Foreign relations chairman, bob corker. [applaus [applause] good morning, everybody. This really is a city of early risers. Were sorry that mika and joe couldnt be with us this morning, but we have senator and the journalist, senator corker and me to have a good Early Morning conversation with you, briefly to introduce senator corker. Im sure this audience know hes chairman of the Senate Foreign relations committee, one of the truly distinguished positions in our congress. Hes a twoterm senator. He was a mayor of chattanooga if im not mistaken. He has been on key legislative issues, somebody who really has read into the details. He played a very influential, i want to say decisive role in the final Senate Consideration of the iran sanctions bill two years ago. Were going to talk about that. But the senator, first, its great to have you here. Good to be here. Host coming early in the morning and we promise next time we wont ask you for 6 30, well move it back in the day. Remember, i was in the construction business, so this is not early. [laughter] well, these days it seems like, you know, the if its either fox and friends or mika and joe or sometimes at the washington post, thats how people are starting their day. Let me ask you immediately on your legislative calendar, that is the russia sanctions bill. Right. Host which youve already passed one version of it, its come back to you from the house. And let me ask you, first about negotiating this with the white house that did not want its hands tied in terms of its ability to take sanctions off, appropriate, wanted to have that freedom as president s traditionally have had. Thats a normal part of negotiations. In this case youve tied his hands. Tell us why and tell us about how that negotiation went. So, increasingly, ive been chairman of the Foreign Relations committee for a few years and my goal was to bring back to the senate and to congress more of the power and control over Foreign Policy that for years, as you know, decades, generations, really, has been easing away to the executive branch. So, it really has just been to, i mean, the evoverall goal has been to establish more of an equal relationship. The executive branch has powers that we do not have. This has been going on for some time. We did it under president obama. There were concerns in the beginning that possibly, quote, some kind of cheap deal would be made with russia over syria. As you know, there was an executive sanctions put in place, so the idea of codifying those, and then in addition, pushing back against the cyber activities that have been taking place relative to the election, but in many other areas, pushing back against some of those people that have been involved, both in the defense and intelligence arenas, adding sanctions for just the nefarious activities that have been taking place, supply of arms to assad and syria. So, there was a whole host of grievances that congress wished to push back on. So, with ben carden, at the right time, if you remember, had multiple conversations with secretary tillerson, who wished to have a period of time first to spend with lavrov and others to see if he could change the trajectory of our relationship. You used the threat that you might do this to we did, it wasnt a threat. It was a statement of fact, we were going to do it, okay . But, you know, in the event there was a breakthrough with russia, obviously, that would alter somewhat what we did, so i told him during two work periods ago that we would not take it up. And i met with ben and others and said lets give him a chance to move this relationship along. The first day of the period, last work period i had a classified call with secretary tillerson somewhere over the atlantic and told him we were going to be moving ahead. So, we put together what im really proud of. Its a great piece of legislative from my perspective. Importantly, and this is something more and more were going to be doing, it has something called congressional review, which says that in the event the executive branch chooses to lift sanctions, if congress believes that that is not a wise step, that somehow or another this is changing our trajectory Foreign Policywise in a manner that is not healthy, we have the ability to try to overturn that. And now, thats a tough step. The president can veto that, and then it takes twothirds of each body, but i think its an important aspect and should be a part of all that we do in the future. Okay . So, anyway, we didnt really negotiate so weve put a bill together, the Banking Committee was involved. We worked closely with crapo and brown. And we got an excellent piece of legislation, there were some technical issues that went officer to the house. We worked very well with house members, ken mccarthy in particular, to fix those. It was not a watering down in any stretch of the imagination, it fixed a couple of issues that needed to be fixed. Some of our european allies had tomorrow concerns. And again, not watering down, but working with them on a couple of issues. It came back overwhelmingly with three dissenting votes yesterday. And to the question of negotiating with the white house, we didnt. I mean, this was done totally it was really the senate, within the senate, 100 . We didnt really i dont mean this, im in no way