US CONGRESS · SITTING

Rand Paul

Senator for Kentucky · Republican · United States

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

“foreign assistance to any Palestinian Government entity or international organization operating in the West Bank or Gaza which is funded by taxpayer dollars would be frozen unless said government entity meets some commonsense conditions.”
Senate29 September 2026Source ↗

“Yet, despite American generosity, human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza, committed by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and other groups, have been well documented over the years.”
Senate29 September 2026Source ↗

“In 2009, one of Nancy's 2-year-aged hams was invited to hang in Spain at the famous Jamon Museum, the first and only American country ham ever given that distinction. Their dry-cured ham and prosciutto have fed guests at Presidential inaugurations and earned praise from food critics across the country.”
Senate29 September 2026Source ↗

“Funding Palestinian entities that do not recognize Israel's right to exist and fund anti-American and anti-Israel activities makes no sense. At its core, this legislation establishes a principle of accountability.”
Senate29 September 2026Source ↗

“Mr. President, it should not be controversial to say that Congress should know the circumstances of the deaths of our own citizens abroad in any country.”
Senate29 September 2026Source ↗

“One U.S.-Israeli citizen, Edan Alexander, survived 584 days in captivity and upon his release vowed to return to Israel to continue his service in the IDF, saying: My story does not end with survival. It continues with service.”
Senate29 September 2026Source ↗

The complete record

174 held · 135 searchable for Rand Paul. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.

This is not an official version of US Congress proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one US Congress publishes.

