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,