Journalists, senator corker and me to have a good Early Morning conversation with you. Would you briefly introduce senator corker in . The chairman of the Senate Foreign relations committee. One of the truly distinguished positions in our country congress. He was the mayor of chattanooga if im not mistaken. He has been on key legislative issues, someone who is read into the details and played a very influential role in the final Senate Consideration of the iran sanctions bill two years ago. We are going to talk about that but senator firstcome its good to have you here. Good to be here, thank you. Coming early in the morning and we promise next year we wont ask you for 6 00 in the morning. I was in the Construction Business so this is not early. These days it seems like its either fox and friends or mika and joe, that so people are starting their day in the world. So let me ask you, the issue that is immediately on your legislative calendar and that is the russian sanctions bill which you have already passed one version of it in his comeback from a house. Let me ask you first about go shooting this with the white house that did not want his hands tied in terms of its ability to take sanctions off and wanted to have that freedom as president s traditionally have had. Thats the normal part of the negotiations. In this case, tell us why and tell us about how the negotiation when. 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 of the foreignpolicy that for years as you know, decades, generations really has been easing the way to the executive branch. It really has just been to make the overall goal to establish more of an equal relationship. We understand the executive branch has powers that we did not have. This has been going on for some time. We did it under president obama. There were concerns in the beginning that possibly polk some kind of cheap deal would be made with russia over syria. As you know there were some executive sanctions that have been put in place so the idea of codifying those and then an addition pushing back against the cyber activities that have been taking place relative to the elections but in many other areas, pushing back against some of those people that have been involved both in the defense and intelligence arena, adding sanctions for nefarious activities that have been taking place the supply of arms to assad in syria so theres a whole host of reasons is that congress wished to push back on. At the right time if you remember and conversations with secretary tillerson who wish to have a period of time first to spend with lavrov and others to see if they could change the trajectory of our relationship. It wasnt a threat. It was a statement of fact. We were going to do it, but you know in the event there was a breakthrough with russia, obviously that was altered so much what we did so i told him during to work. Ago that we would not take it up. I met with ben and others and said look lets give them a chance to move this relationship along. The first day of the period, the last work period i had a classified call with secretary tillerson. He was somewhere in the atlantic and i told him we were going to be moving ahead if we put the other one up. Really proud of it, its a great piece of legislation from my perspective. Importantly this is something more that we are going to be doing, something called congressional review, which says that in the event the second brands chooses to lift sanctions if congress believes that is not a wise step that somehow or another this is changing our directory foreignpolicy wise in a manner that is not healthy we have the ability to try to overturn that. Thats a tough step. The president can veto that and then it takes twothirds of each body but i think its an important aspect that should be a part of all that we do in the future. Anyway, we didnt really negotiate so we put a bill together and the Banking Committee with nepal. People works closely with crapo and brown. We got a nice piece of legislation. There were some technical issues that went over to the house. We worked very well with house members Kevin Mccarthy in particular to fix those. It was not a watering down in any stretch of the imagination. Some of our european allies had a couple of concerns. Not a watering down but a statement of us working with them on a couple of issues but it came back overwhelmingly with three defending votes yesterday and to the question of negotiating with the white house , we didnt. I mean this was done totally within the senate 100 . I am in no way trying to be audacious in my statement. We didnt get negotiate with the white house or the state department. Just so we understand the Practical Impact of this, there were sanctions that were announced. Its just water. Its a shock. Senator we are struggling. If anybody has any coffee, i will take it. Just bring some coffee back. This business doesnt think that coffee is a good thing in the morning. Just so we understand on december 29 last year, president obama announced a series of sanctions the expulsion of 35 people, two Diplomatic Properties the russians have been holding, various other particular sanctions. One thing that this bill does if i understand it is make those moves taken by executive authority in december passed legislation as well that cant be undone without this process. Am i right in describing that . The process will have to be invoked. So there is a process that can be invoked. In other words if a move is made that seems to be unwise and seems to be taking us in a direction thats inappropriate inappropriate. Given the tela then propose we think it makes sense. Its been explained in congress is aware and obviously this is advancing our foreignpolicy interests. One question obviously in the statements describing the taking of these two properties as theft , one question is how are they going to react to the passage of this bill and im sure youve had some conversations with people in the administrations the worst being that and you have your on sources. What do you think the russians would do once this is passed into law . I have no idea. Obviously there will be some type of pushback. Think its not going to affect us