“Reserving the right to object, Benjamin Franklin famously said that ``failing to plan is planning to fail.'' When approaching something as important as innovation, as AI, I think we should make sure we have as many facts as possible before we dictate rules for the whole economy. Artificial intelligence is an incredible technology. It is quickly transforming how work is done. What used to take people hundreds of man-hours now takes seconds. As with new technology, there are going to be some challenges. It is important that the development of AI is carried out in a responsible, thoughtful manner. It is imperative that the AI systems are safe and that humans remain in control. But if Congress acts hastily, before the technology is understood, Congress risks killing innovation in setting this technology back decades.”
Senate16 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, the bill before us contains the largest tax increase ever passed by a Republican Congress. Worse yet, the bill transfers the taxing authority from the legislature to the executive branch, an unconstitutional delegation of power. The Constitution clearly states that ``Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, duties . . . and Excises.'' Madison believed the Republic would survive only if the Constitution divided the power and pitted the executive ambition against legislative ambition. Madison would be horrified by the clamor of so many in Congress to cede the taxing authority. My amendment strips the transfer of the taxing authority from the bill. My amendment--if it passes--will demonstrate that Congress still has a spine, still has ambition, and still supports the separation and limitation of power.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“I call up amendment No. 6715 and ask that it be reported by number.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“If not adopted, Congress should reject this strategic blunder of a bill that would do nothing to bring peace to Ukraine but, rather, raise American prices for American consumers, further weaken the dollar, destroy U.S. relations around the globe, and drive our adversaries closer together. Mr. President, I recommend a ``yes'' vote on the Paul-Wyden amendment.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“In 2025, U.S.-EU bilateral trade was over $1 trillion. That is making both parties rich. We have become extraordinarily rich as a country as international trade has expanded. In fact, prosperity of the individual and prosperity of the country are directly proportional to the amount of trade. Think about that. Trying to tariff individual EU countries directly undermines President Trump's recent U.S.-EU trade agreement. Should the EU retaliate against the United States, the result would be disastrous for both American businesses and consumers. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment that strips the counterproductive tariffs from the legislation.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“It is not going to solve the situation; it is going to raise American taxes, drive Russia and China together, and then China will actually add tariffs on our goods as well. It is a huge mistake. Imposing tariffs on China will reignite the trade war. Beijing will certainly retaliate with their own tariffs and export controls. Maia Nikoladze, the deputy director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, reminded us that on ``Liberation Day,'' the tariffs placed on China in April of 2025 didn't change Beijing's behavior. Instead, those tariffs prompted China to restrict exports of critical rare earth elements. We already tried this once. They responded by restricting their exports of things we need to make batteries for cars, and then we eventually ended up negotiating lower tariffs.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“Slapping a 100-percent tariff on China may inadvertently solidify the geopolitical alignment with Russia, as Beijing would become more, not less, reliant on Moscow for economic and diplomatic support. Ryan Young is a senior economist with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He points out that Russia is the junior partner in the alliance with China. Young reminds us that China agreed to a second natural gas pipeline between the two countries on the condition that Russia sell China its gas at a lower than market rate. Do you think China is going to give up on that? No. China will continue to buy oil and gas from Russia after this, and they, in all likelihood, will respond to our tariffs with tariffs of their own. This is what is going to happen.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“The cost of the tariffs is not strictly monetary; these tariffs threaten to undermine America's strategic position in the world. Some naively think that the tariffs will get China to distance itself from Russia, but it might be the opposite. Recent history suggests that they will instead push Russia and China together. China is not going to get these 100-percent tariffs and say: Oh, we are sorry. We are no longer going to cooperate with Russia. We have kind of forced Russia to give us this great deal on oil and gas that we pipe into our country, but we are sorry now, and we are going to give up on that. No. It is going to push them closer together. The people we are worried about are going to become more allied.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“Recent tariffs are estimated to have already cost the average American family $1,700, so the average American family is already paying $1,700 more because of these taxes that are placed on the things they buy. Now this Republican Congress, after it just gave the American people tax cuts, is going to do the opposite. Which is it? Are we the party of lower taxes or higher taxes? This will be the largest tax increase in recent history, perhaps the largest tax increase that a Republican Congress has put onto the people. What are we going to say to the parents buying their kids new shoes for the school year, the minimum-wage worker who needs to buy a new part to fix their car to get to work, or the single mother buying diapers when they notice their prices have doubled?”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“These two dozen associations end their letter by saying: We urge Congress to remove the tariff authority from the bill and instead focus on targeted sanctions, stronger enforcement against sanctions evasion and coordinated diplomacy with countries purchasing Russian energy. Anybody concerned with the economic well-being of American families would come to the same conclusion, but it is not easy to find such common sense in Congress. Imposing a 100-percent tariff on all goods imported from countries like China and India is the economic equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. Middle- and low-income Americans enjoy a higher quality of life when they have more purchasing power for everyday necessities.