CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: "Interview with Rep. Jim Banks"

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: It certainly is.

All right, Jim Acosta, thank you very much.

Joining us now, Republican Congressman Jim Banks. He's a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

REP. JIM BANKS (R-IN): Great to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: So you served in Afghanistan. What's your reaction -- we just heard from Jim Acosta -- to this announcement from the president that he's going to significantly reduce U.S. troops there to less than 9,000?

BANKS: Well, the deal is still yet to be finalized, Wolf. But I am one who believes that a sustained presence in Afghanistan is important to continue to fight the Taliban, fight future threats that come from that part of the globe.

But it appears that the deal that President Trump is striking with the Taliban would leave a residual force there. It would be more focused on counterterrorism. And if that is where the president and the administration arrives, then I think I can support where we're heading.

BLITZER: Because, right now, there's, what, about 14,000 or 15,000 U.S. troops, a lot more contractor -- American contractors there, but that would be a significant reduction.

Let's get back to Hurricane Dorian right now, which is the breaking news we're following, serious threat to Florida, maybe Georgia as well.

First of all, are you pleased that the president decided to at least postpone his visit this weekend to Poland in order to stay here in the United States and monitor this storm?

BANKS: It's a wise decision by the president for him to be that focused on the storm.

I also know that Governor DeSantis -- I know the governor very well, served with him in the House of Representatives. I know he's preparing as well as he can in his position as governor, working closely with the federal government, to do everything that they can to prepare as well.

So I'm pleased that the president made that decision. I'm sure he will be focused on the storm and what we can do at the federal level to help our partners at the state level to keep everyone safe in Florida.

BLITZER: You heard, in Jim Acosta's report, that the president's level of really a lot of support for the people of Florida right now and Georgia very different to the kind of image he was projecting when this storm was threatening Puerto Rico.

What do you make of that?

BANKS: Well, I have been in Congress, Wolf, for two-and-a-half years, and we have had a number of these storms that have wreaked havoc on both coasts and in other places that we -- that the Congress has appropriated a large amount of money and supplemental aid to different regions to help from time to time.

And the president each -- in every each and every case, including with Puerto Rico, has supported those large aid packages. At the same time, we should hold those accountable who spend those funds. And I think that's where the president's frustration has come and to make sure that those funds are spent on what they're meant for, what the American people are appropriating those dollars to do. So I don't think everything has to be about politics. And in this

case, the president is showing wise leadership in not going to Poland, staying on the ground to focus our federal resources and how we can help all who are affected by this storm.

BLITZER: The canceled trip to Poland this weekend means that the president won't have his scheduled meeting in Warsaw with the new Ukrainian president, at the same time as the president is now thinking very seriously of blocking $250 million in U.S. military assistance to Ukraine.

Now, should the administration be doing more to help the people of Ukraine against Russian aggression?

BANKS: Well, Wolf, the administration should keep doing what they have been doing since President Trump took office.

[18:15:03]

And that's -- that's helping Ukraine fight against Russian aggression.

This administration deserves high marks.

BLITZER: But should the U.S. block $250 million in appropriated funds, military aid for Ukraine, as the president is now suggesting?

BANKS: Well, the president isn't suggesting that he's going to do that. He's called for a review of our foreign assistance to Ukraine.

But the fact of the matter, Wolf, is that this president has provided lethal aid to our Ukrainian partners to fight against the Russians. I have been in Ukraine on the eastern front and just recently, since I have been in Congress, to see firsthand what our American troops do to train the men and women of the Ukrainian military to fight back against the Russians as well.

When President -- when President Obama was in office, and the Ukrainians asked for help, we sent them blankets. President Trump has sent them lethal aid to fight back against the Russians. This president has been tough in that regard, in giving the Ukrainians what they need to battle back against Russian aggression.

BLITZER: Well...

BANKS: And my hope is that he will continue to do so.

If President Trump cuts foreign aid to Ukraine, and I don't -- I don't think he will do that -- have me back on the show, and I will criticize that. But that's not what he has -- what he has decided to do with this at this point in time.

BLITZER: But you would have -- and you're right. He hasn't made a final decision on this.

But if he were to make a final decision and eliminate that $250 million in military aid to Ukraine, you would be opposed to that? BANKS: I would be opposed to that.

But I'm not opposed to the president calling for a review of the substantial amount of money that we spend in foreign aid to support the Ukrainians. That is all that he's done at this point.

And I imagine that that review will come back with a positive outlook of how our aid dollars are spent with our -- with a very important partner that we have in Ukraine in a very important region of the world.

BLITZER: Congressman Jim Banks, thanks so much for joining us.

BANKS: Great to be with you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source