trying to be audacious in my statement, we just didnt. We didnt negotiate with the white house or the state department. Host just so we understand the Practical Impact of this, there were sanctions that were announc announced and just water, its a shock. Host senator, you know, we are struggling newspaper still. You dont expect anybody has any coffee ill take it. What a shock. Host somebody bring some coffee back. [laughter] mr. Bezos doesnt think that coffee is a good thing in the morning. So, just so we understand the Practical Impact of this. On december 29 last year, president obama announced a series of sanctions, the expulsion of 35 people, seizing of two diplomatic properties, the russians had been holding, various other more limited particular sanctions. So, one thing that this bill does, if i understand it, is make those moves, which were taken by executive authority in december, acts of legislation as well, that cant be undone without this process. Am i right in describing that . Well, the process does not have to be invoked. So, there is a process that can be invoked, in other words, if a move is made that is deemed to be unwise, deemed to be taking us in a direction thats inappropriate, congress can weigh in, it doesnt have to. Host if you thought, yes, given the deal thats been proposed, we think it makes sense to give them back one of those. Explained and congress is aware and obviously, this is advancing our Foreign Policy interest, nothing will happen. Host so, one question, obviously, given recent russian statements describing the taking of these two properties as theft, one question is how theyre going to react to the passage of this bill and im sure youve had some conversations with people in the administration who were studying that and you have your own sources. What would you think the russians would do once this is passed into law . So, i have no idea. I dont. Obviously, there will be some type of pushback, but i think its going to affect us in any way relative to secretary tillerson or mattis ability to deal with them or syria, absolutely not. It will be my guess is that its going thats an irritating thing, but do i think that theres going to be some massive pushback, i dont think so. This bill gives the executive branch the ability to maneuver, its not like it ties their hands. It gives them the ability, but it makes congress an equal partner, not an equal partner, but a partner, more of a partner than otherwise would be the case. And again, i think it sends a strong signal, too, that things that happened in crima and ukraine matter to us a great deal. You know, we do not want some che cheap, overarching agreement to be reached that does away with the sanctions that were put in place there, too. So, again, this i talked to secretary tillerson last night. The president called me yesterday or the day before. He called me saturday night, you know, i mean, this is theyre very aware of all thats happening and very aware that this is going to be law, and very, very soon. Weve got, as you and i talked back stage, a little work to do. Host let me ask you about the tightening up of the legislation. This was originally proposed, as im sure many in our audience know, it also included sanctions against north korea and iranian behavior and that he were wrapped together with sanctions on russia. And, senator, you suggested that that may be changed now in the final version. Maybe you could explain the decision. Yes. Host to strip it out. So it went over as a russiairan package and sat in the house for a period of time. And then we began discussions about some of the issues that needed to be resolved. And these, again, were all small, but they mattered and we had a really good negotiation with them. At the end of the day, they decided to send over north korea bill. Its something that we have never sat down and worked through the language on like we did with them on both the other pieces that came through. And so, we have people in our body that want to weigh in on those issues. Weve got a couple of existing north korea bills that are ready to be dealt with in committees, both banking and possibly Foreign Relations. So, its going to be difficult within the time frame that we have to deal with that. What likely will happen today and something would change i had conversations on the senate floor last night. What likely will happen, we will strip out the north korea piece and send it back to them so that the two pieces weve negotiated together will remain intact. Thats the likely scenario. Today at 8 45. Host so it will have the bill will have russia sanctions and additional iran sanctions. Thats correct. Host but not north korea. Thats correct. Host and if i was the reuters or at guy trying to write this up and explain why you decided to take north korea out, whats the answer to that . Well, to we could keep the legislation as it is and then begin negotiations with the house on north korea, there arent huge changes, but there are changes that people would like to put in and add congressional review to it which it does not now have, candidly might want to have it in other places, but the time frame, with the house leaving on friday, means that if we were to do that, that would likely go beyond the period of time theyre here and i think most