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“They further say: Tariffs of this scale would increase costs for everyday consumer goods, manufacturing inputs and other products while creating significant uncertainty for companies making sourcing, pricing and inventory decisions months in advance. It could also lead to retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exports. So it doesn't necessarily help exports to tax imports because the other countries then will tax our exports. They say: Tariffs . . . are a blunt tool that can penalize law- abiding U.S. companies importing legitimate goods, invite retaliation, complicate trade negotiations and shift costs onto American families without ensuring that pressure reaches the intended actors.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“The Chinese Government is not on the list. Canada is not on the list. Mexico is not on the list. American companies are getting the refunds because Americans pay tariffs. And do you think the company pays the tariffs? No. They pass it along to the consumer. You are all paying higher prices. Every time you get something through retail, you are paying higher prices. The entities that lined up for the rebates after the Supreme Court struck down the emergency tariffs were primarily American retailers such as Walmart, Target, Costco, and Nike. Let me repeat: China is not on the refund list because China doesn't pay the tariffs. American importers and retailers pay the tariffs, and they pass the cost of the tariffs on to the consumer. You don't have to take my word for it.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“Montesquieu said if you bring the legislative powers together with the executive, you will have no liberty. The powers were divided between the legislature and the executive so we could fight for liberty, so it would make it hard to raise taxes. The answer to ``Can Congress give away its power?'' is an unequivocal ``no.'' Embedded within our Constitution is something called the nondelegation principle, which states that Congress cannot delegate its core legislative powers to another branch of government or to private entities. The Supreme Court used to enforce this nondelegation doctrine, most notably in the Schechter Poultry case, but that case was decided in 1935; and for much of the intervening years, the Supreme Court has been a reliable ally to lazy legislators.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“Why would Republicans, who promise you they want to lower your taxes, be voting to raise your taxes $500 billion? In addition, Congress should not delegate its constitutional duties to the executive branch. Now, my amendment does not touch the broad sanctions that are provided by the bill, nor does it touch the specific tariffs on Russia because I see the strong desire among Members of the Senate to use economic warfare against Putin. But I object to economic warfare against the American consumer. Once upon a time, Republicans were distinguished from Democrats by their persistent chant that the U.S. deficit was the result of a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Yet today, many Republicans have become the cheerleaders for more revenue.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, increasing taxes on Americans will not end Putin's war in Ukraine. The drafters of this legislation, understandably, wish to punish Vladimir Putin and send Russian invaders back to where they came from, but this bill was written such that the drafters fail to see that it will not bring peace to Ukraine but rather will deliberately make American families poorer by increasing tariffs, which are nothing but a tax on imported goods. To save Americans from what very well could be the largest tax increase imposed by a Republican Congress, I offer an amendment that strikes the authority to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on an ever-changing list of countries. Mark my words, this will be the largest tax increase by a Republican Congress.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“Among its notable projects are the new Adair County Middle School, the Lexington Federal Courthouse, and the Kentucky State Capitol. Congratulations to Andy Keith, Jonathan Keith, and the entire team at Morgan Smith Industries, LLC. I look forward to their continued growth and success in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. ____________________”
Senate4 August 2026Source ↗
“Madam President, as a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I would like to recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. It is my privilege to recognize Morgan Smith Industries, LLC of Columbia, KY, as my Senate Small Business of the Week.”
Senate4 August 2026Source ↗
“Much of Crume's community service is performed quietly and without seeking recognition. Derrick and Ashley prefer to let their work speak for itself. They focus on serving their customers well, remaining approachable, supporting their employees, and helping their neighbors whenever possible. Congratulations to Derrick Greenwell, Ashley Coomes, and the entire Crume Drug Store team. I commend them for their service to Bardstown and Nelson County and wish them continued success in Kentucky. ____________________”
Senate4 August 2026Source ↗
“Madam President, as a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to recognize Crume Drug Store of Bardstown, KY, as my Senate Small Business of the Week. Crume Drug Store has served Nelson County continuously since 1852. For more than 170 years, the business has adapted to changes in medicine, technology, and the retail pharmacy industry while remaining a trusted presence in downtown Bardstown. In 2019, Derrick Greenwell and Ashley Coomes purchased Crume Drug Store as equal partners.”
Senate4 August 2026Source ↗
“His courage was measured not only in his willingness to face danger but also in his patience, compassion, and determination to preserve life. His professionalism serves as an example for officers across the Commonwealth of Kentucky and our Nation. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Officer Josh McKinley for his extraordinary service. His selfless actions on March 21, 2026, undoubtedly saved a life, brought hope to a person in despair, and remind us all of the difference one dedicated public servant can make. ____________________”
Senate4 August 2026Source ↗