in any way relative to secretary tillerson or mattis in the bill dealing with syria absolutely not. My guess it will be something thats an irritating thing but do i think there is 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. Give them the ability but it makes congress an equal partner, not an equal partner but more of a partner than otherwise would be the case. Again i think it sends a strong signal too that the things that happened in crimea matter to us a great deal. We do not want some cheap overarching agreement be reached that does away with the sanctions that were put in place again, i talked to secretary tillerson last night in the president called me yesterday or the day before. They are very aware of all that is happening and very aware that this is going to be lost and very very soon. We have got a little work to do. I want to ask you about the tidying up of the legislation. As this was originally proposed as i am sure many and our audience know that also included sanctions on north korea and iranian behavior and they were wrapped together with sanctions on russia. Senator you suggested that maybe change now in the final version. Maybe you can explain the decision. Yeah, russia they went over the russia iran package and it sat in the house for period of time. And then we began discussions about some of the issues that needed to be resolved. They were 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 language on like we did with them on the other pieces that came through so we have people in our body that wanted to weigh in on those issues. We have a couple of existing north korea bill center ready to be held in committees both banking impossibly Foreign Relations. So its going to be difficult with the timeframe we have to deal with that. What likely will happen today, something could change. I had a conversation on the senate floor last night at what likely will happen is we will strip out the north korea peace and send it back to them so that the two pieces we have negotiated together will remain intact. Thats the likely scenario today at 8 45. So the bill will have russian sanctions and additional iran sanctions. If i was the reuters or ap guy and was going to write this up and explain why he took north korea out, what is the answer to that . We can keep the legislation as it is and begin negotiations with the house on north korea. There are huge changes but there are some changes that people would like to put them and likely have congressional review which it now does not have. The timeframe for the house leaving on friday instead of we were to do that it would likely go beyond the time we are here and i think those people want to get this bill enacted into law. Its just a timing issue. Before we leave let me be the contrarian for a moment. These days in washington if you Say Something antirussian antiputin there are great cheers that the day ask you, we have a relationship with russia now that is as bad as it feels brittle. I was just in moscow hearing some things from russians there that surprised me to be honest. At a time like this where secretary tillerson, the president are trying to open up channels for construct discussion of issues, why is the congress turning the screws again . Does that really make sense in a world as dangerous as this . I think it makes a lot of sense and you have to remember we have fragile allies that arguing are doing with what russia is doing within their own country every day. There has been no response whatsoever to the aggression that has taken place against the country during the election. You know, to have no response to that, i mean here we are constantly dealing with countries that are on the periphery of russia what is happening these countries makes what happened here appeared to be elementary and to have no response to that and just to continue on is not appropriate to have many other activities that have been taking place without pushback. Again, i talked to secretary tillerson last night and after realizing there were three dissenting votes in the house, this is going to happen. This is not tying their hands and by the way none of the 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. The administration has the ability to do those any time they wish even without legislation. To me its very important piece of legislation that im very proud of. Obviously your congressional action and messaging through this legislation is important but the most important voice in our country is the president and the president continues to say about this behavior that you just described essentially as an attack on us similar to attacks on other countries, he describes it as a hoax, a witch hunt. They goes from daytoday. Sometimes he thinks its real and sometimes the thing it isnt honestly senator, isnt that the core of the problem here, that we dont get a clear statement from the president on our election system was assaulted by a foreign nation last year . If you really, i mean in some ways the lack of recognition of what has occurred has helped drive this legislation. The Senate Intelligence committee today are handling themselves in a very good way. I saw mark warner and i talked him and mark burr on a continual basis. They are doing a job of focusing on what russia did. I dont think anybody has ever said that shouldnt be taking place. I think what the president has said about the other piece is investigating him is a hoax. I dont think that he has 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 the elections. It hasnt occurred. Might take away from that is in the way our president doesnt like the legislation being passed today he has nobody to blame but himself since a stronger statement by him may have reduced your of dealing with it. I think putins actions initially drove it and 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 and maybe the issue of ukraine and crimea would be cast aside. At the end of the day congress wanted to make sure that foreignpolicy, the fact that europe has been the whole. Democratic has set policy for 70 years and thats when the United States policy toward europe and they think Congress Wants to make sure that is the policy going