local cable or satellite provider. >> newsmakers is next with housing secretary ulee julian castro. that is followed by rand paul and bernie sanders talking about their campaign. then evan, discusses his book about richard nixon. -- evan thomas discusses his book about richard nixon. greta: we have emily badger, a correspondent with washington post and john prior with politico. go ahead with the first question. jon: i want to ask about the

supreme court ruling in the housing case. using data analysis alone and set of a proven 10. what does that mean for your agency? are we going to see more aggressive breaking news cases? if you could just pick about that. julian: this has been just a tremendously important tool in ensuring communities can ensure themselves fair housing opportunities across the board whether it is race or disability or other protected classes. for hhud, we have been doing this for 40 years now. what it does do is it gives us certainty as we go forward with complaints that we can fully use this tool of impact, and we will use it.

i believe in using it we will ensure that more people of different backgrounds have the kind of housing opportunity they ought to have in america. emily: it is not about getting it over discrimination, the kind of discrimination where i will not rent to you because you are black, it's about getting at more subtle kinds of discrimination that exist in zoning laws and the formulas of how we decide where affordable housing in communities. can you give us a sense of how pervasive you think this type of subtler type of discrimination is in the united states? julian: most of us remember the overt discrimination you are talking about, or those of us who grew up after it remember seeing images of that end

reading about it. thankfully that kind of overt discrimination doesn't often happen. however, there is a legacy of discrimination that exists and decisions that are made, actions that are taken, policies that are put into place that has the same discriminatory effect. that is what this case is all about. this is the way the state of texas allocated low income housing tax credit. essentially stacking more and more low income housing in heavily minority areas. and those residents in that housing were mostly minority. it may not have been intended as a way to aggregate minorities together in low income neighborhoods. this impact tool gives us the opportunity to go to communities and say, look, this is a discriminatory effect that your policy is having.

is there a legitimate reason for why you are doing it this way? it is important for folks to know that if there is a legitimate reason, then they can then point that out and the burden then shifts to us or to the party that is complaining to show how they can do it differently in a way that is less discriminatory. that burden shifting is an important part of the story here because we are using statistics. , we are talking about impact and not intentional discrimination. it is not simply going from the statistics to this is wrong. there is a burden shifting that happens that ensures there is a different way that it could be done that doesn't have the same discriminatory effect. jon: do you expect mortgage lenders to pull back after this ruling and are you going to give them guidance on how they can avoid future claims like this? julian: they have been subject

to disparate impact for a while. everybody was looking to see what happened here at the supreme court level. we always look for to working with the lending community. we have a close relationship in working with these types of issues. we are not into the gotcha business with folks. ultimately, whether it is lenders or hud, we have the same goal, getting more people into good quality affordable housing and ensuring it is done in a fair way. that is the spirit we are going to be going forward with. however when we do see the , instances that there is a discriminatory effect, and it's clear, we are also not going to be afraid to enforce it. emily: the supreme court said you cannot file these desperate

claims. if the court had said that, it would substantially undercut a piece of civil rights legislation. can you couch the importance by addressing what that alternative scenario would have meant? how problematic would it have been for hud and people who care about fair housing to have lost this that we are talking about? julian: it would have been a significant blow. the fair housing act was passed a week after martin luther king jr. was assassinated. it is the most effective law we have to combat dissemination in the housing realm. at the same time we do understand what the other tools are in place. there's a series of other laws that were passed. some of them that do allow the use of disparate impact of , course you would still have the ability to go after intentional discrimination where

you could show it. it is fair to say that these guy would not have fallen in terms of combating discrimination in the realm of housing, but it would have been a significant blow to our ability to go after some of the more egregious cases where there is a discriminatory effect, but not intentional discrimination. jon: what are your thoughts on the other supreme court landmark rulings? does it have any effect on the housing market in these communities as well? julian: i am very happy with the ruling on marriage equality. it is a landmark day and our nation and our world, the acknowledgment that when two people love each other, that they ought to be up to enter into marriage. i am happy as a texan that in my home state they will have marriage equality. there were still 15 states where

