that killed our ambassador, pledged and verified that they CAN and WILL protect our embassies, and in the case of Pakistan they must release Dr. Afridi.  Overwhelmingly, I was voted down. Is it any wonder that Congress has a 10% approval rating? In Egypt, in Pakistan, they burn our flag-I say not one penny more to countries that burn the American flag!  Even when we've tried through good intentions to make the world a better place our actions have often backfired.  During the Iraq War, over a quarter-million Iraqi Christians fled Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator but his government was secular and therefore relatively safe for Christians. Christians, however, feared the Shiite government that we helped put in place after Saddam, and they fled in droves.  Where did these Christians go? They headed mostly for Syria, joining the over one million Syrians who have lived as Christians since the time of Christ.  Now, the senate is attempting to arm the rebel forces in syria, many of whom are al quaeda or affiliates.   they do so out of a miguided attempt to stop the violence in syria.    Instead their actions will bring more violence and more persecution of Christians, who have long been protected in Syria.  Before the Arab Spring, Christianity flourished in small outposts, like the Coptic Christians in Egypt. I had hoped that the Arab Spring would bring freedom to long-oppressed people throughout the Middle East, but I fear the Arab Spring is becoming an Arab winter.  Today, Christians in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria are on the run-persecuted or under fire-and yet, we continue to send aid to the folks chasing them.  While they burn the American flag and the mobs chant Death to America, more of your money is sent to these haters of Christianity.  Even if all the atrocities to Christians were not occurring in these countries, we simply don't have the money to engage in this foolishness. We must borrow the money from China to send it to Pakistan.  While American soldiers spent a decade fighting to liberate Iraq and while American taxpayers have sent roughly $470 million each year in aid, Christians in Iraq are the subjects of what Carl Moeller, president of Open Doors, describes as 'religicide.'  Before the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Mosul, a city in Iraq, was home to some 75,000 Christians, but now the number has dropped to around 25,000.  Christian homes are set on fire, bombs are being placed in their cars and Christian families are receiving letters threatening them to leave Iraq or be kidnapped or killed.  American soldiers have also risked their lives for the sake of these countries liberation. Our young men and women have fought for a noble cause but the law of unintended consequences is an unforgiving one.  These countries are not our true allies and no amount of money will make them so. They are not allies of Israel and I fear one day our money and military arms that we have paid for will be used against Israel.  This fight has made me unpopular in Washington but I am willing to risk unpopularity with politicians to do what I am convinced is right.  The new leader of Egypt is Mohammed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Recently, he stood by when a radical cleric said a prayer for the destruction of Israel and her supporters in his presence.  Actually, it is worse, he did not just stand by, he was seen to mouth the word 'Amen' as the cleric said these words of hatred.  How does your government respond?  The bipartisan consensus in Washington vows to increase Egypt's funding. The President is currently requesting a billion dollar increase in aid to Egypt.  This is an outrage! It is amazing that so many in Washington fail to see who the real enemies are. We should immediately stop sending F-16's and tanks to Egypt!  It is clear that American taxpayer dollars are being used to enable a war on Christianity in the Middle East and I believe that must end.  When Pope John Paul II spoke about a 'culture of death,' he talked about 'a war of the powerful against the weak.'  As Christians, we know we must always stand with the most defenseless. I believe that no civilization can long endure that does not respect life from those not yet born to life's last breath.  I am the sponsor of a life are conception act in the senate, and I will stand up for unborn children as long as I am privileged to be in office.  These days Christians are often unified in our defense of the not yet born but I exhort you to remember the 19-year-olds who are sent into battle.  War is not a game or a sport and any politician who speaks of pre-emptive war with gleeful bravado should not be leading any nation.  As we sit here, our brave troops risk their lives, serving our country with faithfulness and honor. They endure harsh conditions, loneliness and great danger. I pray for their safe return each day and I pray for an end to the war.  I can recall no utterance of Jesus in favor of war or any acts of aggression. In fact, his message to his disciples was one of non-resistance. I do not believe that means that we don't defend ourselves.  I believe individuals and countries can and should defend themselves. But I simply can't imagine Jesus at the head of any army of soldiers and I think as Christians we need to be wary of the doctrine of pre-emptive war.  We must and should stand with our fellow Christians in the Middle East and around the world-but that does not necessarily mean war and it certainly does not mean arming sides in every conflict.  Jesus, himself, reminds us of this in the Sermon on the Mount, when he proclaims, Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Today, we have a culture that accepts the wanton disposal of millions of innocent children, and sends aid to countries that persecute Christians. . . . . I, for one, will not rest until this injustice ends.  As Christians, we understand that the right to life, and freedom of religion, pre-exist all government. These rights are not granted to man by other men, these rights are granted to us by our Creator.  God, help us in these troubling times to make wise decisions, to make moral decisions, and to listen to the voice of God that lives and breathes and resides in us all. Amen.   ###     http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=853 Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:31:00 EST   WASHINGTON, D.C. - This morning the U.S. Senate voted on Amendment 1195 to S. 744, the immigration bill, an amendment that would strengthen border security. The amendment was rejected.  