“Madam President, I rise today to recognize Officer Josh McKinley for an extraordinary act of courage, compassion, and public service that saved a life and exemplifies the very best of law enforcement. On March 21, 2026, Officer McKinley responded to a critical incident on the Big Four Walking Bridge in Louisville, KY, involving an individual who had climbed over the bridge railing, was seated on the outside ledge, and was threatening to end his life. The situation demanded extraordinary judgment, patience, and calm under immense pressure.”
Senate4 August 2026Source ↗
“His dedication at such a young age is an inspiration to all who value the courage of those who wear the uniform. We honor his service, we celebrate his official recognition as a Green Beret, and we thank him for his enduring commitment to this country. ____________________”
Senate4 August 2026Source ↗
“Madam President, I rise today to honor the service of a true American patriot, Terry McIntosh of Paducah, KY. At the age of 17, motivated by a sense of duty to his country during the Vietnam war, Terry enlisted in the United States Army. Despite his youth, he would soon find himself on the frontlines, eventually assigned to Operational Detachment A-414, a Green Beret ``A-team'' operating along the Cambodian border.”
Senate4 August 2026Source ↗
“Sheriff Korzenborn's legacy is one of mentorship and example. He has influenced countless deputies and staff members, instilling in them the values of duty, honor, and service that will continue to shape the Kenton County Sheriff's Office for years to come. As Sheriff Korzenborn enters retirement, he leaves behind a record of service that reflects great credit upon himself, his family, the Kenton County Sheriff's Office, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I extend my sincere appreciation for his years of dedicated service and wish him the best in the next chapter of his life. ____________________”
Senate4 August 2026Source ↗
“As sheriff, he has been entrusted with one of the most vital responsibilities in our communities: protecting the lives, rights, and property of the citizens he served. Through his leadership, the Kenton County Sheriff's Office has upheld the highest standards of law enforcement while fostering trust and cooperation between officers and the community. Sheriff Korzenborn's career reflects a deep dedication to service above self. He has led with fairness, accountability, and respect for the rule of law, earning the confidence of his colleagues and the gratitude of the residents of Kenton County. His steady leadership and experience have helped guide his department through both everyday challenges and extraordinary moments, always with the safety and well- being of the community as his top priority.”
Senate4 August 2026Source ↗
“Madam President, I rise today to recognize Sheriff Charles ``Chuck'' Korzenborn of Kenton County, KY, upon the occasion of his well-earned retirement from a distinguished career in law enforcement and public service. For 26 years, Sheriff Korzenborn has served the people of Kenton County with integrity, professionalism, and an unwavering commitment to public safety.”
Senate4 August 2026Source ↗
“Madam President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Dan Caudill, a respected Kentucky business leader and a principled advocate for criminal justice reform, who passed away in December 2025. Dan was not merely a supporter of reform in theory; he lived it through his work and deeds. I was proud to work alongside Dan on the REDEEM Act, legislation rooted in the belief that justice should allow for redemption and that nonviolent mistakes should not necessarily become lifelong barriers to employment and opportunity.”
Senate4 August 2026Source ↗
“The oath I took upon taking this office is to the Constitution of the United States and not to any person or faction. I want to preserve the divisions of power that protect us and our children from the rule of one person. That is why I will today vote to end this emergency. I will vote to reclaim the taxation power of Congress, where the Constitution properly places it, and I urge the Members of my party to do the same. I yield the floor.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“Tariffs bring us closer to the day when the people are ruled by a czar of industrial policy. When that day comes, we will wish we had defended the Constitution when we still had the power to do so. We cannot afford to stand idly by while the constitutional principle of the separation of powers is eviscerated. Legislators who stand aside and abdicate the power to tax will one day rue the accumulation of power in the office of one person. I stand against this emergency, I stand against these tariffs, and I stand against shredding the Constitution. I have no animus towards the President. I voted for him and support his administration. I come to the floor today not because I want to but because I am compelled to. I love my country and the principles upon which it is founded.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“Trade never occurs unless you want a product more than you want your money. Has anyone ever made a trade, a voluntary trade, where you thought you were being ripped off? No. You buy stuff only because you think you are making a good deal. Those who say that, oh, no, we are being ripped off--it is a fallacy. It asserts that one of the parties must necessarily lose or be taken advantage of. The argument belies a fundamental misunderstanding of trade. By definition, every voluntary trade is mutually beneficial. Trade is good. That isn't an opinion; it is a fact. For at least the last 50 years, as trade rises, so does wealth. And people say the middle class has gotten smaller? Slightly but only because it moved to the upper class. These tariffs will make Americans poorer, and they will make the defenders of those tariffs pay.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“Tariffs are taxes, plain and simple. Tariffs don't punish foreign governments; they punish American families. When we tax imports, we raise the price of everything from groceries, to smartphones, to washing machines, to just about every conceivable product. Voters in the last election indicated they were fed up with high prices. Every time Americans went to the grocery store, they were reminded that inflation and putting food on their family's table was more difficult and left them with less money for other necessities. Many pundits say the 2024 election hinged on promises to reduce inflation and lower taxes. Does it make any sense to impose a tax on imports that will make all Americans worse off? Shouldn't we learn from our success? We should ask ourselves a fundamental question: Is trade good? Well, trade is simply capitalism.