Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Knowing that Rand Paul has been the face, at least
Speaker 2: the Republican face of the war powers debate on Capitol Hill,
Speaker 2: at least in the Upper Chamber, I started our conversation,
Speaker 2: and we have a lot to talk about. Remember, he's
Speaker 2: the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, so he's
Speaker 2: going to be the man who has to usher in
Speaker 2: Mark Wayne Mullen, and I'm pretty sure these two are
Speaker 2: not friends. We talked about the hearing that will take place,
Speaker 2: the confirmation hearing next week, but starting with the war
Speaker 2: in Iran. I asked the Senator if he believes this
Speaker 2: is an illegal war.
Speaker 3: Listen, Well, you know the thing about the debate over awards,
Speaker 3: one of the most important debates we have. Our founding
Speaker 3: fathers had an extensive discussion over this, the Constitutional Convention,
Speaker 3: the Federalist papers.
Speaker 1: They all had strong feelings.
Speaker 3: But interesting, even though there were differences between Hamilton and Jefferson,
Speaker 3: really they all came together and said they didn't want
Speaker 3: the president of the power to initiate or declare war.
Speaker 3: They wanted that power to be with Congress. So this
Speaker 3: is a very important, if not the most important congressional
Speaker 3: debate we have over war powers and over the Constitution,
Speaker 3: And yeah, I think the Constitution's very clear you go
Speaker 3: to war, and war should be initiated through Congress. And
Speaker 3: the reason our founding fathers made it so is they
Speaker 3: didn't like war. They wanted war to be less often,
Speaker 3: they wanted war to be a rarity, not common.
Speaker 2: So last week, then in that failed vote, Congress voted
Speaker 2: to abdicate its duties its powers.
Speaker 3: Yeah, war the War Powers Act. A lot of people
Speaker 3: confused it. They say, always just a reporting requirement. President
Speaker 3: has to report after sixty days. It's really much more
Speaker 3: than that because it acknowledges the first part of the
Speaker 3: War Powers Acts as you have to have either a
Speaker 3: declaration of war or a vote to authorize for us,
Speaker 3: or there has to be imminent danger.
Speaker 1: That's really what our judgment should be.
Speaker 3: And so many of the arguments that came from this
Speaker 3: administration really.
Speaker 1: Don't hold water.
Speaker 3: They said, well, they've been at war with us for
Speaker 3: forty seven years, and I said, well, that doesn't sound
Speaker 3: very imminent. That kind of sounds like you might have
Speaker 3: had time to come to Congress and get a declaration
Speaker 3: of war.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, it sounds like you see this as an illegal action.
Speaker 3: Then yeah, I don't think this is what our founding
Speaker 3: fathers intended, is not what the Constitution intends, And so
Speaker 3: I continue to support these war powers action to try
Speaker 3: to limit the executive the same way I would under
Speaker 3: and did under President Obama and President Biden as well.
Speaker 2: So will that make it difficult for you to vote
Speaker 2: to support a supplemental budget request assuming that does arrive?
Speaker 2: As we've heard, I.
Speaker 3: Think the biggest threat to our country and to our
Speaker 3: national security is our debt, and so I think adding
Speaker 3: more to our debt doesn't make us safer. It actually
Speaker 3: will make us make it more in danger to be
Speaker 3: further in debt. So the administration has said they want
Speaker 3: to increase the budget by fifty percent. Yes, that sounds
Speaker 3: like a large increase, from a trillion to one point
Speaker 3: five trillion, and then in the meantime they may ask
Speaker 3: for another fifty billion or so, maybe one hundred. Already
Speaker 3: talking about, well, we got to give the farmers some money.
Speaker 3: You know, the tariffs aren't so good for farmers, and
Speaker 3: instead of removing the tariffs they are hurting the farmers.
Speaker 3: They're going to give the farmers some money. And then
Speaker 3: they're like, well, we've had had some disasters around here,
Speaker 3: so we're going to do military disasters, you know, stipend
Speaker 3: for the farmers since the tariff arting them. It'll be
Speaker 3: a mess, and it'll be something that anybody who's fiscally
Speaker 3: conservative will not. So you're in no regardless of the number,
Speaker 3: soundly because right now our military, we spend more on
Speaker 3: our military than the next ten countries combined. So for
Speaker 3: people to argue we're not spending enough, we're spending more
Speaker 3: than the next ten countries combined.
Speaker 1: We spend plenty on our military.
Speaker 3: They used to be spent wisely, but they've spent an
Speaker 3: extraordinary amount on two wars.
Speaker 1: We've had two wars in one month.
Speaker 3: I mean, for goodness sakes, they're talking about another war
Speaker 3: with Cuba as we speak.
Speaker 1: So yeah, they cost money.
Speaker 3: They cost laws most importantly, but they also cost money.
Speaker 3: And I'm just not for I'm not wasn't for the
Speaker 3: war in Venezuela, I'm not for the war in Iran,
Speaker 3: and I'm certainly not for a war with Cuba.
Speaker 2: You're chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. Are you
Speaker 2: hearing about domestic terror threats that we need to know about.
Speaker 2: There's been a great concern about sleeper cells, about lone wolves.