we didn't have it. with respect to housing there is , no question marriage is a stabilizing influence in the household. i believe that having marriage inequality is going to make the households and communities that much stronger. with regard to particular policies one thing that comes to mind is our reverse mortgage program and the impact that you will have same-sex married couples of a surviving spouse rule, which we just changed, that basically says if you have a spouse that took out a reverse mortgage the surviving spouse is allowed to stay into the home. now it is going to be uniformly available to same-sex couples. emily: i want to come back to the fair housing question for a

minute. some of what we have been talking about his abstract legal theory. i think it is also very closely related to what has been happening on the ground in communities like cleveland and new york. one of the things that the country has become very aware of is segregated housing and concentrated poverty is underlying the tension in these communities. fair housing is part of the solution to that. do you think those stories are related to it we are talking about in fair housing? is this type of discrimination connected to the, solving it. is it an important part. julian: having this tool will make a difference in trying to expand housing opportunity. a good example are zoning laws

that say you have to have a certain lot size or other planning laws that are past that essentially have the effect of either excluding both or aggregating people in poverty. often times many people of color. and so to the extent that we can , analyze the discriminatory effect of those laws or look at the way private actors implement policies or take action, then it will make a difference. it is a matter of striking a balance. again we are not there to go in with a gotcha mentality. however, the fact is that there are a lot of instances you see where there is an impact created and there may or may not be a legitimate governmental or business reason to do it. jon: what do you say to those in baltimore and west ferguson, where they feel neglected by the government and private

investors. you have spent almost a year now running hud. what do you say to them from your perspective, knowing how that bureaucracy works? julian: i hope they know they have a very strong and willing federal partner. in fact, some of the most impactful work the obama administration has done centers around play space work. when i was mayor of san antonio, we decided to focus on lifting up to the east side of san antonio and hud was our strongest partner in doing that. choice neighborhood, the department of education with a promised neighborhood grant. the best thing for those communities that they can do is work across their silos. the mayor working with the housing director with the community college leadership, leadership of the transit

agency, public utility and school system. that is what we did in san antonio and that is what the federal government is trying to do across the board, housing working with education with the epa and transportation. and together holistically lifting up the the most distressed areas of our society like the east side of san antonio or places like west baltimore. greta: what about the administration's efforts to break up these areas to make section eight housing, affordable housing, more affluent? why that effort? julian: there was a researcher out of harvard that showed when families moved to places of higher opportunity, that especially young people have better educational and economic outcomes. for us, that means that we want to see communities spread their

vouchers out and allow these folks to get into areas of higher opportunity. one of the things we are looking at doing right now is reworking how we set the amount of the voucher so that families can get into areas that might cost a little more, but are areas of of higher opportunity, where the access to better jobs, better transportation opportunities, it really is a matter of striking the balance between aggregating -- disaggregating poverty in the local community, but not forgetting about some of these most distressed neighborhoods. and also being willing to invest in them. jon: the house committee

impressed you on this. do you plan on engaging that are making it a goal? julian: one of the things they did press me on is the outcomes of your work. i agree that what we all want is our assistance to be temporary for folks. we want families to be up to get up and out and get on the track that they want to get on and working hard to get to. i pointed out to them that the majority of the folks we serve are elderly and disabled individuals. the calculus is different there. of the working age people we serve, 43% of those households are working. often times in this nation, we saw this in the 1990's with welfare reform, that there is a sense that this group of folks

out there that it's lazy and , doesn't want to get ahead. my assumption has been that the people we serve want to get ahead. a decent number of them are hard-working and the other ones want to get onto a better path. one of the things we are doing is trying to figure out, ok, with our initiatives, how can we make them more effective than they have been in the past? how can we better measure the outcomes of that work, so we know what adjustments we need to make, and we can show in this resource constrained environment under sequestration why there is a very strong value to these programs, and that is the priority of my administration at hud. i think we can get there before the end of the term. emily: you mentioned this misperception that i think is quiet widespread. that they are lazy, that they are passive recipients of this that somehow they are enjoying a really nice life while having

