Rand Paul
Senator for Kentucky · Republican · United States
“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 3 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.
“Under this doctrine, the Supreme Court will reject claims of Executive authority on issues of vast economic and political significance. It is hard to imagine that a 25-percent tax on everything from Canada would not be considered to be of vast economic significance. Congress has not clearly empowered this administration. I think it is hard to even argue that it is ambiguous. The power was never granted. This question is ripe, and this power is ripe to be rejected by the Supreme Court. Hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of imports from Canada are at issue here. Clearly, this is a major economic question. Yet Congress has not expressly delegated the authority to impose tariffs to the President. We need to return to constitutional government.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“It was 1994 in the House and in the eighties in the Senate. They went 50, 60 years into the desert because tariffs were such a turmoil to the country that the country rejected Republicans for nearly half a century. The emergency declaration we are considering today is unprecedented. By declaring an emergency, the President invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. They call it IEEPA, but it is an acronym. Don't get me started about government acronyms. It is a law that has been used to put sanctions on, like, Iran. That is what it was intended for. But it was never intended for tariffs and ``tariffs'' doesn't appear in the law. Using this bill to impose tariffs is attractive to a President. He doesn't have to work with the messiness of democracy, the messiness of Congress. But do you know what?”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“Once again, the ruling party lost seats. When is the last time this happened in dramatic fashion? Well, if you study history and you want to know when the Republicans went to their lowest ebb in the entire history of our country, it came after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in the early 1930s. Hoover was President, a Republican. Republicans controlled Congress. They passed this dramatic tariff, which most historians and most economists now say prolonged the Depression for 10 years and caused the worst part of the Depression to actually be in 1937--7 years after the tariff and nearly 8 years after the stock market crash. Do you know what happened to the Republicans in 1932? The Democrats won the Presidency, and they won the House. Do you know when Republicans got back in charge after 1932?”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“The tariffs on Canadian imports, the tariffs on Mexican imports, the tariffs on European imports--the chaos it creates in the marketplace makes it difficult to plan for businesses. The interesting thing also about the tariffs is--some have said: Well, you know, the people will see that we are standing up for them with tariffs and we are for America first. Yet, when we put tariffs on historically, it has been Republicans. In 1890, McKinley put tariffs on. He was all for it. So there were people lauding McKinley. In 1890, the big McKinley tariff goes on. Do you know what happened in 1892? Out of 170 Republicans, they lost 100 seats because prices went up with tariffs. Has this ever happened before? Yes. It happened in the 1840s when they put on the ``Tariff of Abominations'' under John Quincy Adams. He signed it.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“It is being used to place a tax on the American people. But already we have seen a response from Canada. In response to the threat of tariffs, Canada announced a $1.3 billion plan dedicated to border security, to up border security on fentanyl. Yet the tariffs are still coming despite their help. They have also announced more tariffs as well. The threat of tariffs seems to have worked. We need not make Canada and America go through this when they have already responded to our request. The chaos of one day the tariffs are on, one day they are off, the next day there is a loophole for this industry or that industry, is chaotic and is leading to turmoil in our markets. A week ago, when the thought of tariffs came forward, the markets plunged to historically low levels.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“The former and never-were conservatives who try to sell tariffs as anything other than a tax cannot fool the American people, who know that their purchasing power will be weakened with every new protectionist measure unilaterally imposed by the White House. None of these tax hikes are necessary. The populists argue that the threat of tariffs is needed to force Canada to stop the flow of illicit drugs. In fact, one of the social media posts today said there was going to be a tariff on fentanyl. Really? You think the drug dealers are going to pay a tariff on fentanyl? Fentanyl is not being tariffed. That is some kind of mistaken notion. This isn't going to happen. As I have stated, there is more fentanyl going from the United States into Canada than there is coming from Canada to the United States. It is not a real emergency.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“If we make it more expensive to import lumber from Canada and steel from Canada, the price of your house goes up. Look, people already can't buy a house because interest rates are so high. Young people are living in apartments. More and more, people feel stuck in their life, and we are going to add to the price of lumber and steel to make homes even harder to purchase? It is a terrible idea. Washing machines were already almost $100 more expensive as a result of the original tariffs 4 years ago. Here is really bad news: Even beer will become more expensive. A professor at Northeastern University states that a six-pack of Corona could go up by 45 cents, but a small craft beer could be increased by as much as $1 a pint.