CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: National Security Threats and Congress's Role in the Middle East

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: And it's merely a hope right now. Let's see if it materializes. Elise, thank you.

Joining us now, Senator Tim Kaine. He's the Democrat from Virginia. He's a key member of both the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees.

Senator, thanks very much for joining us.

SEN. TIM KAINE (D), VIRGINIA: You bet, Wolf. Glad to be with you.

BLITZER: This senior al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader, this guy Nasr Ibn Ali al-Ansi, killed in a U.S. drone strike, do you have any information on whether he was the target of the strike or the U.S. simply got lucky and killed him?

KAINE: Wolf, I actually don't have any information that I can share about that, but the news is positive, although the situation in Yemen is very complicated between the Houthis, AQAP and ISIL presence, the Iranian backing of the Houthis and then Saudi Arabia and other nations trying to prop up the government.

It is a very complicated situation right now.

BLITZER: Certainly is.

What's the U.S. strategy, though, in dealing with AQAP in Yemen, now that the U.S. has pulled out of its embassy there, shut it down, moved military forces out? What is the strategy in dealing with arguably the most serious al Qaeda threat to the United States?

KAINE: Well, the AQAP branch is, as you point out, one of the most serious.

And the 2001 authorization that was passed by Congress still allows us to take action against them. But with the reduced footprint in Yemen, it does become more difficult. When we remove personnel, it does weaken the quantity and quality of some of the intelligence we have. But we're not giving up on still trying to play an important role there, and the cease-fire news is very positive because the humanitarian crisis is also something we should care deeply about.

BLITZER: Do you think that is serious, that cease-fire, that they could work out some diplomatic pause, if you will?

[18:10:00]

KAINE: It is steps like this often lead to a diplomatic pause. I don't think we can predict that this five-day humanitarian cease- fire will necessarily do that.

But you have to find these small steps and then try to build off them. And if the sides respect the cease-fire, it can obviously go on longer.

BLITZER: So, you believe that these drone strikes are a good thing, the U.S. should continue to target for assassination, if you will, or death these AQAP personnel?

KAINE: Wolf, here's what I think. Drones are a weapon like any other.

They're like a jet. They're like a tank. We do have a war that was declared in 2001 against al Qaeda. And there are still al Qaeda elements that threaten the United States. And so while I have grave concern about the war against ISIL not having been authorized by Congress -- today is the end of the ninth month of an undeclared, unauthorized war -- and I think Congress needs to take that up. The use of a military asset, whether it's a drone or other military asset, against al Qaeda members is something that I continue to support.

BLITZER: Do you see any hope that there is going to be this authorization for this war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria coming forward from Congress anytime soon?

KAINE: Wolf, I do.

We have just seen a pretty remarkable thing happen in the Senate today. A matter that was deeply partisan just two months ago, whether or not Congress should be able to review an ultimate nuclear deal with Iran, I worked on a bill, helped draft it with Senator Corker, passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee, completely unanimous, bipartisan, about a month ago.

And today, by 98-1 vote, because of the Foreign Relations Committee's action, the Senate approved an orderly and careful process for reviewing an important diplomatic deal with Iran if we get one. We are now going to turn our attention to the authorization for this nine-month war against ISIL. And if we can act in the Foreign Relations Committee in a bipartisan way on the Iranian nuclear negotiation, we can do it on this and our troops deserve it.

They have been fighting without any indication that Congress even cares about the war. We need to dig into this authorization. It's very complicated, but we can resolve differences and put our bipartisan support behind a mission that I think Americans see. ISIL is not shrinking. They're not going away. They're metastasizing and growing. The United States needs to take action. But Congress has to support it.

BLITZER: Well, when is that going to happen? When is there going to be a roll call vote on legislation authorizing the use of force against ISIS in Iraq and Syria?

KAINE: Wolf, I'll tell you, I think it's going to start in the Senate. I don't think you will see the House do anything if we don't.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has already had one vote on this in December, but an authorization died without floor action. But both Chairman Corker and ranking member Ben Cardin of Maryland have said that they want to take this up. They're looking for a path to find a bipartisan authorization.

Members of the committee are trading draft language on some of the challenging points. With the American public strongly supporting military action against ISIL, with probably three-quarters of both houses of Congress, bipartisan, supporting action against ISIL to some degree, we ought to be able to bridge over some of the differences and some key points and provide that kind of bipartisan support that we need to show ISIL that we have resolve, but our allies and our troops also deserve to see that show of unity from Congress.

BLITZER: You know the president's position. He says he already has the authority. He really doesn't need another vote in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives, but if you guys want to have a vote that supports what he's doing, go right ahead. You like that attitude he's got?

KAINE: No, I think, look, you would expect an executive to say we think we have authorities, but the president's legal authorities that they cite are based upon authorizations passed by Congress 14 or 15 years ago about different circumstances targeting different groups in different countries.

I think it is way too much of a stretch to take those authorizations and then say they apply here. And the members of Congress who were here then who voted on them say this never would have been within the contemplation of those authorizations. So the White House did send us a draft authorization in February.

They attempted to try to bridge some differences between Democratic and Republican positions, and, frankly, that effort sort of made nobody happy. But they do have a working template of an authorization that we're working with. Many of the White House provisions, I think, will be acceptable. There are probably three issues between Democrats and Republicans where there are some differences and we're trying to hammer those out now.

