I look back on my career and i think the most consequential decision ive ever been involved in was the decision of the president being elected last year to pick the Supreme Court nominee. My colleagues back me up. The American People spoke. Today, we will confirm the nominee, the new president has selected. I think as we all know, this is a person of extraordinary credentials who will bring honor to the Supreme Court for many years to come. It is indeed a proud day. I also want to express my support for the strike that the president made last night against assads chemical weapons facility. I think the strike was wellplanned, well executed, was certainly more than a pinprick and sends a message not only to assad that using chemical weapons again is something he cannot do with impunity. I think it also reassures us that america is back in terms of playing a leadership role and tried to be constructive in a variety of different places around the world as well as a message to iran and north korea and the russians that american tends to lead again. I commend the president for this decision and i think its entirely correct. The other observation i would make is the democratic leader and i had a good meeting this week to discuss the way forward. The spending bill to fund the government through september 30, obviously, is one that cannot be done by one party alone. It will require as is the senates tradition bipartisan involvement. The appropriations committees have been working together on a bipartisan basis to come up with a package. Of course, the Democratic Leaders will be in a role similar to the one i was during the obama years. These kind of bills cannot pass without a reasonable number of the party of the minority in the senate and where optimistic we will be able to work that out. We should be able to meet the deadline at the end of the month. With that, let me throw it open. You spoke in support of president s actions yesterday. In your mind, what is the legal and Constitutional Authority that underpins that and do you have any concerns about amusing that authority however he may in the future . I think the president had the authority to do what he did and im glad he did it. To that end, john mccain and senators from both sides of the aisle called for [indiscernible] of some sort and we talked about this in 2011. Would you be in support if we have issues with syria and other nations as well to have some sort of a robust debate on these . I would be interested in taking a look at an aumf if the president thinks he needs a. I dont think president obama ever specifically asked for an aumf either. He sent two. But they were so restrictive that most of my members felt to pass that would be to micromanage future executive Branch Activity in the area. If the president can think of some aumf that strengthens his hand, i would be happy to take a look at it. You have opposed military in from intervention in syria in the past. What makes last night different . Let me tell you the difference. Secretary kerry, in order to assure the leftleaning members of his own party said it would be like a pinprick. It would not be of any great consequence. I dont know whether he had in mind knocking over a couple of camels but this was a strike that was well planned and well executed and went to the heart of the matter which is using chemical weapons. Had i seen that kind of approach by president obama, im sure i would have signed up. We are at the point now where u. S. Policy should be the removal of assad . I think this strike was simply about dont use chemical weapons again. Thats what this strike was about. I dont that get necessarily leads to another conclusion but, look, i dont see how there can possibly any settlement in syria that includes bashar alasaad. I cannot imagine that after all the butchering of his own people that he has been doing for four or five years that there could be any successful conclusion to this chaos with him still there. [indiscernible] said he would support additional sanctions on russia. Would you consider urging the president on that particular issue if Vladimir Putin continues to help asaad and beef up his air defenses . I think its good the administration has not lifted the existing sanctions. If they feel they need additional sanctions or we can come up with something that enjoys bipartisan support, i would be open to it. The russians are not our friends. I think they have demonstrated that over and over again. I certainly would be willing to talk to chairman corker and anyone else. Has the white house asked for anything in the spending bill you feel would jeopardize its ability to pass in the senate . Have you talked to mitt romney about running for senate in utah . On the first question, i really dont like to negotiate these deals with you guys. Those items are under discussion between the white house and the democratic leader in the senate and the four corners on the committee. I cannot specify how it all plays out. I have had some conversations with mitt romney. I am an orrin hatch supporter obviously. He needs to decide what he wants to do if he wants to run again, i am for him. Given that the president s inspiration can you talk about your interaction with the president and the administration on syria . Are you satisfied with the interaction between the administration over the attack . The Vice President called me last night. He explained the rationale and how they were doing it and i thought it made a lot of sense and would be a strike that would be noticed, not some kind of pinprick. It would be directly related to the reason the tomahawks were sent in the first place, the use of chemical weapons. I very much approve of what the president did. I think it was not only an Important Message to assad but everyone else who may be wondering what this new administration will be like. If i were one of our arab allies, i would be encouraged that america was back in the business of being more assertive, less passive. That does not mean you will send in the troops every time there is