the government pay for all these kinds of bills. i think that it has become a big part of our political conversation in deciding on how to invest in these programs, in a way that has become a bit problematic. do you perceive that? do you feel like there is the sense that people are not worthy recipients and making it hard for us to fund these programs and making it easier for people in congress to attack them? julian: i think that's part of it, there is this stereotype of folks who live in subsidized or public housing. it is amazing, you have so many people who at one time or another crew up in public housing. howard schultz, the ceo of starbucks, is a fantastic example of that. several of the congress members that i sat in front of in the financial services committee had

at one time or another lived in public housing. the truth is we do have many many families that live in , public or subsidized housing that are hard-working, that have good values, but our country -- but are contributing to the forward progress of the nation. we did end welfare as we knew it. now it has kind of faced the fact that we have a lot of folks who are working hard, who need temporary public assistance, and our job ought to be how can we be supportive of them and give them the tools as they work hard to move up and out? come on emily: emily: one and four people who qualify for housing aid from hud actually ever get it.

which means that there is a tremendous need for the programs of hud. julian: there no doubt our commitment to the housing needs of americans has dwindled. we are not meeting those needs in terms of the money that is allocated. we only serve one in four people who qualify for hud programs. many cities have thousands of people on waiting lists. and we have at the same time in -- unaffordable -- an affordable housing crisis right now. research has demonstrated that from the national low income housing coalition and from the urban institute. so now is an ideal time to have this conversation about all of these issues, the fact we need to invest in opportunities or americans, and we need to make sure those opportunities are equal across the board. jon: how do you make the case to congress this is in affordable housing crisis?

what you saying to them? julian: some of the most productive things we do is go to -- with members to their districts. i went with congressman a , republican from missouri, very knowledgeable. chairs one of the subcommittees on housing. there were two points that came out of that meeting. we met with different housing industry advocates, met with residents and also got a chance , to see some of the housing developments. there are more resources that are needed. you need to invest more in these housing opportunities. secondly was, if the money is not coming in droves how can you , get better about administering these programs that are less burdensome?

we told folks that we want to meet you halfway and figure out how we can be more efficient and lower the burden of regulation in a smart way. the other part is there is a , tremendous need out there and we need more resources to invest. greta: we have about five minutes left here. if i can ask you about the housing sector in general, the federal reserve is thinking about raising interest rates. you have the pulse on the housing industry. what is your advice to them? we have seen the housing market make tremendous progress. they have inched up higher than they have been in the last year or so. this past month we saw a huge jump in new home sales, which is fantastic. what we see often times is the demand is outstripping supply. so, as they always are, i know the federal reserve will be thoughtful and cautious as they move forward.

my advice to consumers out there is that they should take a second look at home ownership. folks who are responsible who may not have thought that they wanted to buy a home right now ought to think about that. , there have been protections put into place so we don't slide back in the housing crisis. but the fact is a lot of people have become discouraged. they are not even trying to go out and buy a home. they ought to give that a second look, because homeownership makes more sense than renting. building that equity up is an important part of building wealth and passing that on to the next generation. jon: one of the things left undone to do that is fannie mae and freddie mac. they have been in conservatorship since 2008 since the height of the crisis. it is almost seven years. congress seems stalled on that. does the obama administration plan to do something about them

administratively? resolving these two companies control so much of the homebuying market. is there something in the works? are there talks going on about how to set them up? or how to do them without legislation? julian: our first focus has been on housing finance reform. so, the hope is that congress will come together on housing finance reform. he believes taxpayers should not be on the hook the way they were before. there should be more private capital, and at the same time we , need to ensure that folks of modest means can get access to credit. so, there is still the hope that congress will come to a compromise on sensible finance housing reform. perhaps it is not comprehensive.