Speaker 2: Has that threat increased because of this?
Speaker 3: Actually, I don't have specific knowledge that it has. We
Speaker 3: have not had any specific briefing to say it has.
Speaker 3: But I'm not here to argue that it isn't a
Speaker 3: potential problem. I think anytime you're at war there is
Speaker 3: a potential for terrorist actions. I think we already had,
Speaker 3: you know, one shooting in Texas that people said it
Speaker 3: was related to the terrorism and to the war.
Speaker 2: Yeah, some have worried that the fact that DHS, the department,
Speaker 2: not your committee, is closed right now is making us
Speaker 2: less safe. It is the ability for DHS to combat
Speaker 2: domestic terror threats compromised by this closure.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know how much DHS actually does. I
Speaker 3: don't know those people who believe. Of course, the FBI
Speaker 3: has an important task in trying to.
Speaker 1: Look for people who are in the country that might
Speaker 1: harm us.
Speaker 3: There are aspects of crossing of borders that make a difference.
Speaker 3: But you know, I'm one of those who after nine
Speaker 3: to eleven thought, gosh, we're just going to create these
Speaker 3: enormous bureaucracies that cost a lot of money, but don't
Speaker 3: necessarily make us safer interesting, So I would rather the
Speaker 3: money probably be spent specifically on detailed defenses against terrorism,
Speaker 3: as opposed to a big, bloated bureaucracy.
Speaker 1: Which is what the department from my insecurity has become.
Speaker 2: Well, I know that you've got TSA workers who are
Speaker 2: going to start missing paychecks if they aren't already. I
Speaker 2: understand that Global Entry is being reopened, which I thought
Speaker 2: was an interesting headline this morning, considering the strain on
Speaker 2: the system. How long can TSA hold up without getting paid.
Speaker 1: I've been for a reform of this. I think what
Speaker 1: we should do.
Speaker 3: If you work for the government and I have a
Speaker 3: contract and I pay you eighty thousand dollars a year,
Speaker 3: it's a breach of contract.
Speaker 1: We should just keep paying everybody. The appropriations could be.
Speaker 3: For a lot of other things that are optional, but
Speaker 3: the employment is not so optional, particularly of like air
Speaker 3: trap for controllers.
Speaker 1: I fly all the time. Frankly, I want my air
Speaker 1: traffic controller.
Speaker 3: To be well paid, well rested, and not unhappy when
Speaker 3: he or she comes to work. So there is a
Speaker 3: reform that's floated around, and I've voted for it several times.
Speaker 3: And this is you know, this isn't the first time
Speaker 3: or won't be the last time there's a debate overfunding.
Speaker 3: The debate is actually healthy. What is unhealthy is that
Speaker 3: not paying workers. And so I think the workers, if
Speaker 3: they're working, ought to be paid. And so I'm for
Speaker 3: a reform that anytime we have a shutdown, the contract aspect.
Speaker 1: Of the workers that we pay should just go on
Speaker 1: despite the impact.
Speaker 2: Well, so what's it going to take to reopen this agency?
Speaker 2: And would maybe a new secretary do the trick? You're
Speaker 2: going to be tasked with this confirmation process? Have you
Speaker 2: scheduled to.
Speaker 1: Hearing next week? Give all the PaperWorks done?
Speaker 3: There has to be an FBI background check, and there
Speaker 3: has to be some ethics documents, and the minority party
Speaker 3: has to have a certain amount of days to look.
Speaker 1: At these understood, these are things we agreed to. If
Speaker 1: it can all be done, we're going to try to
Speaker 1: do the hearing in the vote next week. But I
Speaker 1: think that.
Speaker 3: Overall my suggestion, I'm not sure they're going to listen
Speaker 3: to me.
Speaker 1: My suggestion would be to.
Speaker 3: Acknowledge that there have been failures with ICE and that
Speaker 3: they're coming out with new policies and new regulations.
Speaker 1: As to how their agents behaved.
Speaker 3: When I had the agents come in recently, the head
Speaker 3: of ICE and the head of the Border Patrol, I
Speaker 3: ask them that specific question.
Speaker 1: You know, if I'm me to you and I'm the
Speaker 1: ICE agent, you're yelling at me.
Speaker 3: He said, okay for me to lunge at you and
Speaker 3: spray you right in the face with pepper spray for
Speaker 3: your words. And he said no, but that's what we
Speaker 3: were seeing in all of those images. We saw women
Speaker 3: thrown to the ground for yelling at officers. And nobody
Speaker 3: likes to be yelled at, but that is part of America.
Speaker 3: People are going to yell at you, and as long
Speaker 3: as it's words, we shouldn't be reacting in a physical way.
Speaker 1: So I think ICE needs to announce that.
Speaker 3: They kind of in our hearing admitted that all the
Speaker 3: actions that we were seeing in these wasn't appropriate.
Speaker 1: But there was also a.
Speaker 3: Lot of denial going on, and I'm looking to see
Speaker 3: if it's going to be any different, and frankly, that
Speaker 3: would be I recommendation announced.
Speaker 1: And Homan kind of did some of this. They removed
Speaker 1: people from the streets.
