CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Republican Party and the Black Community and Foreign Policies

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: And joining us from Ferguson, Missouri, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Senator, thanks very much for joining us. I know you emerged from a meeting with NAACP leaders there in Ferguson. It's a pretty tense situation, as all of our viewers know.

Tell us why you decided to go there.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: Well, you know, everywhere I go, as I travel across the United States, I try to hear people -- hear from people in the community and maybe from some in the community that Republicans haven't been listening closely enough to.

So we met with the NAACP. We met with black pastors, white pastors, basically community leaders. And I wanted to find out what we can do to make the situation better, not particularly about just the shooting, but what can we do better with criminal justice in our country to lessen some of the tension and anger that I think somehow lurks beneath the surface in a lot of American communities.

BLITZER: How did the meetings go?

PAUL: You know, I think very well. I think that many of the leaders, some in the NAACP haven't really thought about talking with a Republican in a while. So it's good to begin that conversation. And I'm one who actually agrees with the NAACP on a host of criminal justice reforms, whether it means ending mandatory minimums or giving judges more discretion to mete out an appropriate sentence, rather than putting people in jail for 10 and 15 years, sometimes life in prison for drug use and drug sale.

I'm for getting people back `out, getting them job training and getting them back into the workforce. And I think we have common ground there.

BLITZER: Did you learn anything new today from what you heard from these leaders?

PAUL: You know, I think mostly a -- there's a sense of tension and unease that is -- that goes beyond just the shootings. I think the shooting has brought this to the surface, but there's a sense of unease in our country.

Black unemployment is twice white unemployment and has been for decade after decade. I know this president cares about trying to improve it, but it hasn't gotten better. So frankly, we had a good discussion about my proposal for economic freedom zones. I have a proposal that would leave $230 million in Ferguson over the next 10 years. It would leave nearly $1 billion in St. Louis.

So I think by dramatically lowering taxes in a city like Ferguson, you would have more job opportunities, less tension and less of sort of this problem that develops from crime, if we had more job availability.

And I think we, frankly, need to think about different ways of doing this, because what we've tried in the past hasn't worked.

BLITZER: Did you get a sense they liked what they heard from you?

PAUL: I think it's the beginning of the conversation. And I don't want to characterize how everybody else, you know, feels about what I said. But I think it was a good opening to the conversation. And I think in the Republican Party, the biggest mistake we've made in the last several decades is we haven't gone into the African-American community, into the NAACP and say, you know what, we are concerned about what's going on in your cities and we have plans. They may be different than the Democrats, but we do have plans and we do want to help.

And I think beginning that conversation will change the country. If both parties are competing for votes and both parties are bringing alternative ideas to the cities, then maybe some good will happen.

BLITZER: Well, I guess the question is, Senator, why have the Republicans failed to do what you're trying to do right now?

PAUL: I think they haven't tried hard enough. And there are those of us in the party who are beginning to try harder, trying to bring the conversation to new constituencies. And I think, frankly, for me, it's pretty easy, because I believe passionately that the war on drugs has had a racial outcome. I don't think it's intentional, but I think we've locked up thousands and thousands of people of color who would be much more productive if we were giving them job training in prison and getting them back out of prison, or maybe never getting them in prison to begin with.

BLITZER: How have your fellow Republicans reacted to your reaching out to the African-American community?

Because you've been doing this for several months.

PAUL: I think mostly positive. You know, when I was at the Urban League recently, the chairman of the RNC, Reince Priebus, was there, also. When I went to Detroit to help open an office in the center of Detroit, Reince Priebus was there, also. The national Republican Party understands this. And frankly, for me, it's a little bit easier because libertarian kind of issues that I'm in favor of are lessening the war on drugs and trying to get people -- instead of having people in prison for minor offenses, trying to get them back to work.

And so I think this is something that will resonate in a big way. And I want to be part of trying to let people across the country know that the Republican Party is interested in people who live in difficult circumstances.

BLITZER: You also wrote a provocative article in August saying the United States must demilitarize the police.

Explain what you mean by that, because that's something that will certainly resonate with folks there in Ferguson and St. Louis and elsewhere.

PAUL: We have no use for 20 ton mine-resistant ambush protection vehicles in our cities. It leads to inappropriate behavior. In fact, when FEMA gives out these tanks, they say specifically they're not supposed to be used for riot control. They're supposed to be for terrorism.