'It is very disappointing that the Senate rejected this first step to fixing the border security issue in the immigration bill. If any immigration bill is to pass, the Senate needs to be more serious about securing our border. I am in favor of immigration reform and I view it as an important issue that must be handled properly. But, in order for reform to take place, we must first secure our nation's border,' Sen. Paul said. 'Sen. Grassley's amendment could have been a good first step. I will insist that the Senate revisit this issue with my 'Trust but Verify' amendment.'   ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=852 Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:44:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=851 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:44:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=850 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:43:00 EST   In the United States, we are supposed to have a government that is limited with its parameters established by our Constitution. This notion that the federal government can monitor everyone's phone data is a major departure from how Americans have traditionally viewed the role of government. If this is acceptable practice, as the White House and many in both parties now say it is, then there are literally no constitutional protections that can be guaranteed anymore to citizens. In the name of security, say our leaders, the Constitution has become negotiable. This is what the White House is saying when it defends the National Security Agency's gathering of Verizon's client data en masse, or what President Obama calls a 'modest encroachment' on our rights, as he assures us that 'Nobody is listening to your phone calls.' Perhaps he can also assure us that nobody at the Internal Revenue Service is targeting political dissidents. Perhaps he can assure us that nobody at the Justice Department is seizing reporters' phone records. Sorry, Mr. President, but 'trust me' is not good enough. President Obama says, 'You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.' But we couldn't have 100 percent security even if we turned America into a total police state-something too many seem eager for-because there's no such thing as a risk free society. When balancing liberty against security, the American tradition has always been to err on the side of liberty. Targeting potential terror suspects by obtaining a warrant is an 'inconvenience' the Founders' intentionally put upon the government in order to protect the privacy of citizens. Now this president turns this core constitutional principle on its head. There are also Republicans who seem to want more power for government and less for citizens. One senator, a particularly zealous defender of the surveillance state, has said that he would be fine with 'censoring the mail' if 'necessary' to keep us safe. This senator would open citizens' mail, detain them indefinitely if he decided they were dangerous, claw his way through their trash, peek in their bedrooms if he decided they were an enemy, and then if they dared to ask for a lawyer, he would bark: 'Shut up! You don't get a lawyer!' Such arrogance and tone deafness!  A government as omnipotent as this may be powerful enough to spy on all of its citizens all of the time, but doesn't seem to be able to even stop terrorists like the Boston Marathon bombers and the 'underwear bomber' - both of whom set off warnings before they were noticed. Instead of monitoring billions of phone calls and spying on law-abiding Americans, perhaps we should have been done more targeted monitoring of the Boston bombing suspects, one of whom traveling to Chechnya, largely undetected. Clutching desperately for relevance, some Republican Senators point wildly at the Boston Marathon bombing and grit out, 'See, I told you so!  America is too part of the battlefield.' Duh! No one is arguing that our enemies won't attack us here and that we shouldn't defend ourselves. Constitutionalists simply argue that we can defend the homeland and the Bill of Rights simultaneously, and to relinquish concrete liberties for an illusive security is a fool's errand. I can remember not so long ago, when the war caucus-and we don't need to name any names-were all saying 'we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here.' Now, they are saying we have to give up our liberties to fight them here? Who is winning this battle? Regardless, anytime we give up our liberty-we lose. National security is the federal government's top priority. We have always balanced liberty with common sense security precautions. There are unquestionably exceptions to every rule. But those who continue to defend the National Security Agency's actions are essentially saying that something that would be controversial even as an exception-blanket phone trolling by the government-is now the new rule. They are saying it's OK to spy on citizens' phone data without a warrant, not just one time or a few times, but all the time.   They are saying that suspending the Bill of Rights is now the new normal.  In my world, the Constitution still applies. Read more from Fox News HERE.     http://paul.senate.gov?p=news&id=849 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:18:00 EST   WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul today offered the following speech at a forum on immigration, organized by the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles.   Por favor disculpen mi Espanol.  Como creci en Houston -es un poco 'espanglish y un poco Tex Mex.  It's great to be here with you today. As we continue to debate immigration in Congress this week, I think sometimes the human factor gets lost. When discussing the issue, I think it's important to remember that we're talking about people, not just policy.  We're not talking about criminals we're talking about immigrant workers caught up in a failed government visa program.   I think it's always important that we put a human face on immigration and not just talk about numbers and statistics.  I can't think about immigration without thinking about my own family.  My German great-grandparents didn't speak much English when they came to America. They didn't have much, but they also didn't ask for much-all they wanted was an opportunity.  They began in America peddling vegetables. They finally got that opportunity when they started a dairy business in their garage, scraping together a living, raising a family, and constantly working to give their children a better life than they had.  