Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- be just 24 hours away from a vote on the sweeping 12100 page bill that would reform the nation's immigration policies.
A bill that a number of senators admit they have not even bother to read.
While the last 72 hours we're seeing some eye opening items in this bill that you may not be aware of including one point five billion dollars of viewers.
On a temporary jobs program for low income -- Financial aid for Alaska seafood.
And 100 million dollars to promote the US is a travel destination oh and the list goes on.
Joining me now Republican senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
-- such -- that and there's also a measure that would make it easier for resorts to hire foreign ski and snowboard instructors because this is what is first and foremost on the minds of the American people.
The US senate is on it your thoughts.
-- -- you apparently haven't been listening didn't you hear Nancy Pelosi she says that you can find out about these things after we pass them.
You can read about a map we pass and that is in an insult to American taxpayers that we rushed through so rapidly that nobody can really tell for certain what's in a bill.
We've also discovered in the bill as we're still working our way to it that there's going to be an incentive to hire.
Workers as opposed to American citizens.
Because you won't have to pay him for obamacare they don't get obamacare so it's gonna be cheaper to hired undocumented worker.
Then it is going to be -- an American citizen that's going to be the law.
The one point five billion earmarked for some youth program -- jobs program is equal to what we're gonna spend on the fence but.
The new amendment also has a veto powers of the president can veto defense if he thinks the border secure which apparently the president already thinks the borders secure.
So there's a lot of problems in this -- Still a lot of controversial items and living in you as you tick them off that becomes apparent.
And so the question I have for you senator is why the fire -- why does this have to get done before the July 4 resources every.
Recess in Harry Reid's view and wise it's so imperative that we have this vote now tomorrow before people have even had a chance to read it.
And also why -- it's.
To hurry that we can't have amendments to the bill.
I have an amendment to guarantee that if you are an undocumented worker that you don't get welfare that the states have to check to see if Europe.
-- documented or undocumented worker before you apply for welfare when you apply for welfare.
I have a similar amendment for voting that says that if you want to vote you have to have proof of citizenship.
And they need to check if they can't just have you checked a box.
So these would be safeguards to make sure of the vote is safe and that welfare is safe from giving it to undocumented workers neither one of those amendments will get a vote in -- likely it.
It's gonna pass they say it's gonna pass with flying colors in the senate they're predicting 68 may be more votes on and they say that's gonna give -- the momentum it needs to pass in the house -- -- just.
Well I thought I would disagree in the house I think is dead on arrival in the house I think the house is closer to the position where I am in this is where a lot of conservatives are.
I'm for immigration reform but border security should be first and immigration reform should be dependent upon proving border security.
If that happens I'm all for it and I can be for a lot that's in the bill -- you have to prove to -- that you can and will secure the border.
Before we for -- progress on with the immigration reform.
Let me switch -- -- you ask -- about the NSA -- story because we set out earlier and said -- out we're very unhappy with you because we told you not to release and you did it.
Now Russia you better not and you better not do the same thing you better be releasing anybody we -- to extradite -- back to the United States and Russia came out yesterday mr.
But then today the United States dialed back its rhetoric and sort of started say instead of making scary threats about what we're gonna do do you Russia.
If you if you don't extradite him back to the United States were kind of saying.
Please would you -- pretty please just do it please your thoughts on it.
You know I think there's a very important issue above and beyond the leaker and that's about privacy and I've made several comments.
That I think it is important we have an expectation of privacy.
And that our government not be able to Willy -- look through billions of phone calls every day and I think the court needs to take this up and I'm challenging it in court.
How the leaker will be judged I think still yet to be determined.
I've advised that history will treat him better if he doesn't appear to because -- up.
To -- countries that appear or at least many believed to be our enemies.
And so I think it is important what happens and I think of these divulging information of foreign governments.
It's not -- is she's not gonna treat him well but this -- -- a different question about you know our relations with Russia and our tactics and in handling this matter.
And I don't think we have any power we don't have an extradition treaty and I think our relations aren't good enough.
That either China or Russia will there's a lot of back and forth over who's attacking room.
And what countries are hacking into another country's computers and my guess is that there's a little bit hacking going on on all sides.
And I think that makes people less likely to turn over someone who's divulging our may have divulged information.
That has to do it one country hacking into another country's computers.
Let me ask you about the gay marriage rulings of this morning at a US Supreme Court because I know you went on Glenn Beck's show this morning radio show and you made a comment that you you're gonna -- some flack for which was he was say he was saying.
This is gonna lead to you know the legalization of polygamy potentially another you know situations and you came out and said.
And I quote I think this is a conundrum if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further does it have to be humans.
You want to comment on that senator.
Well I think my point that I was trying to make -- his state government has been involved in marriage for a law in it's -- at the state level.
And I think if we leave it at the state level there will be room to disagree.
But you try to be within certain parameters like I said I don't think you will be with multiple humans and I think it will be human and human.
And so I didn't mean that to mean anything other than that I think -- The government will still probably be involved in in defining marriage to certain aspect I don't think we're going on towards polygamy are things beyond that.
But I do think that our country is divided on the issue and that in some ways the Supreme Court decision.
Is try going to allow us to agree to disagree some states like New York may go forward with a gay marriage and have some states in the south probably won't.
And and not even in -- Buford foreseeable future so I think we can agree to disagree and -- how our founding fathers talked about when they talked about federalism.
That each state would sort of be an incubator of its own ideas would be given the freedom to have disparate loss to a certain degree.
And your thoughts yesterday on the decision from the US supreme court of the voting rights act suggesting her stating.
That where we're past the point now where you have to subject to these nine states to the approval of Eric Holder.
And a three judge court.
Who will tell these states whether they can change their voting laws or not some on the left many -- have called this disgraceful.
Jesse Jackson called it confederate.
And I know you've and you've been a critic in the past to some extent.
Of this body of laws to see your thoughts on what the Supreme Court did yesterday -- You know I think the fourteenth amendment does allow for the federal government to be involved to make sure that there are no laws.
And and those states are preventing people from voting and it was a time and our country and ugly past when this happened.
So there was every reason in the world for the federal government to be involved is justified to the fourteenth amendment.
That being said now in the last election.
African Americans voted -- a higher percentage than white Americans in five of the six states in question.
I really think we should try to get to a point in time in our country where race a person's color of their skin is not.
Part of the body of law as long as no state is discriminating they really we should try to have laws that are equal on the same for every one.
Not special scrutiny not -- -- scrutiny but just saying that if any state.
Passes laws they have a racial lie still and then -- there should be an ability for the government investigated.
For example I think right now our sentencing for people for nonviolent crimes that marijuana disproportionately affect.
Black individuals and I think there is a racial bias in our law that needs to be corrected -- actually working on that.
So I do believe the federal government has a role but it looks like in voting were actually have been going in the right direction for sometime now.
-- and Paul great to see you thank you for being answer.
Filter by section