, but it can take a couple of first steps. i believe that is the conversation first. jon: do you think you might be part of the next white house? julian castro: jumping and you significant progress will be made with this congress. the best way to have a good future is make the present very productive. i'm trying to do a great job at hud. the way i'm going to measure myself is on january 20, 2017, did we create more opportunity for everyday folks in the united states? if the answer is yes, that i -- then i think this tenure will have been a success. greta: there is time for one more question. emily: i want to ask this question about urban development side and housing development. we are at a unique moment where because of the city research that suggests where you live is fundamental to your success in life, because of what has been

happening in baltimore and ferguson, people are paying attention to america's problems of america's cities. what it means for them to be successful and what has not been true since the 1960's. do you feel like there is a moment now for the country to take an interest in the problems of cities? julian: i believe we are living in the century of cities. in certain ways america is , falling in love again with cities. and particularly millennial's who like the urban lifestyle who are putting off homeownership and renting in urban cores of cities. at the same time we see the , issues and challenges we have had in ferguson and baltimore. these weapons of inequality that we still have to heal, it is --

these wounds of inequality that we still have to heal it is an , excellent time to be addressing america's urban challenges. the way we are doing that is through a lot of our space work. taking a holistic view of lifting up communities, that it is not about housing, that it is about housing and jobs and education and transportation and the environment. breaking through those silos and encouraging local communities to do the same. greta: we thank you for being this week's newsmaker. and we are back with emily badger of the washington post and jon pryor of politico. emily, let me begin with you about what is happening on capitol hill. we just heard from the secretary about what his agencies trying to do. run us through what is happening on capitol hill. republican controlled house and senate, what are they saying on housing? emily: one of the things that struck me is our nation's commitment to housing is

dwindling. i think this is true of the public in general, but it is true of the budgets that congress is putting forward. we have been looking at budgets that would be significantly smaller for a lot of the core things that hud does. trying to provide housing assistance to low income families. as has been true in lots of other realms, we have seen funding cut's for all kinds of other things. this has been particularly true for hide. -- for hud. in a way that speaks to our commitment to this. jon: castro has tried to make the case for some of his programs. the exchanges get pretty heated. on the senate side the appropriations committee approved a budget for hide

hud it was called the home . program. truly poor areas have cut that down. not just on the cash but on the rental side. tried to explain there is an affordability crisis on the homebuying side and on the rental side. greta: are republicans listening? jon: they have their agenda. they are looking at the debt and for them they are looking at cutting some of these programs. susan collins on the appropriations committee said in cutting that home program that prevented them from making cuts across the board. they are looking for ways or are trying to make the pitch that they are doing this as painlessly as possible. it is just not in line with some other realities.

greta: what are they looking at? what legislation is pending? emily: one of the issues is hud is planning to write a new rule that specifically spells out what committees need to do to consider fair housing. how race is a factor in housing patterns, whether or not they have discrimination in their communities. the house passed an amendment a week ago essentially trying to defund this. there is some very explicit attention, where congress is trying to undo it be for hide produces a new rule. jon: they're working on a

proposal to restructure hud, putting on these programs in different directions. another thing castro touched on to his fannie and freddie. there has been this constant frustrating thing. we don't know what the future finance housing system is going to look like. it looks like it is going to be under the next administration. greta: what is being talked about, how to deal with fannie and freddie right now? jon: last year the senate committee passed a bill the white house is backing. the more liberal side of that committee rejected it, it abolishes fannie and freddie and replaces it. they want to restrict the government's role in the market even more. there is a consensus that fannie and freddie need to go. the question is what replaces them.

right now the talks are trying to bridge that gap. they haven't picked a whole lot lately. greta: what about those that are advocates for fannie and freddie? do they have a strong influence? jon: they are having a stronger influence. especially now that fannie mae and freddie mac are profitable again. they are saying a lot of the things that are fixed might be easier politically, putting some controls in place, some firewalls between taxpayers and fannie and freddie and just keep them doing what they are doing. greta: on the supreme court decision on housing discrimination, is that the end of it or is there more to come? and whether or not people can prove discrimination. emily: the big headline thing that the supreme court said is that there can be kinds of