a skirmish somewhere. I thought it was very reassuring. Given that president trumps first action was because of the images he saw of Young Children and families being killed by these chemical weapons, do you think he should reevaluate his policy toward refugees from that region given that a lot of them are children . I will not give him any advice about that. America has always stepped up in these refugee situations. How many people we take is always under discussion. Obviously, the refugees will not quit coming until the war stops. One of the things that i think both democrats and republicans have said we should look at over the years is to create some sort of safe zone which would require some military action but to create a safe zone inside syria so people do not feel like they have to run for their lives. We already have an enormous number of people in jordan and turkey and many people have made it into europe having all kinds of destabilizing impact on europe. We need to stop the refugee flow of we possibly can. That is something i have heard people on both sides talk about a good bit. Did you get any signal yesterday from the white house about what comes next . Will there be more military action . I think this strike was related to the use of chemical weapons only. I dont interpret this as a first step toward anything else in particular other than trying to eliminate or at least make sure that he knows there are consequences for doing this again. You mentioned the spending bill as something you need to work and the president needs to work with democrats on. Some of the other items that he will need them on our aways off. Is there anything in the near term for the Senate Legislative agenda that will involve democratic support question mark . All of the appropriation bills. All of them, none of these can be done with one party only. As soon as we finish funding the government through september 30, we are already into the 2018 appropriations cycle. All of that will have to be done on a bipartisan basis. I am confident he looks at it the same way. Sure, there will be other bills. I will announce them when we get to them. Jumping back to the 2018 issue, after going through what you went through with the filibuster and so forth, it was reported that the rnc had a good fundraising month. How do you look at the prospects of getting at least eight seats right now . This is april of 2017 and youre asking me to predict what will happen in the fall of 2018. I decline the opportunity. [laughter] i would certainly hope we can hold the senate and that certainly will be our goal. On politics as well, have you had any conversations with the president or plan to have any conversations about the importance of not challenging incumbent republicans and taking the most electable candidate . I dont think that will be a problem. As you all know if you follow Politics Around here, we intend to renominate all of our incumbents and we intend to play in primaries if there is a clear choice between someone who can win in november and someone who cant. The idea i always remind people is to win the election. Frequently, the primary in 2010 and 2012 dictated the outcome in november. We did not let that happen again in 2014 and we came to the majority. We only had one episode in 2016 in indiana. We nominated the right candidate and he won. Its safe to say that we will be looking for in these nonincumbent races, the most electable candidate possible and i think the administration will defer to our judgment on senate races. Given what happened with the repeal and replace effort in the house, is there any consideration on tax reform to perhaps not using the reconciliation process and taking a bipartisan approach . I had just gotten here when we did this 30 years ago. Here was the situation it was a democratic house, a Republican Senate and a republican president. We had a bipartisan agreement that it would be revenue neutral for the government. The leader of the democrats on the issue was bill bradley, not exactly a rightwinger. A very different environment. Todays Democratic Party seems to me believes that tax reform is about income redistribution. How much can we get out of successful people in order to push down to those who have been less successful. That is not about growing the economy. I would love to be able to do tax reform on a bipartisan basis but i think most of the democrats today believe tax reform is a tax hike. Tax reform is about making america more competitive. We did not have a single year of 3 growth during the obama years. We will not be able to realize opportunities for the next generation unless we get the country growing again. I expect we will be left with the reconciliation device with a central lack of interest on the regulatory relief is one thing that will get us going again and we are doing 11 cras already and hope to do more. The administration is trying it its on its own to curb, delay or stop some of the most egregious regulations that have slowed down the economy. If we can succeed in serious Regulatory Reform and get a more rational tax code, we can get this country growing again which will provide more jobs and opportunities for everybody. I would love for the democrats to be a part of that but i dont think they look at this the same way we do, as a jobs issue. So i am not anticipating their cooperation. Back on syria, you said you spoke to the Vice President last night. Senators from both parties have asked for my next one nation an explanation from the administration as to the strategy after the military strike. Do you have any indication from the administration of a broader syrian and strategy at this point . Secondly, i want to follow up on the health care question. I dont know why anybody is confused. I thought it was very clear what this strike was about. You dont use chemical weapons without consequences. I think thats a pretty clear message. I dont necessarily read into that a larger strategy in the area but they certainly want to try to prevent the mass killing of innocent people