Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
And hello again from fox and is in Washington well there's no doubt about it Rand Paul is on a roll.
His thirteen hours senate filibuster on the president's -- policy.
Has spurred new interest in who -- is and what he stands for.
So where does he see all this going senator Paul joins us now from Bowling Green, Kentucky and senator welcome back to FOX News Sunday.
Good morning Chris.
Ever since here filibuster.
Earlier this month you're standing in the Republican Party has certainly shot up as we mentioned you won the C -- straw poll.
You've made a major speech on immigration reform this week and you're gonna have line.
An Iowa State Republican dinner in May.
What do you think why do you think that you are suddenly such a hot property in the Republican Party.
You know I think people hungry for someone -- stand up on principle.
It is standing up on the right to trial by jury is something that really a lot of people should agree with you know both on the right and the left.
And even some on the left were disappointed in the president by not being firm and clear that everybody has a right to trial by jury that we would never -- someone in America.
It was disappointing to many that he would not answer the question and it was like pulling teeth into thirteen hours of filibuster free and finally just say no we won't kill non combatants in America.
So I think it was well worth it and it -- really serve to narrow presidential power which I think is important that there are limits.
We're gonna get to that -- the substance of the filibuster a little bit later but does all of this attention now doesn't it increase your interest and and your sense of the feasibility of running for president and 46 day.
Well you know I've always -- I want to be part of the national debate I think Republican Party needs to figure out how to be bigger.
And I think I do bring some ideas to that and soft talk with Republican National Committee.
The Republican National Committee chairmen about.
Things I think we need to do to be competitive on the West Coast to be competitive in New England in Illinois.
And I think some of those ideas are -- more libertarian Republican approach to things.
And I think that a lot of young people are attracted to that and our party could grow if we accept that something maybe a little different than a cookie cutter.
Conservatives that we put out in the past so that pressed my question does -- increase your interest in running for president sounds like the answer is yes.
Well I'm definitely being part of the debate I think the country is suffering right now a twelve million people out of work -- I wanna be part of the answers to it.
Whether not that actually is me specifically running for president I don't know that yet.
But I do know that I think the country suffering with significant unemployment stagnation.
There's still some question whether we're dipping into recession at this point so we do need something to the party needs something new to grow and -- be part of that.
I want to pick up on that because Republicans right now OCU.
And Florida senator Marco Rubio jockeying for position.
At C pac eight you talked about your various ideas -- we're gonna get into them in a moment for how to grow the party.
Senator rubio also talked about it let's take a look at what he had -- -- We don't need a new idea there is an idea the idea called America.
And it's still work.
Question is not enough.
America still works.
Well I don't think we need new principles I think the principles we have we need to be more explicitly -- And instead you know working around -- we want revenue -- revenue neutral tax reform.
I think we need to stand up and say we want to leave more money and economy we ought to reduce taxes that when Reagan did it.
We -- 7% growth in one year that's the kind of I think bold leadership we need but it's not a new principle we -- reinvent ourselves in that way.
But we do have to stand on principle in -- really stand for something people are motivated to go out and vote for him.
Well all right let's talk about some things -- -- about immigration because you came out -- your ideas for a comprehensive plan this week and since then your taking.
Fire from both the right and the laughed.
You call your -- plan for creating a legal status not citizenship -- a legal status.
For the eleven million folks who were already here illegal immigrants were already here but -- taking fire from the right.
Because you oppose the for employers to check whether there're workers are in fact legal or illegal why would -- oppose that.
-- not the main part of my plan the main part of my -- -- trust but verify that says we have to have border security conservatives have always wanted border security before we get immigration reform.
The amendment that I will -- to the bipartisan plan will ensure.
That there is border security and -- congress gets to vote on that border security every year in order for to go forward.
With regard to.
-- the country should do a background check on you to find out if you're a felon or there's a problem.
I also think that that.
Those who come in and get a work visa should be in a database.
And that when someone applies for welfare.
It should be mandatory that they look at that database to make sure -- not here and work -- so which means you're not eligible.
To vote and you're not eligible to get welfare so I'm not against any kind of checking.
I guess would prefer that government be the policeman and not the businessman it's kind of where it happens what happens.
The business men have a lot more expenses to do this or whether government should do it it is.
Let's talk about your idea which is very important to you that it should be congress.
According -- they did the gang -- -- plan.
It would be governor -- -- a commission they would decide whether or not the border is secure you want congress to get into this and there are some Republicans in -- -- you're setting up the GOP for a fall because.
It'll be a vote in congress will be very political.
A lot of Republicans will sable -- we're not satisfied -- border security.
And that'll only -- increased their sense of separation from Hispanic voters.
I would argue the opposite I would argue that your only gonna get the conservatives particularly a Republican House to pass immigration reform.
If we as conservatives are reassured that the borders controlled and that we get to vote on whether the borders controlled.
We have not believed in the past that are the prop.
True in 1986 when we normalized folks they said oh you'll get border security and a lot of us feel like it never happened that has soured the debate for twenty some odd years now.
So the only way you get this forward I think my trust but verify.
Actually will bring the house along no immigration reforms gonna happen in less Republicans in the house sign onto it.
And I don't think they'll sign onto it lets you get something like what I'm talking about and it would include governors as well would include Border Patrol investigator general.
And it would it have a matrix of things such as.
How many people are being captured how many people are felons are being turned away that kind of thing and then congress would vote on it.
The main reason I don't want the president just to stamp it.