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“If Americans are to live under this emergency rule, it will not be because the President sought too much power; it will be because Congress let it happen. If Americans are to live in a country where the President alone decides what is to be taxed, at what rate, and for how long, it will be because Congress is too feeble to stand up for the interests and bank accounts of the people. If Americans live in a country where their elected representatives in the legislature cannot or will not speak for them, it will be because those representatives silenced themselves. They gave in. They did not stand up and do their duty. We can show the people that the constitutional principle of the separation of powers still means something and that we can successfully challenge the Presidential attempt to raise taxes without the consent of Congress.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“Congress said: Here. We don't want to deal with it. You can have it. Congress today can scarcely be bothered to even consider individual appropriations bills. By consistently waiting until the last second to pass a massive funding bill and threaten a government shutdown, the leadership deprives Congress of what Madison called its most complete and effectual weapon: the power of the purse. We just put it all in one bill, and then they say: If you don't for it, you are for shutting the government down. You can't shut the government down, so you have to vote for the massive bill, which includes more pork than you can probably ever imagine. Congress has--unique among the three branches--unilaterally disarmed and demonstrated itself unable and unwilling to check the Executive.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“Every time a party changes hands, they say: Well, you guys did this, so we are going to leapfrog and do this. And it goes back and forth until the individual citizen knows nothing other than the loss of liberty. Even President Trump didn't try to argue that this law called IEEPA, which is normally used for sanctions--he didn't act upon it in his first term. He makes a claim today, though, likely because the appropriate trade laws on the books require months to be implemented, and he can't wait. And the Republicans go along, and they say: Emergency? No problem. Constitution? What? Constitution? Forget about it. Members of his political party will stand by his assertion. Some may cast their actions today as an exercise of party loyalty. Some may even be praised by Pennsylvania Avenue.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“we have congressional nonentity, choosing to become a nonentity, not participate, do whatever you want? It is a recipe for disaster. Madison and those of the revolutionary generation would have expected Members of Congress to jealously guard their authority from the imperial pretensions of the Chief Executive. To endorse governance by emergency rule is to fail to live up to what the Constitution demands of us, and failure to do our constitutional duty is an invitation to further emergency rule. I know some Republicans like the idea of taxing trade, but what if there is a next President who is a Democrat who says: By emergency rule, I decree there will be no gasoline-using cars. We will have only electric cars. That is what we are preparing ourselves for. Every distortion of the checks and balances of powers gets worse.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“They are looking the other way and saying: Well, it is our President now. I had a reform of the Emergencies Act under the previous President, a Democrat. I had the same bill under a Republican. This should not be a partisan issue. The Founders would not have expected the upper chamber, the Senate, to let the novel use of a statute traditionally used to sanction adversaries to become used for tariffs to tax American people and to let it go unchallenged. This is not constitutionalism; this is cowardice. Our system of government cannot work when Congress abdicates its legislative authority. Madison said we would pit ambition against ambition, but what if we have Presidential ambition and we have congressional acquiescence? we have congressional timidity?”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“The House has essentially ruled that days are not days and they are not to be counted as days until such time as the House again agrees to allow days to be counted as days. Does that sound absurd? Absolutely. It is absurd. It is craven. It is cowardice at its best, and it is dishonest because a rule of the House is preventing a law from being obeyed. I didn't know we could pass a rule to prevent a law from being obeyed. When the emergency powers were granted to the President in 1966, the Emergencies Act was meant to constrain the Republic. We were already worried about too many emergencies. Many on my side have actually cosponsored bills that say emergencies should automatically end unless affirmatively approved by Congress. Many of those people now are looking the other way.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“But they would be surprised-- the Founders would be shocked that Congress would voluntarily and recklessly and fecklessly give up their power to the Presidency, to submit to emergency rule. The Founders would not have expected the House of Representatives to become so craven as to refuse to even allow a vote on ending the emergency. The law says that the vote we will have is mandatory. It is privileged. The Senate will adhere to the law. The House will not have a vote. The House, in its haste to give away its power to tax, actually passed a rule to prevent a mandatory vote on ending the emergencies. They prevent it because the rule says that days no longer exist. They declared that legislative days will not exist despite the legislature continuing to meet each day.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the Constitution was to pit ambition against ambition. The natural ambition of men and women to accumulate power was to be checked by other branches of people who would say: You can't have that power. It is our power. That pitting of ambition back and forth was to constrain government. It was to constrain government from running away and power from being run away with one person. The Founding Fathers empowered Congress with tools to ensure that the liberties of the people would not be threatened by one-person rule. The Founders would not be surprised that the Executive would attempt to aggrandize power at the expense of the legislature. They would have expected it. Indeed, they did expect it.