discrimination under the housing a act that is not overt. if you are doing those things through your zoning laws. her immunity, you could potentially be liable under the fair housing act. the supreme court added some very specific cautions about the context of how you can do that. i think we will need to see some future court cases to see how that plays out. greta: thank you both for being a part of newsmakers. >> i'm not one of those who believes in the psychiatric examination of people. i believe that most of these people should be on the couch themselves rather than to psychoanalyze people they have never met. on the other hand, when i meet people, i don't judge them whether in terms of they have a

firm handshake but what i tried to do is listen to what they say. you don't learn anything when you are talking. you learn when they are talking. >> one of the many tragedies of richard nixon's that he was not very self-aware. in less ironies, he did have a psychiatrist, an internist, not technically a psychiatrist and he said he was careful not to nixon think he was analyzing him. no than said he had -- nixon said he had psychosomatic illnesses, couldn't sleep, and he received mild therapy. he hated psychiatrist and was always denouncing them. he was afraid in a way of looking at himself in a realistic way. he used to say that i don't carry grudges. hello? richard nixon was one of the great grudge carriers of all time.

he could be very on self reflective. >> evan, talks about the victories and defeats and inter-trial law of richard nixon, focusing on the personal stories of her nation's 37th president. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern pacific on c-span's q&a. >> on tuesday, c-span sat down with rand paul of kentucky. he can discuss why he wants to be president. the interview is a part of a conversation with potential 2016 presidential candidates as part of c-span's road to the white house coverage. we spoke with senator paul in his office on capitol hill. this interview is almost 25 minutes.

>> i want to begin with your book. this gets to the essence of the thesis. you said we need to reduce areas of government beyond the spoke of what was intended by the constitution. what needs to be cut? sen. paul: the shorter list is what does it need to be cut. you have article one section eight, and it lists 17-19 functions. that is what they should be doing and very little else. now they do everything from cradle to grave. the government should do what the private marketplace can't do. if the private marketplace is doing it, the national government should stay out of it. national defense is one area that you can have the private marketplace do.

there are internal improvements the government can do, roads bridges, things like that. old-fashioned conservatives think it should be done by the state and local governments and not by the federal government. there is some argument that since we have more federal government involvement, our scores have not improved. >> one of your role models ronald reagan, talked about decreasing the size of government. sen. paul: for example, when he won, he didn't control congress. he controlled the senate, but he had to work with tip o'neill. tip o'neill was knocking get rid of the department of education. there was a little bit of a

trade-off. tax cut's did stimulate and help get out of recession and create jobs. domestic spending never went down and defense spending went up significantly. there were more deficits under reagan. there were deficits under george bush as well, but now there is a tripling and quadrupling of the rate of accumulation of debt under obama. there is an argument to be made that neither party is good at controlling the deficit. >> you are proposing a flat tax. how do you get it done? sen. paul: the consensus would be the american people are tired of our tax code. we are losing jobs overseas and losing companies overseas he comes we have the highest business tax in the world. our corporate taxes 35%. canada is 15%.

i say joking me that i am embarrassed that i have the government canada for having a better tax rate than america. burger king just left america went to canada. we have companies talking about re-incorporating overseas because the regulation environment is better overseas, so we have to win a national election. i would get rid of the tax code and have one rate, 14.8% for a business tax, 14.5% for a personal income tax. we are to get rid of the payroll tax in the process. if you have $40,000 in income, wife and two kids, you would have a $2000 savings under my hand through -- under my plan to payroll tax reductions. >> the overall debt, had you cut the debt and reduce taxes? sen. paul: you would have to cut spending. i put forward 35 your budgets with significant tax cut's by

cutting spending. i would cut the federal government in a dramatic fashion. i would eliminate for-five departments, department of energy, department of commerce department of interior department of education. i want the federal government lots smaller. the trade off is, and this is a debate we have to have, why baltimore has 37% unemployment, young black men between 20-25 37% unemployment. our big cities are crumbling rife with crime, poverty, and drugs, and we've been trying the government solution for 50 years and it hasn't worked. i want to try solution where we don't take the money from detroit, baltimore. we leave it in the inner city with businesses and in the hands of those who earn it and see we can create jobs in the inner

city. it doesn't work to send it to washington. by the time you switch it around , it's eaten up by the bureaucracy. >> you talk about republicans and democrats and say many americans are looking for a combination of the two. is that which are basing your candidacy on? the american people are ideologically changing? >> also, a plurality of americans, one third, our republican and democrat, they don't fit neatly in one box or the other. sometimes i am that way. and tiscali fiscally conservative, but i'm more libertarian on privacy issues and having a less interventionist foreign policy. i have allies, ron wyden, a progressive democrat on privacy. cory booker on criminal justice.