people want to get this bill enacted and into law. So its not an affront, its just a timing issue. Host before we leave this bill, let me just be the contrarian for a moment and, you know, these days in washington, you Say Something antirussian, antiputin, everybody cheers, but let me ask you, we have a relationship with russia now thats as bad as, you know where is since 1991, the worse relationship weve had. Host it just, it feels brittle. I just was in moscow hearing some things from russians there that frighten me, to be honest. So, that theres an obvious question at a time like this where secretary tillerson, the president , are trying to open up channels for constructive discussion of issues. Why is the congress turning the just again . Does that really make sense in a world thats as dangerous as this . I think it makes a lot of sense and you have to remember we have fragile allies that are dealing with what russia is doing within their own countries every day. Theres been no response whatsoever to the aggression thats taken place against our country during the election. And you know, to have no response to that, i mean, here we are constantly dealing with countries that are on the periphery of russia, gosh, whats happening in these countries makes what happened here to appear to be elementary. To have no response to that and just to continue on is not appropriate to have many other activities that have been taking place, continue without pushback. Again, the talked to secretary tillerson last night, i know he realizes with three dissenting votes in the house, this is going to happen. This does not tie their hands. And by the way, some sanctions are mandatory, but many of the sanctions relative to energy and projects that would be done in coordination with europe, those are permissive sanctions and the administration has the ability to do those at any time they wish, even without legislation. So, it sets a direction, and again, to me, its very important piece of legislation were very proud of. Host obviously, your congressional action and messaging through this legislation is important, but the most important voice in our country is that of the president. And the president continues to say about this behavior that you just described, essentially as an attack on us, similar attacks on other countries, he describes investigation of it as a hoax, witch hunt. He goes from daytoday, sometimes he thinks its real, sometimes he thinks it doesnt isnt. Honestly, senator, isnt that the core of the problem here that we dont get a clear statement from the president that our election system was assaulted by a foreign nation last year. Well, i think that you know, if you really i mean, in some ways the lack of recognition of what has occurred has helped drive this legislati legislation. So, i you know, the Senate Intelligence committee is going through and they, to me, are handling themselves. I saw mark warner briefly last night and i talked to him and burr on a pretty continual basis. Theyre doing a job on focusing on what russia did. I dont think anybody has ever said that that shouldnt be taking place. I think what the president has said about the other piece is investigating investigating him is a hoax, that he colluded. I dont think hes ever said that there shouldnt be an investigation into what russia did, but theres no question what also has not been said is that russia, no doubt, was trying to affect, influence the outcome of an election. That would have been helpful, but it hasnt occurred. Host so, my take away from that is if the white house, the president doesnt like the legislation thats being passed today, basically, he has nobody to blame for it, but himself, a stronger statement by him might have reduced your feeling that this was needed . I think face it, putins actions that neshl initially drove it. I think the fact that there began to be there was just a feeling that possibly many of the sanctions that have been put in place would be washed away, that maybe, maybe the issue of ukraine and crimea would be cast aside. Look, at the end of the day, congress wanted to make sure that the Foreign Policy thats been, look, the fact that, you know, europe has been whole, you know, democratic and free has been our policy for 70 years, right . I mean, thats been the United States policy towards europe and i think that Congress Wants to make sure that thats the policy going forth. Host so if the moderator could put in an exclamation point here, that does seem to me that it is a significant moment when the Republicanled Senate and house, in effect, insists on what they think of as appropriate Foreign Policy sanctions against russia, initially, despite the resistance to that from the white house. So, its a moment, its a story worth noting. Well, so i would say that for the entire time ive been the republican leader of the committee, whether in the minority or majority, weve been able to work with the other side of the aisle on what i would say i wouldnt call us republicanled. Yes, were in the weve worked in a bipartisan way the entire time ive led the republican side of the committee to establish the fact when we go beyond our shoresline, we do everything in a bipartisan way, okay . And that we do, in a bipartisan way with this piece of legislation, are