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“If you think the cost of eggs is high, just wait until the tariff hits. Tariffs will raise the price of a car between $5,000 and $15,000. Despite arguments to the contrary, Americans know that tariffs are a tax they will have to pay. That is why vehicle sales jumped almost 13 percent last month--because people are trying to buy their cars before the tariff gets on their car and raises the price. People are smarter than politicians. That is nothing new. It is not just cars that will be more expensive as a result of tariffs; energy will be more expensive. Gas prices in some parts of the country could see a 15- to 30-cent per-gallon increase in price. According to the National Association of Home Builders, the building of a single-family home could become up to $10,000 more expensive. Why? Because we import lumber. We import steel.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“We have seen this one. We have seen this story. What our parents told us when we were kids is still true today: Actions speak louder than words. The supporters of tariffs know that their policies impose suffering, and they are willing to spend your money to alleviate that harm. So they know tariffs are going to hurt farm exports. So they are going to take your money and give it to the farmers. Well, what kind of policy acknowledges: Hey, I have got a terrible policy. I am going to hurt these people. We will just give them some of your money. It makes no sense at all. In addition to the previous costs, the Peterson Institute estimates that tariffs will cost the average family $1,200 a year. The Budget Lab at Yale University estimates that tariffs will cost the average family $4,200 a year.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“If it is a voluntary trade, everyone benefits or the trade doesn't occur. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that the United States and Canada share the world's longest international land border and are continuously at peace. Canada is a great customer of ours. In fact, Canada buys more American goods than China, Japan, England, and France combined. So do we want the Canadians to buy less of our stuff or more of our stuff? It is a crazy notion to put a 25-percent tariff on this enormous amount of goods. There are predictions that cars are going to cost $10,000 more because the cars go in and out. We have cars made in Kentucky, but some of the parts go to Mexico. Some of the cars go to Mexico. Some go to Canada. They come back--a $10,000 increase. Do you love the idea of tariffs? Is it such a great word to pay $10,000 more for a car?”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“And so when people say: Oh, we have lost, and China is winning, and China is winning, and we have a trade deficit with China--America doesn't trade with China. An individual buys a product. You are the trader. When you go to Walmart and you buy something at Walmart, and you say, ``My goodness, I can get this TV for $200 less than I can get it if there were only domestic TVs,'' you are the contractor. The U.S. Government didn't buy the TV; you bought the TV, and you did it because you saved $200. You are now $200 richer and can go somewhere. You can buy gas to go on a trip somewhere. If trade were bad, you wouldn't buy the TV. You made the decision; the government didn't. Our government doesn't trade with their government. Our individuals buy products from their individuals.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“If you look at a chart or a graph of world trade over the last 70 years, it has gone like this. We have been trading more with each other. If you look at a world map of prosperity, it is the same curve. It is a hockey stick. It is going up exponentially. If you look at a curve of poverty, 100,000 people are escaping poverty every day around the world, and it is because of international trade. Trade is good, not bad. Think about it. If you buy something, you are trading. If you go to the store and you buy a smartphone, and you give them $1,000, you want that smartphone, and you don't lose. It doesn't matter where the money went; you got your smartphone. You only give money to somebody for something if you want it. If it is a voluntary trade, it is always equal. Well, it is, actually, always mutually beneficial.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“To those who still call themselves conservatives but now support tariffs, let me remind them that Milton Friedman said tariffs ``raise prices to consumers and waste our resources.'' To those who still have a fond memory of Ronald Reagan on my side, Ronald Reagan said: Protectionism costs consumers billions of dollars, damages the overall economy, and destroys jobs. Ronald Reagan's vision for America can be seen in our trading relationships with Canada. In 1986, President Reagan said: Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets. . . . I . . . recognize the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for human progress and peace among nations. And it is absolutely true.