CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview With Senator Rand Paul

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: We will watch it together with you, Jim Sciutto, in Singapore for us. Thank you.

Let's get some more on the breaking news.

Joining us now, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. He is a key member of the Foreign Relations and Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committees.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

Let me get to North Korea. What do you want President Trump to get out of this first historic meeting with the North Korean leader?

[18:10:07]

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I don't think we should over -- have expectations that are too high.

I think dialogue alone is a success. We have never had dialogue from the head of our country to the head of their country. So, this is a big step forward just having dialogue.

What we get out of it, I think denuclearization is obviously what we want. They have suspended testing. That's good. We have gotten some hostages back. That's good. So, I think these are all good small steps forward.

I think there's a possibility we could get the symbolic ending of the war from the 1950s between the North and South. I think that is symbolic, but also would show a thawing in tensions.

But I think ultimately what people want is that they would give up their nuclear ambition. That's a big ask. In order to get that, we will have to have some very verifiable and would have to be over a period of time with inspections. So, I'm not sure we get that immediately. But I think the conversation is much better than having no conversation.

BLITZER: If the North Koreans do what the U.S. wants, Secretary Pompeo is promising what he called unique security assurances for the North Koreans.

What concessions would you be comfortable with in terms of American military power in the region, for example, reducing the U.S. troop level, removing nuclear-capable submarines and bombers from the Korean Peninsula?

Would you be comfortable with all of that?

PAUL: I think everything should be on the table, including removing our troops.

But I would say that that would have to do with verifiable denuclearization and that, really, since it takes time to do some of these things and it takes time to believe that the -- your adversary will actually do them, that I think it should be a gradual lessening of tension, a gradual lessening of sanctions, a gradual lowering of troops.

I think you could even have an international force. You could have Chinese troops as part of an international force that would be a stabilizing and reassuring presence.

But the bottom line is, you can't give everything up front. And so I think a good deal gives things gradually. And I wouldn't give any taxpayer money. I think the offer of economic assistance would be through trade and not through actually direct assistance, but through opening our trade to them.

BLITZER: Yes, the president has said repeatedly over the past few days he wants South Korea, Japan, China to invest in North Korea. He says the United States is not going to spend any money over there.

Can American allies, Senator, South Korea and Japan, for example, trust that President Trump will represent their interests in this meeting? As you know, they're very nervous right now. PAUL: I think, ultimately, any agreement has to be between North

Korea and South Korea. I mean, we're part of the process, because we were part of the war going back 60-some-odd years now.

But, ultimately, South Korea has to directly negotiate with North Korea. And I think what you have seen is South Korea is actually very open to negotiations. And, in fact, in some ways, South Korea has been pushing it forward by having meetings there in Korea.

So, no, I'm not of the belief that the U.S. will trample on South Korea's rights. I think, ultimate, only -- any real peace comes from an agreement between North Korea and South Korea.

BLITZER: The president hasn't made any military threats going into the summit, as you know. But Senator Lindsey Graham, your colleague, he wants an authorization for the use of military force in case the talks fail.

Do you think President Trump has taken the military option off the table? And would you vote for such an authorization for the use of military force?

PAUL: Absolutely not.

Lindsey Graham is a danger to the country by even proposing ideas like authorizing war with Korea. My goodness. So, that should be something that is seen as naive and seen as something that really serious people shouldn't even really be discussing.

BLITZER: You are calling a fellow Republican senator a danger to the country? I want you to elaborate.

PAUL: Well, if you have watched over time, I think what you have seen from Lindsey Graham is basically a naive world view, where he believes that war is always the answer. And that also means that expenditures for war are always the answer.

And so I think that's bankrupting us as a country. But it's also gotten us involved in dozens and dozens of war, where it's not really clear what the American interest is in those wars. And I think sometimes the reaction to our involvement in those wars has actually been worse than had we not been involved at all.

BLITZER: At the same time, President Trump is expressing optimism about his personal relationship that's going to unfold with Kim Jong- un.

And he is calling the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau -- quote -- "very dishonest and weak."

You heard his advisers, Peter Navarro, for example, say there's a special place in hell for Trudeau, and Larry Kudlow, his economic adviser, saying Trudeau stabbed the president in the back.

Do you believe those types of personal attacks advance U.S. interests?

PAUL: Not really.

And what I would say about trade with Canada is, let's stick to the facts. We have a very mutually beneficial trade with Canada. Are there some places in that trade where Canada is doing things unfair? Yes. On dairy and lumber, Canada is doing something.

[18:15:05]

So, let's isolate it on the problem, which are at least two different segments of our economy, where we want to sell things to them and they are closing the door and protecting their economy from our goods. Let's work on those. And let's have some tough negotiation.

But let's don't discount that, on 80 percent, 90 percent of the different industries, we have pretty free and open trade. And it's of great benefit to the United States to trade with Canada.

So, I guess I would approach it a little bit differently. But I'm not completely discounting that the president and his team have a point, particularly on dairy and lumber, that there is some Canadian protectionism.

BLITZER: As you know, according to the Office of the U.S. Special Trade Representative, the U.S. has a trade surplus with Canada when you add in goods and services, a trade surplus of, what, $17.5 billion.

So, I'm not exactly sure why the president is so angry at Canada. Are you?

PAUL: Well, like I say, overall trade is good with Canada. You are right. I think it's mutually beneficial to both countries. There are a few isolated areas it could be better, dairy, lumber and a few other things.

We need to see, is there anything they are complaining about on their end that we are protecting? And maybe there could be a negotiation where we could make trade better. But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. I wouldn't say we're going to threaten all trade or try to ratchet up tariffs with Canada, because, by and large, Canada is a great neighbor to have.

And we have done very well. Both countries have done very well having open borders for trade.

BLITZER: Let me put those numbers back on the screen, because I misspoke as far as the trade surplus with Canada. When you add services and goods, it's an $8.4 billion surplus that the United States has with Canada, our neighbor to the north.

Senator Paul, thanks so much for joining us.

PAUL: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source