Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Russian Air Strikes Target ISIS Tanker Trucks; Interview with Rand Paul; FBI Director Expressing Concerns over House Refugee Legislation; House Overwhelmingly Passes New Refugee Vetting Legislation. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired November 19, 2015 - 13:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[13:30:00] NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Eyewitnesses even tens of kilometers away from Raqqa reporting the sound, the rumbling, incessant rumbling, 20 thuds, lengthy deep booms, heard about 3:00 this afternoon, eyewitnesses we spoke to said. Definitely Raqqa under strain. There are some activists who say that has caused the leadership to flee towards Mosul and Iraq. Others denying that. So hard to tell what the precise reaction on the ground is.

We know the French talk about targeting command and recruitment of training centers there. We know many are also asking quite how many targets have suddenly come into view in the past few days that weren't hit in the months of air strikes the U.S. put together in the past. But still, civilians inside that city. Still definitely ISIS present venting their movement out and fears that this is just the beginning -- Wolf?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: It looks like they're stepping up at least in recent weeks, since the Paris attacks strikes against the oil that ISIS is trying to sell. A lot of their money and they're make a lot of money. They've stolen oil fields in Iraq and they're using these tankers to take oil fields. They're even selling some of this oil clandestinely to the government in Damascus, that according to the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. So they're really going after the oil transport right now, aren't they?

PATON WALSH: Yes, and most notably, 116 explosions targeting a number of oil trucks, which the U.S. says they leafletted from the skies beforehand, saying, look, we're not after you, driver, we're after your trucks. Apparently, many fled and the machines were then destroyed. It's a fundamental part of their revenue gathering. Estimates suggesting they're getting as many as $1 million a month for selling oil on the black market here. Turkey state news today says that that is often sold to the Syrian government for a lengthy period of time. A complicated relationship with ISIS. Many suggesting in fact they allowed some of the hard-core jihadists who made nuclear devices early on. Very little proof to back that up. But still a general feeling the regime hasn't been attacking is as hard as they can.

Across northern Syria, their oil industry here is a fundamental part of the black economy and, in particular, given the volumes generated in Iraq, clearly at this stage ISIS still trying to make money from that -- Wolf?

BLITZER: Nick Paton Walsh in Syria for us. Nick, be careful. We'll stay in close touch with you. Thanks very much.

Coming up, we'll talk about the Syrian refugee debate with Republican presidential candidate, Rand Paul. He's standing by live. Also, the restrictions he's now calling for. Plus, what strategy he'd use to defeat ISIS if he were president of the United States.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:37:16] BLITZER: The terror attacks in Paris certainly have thrust a lot of issues into the spotlight, among them the backlash here in the United States against Syrian refugees and the focus on national security and foreign affairs and the race for the White House.

Joining us now to talk a little bit more about this, Kentucky Senator Republican presidential candidate, Rand Paul. He's at George Washington University. Clearly, some students there supporting his campaign.

Senator, you're on the Homeland Security committee. There's now another threat from ISIS, a specific threat we've been reporting, a new video specifically targeting the White House. Is ISIS really capable of an attack like that within the United States?

SEN. RAND PAUL, (R), KENTUCKY & PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't know that that is completely certain but I think we do have to protect ourselves. The number-one way we protect ourselves is by being careful and about who comes to visit us. I think having rules and requirements for coming to America are very reasonable things we ought to do, and the first thing we ought to do.

BLITZER: What would you want to do to prevent potentially terrorists from coming into the United States? How far would you go?

PAUL: Well, you know, in my town, Bowling Green, Kentucky, we had two people come from Iraq. They posed as refugees but they were on a watch list already. They had fingerprints on a bomb fragment from Iraq and we just didn't do a good enough screening process. I'm still not convinced -- I think that the system is overwhelmed. And that we don't have the ability to even go through what we had currently in our country. So we do need to press pause and make sure we have a good system. When a whole section of the world is saying they want to come here and attack us, there are obviously many good people who live there who are our friends, but we have to be careful. It's hard to tell friend from foe. Even in France, a country that's been our friend for so long, there are many people within France who are French citizens that wish the government of France harm and they also wish us harm. Having rules about how people travel to the United States or who can immigrate to the United States I think are very reasonable things to ask for. BLITZER: Because most of the terrorists in the Paris massacre were

either French or Belgium citizens. They easily could come to the United States. Just get on a plane under the visa waiver program. They're tourists, let's say, they can show up at JFK easily. You want to prevent all French and Belgium citizens from coming to the U.S.?