forward. At the moderator could put in here, does seem to me at a significant opponent when the Republican Senate and house in effect insists on what they think of as appropriate foreignpolicy sanctions against russia initially despite insistence on that from the white house. I would say for the entire time ive been the republican leader of the committee whether in the minority or the majority we have been able to work with the other side of the aisle. I wouldnt call this republicanled. What i would say is we have worked in a bipartisan way the entire time i have led the republican side of the committee to establish the fact that when they go beyond our shores we do everything in a bipartisan way and in a bipartisan way with this piece of legislation we are laying out foreignpolicy issues we believe that are important to our country. I would not claim this as a rebuke which i know some editorial pages have been the last couple of days. Thats not what this is. This is the laying out of what congress believes to be important to this nation. Pushing back against the 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. Its a good thing for legislation. We have had the administration i hope will embrace it. I know anytime you have congressional review, we did this with obama. This is not something against this president. We did the same thing with president obama and i led that effort. We werent successful in being able to stop the iran deal. We had 58 votes to our 60. We would never gotten the two vote majority but we were able to question. These 90day increments that take place now where the president has to certify, that was the result of that legislation where congress is staying involved. There are reports that have to be given to us that otherwise would not have been in place. This is a bipartisan effort to make sure that congress is joined in this administration as they move ahead. Turning to another frontier, partisanship and maybe in the future bipartisanship, we will see and thats the health care bill. You had a big vote yesterday in the senate which you managed to get 50, vote on the floor which today you amended. There is some confusion as to where this process is headed and you made some news a few weeks ago by embracing the repeal and delay to get obamacare out, which there is a requirement. Its nothing new. Tell us where you think this is headed and given the very short clock is it really realistic to get legislation this time around or are we simply beginning the process down the road for legislation . Well, we will see. Obviously we got on the bill yesterday. Its a reconciliation bill. When obamacare was put in place baca was put in place, it was done 100 democratic votes. At the time they had 60 votes in the beginning and scott brown won the election and so there were elements of it. Its done in regular order for 60 votes in the beginning and then there were components. There were some components that needed to be fixed and that was done under the same process we are doing right now, reconciliation. The whole bill certainly was not written in that fashion. It was just a supermajority if you will that happens from time to time but then reconciliation was used to fix fix it. No reconciliation was a part of what happened but it was 100 democratic votes taking place. Think all of us know that whenever Something Like that happens the other side immediately takes issue. Take social policy. It should take place as senator mccain said yesterday, should take place in a bipartisan manner. So now all the cards are stacked on the democratic side. All these policies are in place. Is there any way that there is going to be any real negotiations to bring that back to the middle of the road . Likely not, likely not. So we are going to this process which again has the same laws as the democratic side. This is now being done with 100 republican votes and so thereve been difficulties. We have a few senators on our side of the aisle representing parts of the country that are different and so we ended up getting on the bill last night. There was a vote on a bill that has been put together. As i said before it felt like a bizarre. Ive been to most every meeting, 50 billion here and 100 billion here, what about you . It fell to a degree not particularly coherent, okay . As i have watched this i began to wonder what it not make sense to pass a piece of legislation that forces people to sit down together and do it, and so scared that the jesus out of a lot of people i understand based on the way congress has conducted itself that ive come to the College Illusion that the only way for that to happen possibly is to repeal it years out, 2020. I dont know how much more instability have been where we are today and people are concerned about that but we will see what happens. Thats not going to pass either today so the real process thats occurring here is that there was a vote that the republicans put together on the bill last night which by the way it might be really good. I mean it might be really good but who knows, okay . This is like a real piece of legislation. Seriously, it could be just the Silver Lining in all of this but who knows and the bill was produced at 6 00 yesterday, under 78 pages. Its got the freedom amendment in. Ted cruz has worked on it and by the way hes worked in good faith on these issues. He really has. Hes tried really hard. Hes been flexible. Down the other side of that theres the amendment which you know has been drafted and he is dealt in good faith and then theres most of the pieces were added on so after 178 days of bills introduced on the floor with no cbos gorin there is a vote. Again, this could end up eating the best piece of social policy after known to man but how can you vote yes on the bill you have no idea of the effect its going to have on our country . Today we are going to vote at 12 15 on a repeal that would repeal the major components of the bill and 2020. Have the transition period that would force people together. Its going to fail and so i mean im going to support it. You would prefer it. I dont know what bill that focuses the two sides together. I dont know how it gets the Playing Field level. The way it