kiersten gillibrand on trying to in sexual assault in the military. i think it is interesting that there is a different way that is not entirely partisan. i'm pretty conservative on fiscal policy, but there are many other issues where i side with the progressives. >> you said you have a vision for america beyond partisan politics and petty differences. clinton, bush, barack obama, they also campaigned on the same things. >> why i like president obama as an individual, i don't think he has gotten beyond the politics. he has not come up to her a enough, met with congress, worked the legislative process. there are many things that could get done that we agree on. i've only been here a few years. most of my career was as a physician. let's say for example, immigration, it cannot pass as

it was passed in the senate. however, if there are 10 items encumbrance of immigration three items could pass tomorrow. the question is, do we box ourselves in and make ourselves beholding to an agreement where we cap find we can't find common ground. there is petty partisanship. we also want to accept of what we want sometimes. it doesn't mean we split the difference. it means you find things you agree with. senator wyden and i, but on privacy we happen to agree on issues. we don't split the difference. it's actually that we both strongly believe in privacy. >> 2008, your party was critical

of barack obama saying he did not have enough experience. you are a one term senator. do you have enough experience? sen. paul: what you want when somebody runs for president is wisdom, someone who is going to be commander-in-chief, someone who is going to be in charge of the nuclear weapons who is not rational reckless. i think there are a lot of things that you want as far as who you want to be making these decisions. whether you are a senator or not i think it's more the wisdom you're looking for than the exact job they've held. >> let me reed a quote to you. we are approaching the stage of the ultimate convergence, where the government is free to do anything it pleases while the citizens may act only with permission. sen. paul: it could apply to

today's time could we have such a big brother government that everywhere you look, the government is involved in our activities. economic affairs, personal affairs, e-mails, phone messages . they are not forthright or honest about whether they are doing it or not. that is one of the most disturbing developments that they are looking at our phone records. the head of the intelligence agency said that they weren't doing this, the government was not electing phone records in bulk. it wasn't out and out lie. we tolerated and he still works at the intelligence agency even though he told us an out and out lie. he is still in charge. that scares me. there are executive orders that i believe have to do with your text messages as well as your e-mails. they said the not reading e-mail content, but after six months,

the content of your e-mails is not protected either. any e-mail that is over six months old is not protected either by content. they also don't consider the subject heading to be content. there is a lot that could be in your subject heading. they also don't consider the website that you searching google to be content. think about it. if you google aids, civil rights, something like that come that could be a a personal thing and indicates an issue you are interested in. i think that is something that ought to be protected by your right to privacy. >> if you could write the first sentence of what the obama presidency has meant for this country, what would you write? sen. paul: i would say that the obama presidency, the worst thing that has happened for my point of view is the collapse of the separation of powers. i wouldn't blame it just an the president. i would blame it on the 100 year

history of congress acquiescing and giving up power. this president has been frustrated by not getting his way with congress. after he took over in 2010, after obamacare was passed after dodd frank, he basically gave up on working with congress at all as he figured he would not get what he wanted so he went around congress to use the executive branch. it's not him alone. it has been republican and democratic presidents who have consumed more and more power. i would say that it would be marked by this aggressive accumulation of power in the executive branch. >> you grew up in a political family. what was the best advice your dad ever gave you? sen. paul: people always ask me what he said when i ran for office. i think that one thing he advised was to have a career before you get involved in politics. i practice madison for nearly 20 years and still do.