laying out Foreign Policy issues that we believe to be important to our country. Thats the way i would frame it. I would not frame this as a rebuke, which i know some editorial pages have done in the last couple of days. Thats not what this is. This is a laying out of what congress believes to be important to this nation, pushing back against a country which is acting in nefarious ways. Challenging democracy, doing things that are destabilizing the world and we are pushing back in an appropriate way. This is a good piece of legislation. Weve had the administration, i hope will embrace it. I know that anytime you have congressional review, but we did this with obama, okay . This is not a this is not something against this president. We did the same thing with president obama and i led that effort, okay . And we werent successful in being able to stop the iran deal. We had 58 votes towards 60, would have never gotten the twothirds majority, but we were able to question. In these 90day increments that take place now where the president has a certify, that was a result of that legislation where congress is staying involved in this. There are reports that have to be given to us that otherwise would not have taken place, so this is a by partisan effort to make sure that congress is joined at the hip with this administration as we move ahead. Host let me turn joined at the hip decisionmakingwise. Host turn to another frontier of partisanship, maybe in the future bipartisanship, well see, and thats the health care bill. You had a big vote yesterday in the senate in which you managed to get 5150, a vote a bill on the floor that you could debate and amend and i think theres some confusion as to where this process is heading. Yeah. Host and you made some news a few weeks ago by embracing the repeal and delay, in effect, to get obamacare out and then, you know, have a period in which the requirements come up with something new. Tell us where you think this is heading and given the very short clock, i mean, is it really realistic that think that were going to get legislation this time around . Or are we just beginning a process that down the road could lead to legislation . Well, well see. Obviously, we got on the bill yesterday. Its a reconciliation bill. When obamacare was put in place, aca was put in place, it was done in a 100 with 100 democratic vote. At the time they had 60 votes in the beginning and then scott brown won his election. And so, there were some elements of it, so it was done in regular order, with 60 votes in the beginning. And then there was components there were some components that needed to be fixed and that was done under the same process were doing now, reconciliation. The whole bill certainly was not written in that fashion. Its been said that it was, it wasnt. It was just a supermajority, if you will, that happened at that time. But then reconciliation was used to fix it. So reconciliation was a part of what happened, but it was 100 democratic vote that caused it to be in place. I think all of us know that, you know, whenever Something Like that happens, the other side immediately takes issue with that. Big social policy should take place, as senator mccain said yesterday, should take place in a bipartisan manner. So, now you know, all the cards are stacked on the democratic side, i mean, all of these policies are in place. Is there any way that theres going to be any real negotiation, sort of bringing that back to the middle of the road . Likely not. I mean, im just being honest, likely not. So were going through this process which again has the same flaws that, you know, the democratic side. This is now being done with 100 republican votes and so theres been difficulties. I mean, 52 senators on our side of the aisle representing, you know, parts of the countries that are vast and different, and so, we ended up getting on the bill last night. The there was a vote on a bill that had been put together. I mean, its got, as i told as ive said before, it felt like a bizarre i mean, ive been to motor every meeting and 50 billion near, 100 billion here, hey, what about you . And it just, felt to degree not particularly coherent, okay . So as ive watched this, ive, you know, begun to wonder would it not make sense to pass a piece of legislation that forces people to sit down together and do it and so, this scares the bejesus out of a lot of people, i understand, based on the way congress has conducted itself, but ive come to the conclusion that the only way for that to happen possibly is to repeal it years out, 2020 and force people to come together and you know, theres a lot of i dont know how much more instability you can have than where we are today. People are concerned about that. But well see what happens. Thats not going to pass either, okay . So the real process thats occurring here is that there was a vote on republicans put together a bill last night, which, by the way, it might be really good, i am ooh, it might be really good, but who knows . Okay. And this is like a real piece of legislation, okay . It can be seriously, it could be it could be just the Silver Lining in all of this, but who knows . And you know, the bill was produced at 6 00 yesterday. Its under 78 pages. Its got the freedom amendment in, that ted cruz has