Is I don't really trust any president Republican or Democrat to do -- good enough job to say the border is really secure every represented you get to vote on that.
You are as you mentioned a libertarian conservative -- in years C -- speech you embrace some of those principles let's take a look.
Our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom that new GOP.
We'll need to embrace liberty in both the economic.
And the personal sphere.
Let's talk about the personals fear because you would like to relax some of the laws.
Four people who those asset -- smoking.
-- marijuana and you also win the senate have voted again just in fact a ban on.
-- rather against a ban on.
Synthetic recreational drugs why are you more lenient on drug laws there.
The main thing -- -- is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended period of times -- working with senator Leahy we have a bill on mandatory minimums.
There are people in jail for 371545.
For nonviolent crimes -- that's a huge mistake our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals.
I don't want to encourage people to do -- I think even marijuana as a bad thing to do I think it takes away your incentive to work and show up and do the things that you should be doing I don't think it's a good idea.
I don't wanna promote that but I also don't wanna put people in jail -- make a mistake -- a lot of young people who do this.
And then later on in their twenties they grow up and get married -- quit doing things like this I don't wanna put them in jail and ruin their lives look.
The last two president's could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use.
And I really think you know look what would have happened it would have -- their lives they got lucky.
But a lot of poor kids particularly in inner city don't get lucky they don't have good attorneys and they go to jail for these things and I think it's a big mistake.
Actually I think it would be the last retract that but residents but who's counting.
Let me ask you about a different issue you're gonna get yes it.
That's a great while he didn't inhale the Supreme Court will hear arguments on same sex marriage this week you say the federal government.
Should stay out of this issue and leave it as it is traditionally been -- the states.
Should the court therefore -- strike down the defense of marriage act which is one of the cases it's going to be hearing this.
This week which bans federal benefits for same sex couples who were legally married in their state would you strike down.
Not as federal interference and -- -- matter.
You know I think it's a really complicated issue I've always said that the states have the right to decide -- do you believe in traditional marriage Kentucky's decided it.
And I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise there -- states that have decided in the opposite fashion.
And -- -- the federal government should tell anybody or any got state government how I should decide this marriage has been a state issue for hundreds and hundreds of years.
-- complicated though because Obama does provide protection for the states from the federal government but then you're right part of it -- -- the issue.
I think there's a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it.
If they do I think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of our laws more neutral towards the issue.
And I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe -- but I also don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue.
You know the tax code out for a flat income tax we wouldn't have marriage as part of attacks good.
Health insurance I think there's way to -- it where it would be neutral and you wouldn't you wouldn't bring marriage -- to the whole idea of health insurance.
I want to go back to your filibuster in which you argued against the president's -- policy especially with regard to.
Targeting of American citizens on American soil after you would filibuster for thirteen hours.
You've got this letter from attorney general holder in which -- route.
Does the president have the authority to use a -- -- round to kill an American.
Not engaged in combat on American soil the answer to dot.
Is no senator Paul after your filibuster you -- you were very happy what that letter.
-- in fact doesn't it leave a huge -- Paul because it seems to me what's -- attorney general holder resign.
Just by implication or is that the president does have the authority.
To use a drone strike on an American on on US soil who is involved in -- Well and see here's the thing is is I've never argued against it people are attacking the Twin Towers with planes.
In imminent threat or an active ongoing threat I've never argued you wouldn't use drones are planes or F sixteens to repel that kind of attack.
The problem is is that a lot of our drone attacks are targeted killing overseas are killing people not actively engaged in combat and that's another debate.
But that kind of standard can't be used here if you're accused of being -- associated with terrorism which could mean -- an Arab American and you've sent emails relative in the Middle East.
Usually get your day in court and I think -- you get a lawyer and a trial and I think most Americans agree to that.
Is the did the president completely slam the door on not using ground.
Now I think there's some wiggle room in there but we did force them to at least narrow what his power is -- -- Michael.
Senator Paula as I was -- up for this interview and hearing you today I'm having.
Some difficulty figuring out exactly where you are on the political spectrum because in some senses -- to the left.
-- Barack Obama when it comes to drones on the other hand -- to the right.
Of congressman Paul Ryan whose budget you opposed voted against this weekend in the senate.
Because you say that it doesn't cut the budget balance the budget fast enough.
Do you think there's room for 88.
Realistic and feasible presidential candidate who's to the left of Obama on some issues and to the right -- Paul Ryan on other issues.
I think we have a confusing -- on this left right spectrum doesn't always work for people.
But I think because of some of that confusion it shows that someone like myself I think could appeal to young people independents and moderates because many of them.
Do think it's a mistake put people in jail for marijuana use and throw away the key.
So I think there are people who would like a less aggressive foreign policy.
They're all kinds of issues that don't neatly fit in the left right paradigm.
That I think would help because we're not doing very well in a lot of these states -- purple and Blue States so we do need a candidate that would appeal across the left right paradigm.
Just break -- we got about thirty seconds left out.
I mean your budget which would balance that the budget your plan would balance the budget in five years.
Paul Ryan's which has come under attack for balancing it.
In ten years you've introduced it three consecutive years in the senate the most votes he ever got was this weekend when you've got eighteen.
Of -- hundred senators and it is not out of the mainstream.
But the thing is is I think the legislatures about ten years behind the public for example -- introduced amendments to quit sending money.
To Egypt and build bridges here in the United States instead of in Egypt.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Senator -- -- -- have to leave it there thank you so much for joining us and it's always been the topic is there.
Filter by section