Rand Paul presidential campaign, 2016/filibuster (2015)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Rand Paul suspended his presidential run on February 3, 2016.[1]



BP-Initials-UPDATED.png Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. It may also contain neutrality issues.



Rand-Paul-circle.png

Former Presidential candidate
Rand Paul

Political offices:
U.S. Senator
(Assumed office: 2011)

Paul on the issues:
TaxesBanking policyGovernment regulationsInternational tradeBudgetsAgricultural subsidiesFederal assistance programsForeign affairsFederalismPatriot ActNatural resourcesHealthcareImmigrationEducationAbortionGay rights

Republican Party Republican candidate:
Donald Trump
Ballotpedia's presidential election coverage
2028202420202016


This page was current as of the 2016 election.

Senator Rand Paul (Ky.), a 2016 Republican presidential candidate, took to the Senate floor on May 20, 2015, at 1:18 p.m. to begin what he called a filibuster of the renewal of provisions in the USA PATRIOT ACT. Paul specifically argued against the mass collection of metadata by the National Security Agency and warrantless wiretapping. During the nearly 11 hour speech, Paul asked Senate leadership to allow members of Congress to debate reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT ACT and propose amendments to HR 2048 - the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, rather than simply casting an up or down vote on the legislation. Seven Democrats and three Republicans joined Paul.

While there was some debate about whether Paul's speech counted as a filibuster, his long debate on the Senate floor caused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to move the vote on the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 to Saturday, May 23.[2] According to Senate.gov, a filibuster is an "informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions."[3] Using this definition, Paul effectively delayed a Senate vote, and thus his speech counts as a filibuster.

Highlights from the Senate floor

  • Timeline is in Eastern Standard Time.

Republican Party 11:49 p.m.: Paul relinquishes the Senate floor.

Republican Party 11:46 p.m.: Paul argues that the Senate should debate the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT ACT.

Republican Party 11:44 p.m.: Paul begins to summarize his argument and says that the Bill of Rights needs to be protected.

Republican Party 11:42 p.m.: Cruz discusses tips for a successful filibuster, including wearing comfortable shoes and not drinking too much water, before turning the floor back to Paul.

Republican Party 11:37 p.m.: Cruz argues that members of the Senate should debate the renewal of provisions in the USA PATRIOT ACT.

Republican Party 11:28 p.m.: Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) takes the Senate floor.

Republican Party 11:18 p.m.: Paul responds by further discussing recent congressional actions on the issue.

Republican Party 10:43 p.m.: Sen. Mike Lee (Utah) returns to the floor to discuss the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. He also discusses recent efforts in Congress to curb data collection.

Democratic PartyRepublican Party 10:24 p.m.: Wyden and Paul discuss the methods and amount of bulk data retention and whether or not citizens have a right to question the practices. The pair then returns to previous court precedent.

Republican Party 10:20 p.m.: Paul responds by reiterating challenges in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Democratic Party 10:14 p.m.: Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.) returns to question Paul as to why bulk data retention has bad implications.

Republican Party 10:05 p.m.: Paul continues to discuss the relationship between private enterprise and surveillance.

Republican Party 10:05 p.m.: Paul discusses how bulk surveillance data is used by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Republican Party 9:53 p.m.: Paul responds that Blumenthal's points about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court are correct, that Americans need to be able to trust the court and that bulk surveillance of data should end.

Democratic Party 9:52 p.m.: Blumenthal asks Paul, "are not open, adversarial courts essential to the trust and confidence of the American people?"

Democratic Party 9:47 p.m.: Blumenthal argues that the U.S. needs a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can be trusted.

Democratic Party 9:39 p.m.: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) takes the Senate floor. He is the seventh Democrat to ask Paul a question.

Republican Party 9:28 p.m.: Paul argues that because two-thirds of Americans think the bulk collection of data has gone too far, Congress owes the people a robust discussion about whether the USA PATRIOT ACT should be extended, rather than a simple up or down vote.

Republican Party 9:21 p.m.: Paul discusses the amount of information that can be gathered about an individual with the collection of metadata.

Republican Party 9:15 p.m.: Paul again argues that the Constitution should be used to issue warrants and notes that the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rarely turns down a request for a warrant.

Republican Party 9:12 p.m.: Paul, once again, expresses his concern that the USA FREEDOM Act will not improve upon the problems of the USA PATRIOT ACT because it does not eliminate the bulk collection of data.

Republican Party 9:00 p.m.: Paul cites multiple studies arguing that the NSA's mass data collection program is harming U.S. businesses.

Democratic PartyRepublican Party 8:55 p.m.: Wyden joins Cantwell and Paul's discussion about a proposed data collection amendment.

Republican PartyDemocratic Party 8:51 p.m.: Paul and Cantwell discuss the encryption of data.

Democratic Party 8:49 p.m.: Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.) takes the Senate floor.

Republican Party 8:30 p.m.: Paul argues that bulk data collection should end altogether. He also argues that the courts may do a better job of deciding how bulk collection should be handled, rather than passing the USA FREEDOM Act to address the issue.

Republican Party 8:21 p.m.: Citing an ACLU report, Paul argues that the USA FREEDOM Act would not fix the problems in the USA PATRIOT ACT and that the bulk collection of data would continue.

Republican Party 8:16 p.m.: Paul cites studies arguing that the bulk collection of data does not keep Americans safer and that the practice is expensive.

Republican Party 8:06 p.m.: Paul discusses the weaknesses of the USA FREEDOM Act.