worked on and by the way, hes worked in good faith on these issues, he really has. Hes tried hard, hes bent, hes been flexible. On the other side of it, theres the portman amendment. Which as you know has been drafted to deal hes dealt in good faith, but then, and then theres this base bill. Those two pieces were added on. So here last night after 178 page bill is introduced on the floor with no cbo score, theres a vote. Again, this could end up being the best piece of social policy ever known to man, but how can you vote yes on a bill you have no idea the effect that its going to have on our country. So, it didnt pass. And today were going to vote at 12 15 on a repeal that would repeal major components of the bill and 2020. Okay . Have a transition period that would force people together. Its going to fail. Okay . And so, i mean, im going to support it and and thats the approach you would prefer, the one you said was going to fail . I dont know of a bill that focuses the two sides together in a way that i dont know how you get to the level get the Playing Field level when you began. Host right. I mean, the way it is right now, and know the to be pejorative, the democrats are going to bank their gains, right . And negotiate for more. I just dont know how you so, look, and thats who knows where we end up, but the end of this process on thursday, what is going to happen is we will vote on the lowest common denominator. Okay. What is it that gets 51 votes. It might, it might be a bill that says that david is the leading Foreign Policy analyst in the world, who knows. Host and no and then its going to be a very narrow bill and then it will go to conference, so again you begin a negotiation between the house and senate. Thats whats going to happen. Host you think there will be 51 votes for something, i almost said nothing, but it will be a nothing bill, but you never take that nothing bill to the house, and then the negotiation it keeps the process alive so if you see a way for 52 senators and how many house members, with a majority pass a piece of legislation. Host so, trying to be straightforward with this audience and the american people, what would you think by the end of this year, the likelihood that both houses of congress will have passed some substantive reform of health care would be . And ill just say, looking at what i see, you know, what i see, what i just heard you say, id say the chance of that is we have got to figure out a way, regardless what happens with this legislation, weve got to figure out a way to deal with the exchange, right . I mean, the exchange issue, when youre going to, as we should, deal with preexisting conditions, i mean, i think thats central element in our Society Today and in my opinion should be. If youre going to deal with that and youve got a very small number of people and you think about whats happened with health care, i mean, this whole thing, i mean, the big expansion, david, that bought many, many, you know, millions of people on is medicaid expansion, right . So the Actual Exchange is a real small group of people, its not much. And all of this debate about premiums, its been about that. Whats happened is Ten Essential Health benefit, no doubt has affected everybodys insurance in our country. Right . But this is the piece that continues to be problematic around the country. I know in tennessee we have people in some cases that were threatened, had no exchange whatsoever, and lamar and i introduced a bill that said, look, if there wasnt an Exchange Product you could still use your subsidies to buy an offExchange Product, we want people to have health care. Thats a stopgap. We have to deal, if we dont pass anything else, republicanwise, weve got to deal with solving that problem so that people throughout the country have appropriate choices but the way the theory, its going to continually lead to premium increases, it just is. You have small group of people, preexisting conditions, youre really not mandating, people rather pay a penalty than be on the exchange. So the pool is not appropriate. Let me say one last thing. The democrats dealt with coverage. Republicans, in some ways, are dealing coverage. The 1332 waivers are important and could give states tremendous flexibility. The 1215 waivers 1115 waivers, the waivers on medicaid. Its early its late actually for me, but i dont think in the any hour i would know what the waivers the waivers on the medicaid side are very important and having somebody at cms that is willing to give states the flexibility that they need are beneficial and those are a part of the bill and are important and hopefully this they will survive this process. But thescalation is going to continue and what democrats did not do and what republicans arent doing enough of, attempting to, and im happy about that, ive been involved in those discussions but no one really has dealt with the cost of delivery. That is the base piece that is so difficult with so many institutional ways that our health care is delivered today. Until we do that, were going to continue on this merrygoround that really doesnt take us to a place when 20 of your gdp or 18 of your gdp is being spent on health care delivery, it is a problem and thats what weve got to do as a nation, to solve our nations problems. By