But we have 20 ton tank-like vehicles being given to towns of 3,000. We have 14 assault weapons being given to a police force of one person. So we have SWAT teams in Atlanta recently that threw a grenade into a baby's crib in a no-knock raid looking for drugs. We've got no business having no-knock raids at 1:00 in the morning, scaring the bejesus out of people and getting them frightened and sometimes shooting back at people they think are intruders.

We need to treat the drug problem in a different way. Drugs are a scourge. We need to keep our young people from using them. Let the young people know it's a bad idea to get involved with drugs. But we need not to be filling up our prisons with these kids and we need not to be breaking down doors at 2:00 in the morning looking for drugs, sometimes in the wrong house.

BLITZER: We're going to show some video of what happened in the St. Louis area last night. Protesters coming in. It got sort of violent at times. And we're bracing for more of that over this weekend.

What's your message to the folks there?

PAUL: Well, the message...

(VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Go ahead, Senator.

PAUL: The message we have and that we discussed this morning was very constructive. My message was get out and register people to vote. And the people I was meeting with, the leaders of the community, absolutely, they're in favor of that. Violence gets nowhere and it actually sends us backwards.

So if that energy and that -- some -- some anger, if that were channeled into registering voters and getting people out to vote, then you can have constructive change in the community. And I think the leaders of the community realize that.

And I also want them -- to let them know that I'm a Republican that believes in more people voting, not less, and that I've actually introduced legislation to restore voting rights for people who have had previous nonviolent felony convictions.

BLITZER: If you run for president, Senator, do you think it's possible you could get some sizable African-American support?

PAUL: I think if we don't, we won't ever win again. We're a very diverse country, but if Republicans don't go out and compete for African-American vote, don't go out and compete for Hispanic vote, Asian-American vote, we will not win again in our country, because the country is a diverse country now and we can't have one party that monopolizes the various ethnic group votes.

So we do have to compete and if I do it, I plan on competing for all votes.

BLITZER: Senator, I want you to stand by.

We have much more to discuss, including the war against ISIS, Ebola, more on 2016.

Senator Rand Paul, stay with us.

We'll take a quick break.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We're back now with Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky. He's joining us from Ferguson, Missouri.

Senator, let's talk about some of the current stories out there in the news right now, very provocative story in "The Wall Street Journal" saying that the White House is considering the president taking executive action to shut down the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba without any congressional authorization, in fact, going around Congress. What do you make of that?

PAUL: I've been a stickler for the Constitution. I think that the president has tried to do things that I think, frankly, are illegal and unconstitutional.

Congress is really the body that legislates, and the president is the one who executes that action. And our founding fathers really wanted that to have checks and balances. They didn't want a king. They didn't want one individual to be able to do things on his own. So I'm opposed to that. We've voted on it many times in Congress. And while I do think that we should charge the people in Guantanamo Bay and go ahead and give them adjudication and sentence them, I think that, really, shutting it down, you have to have an answer as to what you're going to do with these people. And I think bringing them to our country is not the answer.

BLITZER: So you're in favor of keeping that prison open at Guantanamo Bay?

PAUL: Yes. But I would have prosecuted these people dozens of years ago. It's a huge mistake not to have adjudicated the process and given them, if they deserve punishment, given their punishment.

I think most of the people who remain in Guantanamo Bay are a danger to the country. We should have some sort of justice, and it can be military, but it needs to be done, and they need to be given finality instead of just having them there without any decision making on how long they're going to be there.

BLITZER: Are you with President Obama when it comes to his policy of trying to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS?

PAUL: I think the biggest problem or where I disagree with the president most strenuously is in arming the Syrian rebels. The Syrian rebels don't seem to be able to hang onto the arms. Most of the arms we've given and the Saudis have given and the Qataris have wound up in the hands of ISIS. So I said a year ago that the irony they will have trouble overcoming is that we will someday be fighting the weapons that we sent into the Middle East. And I think that irony is now. I think we do have to do something about ISIS. And I do agree with military action against ISIS. But I think it's disappointing that we are now fighting against our own weapons.

BLITZER: Well, you make a fair point because a lot of the weapons that these U.S.-led airstrikes are destroying, especially in Iraq, ISIS weapons, are U.S.-made weapons that ISIS basically took from the Iraqi military after the U.S. provided those weapons to Iraq. So that's a fair point.

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon, says ultimately, U.S. ground troops will be necessary in Iraq in order to find the right targets. Are you -- do you agree with the chamber of the House Armed Services Committee?

PAUL: From a military point of view, and I'm not a general, but I would agree with the generals who say that, in order to ultimately defeat ISIS, there will need to be boots on the ground. I just think the boots on the ground should be Turkish, Iraqi, Kurdish, Saudi, Qatari, United Arab Emirates, Jordanians. I don't think that U.S. troops -- if the people who live there are not willing to fight for their country, I can't see having our G.I.s fight for something they're unwilling to fight for.