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“There are constitutional processes that are incredibly important. The Constitution doesn't allow the President of the United States to be the sole decider. Even the President must abide by the proper limits of Executive power. Thankfully, our Constitution does more than merely hope that our Chief Executive will remain within the confines of the Constitution; our Constitution explicitly limits the power of the Presidency. Our Founders led a rebellion against a King precisely over this. They went to great lengths to circumscribe and limit the power of the Presidency. Devoted as they were to the preservation of individual liberty, the Founders divided power among three branches of government. But more importantly, those three branches were to check and balance each other to prevent one branch from accumulating too much power.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“They worried about having too much power with the President, and so they severely constricted the power of the Presidency. They said the President couldn't take us to war; only Congress could. They said the President couldn't spend money; only Congress could. They said the President couldn't tax people; only Congress could. These were the very bedrock and still are the very bedrock of our constitutional principles. Yet, people--particularly on my side--are looking away and saying: Oh, whatever. We will just let the President do whatever. Look, I supported President Trump. I still support President Trump on many things. But I am not for a country run by emergencies. Even if the person was doing what I wanted and was, you know, making every day my birthday, I would not be for that unless we deliberated upon that.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“The tariffs we discuss today are global tariffs. Just about every country in the world is subjected to at least a 10-percent tariff, to say nothing of the dozens of countries whose imports will be taxed at a much higher rate. Congress didn't debate these tariffs. Congress didn't vote to enact these tariffs. The tariffs are simply imposed by Presidential fiat, by proclamation. Government by one person who assumes all power by asserting a so- called emergency is the antithesis of constitutional government. It was Montesquieu that our Founding Fathers looked to in setting up the separation of powers. And Montesquieu said that when you unite the legislative power with the executive power in the body of one person, that no liberty can exist. They worried about this. They fretted about it.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, you know, there was an old-fashioned conservative principle that believed that less taxes were better than more taxes; that if you taxed something, you got less of it, so that if you place a new tax on trade, you will get less trade. There was also this idea that you didn't do taxation without representation. That idea goes not only back to our American Revolution, it goes back to the English civil war as well. It goes back to probably Magna Carta. I mean, for hundreds of years the English were arguing of the supremacy of Parliament, that Parliament would be able to have the power over the King. So when we were leading up to the Revolution, the cry from James Otis was, ``Taxation without representation is tyranny.'' These were the words of James Otis, but they still ring true today.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“I ask for the yeas and nays.”
Senate9 April 2025Source ↗
“I ask consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Hoekstra nomination.”
Senate8 April 2025Source ↗
“I ask for the yeas and nays.”
Senate8 April 2025Source ↗
“In all the countries around the world that we object to is the idea that they don't have democratic rule. We should vote. This is a tax, plain and simple. Taxes should not be enacted by one person. So I will vote today to end the emergency. I will vote today to try to reclaim the power of taxation, the power of the tariff to where the Constitution designated it should properly be, and that is in Congress.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“They so feared the power of taxation that they gave it specifically to originate in the House before it came to the Senate because the House was closer to the people, with elections every 2 years. This goes against the traditions of our country. I stand to speak against these tariffs. I stand to speak against these emergencies. I stand against the idea of skipping democracy, of skipping the constitutional republic, of rejecting our founding principles, not because I have any animus toward the President; I do this because I love my country, and I want to see the division of power enabled such that it protects us all from the amalgamation of power into one person such that it can be abused. Another name for ``emergency rule'' is ``martial law.'' Who would want to live under one person? That is the thing we all object to.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“As we move forward in this debate, you will see that there are people on both sides of the aisle who question really whether we should be ruled by one person or whether the power should be separated. To me, this is not a partisan question. Some will try to make it a partisan question. To me, it makes no difference whether the President is Republican or Democrat. This is about the distribution of power. This is about the separation of power. This is about the admonition that Montesquieu gave us that when the Executive power and the legislative power are united in one person, there can be no liberty. Our Founding Fathers all believed that. They so feared the power of taxation that they gave it only to Congress.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“We used to abide by the ancient principle of ``no taxation without representation.'' One of the first acts enacted into the law was the Tariff Act of 1789, which sought to generate revenue by placing a 5-percent tax on all imported goods and was signed into law, after passage by Congress, by George Washington. Alexander Hamilton's ``Report on Manufacturers'' is well known. According to Professor Douglas Irwin of Dartmouth College, every tariff recommendation put forth in the report was adopted by Congress in 1792. But simply voting on tariffs does not convert them into a good idea. It could make them constitutional. It could make this legal if Congress voted on it. It would still be economically a bad idea.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗

← Back to the terminal Search YouSaid for Paul →