the way, were 20 trillion in debt. 70 of our spending being mandatory spending. This will this will be the end of our nations greatness if we do know the do that. Were not doing it appropriately. The democrats didnt do it appropriately and thats the issue thats got to be dealt with. Host lets end that with a big amen because i think youre absolutely right. [applause] the issue is precisely that. Our system costs too much. The inputs are too large, the outputs in terms of quality care and good outcomes are too small and that has to be fixed. Lets turn back to the lets turn back to the Larger National question, Foreign Policy, but i want to ask you to begin by looking at this white house, you know. I sometimes feel were all in just a rocking boat thats just, you know, bouncing from wave to wave. We dont know from one day to the next, sometimes from one hour to the next what the news is going to bring and i cant, you know, cant remember a period like this and ill bet you say the same, senator. Let me take something thats very much before us right now, which is whether attorney general sessions should continue in his role. He had the extraordinary series of public statements by the president denouncing his own attorney general for failing to disclose that he might have to withdraw from oversight of the investigation. We have continuing leaks, the president considering the process, firing special counsel robert mueller, the prosecutor who is investigating this whole issue of what russia did and what it might have involved. Let me just ask you to speak youre one of the leaders, respected leaders in the senate. Do you think that attorney general sessions should stay in his job . Lets start there, what do you think about that . So, look, i get some grief in the hallways, these are sort of political issues, if you will, come up three or four times a day. And if you try to respond to them, i try to stay on the policy side of things. The president is going to take steps to actually fire sessions, i think they understand that thats problematic, highly problematic, but i think that, i mean, its evident that the president is making it difficult for secretary attorney general sessions. So, look, i think thats something jeff has good to decide. I know of no professional reason for jeff to just to step down. I know of no professional ive heard no one complain of how hes conducting himself in the office. Ill let jeff himself speak to these issues. They obviously have a very, very, very close relationship, okay. I mean, jeff went down and spent two or three days at maralago at the front end of the campaign and got to know the president , his first backer. Obviously, the president hasnt liked the way hes dealt with the russia issues, but this is something that attorney general sessions can speak to himself. But i think it i wish it would stop. Host and because youre one of the republican voices in the congress that make a difference, i do want to ask you, the other question of the moment that matters a lot to our country, and that is whether you think it would be appropriate for the president to seek to fire special counsel mueller . I cannot imagine a serious conversation taking place in the white house about firing mueller. That would be a major mistake. A major miscalculation. For that reason, you cannot believe theres a serious discussion taking place and discussing it publicly is, i hope and believe, an unnecessary waste of time. Host thats powerful, thank you for answering the question so directly. Lets talk about Foreign Policy generally. Youve mentioned a series of conversations that youve had recently with secretary of state tillerson and its clear that youve are working with him and have a good regard for him as somebody trying to do the nations Foreign Policy business. That said, as i look at the situation now with our key Foreign Policy accounts, i see a lot of confusion. I see a lot of policies that havent really been formulated yet. The russia policy going in two directions at once. We want to work with them in syria, but we dont like what theyre doing in ukraine. And its hard to see what the strategy is there. I look at syria, a country thats just been shattered by such a tragic war and i see two or three Different Administration policies and i know that when theyve tried to boil those down in the interagency process they havent been able to do it yet. And you keep hearing, to be honest, senator, that secretary tillerson is getting fed up with the situation where you feel sometimes like a fifth wheel in these gutter negotiations. Hes flying out and trying to mediate and then he feels that the white house issues a statement and hes undercut. So, in Foreign Policy, as an observer, journalistic observer, but ive been doing this for many years, i cant remember a moment in which there was quite so much d disdense. What would you think about that. Would you like to see secretary tillersons position reenforc reenforced . How would you want the syrian matter to be, for example. I feel i have a close relationship with tillerson and thankful that someone of his stature would be rg willing to serve as secretary of state at this point in time. I view him as a patriot, who cares deeply about our country, and National Security and Foreign Policy interests. Came from