CNN "Newsroom" - Transcript: Interview with Sen. Lankford

Interview

Date: Feb. 12, 2019

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

JIM SCIUTTO, HOST, NEWSROOM: We do not know yet how President Trump feels about the agreement in principle to fund the government. But here's a look at the details of that deal, $1.375 billion for a barrier, of course, less than the agreement in the December.

Funding for more than 40,000 ICE beds and an increase in overall DHS spending. Bottomless, Congress is going to give the president the wall money he demanded, just a fraction of it. But a conservative source tells Cnn that he will probably take the deal for what it is, and then use executive action to get more money elsewhere.

Joining me now is Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, he sits on the key Appropriations Committee. Senator, thanks for taking the time this morning.

SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R), OKLAHOMA: You bet, glad to be with you again.

SCIUTTO: So senator, you've said in the past that you would not support a deal without money for barriers. This deal as you know, funds about 55 miles of a border barrier, a prohibition we should note on any sort of concrete wall. In your view, is this enough?

LANKFORD: Well, we've got to see the rest of the details. By the way, it's not a problem having no concrete barriers, nobody is really asking for concrete barriers, that's been a campaign slogan. But in practicality, it's always been about these steel slats, a metal barrier, that's what the border patrol look for.

What we don't know yet on this deal, and there's only a few people that have seen in the details of it. By far, most of us haven't. In fact, many of the negotiators haven't even seen all the details of it. I ran into somebody on the Conference Committee early this morning who said that he hadn't seen all the details on it yet.

[09:20:00] So we're waiting to be able to see that. And we want to see, is it 55 miles of new area or is it 55 miles of replacing area? As you know, there's almost 700 miles of fencing right now, much of it has to be replaced. So we don't know yet whether this is new or this is replacement and how that fits in, we'll see in the hours ahead.

SCIUTTO: OK, so you're reserving judgment. You are aware that Cnn is reporting and others that the president -- and of course, this could change, but the president may accept this deal, but then seek money elsewhere and use an executive order to obtain money elsewhere to build more of the wall. I want to ask you, what would be your reaction to that? Do you believe

an American president when denied funding he wants in Congress has the authority to find money elsewhere?

LANKFORD: There are areas that he has authority to be able to use right now. What's called reprogramming, every president has that, and if it is within a certain line item to be able to reprogram it for other purposes. This is very different than the conversation before about using executive action, taking it from military budget, and taking it from other areas that are not classic reprogramming.

So again, we'll have to be able to see the details on that. I wouldn't have a problem if the president's reprogramming some of those funds. For instance, there is a fund that Senate calls the Treasury Asset Forfeiture Fund, that can be used for any law enforcement purposes.

That could clearly be used under the law right now for whatever purpose they choose to on law enforcement, including for border barriers. We'll have to be able to see where those funds come from though, that doesn't matter --

SCIUTTO: Right.

LANKFORD: A lot. It's important that we actually follow the law in this process.

SCIUTTO: Well, but let me ask you this because -- and I know you, yourself, given credit where credit is due have expressed reservations about a president overdoing an authority like this. Would you support for instance a Democratic president using similar authorities to find funds for expanding Medicare or imposing restrictions on gun rights?

I mean, are you worried about a precedent here that the president would be setting?

LANKFORD: Yes, it has been one of the things that I verbalized after President Obama was famous for saying, I have a pen and a phone, I'm going to take action.

SCIUTTO: Yes --

LANKFORD: I don't want this ever to be a situation where this is a pen and a phone and a checkbook, and I can just use money wherever I want to. It has to say within the same line items. For instance, if you took money from the Department of Homeland Security, as you mentioned your early illustration and moved it to Medicaid or Medicare, that is exactly the wrong way to do it.

That is moving money from one account to another one, and you can't do that by law. I would adamantly oppose that, I would oppose that under this president as well. If he took money from one account and moved it to another one where it was clearly not intended to be.