But, again, the vote today of a 98-1 vote in the Senate on an important and tough, difficult issue of Iranian nuclear diplomacy shows that we're taking these issues seriously again. And we can get to answer that will put congressional support behind the war against ISIL.

BLITZER: And, as you point out, it's now nine months since the start of this war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. You call it ISIL, ISIS, same organization.

[18:15:09]

Senator, we have more to discuss. Please stay with us. We will resume our conversation right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We're back with Virginia Senator Tim Kaine.

The breaking news we're following, the FBI revealing it did, in fact, issue a warning to local police in Texas about the gunman, Elton Simpson, just hours before the terror attack over the weekend.

[18:20:11]

They issued a warning, but they didn't know he was on the way to Texas. Was there a problem here? Do you think there was some sort of intelligence failure, Senator?

KAINE: Well, you certainly have to look at it, Wolf.

As you know, one of the persistent challenges we have is, in a government this size, you know, one agency knowing something and do they promptly transmit it to another? Now, in this case, there was a transmittal of the information. Was it timely? We have to figure that out.

But, look, the way I see this situation is, once we start to see ISIL claiming credit for attacks in Libya and Yemen and Afghanistan and ISIL -- individuals inspired or influenced by ISIL even undertaking attacks here in the United States, any notion that this threat is just going to go away is wrong. It's metastasizing and growing.

And that's another reason why Congress has to take up the matter of this authorization and also sort of define the shape and scope of the mission, because the more places they are, that starts to change what the mission should be.

BLITZER: But some of the people who say Congress doesn't need to pass new authorization, they point out that ISIS or ISIL used to be al Qaeda in Iraq, and the war against al Qaeda already has that post-9/11 authorization. Your response to that?

KAINE: There are some who say that, Wolf. But I think if you look at the authorization that was passed three days after 9/11, here's what it said and here's what it didn't say.

It said that the Congress gave to the president the ability to take military action against those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11. That's what it said. ISIL was not formed until 2003, two years after 9/11. ISIL is not an ally of al Qaeda. They're an enemy of al Qaeda. They're fighting against al Qaeda now.

President Bush did say to Congress at the time, give me the power to take military action against any terrorist group that means harm to the United States, and if Congress had passed that authorization, it would be a different matter. But Congress explicitly rejected that authorization. And I think that action of Congress shows that you can't just take the 9/11 authorization and stretch it to cover everybody. That's why we need a new war authorization.

BLITZER: How worried are you when the FBI director, James Comey, as he said today, suggesting that there are more plots in the works, ISIS attacks in the United States along the lines of what we saw in Texas a few days ago? Is that a serious threat from your perspective?

KAINE: I do think it's a serious threat, Wolf.

And I would say plots in the works, you know, there are all kinds of people, some folks who are kind of in the deranged or pathological side who are planning things, but, as we know, even one person with no connection to ISIL, and I'm not sure that there's any evidence that these individuals in Texas had any real connection, but if they can be targeted on social media and inspired by ISIL, one or two people can do an awful lot of very, very bad things. And so we tend to have a pretty good ability using domestic law

enforcement powers to stop them. But it just shows the extent of this threat and Congress can't pretend like it's going to go away or this problem will solve itself.

BLITZER: As you know, ISIS has supporters all over the country, sympathizers. And there's a report out there specifically in 19 states, including your state of Virginia, they say the fourth largest number ISIS sympathizers or supporters on social media, the fourth largest is in Virginia, that according to a study by the New America Foundation.

Is the U.S. right now local, state, federal authorities doing enough to protect American citizens from these homegrown terrorists?

KAINE: Wolf, I think no.

I don't think we're using enough creative strategies on the social media platforms to try to stop these threats and stop their ability to influence people. ISIL has shown a real sophistication in using social media to take advantage of vulnerable people, of people who are disaffected and angry or depressed. They have shown a great ability to do it.

And we need to work on social media platforms and also work with community leaders. There are some strong examples around the country of anti-radicalization efforts. But we need to take some of the best of those and make sure that they're available all across the nation.

BLITZER: One final question on the Iran nuclear deal that seems to be in the works. There's no deal yet. Let's see what happens, but Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, he was the lone dissenter, 98-1 vote.

He says he opposed it because he thinks this agreement, if there is an agreement, should be submitted to the Senate as a treaty demanding two-thirds majority vote. Your thoughts?

[18:25:00]

KAINE: Wolf, I oppose that for a couple of reasons.

First, this isn't a deal that rises to the level of a treaty under international law that would require a two-thirds vote. So this is normally in an area of the kind of a deal where the president could actually do it without congressional approval.

However, in this particular instance, because the negotiation is about what must Iran do to get out from under congressional sanctions, that's what has brought Iran to the table. Congress must have a role.

The other reason why I disagree with Senator Cotton is this. His argument would confine the congressional review only to the Senate. It would completely cut the House out of the process, when it was the House that was an equal partner with the Senate in erecting the congressional sanctions regime. So, we shouldn't cut the House out and we shouldn't call it a

treaty that requires a two-thirds vote, when it actually doesn't rise to the formal level of a treaty under international law.

BLITZER: Hey, Senator, thanks very much for joining us.

KAINE: All right, thanks, Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source