My great-grandfather came to America in the 1880s. His father died after only six months in America. At 14, my great-grandfather was alone.  He survived and ultimately thrived in his new country with a new language. In their home and their church they spoke German.  As the son of immigrants, my grandfather, who only had an 8th grade education, would live to see his own children all go to college. They became ministers, professors, doctors and accountants and one of them became a Congressman.  My family's story is like that of millions of others who came to this country. Every generation of immigrants wants these opportunities.  The problem we face today is: How do we now reflect this in our 21st century immigration policy?  It is absolutely vital for both the success of our immigration policy and for the purposes of national security that we finally secure our borders.  Not to stop most immigrants from coming-we welcome them and in fact should seek to increase legal immigration.  The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.  Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.  First, everyone has to acknowledge that we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.  If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.  In order to bring conservatives to this cause however, those who work for reform must understand that a real solution must ensure that our borders are secure.  But we also must treat those who are already here with understanding and compassion.  The first part of my plan - border security - must be certified by Border Patrol and an Investigator General and then voted on by Congress to ensure it has been accomplished.  This is what I call, Trust but Verify.  With this in place, I believe conservatives will accept what needs to come next, an issue that must be addressed: what becomes of the 12 million undocumented workers in the United States?  My plan is very simple and will include work visas for those who are here, who are willing to come forward and work.  A bipartisan panel would determine number of visas per year. High tech visas would also be expanded and have a priority. Special entrepreneurial visas would also be issued.  Fairness is key in any meaningful immigration reform, but this fairness would cut both ways:  The modernization of our visa system and border security would allow us to accurately track immigration.  It would also enable us to let more people in and allow us to admit we are not going to deport the millions of people who are currently here illegally.  This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.  Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.  Conservatives are wary of amnesty. My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line.  But what we have now is de facto amnesty.  The solution doesn't have to be amnesty or deportation-a middle ground might be called probation where those who came illegally become legal through a probationary period.  My plan will not impose a national ID card or mandatory E-Verify, forcing businesses to become policemen.  We should not be unfair to those who came to our country legally. Nor should we force business owners to become immigration inspectors-making them do the job the federal government has failed to do.  After an Inspector General has verified that the border is secure after year one, the report must come back and be approved by Congress.  In year two, we could begin expanding probationary work visas to immigrants who are willing to work. I would have Congress vote each year for five years whether to approve or not approve a report on whether or not we are securing the border.  We should be proud that so many want to come to America, that it is still seen as the land of opportunity.  On immigration, common sense and decency have been neglected for far too long. Let's secure our borders, welcome our new neighbors, and practice the values of freedom and family for all to see.  Embracing immigrants is an American value, but just one of many.  My religion is not something I wear on my sleeve. I try to stay true to my family and my faith. I'm a Christian, a husband and a father.  I'm faithful to my wife and my family.  I try to be good at all those things, though, of course, we all fall short of perfection in our lives.  I try to adhere to the tenets of God's word in the New Testament.  I take seriously my oath to defend the Constitution.  And I try to fight for truth and my values regardless of the political outcome, regardless of how popular or unpopular they may be.  One of thing worth fighting for is life.  I don't think a civilization can long endure that does not have respect for all human life, born and not yet born.    We have a great many problems in this country to solve. But I believe there will come a time when we are all judged on whether or not we took a stand in defense of all life from the moment of conception until our last natural breath.    As a teenager, I gave my first public speech in my church.  It was an overcoming.     My hands shook.  My heart pounded.  I wondered, can i do this?  But somehow I did.  And because I wanted to talk about things that were important, I persisted.  I chided my church as a senior in high school for not seeming to care about the not yet born, for looking the other way and for not taking a stand on life.   Though I believe in limited powers for the federal government, I believe, as our founders did, that primary among these powers and duties is the protection of life, that government cannot protect liberty if it does not first protect life.  We must embrace the values of life, liberty and prosperity that will lead this country back to greatness.  And we should do so proudly as Christians.  Ultimately, our success in life is measured in man's humanity toward man. This is true of our immigration policies. This is true of our attitude towards our fellow man.   For the American Dream to be achievable for all, we have to have an educational system that believes that all students have the capability to succeed.  Unfortunately, the education establishment seems to casually discard Latinos, blacks, and others into crummy schools with no hope.  I argue that the struggle for a good education is the civil rights issue of our day.  I love the story of Jaime Escalante. They made a movie about him: Stand and Deliver.  