is right now and not be per giorda, the democrats are going to track their gains and negotiate more. I just dont know how you, and look who knows where we end up at the at end of this process on thursday what is going to happen is we will float on the lowest common denominator. It might be a bill that says david is the leading Foreign Policy analyst in the world, who knows . Is going to be a very narrow bill and then a too to conference so then you begin to negotiate with the house and the senate. Do you think therell be 51 votes, i dont want to say for nothing but it will be a nothing bill. Do you take a nothing bill to the house . Keeps the process alive so you can see if theres a way for 52 senators and however many house members with a majority passes a piece of legislation. So trying to be just straightforward with this audience and the American People what would you think of the end of this year the likelihood of both houses of the congress will have passed substandard Performance Health care and i to say what i see and what i have just heard you say. What is the chance of that . We have got to figure out a way regardless of what happens with legislation. We have got to figure out a way to deal with the exchange. Exchange issue, when you are going to, as you should deal with preexisting conditions and i think thats a central element in our Society Today and my opinion should be. When you are going to do with that and you have a very small number of people if you think about what has happened with health care, the whole thing, the big expansion david that involves many millions of people is medicaid expansion. The Actual Exchange which has been the meat of this is a small group of people, david. Not much. All this debate about craniums and its been about that. What has happened is the essential Health Benefits no doubt has affected everybodys insurance in our country, right . But this is the piece that continues to be problematic around the country. We have people in some cases that had no exchange whatsoever. I introduced a bill that said look if there wasnt an Exchange Product we can still use her subjects to buy a product. By the end of the year we have to deal, the dont pass anything else republican wise we have got to deal with solving that problem so people throughout the country have appropriate choices the whole theory, the way that this is set up is going to continually lead to premium increases. Going to continually, just is because you have a small group of people preexisting conditions. You are really not and dating. Your pool is not appropriate. Let me say one last thing. The democrats dealt with coverage. Republicans in some ways are dealing with coverage. 1332 waivers are very important and really gives tremendous flexibility. The 1215 waivers, the waivers on medicaid, its late actually for me but i dont think theres any our the waivers on the medicaid, the whatever waivers on the medicaid side are very important and having somebody that is willing to give the flexibility they need could really be beneficial and those were part of the bill last night and those are important and hopefully they will help this process but this escalation is going to continue and what the democrats did not do and what republicans arent doing enough of, attempting to and im happy about that, been involved in those discussions but no one really has dealt with the cost of delivery. I will be the end of the nations greatness if we do not do that and we are not doing it appropriately, the democrats didnt do it appropriately. I think you are absolutely right. The issue is precisely that. The outputs of quality care is too small and that has to be fixed. It is bouncing from wave to wave and we dont know one day to the next. I cant remember if your code like this. Lets take somethin lets take something before us right now, which is whether the attorney genera general sess should continue his role. We have a series of public statements denouncing his own attorney general for failing to disclose he might have to withdraw from oversight investigations. Saying the president is considering a process that would lead to firing special counsel investigating this whole issue of what russia did and what it might have involved. So let me just ask you to speak on this. Do you think the attorney general should stay in this job walets start there, what do you think of that . I get some grief in the hallways that are not sort of political issues. I dont get any sense that the president is going to take steps to actually fire sessions. They understand thats problematic. The president is making it difficult for the secretary right now and i think that is something just has to decide. I have heard no one complained of how he is conducting himself in the office. I will let jeff himself speak to these issues and they obviously have a very close relationship. Jeff went down and spend two or three days on a campaign and got to know the president as the first backer. But i wish it would stop. Because you are one of the republican voices that make a difference, i do want to ask you the other question of the moment that matters a lot to our country do you think that it would be appropriate for the president to seek to fire director mueller . I cannot imagine a serious conversation taking place in the white house about firing mueller. About would be a major mistake, major miscalculation. For that reason i cant believe theres a serious discussion taking place, and discussing it publicly is i hope and believe an unnecessary waste of time. Thank you for answering the question so directly. But talk about Foreign Policy generally. You mentioned accs of conversations youve had with the secretary of state and its clear that you are working with him and have a good regard for him as someone that tries to do the Foreign Policy business. As i look at the situation now, the key foreignpolicy accounts, i see a wealth of policies that havent been formulated yet. Its hard to see what strategy is there. Its been shattered by such a tragic for and i see the Different Administration policies and when they try to boil this down into the interagency process they havent been able to do