i think it's important for people to have other life experiences. i don't think a legislator is truly connected with the people very well. i think it will be difficult to run a campaign for hillary clinton focus on the middle class. they make $200,000 an hour giving speeches. it will be hard for her to relate to the middle class. a lot of politicians suffer from that on both sides of the aisle. i think we ought to have more turnover in office. i laughingly say this, but i think there is no monopoly of knowledge here. i met a lot of people, and a lot of them are well-meaning, well red, bright, but i don't think they are especially uniquely qualified above and beyond. i would like to see more turnover. i would like for congress to be

half as long and pay them half as much. they need to go back home, go to the grocery store, working at home, and you could see the frustrations of those who are trying to run a profitable business. >> why did you decide to be an optimal just? sen. paul: my grandmother was a big influence on that. she was losing her vision during my childhood. i used to help her sort through coins. she had trouble with glaucoma and she also got macular degeneration. she became legally blind throughout her life. i went with her to an ophthalmologist a lot. i was around madison. i wanted to be a doctor, but over time i decided to grab a gravitate to the surgical side. >> when you travel to haiti or

bought a what is your take away? sen. paul: one of the things i tried to do is separate politics from what i'm doing. i tell people down there not to ask about my politics. we tend to focus on what we have to do. they do a lot of cataract surgeries. they are very good at it. we have a goal. it's a goal where we get to see the result immediately. you take a cataract out from someone who is functionally blind, and some of them concede to reader must immediately. it's an amazing thing. we had a guy last year in guatemala and he was weeping and

crying and thanking god. he had lost his wife, family, being kept in the shelter at a church. he completely lost everything, his job. he was so hopeful to try to get some of that back. >> how did you meet your wife, kelly? sen. paul: we met at an oyster roast at a friend's party and we wound up there and just of the talking. i found that she was interested in books. i am interested in books. she had been in english major at rhodes college. i was more of a science major but i did a lot of english and was interested in the american short story. we got to talking and dating, and we got married as i was starting my residency. i went back to do from atlanta to do my residency. >> you went from randall to

randy? >> my wife said your name ought to be rand, and it was. when i did, and it's hard to believe it is true, i never thought about ein rand. a couple of years after that, i was starting a group but the first question out of the reporters mouth was if i was named after her. it was a shortening of my name and never intended to have any connection with her. >> the story goes that you cut your hair before your wedding. sen. paul: my wife will complain that there is a problem with my hair, of course, so there is a running battle. it's not that i'm cheap

although i am frugal. it's just time. >> have you cut her own hair? sen. paul: it's an organized cast anyway, so you can't really tell most of the time. >> three children, what are they think of your candidacy? sen. paul: they are all involved in their own lives. one of my favorite memories is when i won the general election, we had a egg sign behind the stage, and when i came on stage, my two younger ones were playing ac/dc tnt. that was a good memory. i think they enjoy. it didn't bother me too much growing up. it's not always easy being related to someone famous. >> why do you want to be president? sen. paul: because no one is

really serious about the debt on either side. democrats are going to spend until the end of time on domestic spending. republicans and see no restraint on military spending. it has to be restraint across the board. what you are finding now is everybody is trying to explore the sequester. they already got rid of the meat of the sequester last year. republicans and democrats came together. the same argument is going on in the senate right now. my prediction is republicans will give the democrats what they want, more domestic spending if they can get the defense spending. the problem is that it is not good for the country, $18 trillion debt. a million dollars a minute. we need someone who will hold the line on all fronts. out of every dollar come we cap

one penny, the budget balances in five years. almost anybody you meet there was a year where you had to take a job with less pay cut back on what we spend. in washington, we do the opposite. when there is a recession, there's less money coming in less in tax revenue, and we spend more. in the first four years of that presidents term, we added over a trillion dollars a year in debt. over president obama's two terms, we will add more debt than all the previous presidents combined. we can either have a gradual demise, you just lose your purchasing power. you can also have a rapid unraveling, and that is a panic. 2008 was close to a panic. i don't believe we have fundamentally fixed all of that. i believe there is still enormous debt. there could some day be an