another world, obviously, but i very much enjoy working with him. People can there are certain things he can do better, no doubt, but ive got to say that he is someone who i think is constantly focusing on the outcomes, on outcomes and i go over and have coffee with him every couple of weeks, as i mentioned, talked to him last night on the phone. Im glad that hes there. Secondly, he, mattis, and mcmaster have a very, very good and solid relationship, and i would just say to all of you regardless of personality issues, regardless of what you may think about former companies, whatever, from my standpoint, i think we should thank god that tillerson, mattis and mcmaster have chosen to be in the positions that theyre in and that they were chosen to be in the positions that theyre in. There is a there is dissonance. These three are focused on you know, longerterm outcomes. Theyre trying to put pieces in place to get there. Tillerson and mattis never come to the white house with a proposal they havent agreed to in advance. How nice is that, okay . However, the president is more of a personalitybased individual. And his like for someone influences him. Secondarily, as i understand it, theres a chalkboard in bannon owes office that lays out the Campaign Promises which were made, which are many, and theyre checking those off. And so sometimes those Campaign Promises are made at a rally in tampa, conflict with an outcome over here, right . So thats where some of the dissonance is taking place today and what i try to do because i have insight into what it is these guys are trying to accomplish, i do everything i can. In most cases i like what theyre doing. In most cases i like what theyre doing. I do what i can as a chairman of the Foreign Relations committee to try to be a collateral support for that when i can. But theres no doubt, i mean, the president listens to lots of voices. He is on the phone nonstop. There are many voices coming over the transome from all over the place. Hes a prolific phone caller and receiver of phone calls. The input that hes getting sometimes conflicts with i would call the three principles. In addition to that, there are voices within the white house, sometimes as i understand it, theyre the voices that he sees very first thing in the morning and who might those be. And so sometimes those can move things in a direction that are different, again, from the three principals that are out there working towards a different end. We see it, it plays out in many ways publicly, sometimes in conflict with efforts that are underway and sometimes in ways that can, in fact, undermine what is occurring. Host so we hear that this process is pretty tough and sometimes demoralizing for secretary of state tillerson who has flown out to the gulf, worked hard to med mediate in the dispute between our allies ua e. On one hand and qatar on the other and thats been affected by the dissonance with the white house policy. Its got to be frustrating for him and here hes thinking, maybe, maybe this isnt going to work. Im going to ask you two things, first, i assume that you would counsel tillerson to continue on. Somebody youd like to see in this government and not to consider pulling out. Yes, sir. Host and a step further, have you had a conversation where you said, mr. Secretary, rex, whatever you call him, dont bail . Look, i look at i talked with him last night at 7 15 on a precept call and thanked hem him for being there and thanked him for continuing to be there. Host thanked him for not i dont think that secretary tillerson, i think some of the accounts where people say hes thinking about leaving. I dont knowing thats right. Secretary tillerson, look, i know during his confirmmation hearings, he caught some grief, i know he was ceo for exxon, many people in our country dont care for. I know him well, tillerson is a patriot, he really is, and he wants good things to happen for our country. Hes a strong person. He has the ability to think several steps ahead towards outcomes. I dont think tillerson is on the verge of resigning. I dont see that. I think he understands how important the triumphant that exists between he and mattis and mcmaster are for our nation today. He understands that and i think hes willing to deal with all the things that exist to try to ensure that this administration and our nation is successful in Foreign Policy. Host i was at a dinner last night, ill bet youve been to one im not saying that hes perfect, okay. Im just saying that hes a strong individual whos committed to good things happening for our country. Host i think we got the message on tillerson. Just an idea occurred to me as we were talking. I was going to pce noting the diplomates at dinner last night from three Different Countries were saying what i hear everywhere, which is, boy, it is tough for us to follow whats going on with your government, you know . [laughter] well, its increased ratings, for the news outlets and publication. Host well, maybe good for page views, but not for, not for other indices of national progress. And so, i just wonder, senator, whether you might, as chairman of the Senate Foreign relations committee, distinguished body, call for some hearings about how to get a more orderly process in which the role of tweets for the chief executive