it yet. You keep hearing they get the skills set up in this where it feels like a fifth wheel. Then he fields the white house issues a statement so in Foreign Policy as a journalistic observer ive been doing this for many years i cant remember a moment in which there was quite so much dissidence and im curious what would you think about that and what you like to see the position reinforced and what you want to policymakers to sort out for example . Im thankful that someone in his stature would be willing to serve as the secretary of state at this time. I view him as a patriot and someone that cares about the future of the country and the National Security foreignpolicy interests came from another world altogether, but i very much enjoy working with him. Theres certain things he can do better, but ive got to say that he is someone that i think is constantly focusing on the outcomes, and i go over and have coffee with him every couple of weeks and i mentioned i talked with him last night on the phone. Im glad that he is there. Second, they have a very good and solid relationship and i would say to all of you regardless of the personality issues and of what you may think about the former companies whatever, from my standpoint, i think that we should thank god that tillerson, mattis have chosen the positions that they are in. These three are focused on longerterm outcomes and trying to put the pieces in place to get there. They never come to the white house with a proposal that they agreed to in advance. However, the president is more of a personality. Secondarily, as i understand it, theres a chalkboard in his office that lays out all the campaign processes that are made and they are checking those off so the Campaign Promises are made at a rally and conflict within out, over here so that is where some of the dissidence is taking place today. I do everything i can in most cases i like what they are doing. Most cases i like what they are doing and i do what i can as the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee to try to be a collateral support for that when i can. There is no doubt the president listens to lots of places and hes on the phone nonstop. But there are many that are coming in from all over the place. He is a prolific phone caller and so that input that he is getting sometimes conflicts with a wood called the three principles and in addition to that there are voices in the white house but he seems very first thing in the morning. They are working towards a different and so yes it exists we see it and 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. We hear that the process is pretty tough and sometimes demoralizing for the secretary of state has flown out to the golf to a mediated resolution to the dispute between our allies and thats been affected by the dissidence with white house policy. Its got to be frustrating for him to think maybe this isnt going to work. First thing i would assume that you counsel tillerson to stay on and d to not think about pulling out. Have you had a conversation like that. At 715 with a preset call i thank him for being there and for continuing to be there. I think some of the accounts people think about leaving but i dont think thats right. I know during his confirmation hearings he caused some grief and he was the ceo of exxon which many people dont care f for. Hes a patriot anhe is a patriod things to happen for the count country. He has the ability to and i dont think that hes on the verge of resigning. I dont see that. I think that he understands how important triumph and pain heis today and is willing to deal with all the things that exist to try to ensure that the administration and the nation is successful. Hes committed to good things happening in the country. I think we got the message. The idea i was going to press this just by noting the diplomats that are there last night for three different countries. Its tough for us to follow what is going on in the government. It might be good for page views but not for other embassies of national progress. So, i just wonder whether you might hold for some hearings about how to get a more orderly process in which the role of the chief executive say played less of a role in the implementation of policy in which the cabinet and secretaries were better empowered to carry out. I know you are just messing with me. The intervention we kept thinking this soninlaw or daughter might say thats it. That hasnt happened yet. And so maybe it is time for the Senate Hearing to explore this. Is there any merit to that . [laughter] having the hearing to discuss the personality of the administration is not collective hearing. At the end of the day that ascends the purview of the senate committee. You cant even hold a session for an hour or 45 minutes. It is pretty important and he says after consultation with my genitals this is 20 minutes ago please be advised the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the u. S. Military. It must be focused on victory and cannot he burdened with the medical cost that transgender and the military would entail. So that is a bomb that goes directly to the social policy right now. What do you think of that . [laughter] we want to give you a little story to remind you to visit the washington post. [laughter] what we close out where you took a leading position thats one of the enormous importance and one that is kind of now entering a murky uncertain area and a that is the Nuclear Agreement with iran. You decided to support this as i remember the committee to get the floor and my misstating . They would go to the Security Council through the executive privilege to put in place this agreement, an agreement that has never been signed. It is an agreement that is a political understanding and with that, the president waived sanctions that have been put in place through the various iterations. Congress was offended by that, offended by the fact that the president would use a National Security waiver to implement an International Agreement and congress was offended by that and passed on a 918 votes to say congress shoultuesday congre congressional review over that issue unless its just that agreement. You came