The Iraqis need to step up. The ultimate answer to beating ISIS is the Iraqis need to appoint a secretary of defense from the Sunni -- from the Sunni chieftains that helps in the surge. If they were able to have an army that were sufficiently Sunni and Shia and a national Iraqi army, I think they would be able to control and push back ISIS. The bombing alone may not do it. But I do think the bombing has served to protect our embassy and our consulate. That's why I support it.

BLITZER: On Ebola, do you have confidence in the way the federal government is dealing with this crisis? And I ask you also because you're a physician.

PAUL: You know, the thing is, is that I understand people in government not wanting to create panic. And I don't want to create panic either. But I think it's also a mistake on the other side of the coin to underplay the risk of this.

The administration has been saying over and over again, "Oh, this is only transmitted through direct bodily fluids." They make you think that this is like AIDS and not very contagious. And then in the next statement they quietly say, "Oh, but if you're within three feet of someone, we call that direct contact." I don't think many Americans think standing three feet from someone is direct contact. They also say it can't be aerosalaged (ph), but the question people should be asking is, can it transmitted by someone coughing on you?

I think the virus can be suspended in cough particles. They call that direct contact. But I think most Americans would think that's being aerosolaged (ph).

So really, I think that we've underplayed the risk of this and that we should be careful. I hope nothing bad happens. I hope we're going to have only very isolated episodes in the United States.

But I also don't think it's that unreasonable to suspend commercial flights -- I mean, if you want to visit your son or daughter coming from Liberia, couldn't you wait a couple of months?

I don't think that that is something so -- of such an immediate necessity that the chance for worldwide contagion, I think it's not unreasonable. Fifteen countries, I think, have suspended flights. I think a temporary suspension of flights should be definitely considered.

BLITZER: Let's get to a couple other issues. I know your time is limited, Senator. I just want you to clarify a subject that you and I discussed a while ago. U.S. foreign aid, specifically to Israel.

At the time you told me you didn't support foreign aid; you didn't support foreign aid to Israel. But since then, you seem to have changed your position. You're getting some grief out there in the political circuit. Where do you stand on that?

PAUL: Interestingly, they keep playing our interview, Wolf. We had a great interview. But the interesting thing is I actually still do agree with what I told you. Ultimately, I think a country that's $18 trillion in debt should not be borrowing money from China to send it to anyone. So ultimately my goal would be to have no foreign aid.

However, I think in the meantime, if we're going to try -- I've tried to put restrictions on foreign aid. I've been unsuccessful. And so I've come to the conclusion that maybe we should start by eliminating foreign aid from countries that burn our flag and hate us. And I think that would be a good place to start.

With regard to Israel, I agree with Netanyahu's position. And that's that ultimately Israel is a country that is growing and prosperous, and even Netanyahu said that, ultimately, they could and should be independent.

So it's really a matter of degrees, and am I saying that it's a different position? No. But what I am saying is that maybe, as we gradually move forward, we start with enemies of ours and enemies of Israel's, and that ultimately, though, it's not a good idea or a strong idea for our country to be 18 -- nearly $18 trillion in debt and borrowing money to send it anywhere.

BLITZER: But in the short term, you would continue aid to Israel, is that what you're saying? Until they're capable of dealing without aid? Is that what you're saying?

PAUL: Yes, it's an eventual goal, is to eliminate all aid. But we have so many -- we have such a resistance in Congress to even attaching any restrictions that my goal, since I've been in Congress and the bills I've introduced have been to place restrictions on countries that either hate us, burn our flag or persecute Christians or other religious minorities.

But here's the thing. If you ask the American people, should we send money to a country that imprisons Christians or puts Christians on Death Row for interfaith marriage? Should you send any American money to that country? The vast majority of Americans agree with me. But in Washington, placing any restrictions on foreign aid is still not that popular.

BLITZER: One final question before I let you go, Senator. Are you ready -- are you qualified, do you believe you're qualified to be president of the United States?

PAUL: You know, I think other people have to make that judgment. But what I would say is that what we need is somebody who has wisdom, somebody who thinks about issues, who isn't entirely beholden to partisanship on one -- from one party or the other. And we need somebody who ultimately, if they were in charge of our nuclear arsenal, would not be rash, reckless or eager for war. And I think I do meet that criteria.

BLITZER: Senator Rand Paul, thanks very much for joining us.

PAUL: Thanks, Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source