CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Islamic State Strategy

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Let's get more now with Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.

He's joining us here in the studio.

And what do you think about this?

Aren't you worried about -- if it isn't mission creep, by definition, because the mission is the same, it's getting much bigger.

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND: Well, I do worry about it. And that's why I support this, but with one very important caveat, which is Congress needs to act and pass a resolution or revise the earlier resolutions that are on the books to make it crystal clear that this is only for the purpose of training Iraqi and Kurdish forces and not allowing these U.S. forces to be engaged in combat in any way.

We want to avoid another Iraq War 2.0. I would also, Brianna, want -- I want to distinguish this administration request from their separate request to train Iraq -- the Syrian rebels, the so-called Syrian rebels in places like Saudi Arabia. I have very serious concerns about that separate request that was made previously and will have to be renewed probably before the end of this year.

KEILAR: Do you think Congress -- when we're talking about this -- this request that may be coming or -- or this plan, if it were to be a request before Congress, will Congress do that?

VAN HOLLEN: Well...

KEILAR: Will Congress take this action?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, I'm not sure, because you have people like Senator McCain, who is on record very vocally saying he does not want to restrict the ability of U.S. forces to engage in combat against ISIS, whether it's in Iraq or Syria.

KEILAR: And on the left, you have Democrats who don't want to touch this with a 10 foot pole.

VAN HOLLEN: Well, I think you've got Democrats who are going to want to have a very lively discussion about this. But Democrats certainly want to make sure that we take action to stop ISIS. I mean ISIS clearly a threat. They're a particularly virulent extremist group.

So I think you saw a fair amount of support for Democrats from, for example, the president's action to provide air support to Iraqi forces.

But, yes, we firmly believe at the end of the day, this is the Iraqis' responsibility, to take this fight to ISIS within Iraq and push them out. We can provide training and some equipment...

KEILAR: Yes.

VAN HOLLEN: -- but we shouldn't be in that fight as combat.

KEILAR: So you support this, the idea of limiting the role so that it's not a combat role.

But hasn't the U.S. done this before, training Iraqi troops to try to take on an enemy of the U.S., an enemy of Iraq, to no avail, other than the loss of U.S. lives, thousands of them, and so much money, so many taxpayer dollars?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, I was, and am, a strong opponent of the war in Iraq, because we were involved in a combat mission that I didn't think it was our business to be in. What is different this time is the president has been successful in piecing together the political underpinnings for this. We had to get Prime Minister Maliki out of there because he was ruling Iraq not as a Iraqi national leader, but as a Shia strongman. And that alienated the Sunnis and opened the door to ISIS.

So now that we have a more united Iraqi government, I think there's an opportunity to provide more cohesion with the Iraqi forces in their training. Still, that is their job in terms of fighting ISIS. It's not ours. And Congress needs to make that clear, regardless of who the executive may be, because you never know how long this will...

KEILAR: Yes.

VAN HOLLEN: -- will go on.

KEILAR: But you trust the Iraqi government right now? VAN HOLLEN: I don't trust the Iraqi government. But I do trust the U.S. military to provide the best training possible. And, you know, we -- they talked about maybe not having a cap. I think we need to look...

KEILAR: But if -- if you don't trust the...

VAN HOLLEN: -- at the sides...

KEILAR: -- if you don't trust the Iraqi government, then but you're saying it's good because there's this, you know, a political step in the right way and this is obviously a government that can better govern and be more inclusive when it comes to the military, how do you expect that this is any different now, training of Iraqi forces, who, you know, when ISIS came in as a threat, many of them laid down their weapons and ran away?

VAN HOLLEN: Sure. Well, look, what I -- what I trust the Iraqi government to do is recognize that ISIS is a threat. I mean ISIS is a mortal threat to the Iraqi government. So the issue is not whether they want to get in this fight. The issue is whether they're properly organized and equipped to get in this fight.

And that's where I think the U.S. can be helpful. And we can also be helpful in making it clear that our support only comes with the understanding that the Shia militias who have actually undermined the ability to try and have -- bring -- bring the Sunni parts of Iraq into a more nationalist unit, a more nationalist unity, that that's had not part of this equation.

KEILAR: Why is this happening now, I mean, noticeably, three days after an election?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, I think it's happening now, because you finally do have in place the different components of the Iraqi government. They only...

KEILAR: You don't think this has anything...

VAN HOLLEN: -- relatively...

KEILAR: -- to do with the fact that it's after the election instead of before it?

VAN HOLLEN: No, I'm not -- I'm not sure how this would have played politically, actually, whether it would have been a plus or a minus. So I don't -- I don't think so. I think that you finally had the Iraqi government come together. You had a Sunni defense minister named. That was really important to try and achieve that national unity.

And now you need to provide the training. But, again, I do worry about mission creep. Absolutely. And Congress needs to act. I mean Congress needs to take responsibility one way or another for its part of the strategy.

KEILAR: You have confidence, it seems, that it will work better this time, training Iraqi troops.

Do you think that the president will be asking for another military authorization?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, he's indicated that he's going to ask for another authorization to use military force. In fact, the one on the books that he's operating under now is...

KEILAR: That we heard Michelle talk about.

VAN HOLLEN: That's right.

KEILAR: That, yes.

VAN HOLLEN: That's from 2001. That was the original authorization to go into Afghanistan against al Qaeda. And that is the way the president it -- and I understand his legal argument -- is very broad. It would actually allow the president to send U.S. combat forces not only into Iraq, but into Syria. So that's where the law stands now. I think it's important that Congress acts to narrow the authority of the executive so that we do not get dragged into another Iraq War.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I want to talk to you about immigration, the president making it clear that he wants to take unilateral action. Do you think that it's a bad -- I mean, should he do this, considering what -- how voters have spoken at the polls?