Speaker 3: They quit doing the confrontation, and they also said that
Speaker 3: agents that misbehaved would be punished. None of that was
Speaker 3: happening before Tom Homan showed up and gave a little
Speaker 3: more professionalism to the.
Speaker 1: Things that were going on in Minnesota.
Speaker 3: But you know, really, since he showed up and removed
Speaker 3: them the streets, you haven't seen a whole lot of
Speaker 3: right of of footage coming out of Minnesota.
Speaker 2: Demasking has been a line for most Republicans. Is it
Speaker 2: for you?
Speaker 3: I think that there might be a time when a
Speaker 3: mask might be appropriate if you're on the border and
Speaker 3: you're dealing, you know, in the in the thick of
Speaker 3: battle with cartels. Maybe if you're in an elevator, in
Speaker 3: a in the in the courthouse in Chicago, I saw
Speaker 3: one image of mask agents going in. It was three
Speaker 3: or four moms and ten kids, and you know, basically
Speaker 3: rounding them all up and being masked. Look, the bailiffs
Speaker 3: aren't masked, the Chicago police aren't masked.
Speaker 1: So I think in our cities, in.
Speaker 3: Areas where the other police officers are masked, there's no
Speaker 3: reason why one set of federal officials should be masked
Speaker 3: in another set shouldn't be. So I won't say it's
Speaker 3: an absolute that no masks, But I would say when
Speaker 3: you're participating where other law enforcement isn't, I don't think
Speaker 3: it's anonymity.
Speaker 1: I think leads to bad behavior. Interesting.
Speaker 2: What do you make of the nomination of Senator Mark
Speaker 2: Wayne Mullen? And did the senator from Oklahoma jeopardize his
Speaker 2: standing with you with some of the colorful language he
Speaker 2: used to describe you last month? You'll follow the chairman
Speaker 2: of Snake.
Speaker 3: You'll find out more if you come to the nomination here.
Speaker 3: I promise you they'll We'll be a good and fulsome hearing.
Speaker 2: Okay, sounds like everyone sees him getting this job, though,
Speaker 2: will he be confirmed in the.
Speaker 1: End, We'll see.
Speaker 2: Okay. President Trump's on his way lucky today the affordability
Speaker 2: tour lands in Tom Massey's districts. What are people in
Speaker 2: Kentucky telling you about three dollars and twenty cent gas?
Speaker 2: Right now?
Speaker 3: You know, I'm a big supporter of Thomas Massey. I
Speaker 3: have campaign with him, will continue to campaign with him.
Speaker 3: He released some material yesterday that was pretty extraordinary. His opponent, actually,
Speaker 3: when Donald Trump won the nomination in twenty sixteen, left
Speaker 3: the party in discussed so It's ironic that the president
Speaker 3: is now supporting a guy who hated Donald Trump so
Speaker 3: much that he left the party only came back into
Speaker 3: the party when Joe Biden became president. So there is
Speaker 3: a certain amount of irony there, and voters actually know
Speaker 3: this stuff, and this.
Speaker 1: Will be all over It is all over television.
Speaker 3: Right now that his opponent basically left the party because
Speaker 3: of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So can he get over that irony? I don't know.
Speaker 3: I think a lot of people are going to say, well,
Speaker 3: what's up with this? You know, But there's a lot
Speaker 3: of respect for Thomas Massey. I mean, look, he took
Speaker 3: an issue that the President had promoted, revealing the Epstein files.
Speaker 1: President was all for it.
Speaker 3: Thomas Massey took that issue and ran with it, and
Speaker 3: issue the president supported until the President didn't support the
Speaker 3: issue anymore.
Speaker 1: Think about the.
Speaker 3: Effectiveness of a guy who only had three Republican allies
Speaker 3: when it started and in the end passed it unanimously
Speaker 3: in the House, passed it unanimously in the Senate, and
Speaker 3: the President signed it. That is an extraordinary feat. So
Speaker 3: I think a lot of people see that Thomas fact.
Speaker 3: Thomas Massey is quite effective, and I would say, he's
Speaker 3: also the most fiscally conservative member of the House. It's
Speaker 3: a conservative district. I think he's actually doing pretty well well.
Speaker 2: Indeed, you have a lot in common, and to your point,
Speaker 2: you will campaign for him for his reelection.
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Do you have plans to be on the stump any
Speaker 2: time soon.
Speaker 1: I've already done two days with him.
Speaker 3: I have two days coming up in two weeks and
Speaker 3: we just added another two days, So I will spend
Speaker 3: a lot of time in the district. We're raising money
Speaker 3: for him, and he will be outspent. They'll probably spend
Speaker 3: twenty to thirty million trying to defeat a republic which
Speaker 3: really is to me a waste of money to try
Speaker 3: to beat a Republican.
Speaker 1: But they're also trying to beat the most conservative member
Speaker 1: of the House of Representatives, and the irony is not
Speaker 1: lost on a lot of people.
Speaker 2: And you think he keeps his job. It sounds like I.
Speaker 1: Think he has a very good chance of winning.
Speaker 3: It won't be easy, you know, but I think he
Speaker 3: has a very good chance of still winning.