Republican Party 7:57 p.m.: Paul argues that the senators who have spoken today all agree that The Bill of Rights should be protected.

Republican Party 7:57 p.m.: Paul asks how a country can have warrantless wiretapping and still call itself a constitutional republic.

Republican Party 7:48 p.m.: Paul discusses the president's power to order warrantless wiretapping without the approval of Congress.

Republican Party 7:40 p.m.: Paul warns that the collapse of the separation of powers is diminishing Americans' freedoms and that government should be kept small.

Republican Party 7:30 p.m.: Paul discusses warrants, probable cause and executive overreach.

Republican Party 7:24 p.m.: Paul asks leadership to allow for amendments to the USA PATRIOT ACT.

Republican Party 7:10 p.m.: Paul discusses executive orders and executive branch overreach.

Republican Party 7:01 p.m.: Paul discusses polls showing that Americans believe the USA PATRIOT ACT goes too far and violates their right to privacy.

Republican Party 6:58 p.m.: Paul argues that President Barack Obama could end the bulk collection of data by executive order immediately.

Republican Party 6:55 p.m.: Paul argues that the bulk collection of data is about the executive branch doing what they want, rather than protecting Americans.

Republican Party 6:51 p.m.: Paul thanks Tester and notes the bipartisan support for protecting the privacy of Americans.

Democratic Party 6:48 p.m.: Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.) takes the Senate floor to express his opposition to the USA PATRIOT ACT. Both senators from Montana have now spoken.

Republican Party 6:44 p.m.: Paul, once again, expresses his concern with the language of the USA FREEDOM Act. He would like the act to differentiate between a general warrant and a specific warrant. He asks for leadership to agree to debating amendments to the act.

Democratic Party 6:40 p.m.: Sen. Christopher Coons (Del.) takes the Senate floor and urges Paul to support the USA FREEDOM Act.

Republican Party 6:23 p.m.: Paul discusses a report about the ineffectiveness of the USA PATRIOT ACT.

Democratic Party 6:22 p.m.: Manchin thanks Paul and leaves the Senate floor.

Republican PartyDemocratic Party 6:12 p.m. - 6:22 p.m.: Paul and Manchin engage in a discussion about the language of the USA FREEDOM Act. They also discuss the granting of warrants by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, with a focus on bulk collection warrants versus targeted warrants.

Republican Party 6:11 p.m.: Paul responds to Manchin's question, explaining that he does not like the wording in the bill. Specifically, Paul does not like that the bill uses the word "person" instead of "individual." Paul is concerned that the government could simply replace "person" with "Verizon" and continue bulk data collection and surveillance.

Democratic Party 6:04 p.m.: Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) takes the Senate floor, advocates for passing the USA FREEDOM Act and asks Paul what he does not like about the bill.

Republican Party 6:02 p.m.: Paul responds to Daines' question, stating that the government's collection of data is not constitutional.

Republican Party 5:49 p.m.: Sen. Steve Daines (Mont.) takes the Senate floor to speak against the NSA's bulk collection of metadata and argues that Congress should pass HR 2048 - the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015.

Republican Party 5:45 p.m.: Paul discusses Edward Snowden and proposes an amendment to protect whistleblowers.

Republican Party 5:37 p.m.: Paul argues that the government should rely on the Constitution and use warrants to combat terrorism, rather than the bulk collection of data.

Republican Party 5:32 p.m.: Paul discusses the failures of the "war on drugs," including racial bias, and how the USA PATRIOT ACT has been used to put drug dealers in prison, the majority of whom are minorities.

Republican Party 5:24 p.m.: Paul begins discussing amendments he and Wyden have proposed to end government surveillance of innocent citizens.

Republican Party 5:13 p.m.: Paul discusses the Fourth Amendment and argues that Americans can have privacy and security. He also warns that those who give up liberty in exchange for security may have neither.

Democratic Party 5:10 p.m.: Heinrich reads the Fourth Amendment.

Republican Party 5:08 p.m.: Paul responds to Heinrich's question regarding the Fourth Amendment and collection of data.

Democratic Party 4:59 p.m.: Sen. Martin Heinrich (Nev.) takes the Senate floor to speak about ending the bulk collection of metadata.

Republican Party 4:54 p.m.: Paul responds to Lee's questions.

Republican Party 4:25 p.m.: Sen. Mike Lee (Utah) takes the Senate floor to support Paul's position on government surveillance.

Democratic Party 3:45 p.m.: Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.) asks questions in support of Paul's position on the USA PATRIOT ACT.

Republican Party 1:18 p.m.: Paul begins speaking on the Senate floor.

Paul's intent to filibuster

Before taking the Senate floor, Paul sent the following tweet announcing his intent to filibuster:

Rand Paul's tweet from May 20, 2015

Paul said, "I will not let the Patriot Act, the most unpatriotic of acts, go unchallenged. The bulk collection of all Americans phone records all of the time is a direct violation of the fourth amendment."[4]

According to Time, "Shortly after the speech began, the Paul campaign emailed supporters to say that he would 'not yield one inch in this fight so long as my legs can stand.'"[5] At 11:49 p.m., Paul relinquished control of the Senate floor. The filibuster fell short of his previous one of 12 hours and 52 minutes, which was the ninth-longest in Senate history.[6]

On March 6, 2013, Paul led a filibuster of President Barack Obama's former CIA director nominee, John Brennan, in order to highlight his concerns about the administration's drone policies. In particular, Paul said he was concerned about whether a drone could be used to kill an American citizen on U.S. soil without due process.[7][8]

See also

External links

Footnotes