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“When we tax imports, we raise the price of everything from groceries to smartphones, to washing machines, to prescription drugs. Every dollar collected in tariff revenue comes straight out of the pockets of American consumers. Conservatives used to understand that tariffs are taxes on the American people. Conservatives used to be uniformly opposed to raising taxes because we wanted the private marketplace, the private individuals to keep more of their incomes. So we were always for lower taxes. And yet now the mantra that is coming is: We want higher taxes. What happened? Did we, all of a sudden, give up all of the things we used to believe in as conservatives? I, for one, haven't. I still think more taxes is bad for the economy. More money taken out of the productive sector, the private sector, given to the government is a mistake.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“But the thing is, the Constitution doesn't let us give our power away. There is something called the nondelegation clause, and it says that we are not allowed to give power away. We can't just say: Here, Mr. President, take it. In this particular case, it is even worse. The rule of law--IEEPA is the acronym for it--has never been used for tariffs before and doesn't mention the word tariff. So this isn't something that was targeted in times of need: The President can have the power to put on tariffs. It never says that. This will be an extraordinary use of something never intended to be a way to have--unilateral--one single person invoke a tax on the people. With regard to tariffs, let's be very clear. Tariffs are simply taxes. Tariffs don't punish foreign governments. They punish American families.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“I would want to live in a constitutional republic where there are checks and balances against the excesses of both sides, right or left. If one person rules, that person could make a horrible mistake. On things so important as war, it is the same thing. We don't want a President just to go to war because a President might get angry with some country or have a vendetta. We are supposed to vote. That is why there is a declaration of war. War originates also in Congress. But we have lost so many of these things and so much of this. It is Congress's fault for giving it. Over the last 70 years, there are probably a dozen pieces of legislation where Congress said to the President: Here, take this power. Create emergencies. Put on tariffs. Negotiate for us because we are too feeble-minded to do it ourselves.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“Part of the problem we face today with this emergency, though, is that Congress has abdicated their power--not just recently, not just for this President. This is a bipartisan problem. I am a Republican. I am a supporter of Donald Trump. But this is a bipartisan problem. I don't care if the President is a Republican or a Democrat. I don't want to live under emergency rule. I don't want to live where my representatives cannot speak for me and have a check and balance on power. One person can make a mistake. And guess what: Tariffs are a terrible mistake. They don't work. They will lead to higher prices. They are a tax, and they have historically been bad for our economy. But even if this were something that was magic, and there was going to be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, I wouldn't want to live under emergency rule.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“But even if we were successful in the House, the President would veto it. It would take a two-thirds vote in order to stop an emergency. That is such a burden that we need to consider reforming the emergency powers and reversing this. I think a President can have times that there are emergencies and the President can declare an emergency. But it should last 30 day, at most. At the end of 30 days, the emergency would be brought to the people's House--the House of Representatives and the Senate--and we would vote to affirm or uphold the emergency. Right now, the pretense of this emergency is fentanyl. I don't discount fentanyl. I know families who have lost kids to fentanyl. But there is more fentanyl going from the United States into Canada than there is from Canada going into the United States. There is no emergency.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“You can't simply declare an emergency and say: Well, the constitutional Republic was great, but, gosh, we have got an emergency. The times are dire. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said: There are no exemptions for emergency. There was no exemption for a pandemic. There was no exemption for emergencies. The taxation clause stands. It is an important part of the Constitution: Taxes must originate in the House. They must be voted on in Congress. No one man can raise taxes on the people. They are set to do this through a process in which an emergency has been declared. But realize this: One person declares an emergency, the President. And even if we are successful, which I think we will be successful here today--a majority will vote to say: This is wrong- headed, and the emergency should end. It would have to go to the House.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“Montesquieu wrote that when the legislative and executive powers are united in one, there can be no liberty. This is something that our Founding Fathers took to heart. They said: We must separate the powers. We must, at all cost, limit the power of the Presidency. This isn't about political party. I voted for and supported President Trump, but I don't support the rule of one person. We are set--the President is set--to have a 25-percent tax on goods coming from Canada and Mexico. This is a tax--plain and simple--on the American people. But one person can't do that. Our Founding Fathers said: No, that would be illegal for one person to raise taxes. It has to come to Congress. It has to originate in the House. This has gone on for 200- and-some-odd years.