[13:39:44] PAUL: For the visa waiver countries, these are our friends, our allies, England, Germany, France, I would say, yes, you can come and visit us. Come through Global Entry. That means you do a background check. If you're a business man or woman from France, you come here all the time. We want you to come. We want to do business with France. But I don't think it's asking too much to go through Global Entry.

I went through the frequent flyer program to be able to fly in a less molested way in the United States. I think French travelers could do the same kind of thing. I think if we don't do that, we have to have a waiting period. Because I think many of the attackers in France could have actually gotten on a plane. Some of them will probably turn out to have been on a watch list but I think some of them will turn out to be people for whom we did not have any suspicion. But I think making people go through a process to visit our country, it's the only thing we can do. It's actually a lot less expensive than sending a half a million young American sons and daughters back there for another war. I think another big land war in Iraq is a mistake and I'm not for it.

BLITZER: How do you destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria, Senator, because air power, by all accounts, is not going to do it, ground troops are necessary. Under what circumstances would you, as president, order U.S. ground forces into Syria, let's say, to destroy ISIS?

PAUL: I think a long-lasting victory in the U.S. and a long-lasting peace, that means something ultimately will have to be that the civilized parts of Islam, which are 90 percent of Islam, they need to rise up and they need to stamp out this aberration. I've met so many good people of the Islamic faith. They need to rise up and they need to say what ISIS is doing does not represent our religion.

If America goes over there and we win the war again and America occupies Sunni Muslim city, it will be another generation that will rise up to battle us. If it's local people, particularly Sunni Muslims, who stand up and say, enough's enough, ISIS doesn't represent my religion, that's when the ultimate victory comes. But it will be in a completely and entirely annihilating not just people that are part of the ISIS movement but the ideology that I don't think represents Islam. But I can't be the spokesman for that. People who believe in Islam need to rise up, they need to be loud, and they need to be the boots on the ground.

BLITZER: Senator Paul, thanks for joining us.

(CHEERING)

PAUL: Thanks, Wolf. BLITZER: Coming up, the growing debate about Syrian refugees coming

to the United States. The FBI Director James Comey now expressing concerns about a new House piece of legislation. We're going to go live. We'll get a full report.

More on the breaking news when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:47:00] BLITZER: We got some breaking news. The FBI Director James Comey now weighing in over the huge debate involving Syrian refugees coming to the United States. He says he has concerns about pending legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill would require national security officials to certify whether an approved refugee is a threat to the United States.

Our justice reporter, Evan Perez, is joining us now with more.

So what are the major concerns that the FBI director has?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, he has really some grave concerns here that this legislation would allow anyone into this country, any refugee. And even perhaps affect travel by people coming from visa waiver countries. These are three dozen countries where citizens are allowed to travel to the United States with easier process because they have a waiver on visa requirements. We're told Comey has expressed this view to the administration officials and some members of Congress who have asked for his views and he simply is saying this requirement where he would have to personally sign off on every individual refugee coming from Syria and Iraq is just frankly impossible. The issue here is there's always risk in allowing anyone, any foreigner into this country, and Comey believes essentially the process that's in place where the FBI works with intelligence agencies, Homeland Security department, to try to vet these refugees, a process that takes a couple of years right now, that that process is pretty much the best we can have. As you know, Wolf, there has been some really big concerns that for instance refugees who are let in from Iraq in the past decade, that some of those people have committed crimes, including been charged with terrorism, but that was a different problem. Right now, the FBI thinks they frankly have as good a process as they can have and so Comey's letting that be known now to members of Congress and to the White House -- Wolf.

BLITZER: So he's basically, correct me if I'm wrong, on the same page as the Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson who also has concerns about this pending legislation?

PEREZ: Exactly, exactly. Jeh Johnson said last night he thought this bill would micromanage what national security officials here are doing as far as trying to vet the refugees that are coming from Syria and Iraq. He thinks the process they have is pretty good. Obviously, there's no process that's going to be 100 percent guarantee. This bill, according to Comey and according to Johnson, would require them to give a 100 percent personal guarantee that they just don't believe they can meet. BLITZER: A lot of the critics, they point to the Tsarnaev brothers

who came to the United States, and they're looking back at that, and that's one of the sources of their concern. Have you heard that?