instantaneous recognition that something is seriously wrong here. the country is no longer producing like it did and has enormous debt. i hope that they doesn't calm. defend that off, we need to bring it into balance. it is a simple proposition. you only spend what comes in. the rest is common sense. if you did that, that would be so radical that everybody would say you can't do that. when i say i only want to spend what comes then, outside the beltway, that makes sense. >> why is it hard for the government to shrink? sen. paul: the people appear don't know what to do because they have been here too long. when i came up here and offered spending cut's, they said good when i was back home, but it's not enough to balance the budget. i was going to call $500

billion. it could be done. the upside here about austerity and it will be terrible, but with the government spending left there is more left in the community to create jobs. i think you get an anonymous amount of prosperity if you send lester washington. i think it will help poverty in this country. i'm saying let's leave more money in the communities. if it goes to washington it never gets back to the people who need it. let's leave it in the community. we have never tried that. we'll try the government way of sending it to washington and try eating some of it back. >> how do you win the nomination? what is your strategy? sen. paul: i thought you're going to tell me that. i really need to know. it's going to be a big field, 15 people running, 12 credible candidates on the republican side, and so you have to carve

out your space. i think we have a good space. i am the only one who fought against the nsa and privacy. i'm the only one who said any spending for defense you want to increase will have to be cut somewhere else in the budget. i and the only one that's really about balancing the budget, for a flat tax across the board to stimulate the economy. we do have a space. i am also the only one who thinks intervening overseas is not always the answer. we need to look before we leap. we need -- i'm guessing we will hear from others on the state you want to be involved all the time. i think that has led to a lot of problems in the middle east and has not made things more stable or less chaotic. >> do you enjoy campaigning? sen. paul: sometimes. i don't like the long hours on the plane, being in airports not being able to get out in the sun and exercise and a can of thing. do i like talking about issues? when i am in the element of

engaging at a dinner party or a question-and-answer, i like that. i like talking about the issues of the day. i would sit at the table with the adults when i was a kid to have a discussion about politics. a politician would be lying to you if they said they love being in the airports and on the planes and stuff. it is time away from home and family. i won't do it forever. you won't see me doing this every four years. i'm doing it now because i'm going to give it my all and i think we have a real chance, but you won't be seeing me do this every four years. >> the book is called taking a stand. senator rand paul, republican from kentucky. take you very much. >> thank you. >> c-span also set down with bernie sanders. he talked about his early life and family, his time in the senate, and why people should vote for him. this interview took thursday in senator sanders office on

capitol hill. it is about 50 minutes. >> senator bernie sanders, i want to talk about some of the issues that motivate your work in the senate and campaign. i want to talk about you first. you ran for the senate in the 1970's. at one point you got 2% and in 4% of the vote in vermont. you kept coming back, why? sen. sanders: i'm not the brightest guy in the world. in those days, 1970's, essentially we were running educational campaigns. i enjoyed them very much. when i ran for the first time in the special election in 1971, i got 2% of the vote to i came back and got 1%. i got 4%. then i got 6% of the vote. i always enjoy the opportunity getting out, talking to people, going to meetings, and talking

about the most important issues facing working people. in 1981, somebody suggested to run as an independent to become mayor of the city. we put together this incredible coalition of women's groups neighborhood activists organizations, environmentalists, unions, and burlington patrolmen's association, an incredible coalition. we won by 14 votes. >> you ran for the house, loss and came back. sen. sanders: i ran for the house in 1986 in a three-way race, 14% of the vote. we were heavily outspent. it showed me and the people of vermont that there was significant support for that message. i ran for the u.s. house, and

the republican won in a three-way race. the democrat up 19%. i got 31%. i am a fairly persistent guy. host: your legacy in burlington is mayor. sen. sanders: most people will tell you we essentially transform that city. it is now regarded as one of the most livable, exciting cities in the united states. thousands of people in downtown. we have a beautiful waterfront. we have a bike path that runs nine miles. we paid attention to the young people. we let the nation in coming up with a housing trust fund for affordable housing