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND: I think, Brianna, that what voters said at the polls we should let the process of democracy work, and the fastest way to resolve this issue would be for the speaker of the House, John Boehner, to allow the House to vote on a comprehensive bipartisan bill that's already passed the Senate more than a year ago.

We've heard Republicans talk a lot about how Harry Reid was blocking votes. We haven't even been allowed a vote in the House on that bill. So if Speaker Boehner would allow that vote to come up, I think it would pass. But he could certainly then, you know, say the president won't need to move forward on executive action.

So I think that's one way to resolve this issue. Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner refused to even allow a vote in the House. And that bill goes away at the end of this year. When you have a new Congress come in, all the work that was done by the Senate, it's wiped off the books. You've got to start from scratch.

KEILAR: Doesn't it -- I wonder, though, the president saying that, that is something that -- and on the flip side, you have Republicans saying that they want to repeal Obama care, but you have President Obama saying that "I'm going to take unilateral action on immigration." That's not a White House saying we want to find common ground. Same with Republicans. This does not bode well.

VAN HOLLEN: I guess, Brianna, just you know, getting back to the vote. I mean, common ground, it seems to me, the principle of cooperation, would mean put it up for a vote, Mr. Speaker. Right? Put it up for a vote. It passed the Senate, bipartisan basis. Put it up for the vote. So what the president said is, if you're not going to allow democracy in the house to work its will, I am going to use my powers, to the extent that I have them, within the extent of the law.

KEILAR: You're say that you think the message from Tuesday was let the process work? The fact that so many Democrats stayed home and didn't even cast a ballot, do you think that is a message to Speaker Boehner to put this up for a vote?

VAN HOLLEN: I think the message was try to end the dysfunction in Washington. What better way to end the dysfunction on this particular issue than allow democracy to work its will. And let the House of Representatives, Republicans and Democrats alike, vote. If Boehner wants to vote no, so be it.

KEILAR: But isn't -- isn't the message from Americans, this is the makeup of Congress that we want for our government to come to decisions. I mean, shouldn't -- should these issues then wait until this new Congress -- this new Congress, you know, this is a lame duck. This new Congress doesn't come in until January. Isn't the message that we want these folks to work together? We want this White House to work with a Republican Senate and a Republican House to answer these pressing questions.

VAN HOLLEN: I think the message sent was we want the process to work for the country. And one way, in my view, to allow that process to work was allow us to have another vote. I mean, that's what the people's House is supposed to do. That is what it's designed to do.

And again, if it's defeated, it's defeated. I think it will pass. And what's really upsetting here to a lot of people is that I think Speaker Boehner doesn't want to bring this to a vote, even though it will pass. Because it will pass, even though you still have a majority Republican House.

KEILAR: This is a vote on easing restrictions, on some who are in the country illegally. Republicans want to obviously have other parts of immigration reform. They want -- they're concerned about border security. They don't trust the White House to act the way they want. Obviously, that's why Speaker Boehner doesn't want there to be a vote. Isn't that within his right as the speaker, with Republicans in the majority of the House?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, the Senate bill has a huge border security provision. I mean, it was so large that people like Senator McCain at the time said this is overdone. We've got too much fortification of the border.

But that was done in the Senate to address those very concerns that were raised. We need to make sure we have absolute border security to the maximum extent possible, and then at the same time, we provide a pathway for legalization ultimately citizenship. So that is part of the Senate bill.

What's happened is in the intervening, you know, 15 months we've seen zero action from the House.

So look, I think the president has said all along that he's going to take executive steps to the extent he's allowed to do it under the law. I do fear -- you are hearing voices from some Republicans saying that they might use the appropriations process to actually shut this down. And that would actually mean shutting down the government. I certainly hope we can avoid that, because the current funding for the government expires December 12. So we're going to have to renew that funding.

And if Republicans decide to use that as an opportunity to say, "We're not going to provide any funding that would allow the president to use his executive authority for this purpose," you could have a pretty big confrontation right out of the box. I hope that's avoided.

KEILAR: I want to ask you about Obamacare, because the Supreme Court will hear another legal challenge. This is on tax credits, on the subsidies that a lot of Americans under Obamacare get to help them pay for their health insurance. Speaker Boehner has also said that -- and we've heard this from the senator -- Senate-majority-leader-elect, Mitch McConnell, I guess you could say, they want to vote to repeal Obamacare.

Separately, this Supreme Court challenge, that must embolden the speaker, from your perspective.

VAN HOLLEN: I don't know what impact it's going to have on the speaker. Clearly, the fact that the Supreme Court took this up raises more uncertainty about the future of the Affordable Care Act. A big piece of it, as you say, this has to do with the subsidies that would be available through the federal exchanges. Not the state exchanges.

KEILAR: For those -- for those states generally governed by Republican governors who chose not to set up a state exchange and they're using the federal exchange.

VAN HOLLEN: That's exactly right. So I don't know what impact this will have on the speaker and Senator McConnell's decisions with how to move forward. My guess is they will continue to do what they just said they will do.

They're getting a lot of pressure from their right to start early on to try to repeal and roll back the whole of the Affordable Care Act. So we'll have to see what they do now.

KEILAR: But the Supreme Court, if it rules against the subsidies, that would gut Obamacare, right?

VAN HOLLEN: It would do severe damage. There's no doubt about it. Now, that decision will not come for quite some time. And so in the meantime, the question is, you know, whether Republicans decide to go through the show of trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act which the president has been very clear he would veto.

KEILAR: It could be June, and Republicans will have months at the helm before then.

VAN HOLLEN: There you go.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source