In the area of East Los Angeles, in 1982, in an environment that values a quick fix over education and learning, Escalante was a new math teacher at Garfield High School determined to change the system and challenge the students to a higher level of achievement.  Escalante was at first not well liked by students, receiving numerous taunts and threats.  As the year progressed, he was able to win over the attention of the students by implementing innovative teaching techniques.  He transformed even the most troublesome teens into dedicated students. While Escalante was teaching basic arithmetic and algebra, he realized that his students have far more potential.  He decided to teach them calculus. To do so, he held a summer course in pre-calculus.  Despite concerns and skepticism of other teachers, who felt that 'you can't teach logarithms to illiterates,' Escalante nonetheless developed a program in which his students can eventually take AP Calculus by their senior year.  Taking the AP Calculus exam in the spring of their senior year, his students were relieved and overjoyed to find that they have all passed, a feat done by few in the state.  My dream is that we transform the education monopoly into a thriving, competitive environment where Hispanic students get to choose what school they attend and that no student is forgotten or ignored.  Jaime Escalante will always be remembered for the wonderful things he did for his kids.  Man's humanity toward's man is how we will be judged. For the teacher. For the student. For the immigrant. For the unborn. For the next generation.  We, as Christians, should never lose sight of what's important. We, as Americans, should never lose sight of the things we share in common, and do our best to love thy neighbor, every chance we get.  Thank you and God bless. ###   http://paul.senate.gov?p=press_release&id=848 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:29:00 EST Benjamin Franklin famously wrote, 'Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.' Meanwhile, our president claims that we cannot have 100% security and 100% privacy and that as a society we have to make some choices. To that I say, no Mr. President, we don't. Let's look, for example, at the recent attacks in Boston. Our government was violating our rights, trolling through millions of phone records, sifting through mountains of data and yet still didn't notice, or didn't notice enough, that one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects was traveling to Chechnya. Perhaps instead of treating every American as a potential terror suspect, the government should concentrate on more targeted analysis and an analysis that doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. This assault on personal privacy affects the Facebook generation more than anyone else. Your generation is completely digitized and uploaded. Everything you do is traceable via phone, email and bank records. And it is you, more than anyone, who should be outraged by this astounding assault on your constitutional right to personal privacy. I hear people say, 'Well if you aren't doing anything wrong, then the government will leave you alone.' But over the last month and a half, this administration has proved that they will target anyone. Under this administration, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has targeted political dissidents, the Department of Justice has seized reporters' phone records, and now we've learned the NSA seized an unlimited amount of Verizon's client data. So, do you really expect us to trust a government that admittedly targets innocent citizens without probable cause? These overreaching acts are unacceptable under any president, whether Democrat or Republican. This issue has made for some strange bedfellows in Washington. You have some of my fellow Republicans - I like to call moss-covered - defending Barack Obama's violation of your rights. Meanwhile, I am being joined by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), left-leaning journalist Glenn Greenwald, and Republican Congressman and author of the Patriot Act, Jim Sensebrenner (R-Wisc.). It is clear that this issue is not about party politics. It is about protecting the civil liberties that our Founding Fathers fought a revolution for. And issues such as this really show you how your political leaders feel about your rights. What should frustrate you this most is the hypocrisy of it all. In December 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama threatened to filibuster the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He now uses FISA courts to survey your personal information.  Then-Senator Obama opposed provisions granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that shared private client information with the government. Senator Obama was right. Had I been in the Senate, I would have voted with him. Senator Obama in 2008 also wanted to track potential terrorist activity 'without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties.' Yet, today, President Obama undermines the rule of law, basic rights and core liberties - all in the name of tracking terrorists. Last week, I introduced the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013. The purpose of the bill is in its name - to restore what has been taken from us - our right to personal privacy. Over the last 30 or 40 years, our government has decided that once we give our records to our bank or our credit card company, that they're no longer private. I disagree vehemently with that. In today's world, so much of our life is digitalized, and we must maintain a sense of privacy from an overreaching government. I do not think this is what Verizon customers had in mind when they signed up for the 'share everything plan' and I want these customers to join me in filing a class-action lawsuit against the NSA. I'm asking all of the internet providers, all of the phone companies and their customers to join me in protecting our rights to privacy. Our Constitution is consistently ignored and it is time we take a stand. I encourage all Americans, especially the millennials, to stand with me in this fight to protect our constitutional right to privacy. Click HERE to read more from Policy Mic. http://paul.senate.gov?p=news&id=847 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:27:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=846 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:26:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=845 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:30:00 EST http://paul.senate.gov?p=video&id=844 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:28:00 EST