by the use of chemical weapons. I thought it was a very clear way to send a message. You dont expect any further action was to mark i dont know what we will hear from them the on that. What about the attempt to repeal and replace . Do you have something in the any sense that something in the next session that the amendment to the house proposed yesterday is something that would get moving . What was the initial question . Obamacare. Obviously, this is pretty hard to do. If the house is able to send something over to us, we will take it up and it will be hard here as well. But the initial effort will be in the house and i hope they can be successful and get something over to us. Is the white house working with democrats on the spending bill . Yeah. Senator schumer seems to suggest otherwise, that he has not been a committee gauge what been in communication with the white house. Really . I thought they were talking to each other. He and director mulvaney met this week. It was a meet and greet but not a policy meeting. I will not argue about that. I thought they were in communication. You said this is one of the most consequential decisions who youve made to keep the seat so the president will decide will be on the Supreme Court. Do you think the debate impact will be on the functionality of the senate and the impartiality of the Supreme CourtGoing Forward . Its important to remember, as you all heard me say over and over again, the business of filibustering the executive Branch Appointment is a recent thing. Invented ironically by the current democratic leader of the senate. I hope you all listened to the facts. The facts are that the democratic leader of the senate invented filibustering judges. Where we are is back where we were as late as 2000 where executive Branch Appointments to cabinet positions, subcabinet positions and court positions are dealt with with a simple majority vote. The core of the senate is the legislative filibuster. This business of filibustering judges is a creation of senator schumer when george bush 43 got elected. Its not a longstanding tradition of the senate. The result of where we are now is we are back as late as 2000 and the best test of that would have been the Clarence Thomas nomination in 1991. Nobody would argue that was most controversial Supreme Court nomination ever. You all know all it takes to get votes in the senate is one 60 senator out of 100 to say i want you to get 60 votes. Nobody did. Thats a pretty strongly held custom. Thats the way the senate operated until 2000. This notion that this somehow bleeds over into the legislative filibuster is untrue. Im opposed to it and senator collins is circulating a letter to senator schumer and myself of members who support the legislative filibuster. I would be the beneficiary and my party would be the beneficiary of changing that. Im opposed to changing it and i think thats what fundamentally changes the senate. Republicans have always felt that way. From ancient history, 1994, big republican sweep, took the house for the first time in 40 years and got the senate back, tom harkin who used to be here was always in favor of turning the senate into the house. On day one, he proposed a rules change to lower the threshold for everything to a simple majority. Every Single Member of the new just elected new republican majority voted no. They would have been obviously the beneficiaries of that. It is not true that the executive calendar and how we handle that is the core of the way the senate operates. The legislative filibuster is. I dont favor getting rid of that even though we would have a shortterm benefit from that. Im optimistic that senator collins will get a lot of people signing the letter to the democratic leader and myself having a similar view. The democrats think you have stolen the seat. Given the democratic action we have seen on the floor, do you think many have suggested that its gearing up for the next time this seat opens up that could change the balance ideologically . We dont have another seat right now so i dont know. What i would like to see after the recess is get back to some semblance of normalcy. You have watched allnight sessions on cabinet appointments and a lot of other things that i think are obvious as to the response of the core base of the Democratic Party which is in deep depression over the outcome of the election. I think its time to move past that. I hope a lot of the democrats whove told me privately that they want to move past that will be able to do that publicly when we get back. There is a lot of opportunity to do it on the spending bill us as we get back. You said [indiscernible] cannot be resolved in your open and you suggest your open to creating safe zones. Does it concern you that this there doesnt appear to be a whats next from the white house . There is no easy answer to whats next but what i think we will succeed in doing which the previous of menstruation started Previous Administration started and i think this admits this administration will finish is to get isil out of iraq. And the effort in western mosul is underway and bloody and difficult but i think that will succeed. Secondly, think secretary mathis has indicated he will recommend a residual force to stay behind in iraq. There is a lot of fingerpointing about who was responsible for leaving entirely in the early years of the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration said the iraqis wanted us to go and the iraqis said we didnt but regardless of whose idea it was, for us to completely withdraw from iraq is a bad idea. We needed a residual force left behind like we did in germany and japan and korea. President obama, to his credit, left a residual force behind in afghanistan. I think those units helped guarantee that you dont have the sort of fighting the war all over again. You announced the briefing for the senate but are there any considerations to come back during recess to debate authorization . Debate what . Debate authorization for syria. Are there any conversations about that . No, one m