So again, we've got to be able to see the details of it. There are several billion dollars that are in this Treasury Asset Forfeiture Fund, that are potential, that are out there that can be used for a stated purpose that is within the law. And we'll see if he targets to be able to use that, and I would assume he would.

SCIUTTO: As you're aware, the president has deployed thousands of active U.S. military to the border. The "New York Times" reported earlier this week that senior military officers are voicing concerns that those deployed troops are not being able to train for other essential missions.

I know you've been very vocal on national security issues, issues dealing with --

LANKFORD: Yes --

SCIUTTO: The military. Are you concerned that the president is using the military here for political purposes and causing damage elsewhere?

LANKFORD: I actually don't see them being used for political purposes. There really is a security risk on the border. I know everybody gets spun up on saying that this is a purely partisan issue, it's about a campaign promise until you've actually talked to some of the border patrol folks that are on the border and some of the ICE folks that are there.

And they can identify this is where their drugs are coming in, this is where we have human trafficking happening during this area. There really are humanitarian issues on the border, we've got to be able to manage those. And to be more aggressive to be able to manage it, every president of the last several have all used National Guard troops at different times to be able to assist some of our border patrol and ICE folks that are there.

Clearly, the border patrol, they are the law enforcement, but when they are setting up tents, when they're setting u concertina wire, when they're trying to be able to help provide some support to them, that is within their legal authority, they do. And I don't think that's a political purpose, I think it's a national security purpose.

SCIUTTO: But even when they're not able to then train for other crucial missions? I mean, this is a concern from U.S. military officers --

LANKFORD: Sure --

SCIUTTO: They're not able to meet those demands. Aren't there others who can set up barbed wire behind the lines of the U.S. border here?

LANKFORD: That's why -- that's why it's very common for the National Guard to be able to do that. Because typically, National Guard will step in to be able -- to be able to provide assistance. For instance, as helicopter support, other things that are there.

Currently, the news is that California is going to withdraw some of their National Guards --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

LANKFORD: Folks which would require an active duty to be able to fill that in. That is a problem to be able to do that. So as much as we can do, we should use National Guard for individual states.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you on another topic on Saudi Arabia. You've been vocal on this. It's more than four months now since the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi. You said in the past following a briefing on that murder, you said that this is the kind of behavior we expect from Russia and North Korea. And you said that the U.S. needs to confront them. As you're aware, this administration had a deadline this past Friday under the Magnitsky Act.

[09:25:00] The law of the land in the U.S. --

LANKFORD: Right --

SCIUTTO: To report back on that murder. They blew past that deadline, they said it's within their authority to do so. In your view, is this administration failing to meet its obligations under the law?

LANKFORD: Yes, this White House should actually report out what they know about the Khashoggi murder. They should follow the Magnitsky Act. This has been a law that's out there. This is how Senate White House have all come to an agreement.

The White House, State Department specific, and our investigators should be able to look at and identify who is responsible and any sanctions that are required under the Act. We should actually impose under that Act. This is whether it's friends or enemies, we should be able to still respond on basic human rights.

SCIUTTO: And if the administration fails, will the U.S. Senate therefore hold Saudi Arabia accountable?

LANKFORD: I think the first step that'll happen is you'll have a lot of senators as you've heard step up to the administration and say follow through on the law, and so to be able to put pressure on them. You'll see it in hearings that are coming up in the days ahead.

Every time Mike Pompeo is here, there will be a requirement, where is that response, where is that information? You will see a slowdown on some of the items the administration is looking for, dealing with State Department until we get that information.

But the goal is, again, this is not to hurt the administration. This is to get the facts and the details out there, we hold people accountable worldwide.

SCIUTTO: Senator Lankford, thank you for joining us this morning.

LANKFORD: You bet. Glad to be able to be with you in the conversation. SCIUTTO: Well, most Americans say that they want to see a Mueller report. But President Trump's former lawyer does not think there will even be one. And we are moments away from the opening bell on Wall Street. The Dow set to jump this morning, you see those green arrows, investors are optimistic over a tentative deal to avoid a second government shutdown.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source
arrow_upward