up with a formula. I always read the headline is they clinched the deal. I dont want to get offensive here that i cannot voice someone that has this much background on this issue to even misunderstand what happened and i know that is a personal statement, but the president was going to implement this without congressional approval which to me was absolutely inappropriate. Are you serious this is when you Want Congress to weigh in after you made a deal where weve given away all of the leverage we had on the front end are you kidding me and that is what gave the momentum for us to pass the act that Gave Congress the ability to weigh in on this and if you remember there were 58 no votes to the deal. I led the opposition to the deal. But when that bill passed even though we were not able to overturn what occurred we then put ibeenput in place a regimene president is now dealing with a. Its just the opposite. Entering into an International Agreement and the fact that it getting up years and years of sanctions and billions of dollars of money to the regime. Everyone hundred 20 days come every six months and every year there are sanctions that are in place right now. All they have to do is not waive those sanctions and its entire agreement goes away. I dont think the American People understand that and im not sure the president understands that. But he can cause disagreement to fall apart. He doesnt even have to certify the noncompliance all he has to do is when one of them comes up, not wave. It seems to me if he is going to do that, he wants to do that at a time that he has a policy objective. In other words, what is your next step . Once you do that you are creating a crisis unless you have outlined your allies and others towards the end. Disagreement ithis agreement ist out of hand the accord. Thats what i want to ask y you. You were very clear in january that you thought tearing this agreement up whether the congress voted to approve it would be unwise and instead we should radically and force it. We have had the different periods of certification, the second one that just happened was apparently very rocky with the president resisting certifying and i wonder what you would say first about the benefits of having this in place. Everybody i talked to everyone outside it was a big urging and difficult way n. Divided by the ruleabided by therules of the ae were certain benefits so be careful about jumping into something different. And im curious what your advice is going to be at the next certification period. Do you think on balance with all the problems in the behavior and this apply in season s ends eves in our National Security interest and should be recertified or should we be on the path to getting out of it . This is where ive been from day number one. We already gave up on our leverage. The deal of the day happened. We gave up all of our leverage. So you look at where we are. It is implementing video. They have technical violations that take place. There is a technical issue and then the breaches that matter. Right now they have had technical noncompliance. Over the next two years nothing bad is going to happen relative to the Nuclear Weapons in iran. Its not going to be a breakout. We are pushing this bill against the terrorist activities and against the human rights activities and many things they are doing but this deal became the middle east policy. Everything was around this and youve seen the problems that has created and we are getting back in balance so we are pushing back against those activities but what i say to the president , these are my words, not theirs you can only tear the agreement up one time. So when you are going to tear that up, since nothing bad is happening today coming and when i say bad its not like a Nuclear Weapon is getting ready to develop. Weve given up the leverage already so wait until you have your allies and lined with you. They are liable right now i know we are asking to get into the various facilities but you want the breakup of this deal to be about iran, not the United States because we want our allies with us, and at the end of the day i know the goal is to negotiate a followon that ensures. I had a group that came in the other day. They wanted to be involved in developing Nuclear Plants in the middle east. Think about it. Is any country ever going to negotiate the agreement we enter into with countries relative are they ever going to enter into an agreement thats like our Gold Standard that says they are going to give up the right to enrich . Never. This has implications far beyond the agreement that was put in place so weve got to get to a place where we renegotiate this deal and never have the right to enrich others would be problems down the road and as president obama said, after year ten or so they are in a breakout mode so that we have to do is get our allies with us and radically and force plan we have a plan. To do that today you start putting sanctions in place and you use your european allies. We have a crisis in north korea. Just maybe you think about a better time to do this when you are looking for a strategic outcome. Have you ever been in a situation where somebody did something to you. It generated an outcome you didnt answer that is where we are isnt it. We are in a place where we dont like the deal, we dont like the fact that this country has the right to enrich. They have the right to continue research and development. If we radically enforce it and add perception, then there will be some other opportunity but you said you were going to tear it up i dont know which rally it was by the way but he also said he was the only one if you can remember on the stand that has the courage to say he would make a decision about the deal when he was elected a. So he se said a couple things on this and i would say lets make sure whenever we renegotiate change we do it in a way that furthers u. S. National security interest to. Our conversation as a is a reminder of what i like about the senate and the leadership on both parties to talk and think things through. [applause] maybe not so early in the morning. Request of the various departments. This runs a little over an hour and a half