say, play a lesser role in the implementation of policy in which better able to carry out coherent policy i know youre just messing with me. [laughter] im not because the intervention we kept thinking might happen, you know, well this soninlaw and this daughter might say, take the Android Phone and throw it in the pool, and that didnt happen. Maybe its time for a Senate Hearing that explores this and brings a little pressure, say, this has got to stop. What do you think, any merit to that . I know youre just having fun. [laughter]. Look, thats having a hearing to discuss the personality of an administration is not a productive hearing. I mean, i think at the end of the day thats thats not the purview of a senate committee. Host well, theyd be interesting hearings, i would certainly attend. So, geez, you cant even hold a session for an hour, 45 minutes without there being a tweet that is so important that my colleagues just hand it had to me. I promise you that it does look like real, looks entirely legit. Its pretty important and says after consultation with my generals and military experts, 20 minutes ago, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve any capacity in the u. S. Military. Our military must be focused on victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. So thats a bomb, going directly to probably the most divisive issue of social policy right now. What do you think about that . Does that make sense . Ill give you the same answer that i give in the hallways every day voting. I dont respond on a daily basis that tweets coming out and well look well, we want to give you a Little Something to remind you of your visit to the washington post. Yeah, thank you. [laughter] thank you so much. Host senator, maybe we could close out with an issue where you really took a leading position. Its one of enormous importance and its one that is kind of now entering a murky, uncertain area, thats the jcpoa, Nuclear Agreement with iran. When i say you played a crucial role, i mean that in terms of the final process, you and senator carden, koontz and a few others, you decided in the end to support this i did not support it. Host well, you allowed it to, as i remember, the committee let it get to the floor and it got am i misstating. Yeah, here is what happened. The president chose to go directly to the Security Council through executive privilege to put in place this agreement. Its an agreement thats never been signed. Its an agreement that is a politic political, political understanding. And with that, the president waived sanctions that had been put in place through various iterations add ininfinitem to put in place. Congress was offended by that, offended by fact that the president would use a National Security waiver to inimplement an International Agreement and congress was offended by that and congress voted that congress should have International Review over that issue. Its just the opposite. I did not support the agreement. Senator carden did not support the agreement. Senator menendez did not support the agreement. Host and all i know politico says that cork erin a corker i cant believe that someone with the background of the issue would not understand this. The president went ahead with this without approval which to me is absolutely inappropriate. Other countries went to their parliaments. The United States, he went straight to the u. N. Security council, waived sanctions that had been put in place by congress, add infinitem. Not National Security council, to waive an agreement that i thought was flawed. Senator carden thought with as flawed and second menendez thought was flawed. Secretary kerry in a moment of being really cute in a hearing answering questions from tim cain said no congress is going to have the ability to weigh in in eight years. And that was my breaking moment to be able to look at other members on the committee and say, are you serious . This is when you Want Congress to weigh in, eight years after youve made a deal where weve given away all the leverage we had on the front end . Are you kidding me . And thats what gave the momentum for us to pass the Iran Nuclear Review act, which Gave Congress the ability to weigh in on this and if you remember, there were 58 no votes to the deal. 58 no votes. We couldnt get to 60. I was one of those no votes. I led the opposition to the iran deal, okay . But in the place when that bill passed even though we werent able to overturn what occurred, we then put in place this regiment which the president is now dealing with, where every 90 days, the president has to certify that theyre in compliance, and that every six months, we get a tranche of materials relative to what is happening in iran, so congress itself has the ability to know whether theyre i mplementing. Its the opposite. But that misunderstanding, unfortunately, has been haunting has been haunting because there are people out there that somehow or another think that in fact congress approved, when the fact is, congress couldnt get enough votes to disapprove. But the majority of Congress Disapproves with majority of the senate disapproved with what was happening with this deal where the president was in essence well have to leave this interview, and youll find it in its entirety. And the u. S. Senate is going to