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“One person is not allowed to raise taxes. The Constitution forbids it. The Constitution was so concerned with the power of taxes--which some have said the power of taxes is the power to destroy--but our Founding Fathers were so concerned with this, that they said: No, the President will not have the power to legislate. The President will not have the power to tax. Only Congress will be able to tax the people and only by originating tax bills in the House. It was that specific. They were so mortified. They were so worried by having a monarchy. They were so worried about having all the power gravitate to the Executive, that they said: We must split the power. They based a lot of their thinking on Montesquieu. Montesquieu wrote in the 1740s--40, 50 years before our Constitution.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“Even at that time they were chafing at one man, the King, determining the taxes for the land. One hundred years before our Revolutionary War, in the English Civil War, there was a debate over parliamentary supremacy versus supremacy of the King. They did not want to pay taxes that weren't approved by the Parliament. In 1683, the New York Charter on Liberties, the beginning charter for the colony of New York stated: No taxation without representation. And after this English Civil War, the English Bill of Rights embodied: No taxation without the consent of Parliament. This principle was longstanding. It was nonnegotiable. This was what sparked the Revolution. And, yet, today we are here before the Senate because one person in our country wishes to raise taxes. Well, this is contrary to everything our country was founded upon.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“``Taxation without representation is tyranny,'' bellowed James Otis in the days and weeks and years leading up to the American Revolution. This became the rallying cry of American patriots: No taxation without representation. The American Patriots thought that a distant Parliament in England where they had no representation had no right to tax them. This was the rallying cry: ``No taxation without representation.'' Our Founding Fathers believed so strongly in this, they embodied it in our Constitution. Our Constitution doesn't allow any one man or woman to raise taxes. It must be the body of Congress. Now, this wasn't new. This was part of maybe a thousand-year tradition from Magna Carta on. In Magna Carta, it is stated: No taxation without the common counsel of the realm.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“I ask for the yeas and nays.”
Senate14 March 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I compliment President Trump and DOGE for exposing waste and abuse in foreign aid spending. It boggles the mind to think that some in Congress defend spending $2 million on sex changes in Guatemala, thousands on an LGBT opera in Colombia, and thousands on a trans comic book in Peru. This is the low-hanging fruit. If Congress can't vote to cut this egregious, crazy, leftwing lunacy, will Congress ever have the courage to tackle entitlements? Yet there does remain a significant constitutional question as to whether these cuts need a congressional vote to give them permanence. Today, with my amendment, Congress can make these foreign aid cuts the law.”
Senate14 March 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1266 and ask that it be reported by number.”
Senate14 March 2025Source ↗
“I suggest the absence of a quorum.”
Senate14 March 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 27, 2025, a majority of the members of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Disaster Management, District of Columbia, and Census adopted subcommittee rules of procedure.”
Senate27 February 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 27, 2025, a majority of the members of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Border Management, Federal Workforce, and Regulatory Affairs adopted subcommittee rules of procedure.”
Senate27 February 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 20, 2025, a majority of the members of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations adopted subcommittee rules of procedure.”
Senate24 February 2025Source ↗
“This is an amendment that says it is OK to do trans operas in Colombia. This is an amendment that attacks people who are looking to save our money and spend it on legitimate diplomacy, not crazy, looney, leftwing ideas. And I am done.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“I ask for the yeas and nays.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“I call up my amendment No. 999 and ask that it be reported by number.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“I will oppose this budget because I want to have nothing to do with a $2.2 trillion deficit. At the end of the year, those who vote for this budget and those who vote for the new spending will have to explain to people at home: How about that $2.2 trillion deficit? How did that happen under a Republican watch? Until someone is brave enough to say no, it is going to go on and on, and there is a danger that if we don't stop it, we are going to destroy the country. So I will offer an amendment later on to cut spending, to actually put teeth into this budget resolution, to cut real spending, to balance our budget, and to do and complete the promises that the President had in the campaign. I yield the floor.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