[13:49:55] PEREZ: Absolutely, that is one of the concerns. We have to remember also the Tsarnaev brothers came in as children. So they turned radicalized, they turned to terrorism much later after they were here. Again, there was no process really that would have prevented them from coming in here. There's no vetting that would have stopped that. There are other examples. For instance, there was a case a couple years ago, out of Bowling Green, Kentucky, where men were charged with terrorism charges because their fingerprints were found on IEDs taken from Iraq. In other words, they were being used against members of the U.S. military and later on their fingerprints were found on those IEDs. That's a failure of the vetting process as it existed then. Frankly, those people were allowed in and nobody checked databases that the U.S. already had. So what the FBI and DHS say is the process they have right now makes sure that people like that would not come through -- Wolf?

BLITZER: Evan Perez, reporting for us. Thank you very much, Evan.

Right now the House of Representatives, by the way, they are voting on increased screening for refugees. As soon as the tally comes down, we'll bring it to you. Standby for that.

Up next, I'll speak to one member of Congress who has taken a refugee into his own home. Congressman Seth Moulton, of Massachusetts, standing by to join us live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:55:33] BLITZER: We have breaking news. The House of Representatives has just voted to change the vetting process for Syrian refugees entering the United States. Take a look at the roll call. No time really left to vote. Overwhelmingly, it has passed the legislation that the House speaker -- let's listen in quickly to hear what he says.

(SHOUTING)

BLITZER: All right, well, we just heard from the president pro-tem of the House of Representatives that the legislation has passed overwhelmingly, not just by Republicans but Democrats as well.

Joe Johns was monitoring it.

Joe, what's the final roll call tally?

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: It looks like 289 people voted for the legislation. The question right now is, how many seats are open in the House of Representatives, because we are trying to see -- there we go. I'm told this is a veto-proof majority, but because John Boehner, who left the House of Representatives, his seat has not been filled. It means that if this bill were to come back to the president of the United States, he vetoed it, then the House would be able to override that veto. So that's the important.

Nonetheless, there are other factors to consider on this legislation that would block refugees from Syria and Iraq from coming in the United States until the certain members of the administration are able to certify that those individuals are not terrorists.

But the other important consideration here is that the White House has threatened a veto. The Senate today we heard from Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, saying Democrats will do everything in their power to try to block this legislation from ever reaching the president's desk. So huge questions about what will happen to this legislation, and down the road the possibility, we're told, that Republicans might consider putting this on the big spending bill that has to be passed around December 11th, setting up at least, in theory, the possibility there could be a showdown that led to parts of the government being shut down if this it were pushed through by Republicans. A lot of questions here.

The important thing is that it is passed by a huge majority in the House of Representatives, pushed through by the new speaker of the House, Paul Ryan -- Wolf?

BLITZER: Paul Ryan was clearly in favor of this. He made it -- in a statement yesterday he wanted this it pause, as they say, in the vetting process as far as letting refugees coming into the United States from Syria and Iraq. All the Republicans, with the exception of three -- three Republicans voted against the legislation. But the Republicans were joined by about 45 Democrats who voted in favor. As a result, there would be that potential veto-proof majority in the House of Representatives, a two-thirds majority if the president were to veto it.

But before that process goes forward, it still has to go to the U.S. Senate. It goes from the House to the Senate. The question is, are there 60 members in the U.S. Senate that will support this now House- approved legislation?

JOHNS: And, Wolf, the other thing you have to say, and while people will say the issue of politics ends at the water's edge here on Capitol Hill, we are approaching an election season and there will be some heartburn as we get closer to the idea of voting against a national security bill if you're up for reelection in a particular House district or up for reelection in a state. So that's a thing that's going to have to be considered down the road.

We do know, also, that a couple top officials from the administration, the chief of staff, as well as the Homeland Security secretary, met with some House Democrats today to try to talk them through the reasons for voting against this bill. There were a lot of concerns that the administration's positions were not thought out that well, because typically in many cases, administration officials actually have to certify other things to Congress, why not certify on the important issue of not letting Iraqi and Syrian individuals who might be terrorists get through into the United States.

So there are some questions about this bill and a little bit of heartburn demonstrated on the House side about whether this thing should be shot down because the administration doesn't like it.

BLITZER: Joe Johns, thank you very much.

That's all the time we have. The news continues next on CNN.