Senate GOP leaders hold news conference as Trump attends G7 in France

[0:00] marking that up or having his confirmation hearing tomorrow, I should say, and hopefully [0:04] reporting him out later in the week. It would take cooperation among the Democrats in order [0:09] to get him confirmed this week, but in my view, at least, he has all the qualifications [0:14] that are necessary. He has the vision, the experience, the judgment, the competence, [0:20] all the things that you want in that position. And so I'm hopeful the Democrats will cooperate [0:25] and enable us to get him into this position and get him confirmed there quickly. [0:31] And that, of course, has not been a given. You look at the fact that this president, [0:37] President Trump, is the first president in history not to have a civilian nominee [0:43] confirmed either by voice vote or unanimous consent. That is truly, truly unprecedented. [0:48] But that's been the Democrat practice and pattern in this current administration. [0:55] But I hope that they will waive that for this and allow us to get this done [0:59] because I think that also unlocks the 702 process. And as most of you know, [1:05] the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 702 program is the most successful tool [1:11] when it comes to keeping people and this country safe. And we are currently lapsed. [1:18] And that also is unprecedented. And we are lapsed because the Democrats block-voted [1:22] against a bipartisan deal that had been worked out between members here in the Senate [1:29] and the House, Democrats and Republicans. And so it is now currently not an authorized program. [1:36] That needs to be changed. It needs to be fixed quickly. And I hope that the Democrats will work [1:40] with us in order to make that happen. That's going to be certainly something that's front [1:44] and center for the balance of this week. Mr. Leader, if you say that he is eminently [1:48] qualified for this job, the statute says that this person should have background in intelligence. [1:54] His background as an attorney, as an attorney. Why is he qualified? Why is he the right guy based on that? [2:00] Mr. Well, I think that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York also deals [2:06] with some intelligence matters. But I also know that people who have had any experience or, you know, [2:14] dealt with him in any fashion, believed him to be somebody who is incredibly competent, [2:19] that can take on any task and manage it effectively. But I do believe that to answer your question [2:24] specifically, I do think that position entails a certain amount of dealing with the intelligence [2:28] of communities and agencies. [2:30] Thank you, Jim. [2:32] Do you have, right now, a clear understanding of what is in this number? [2:36] I don't understand. There are several people looking into more and more details right now. [2:42] I think we're all hoping to get more information, more detail about that. I expect that will [2:48] be forthcoming. I think at least at this point, most of us agree that this administration has [2:55] taken steps, unlike previous administrations going back the last 50 years, to get Iran in [3:03] a place where they don't represent a existential threat, an existential threat to the neighborhood [3:08] or to the world for that matter. And so the president's taken bold action there. I'm hoping [3:14] that when we get the information, more information about the memorandum of understanding, we'll have [3:22] a better sense about what the path forward is. But I fully believe that the president and his team [3:27] are moving in the right direction, getting the straight open, getting the shipping lanes open again. [3:31] I think it's going to be really essential. And then if the Iranians want to have a place [3:40] in the world, in the future, then I think they're going to have to do away with their nuclear program. [3:45] And I think that will be very clear when this happens. [3:47] Well, I think right now it's pretty clear the Democrats don't want to play ball on a normal appropriations process. Susan Collins, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, has now, I think, [3:55] made three offers to the Democrats on a top line, wants to move appropriations bill, [4:14] Susan Collins, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, has now, I think, made three offers to the Democrats on a top line, wants to move appropriations bills out of the committee, is getting zero cooperation from the Democrats, either with respect to what the top line numbers ought to be by subcommittee, or for that matter, an agreement on poison pill amendments, which is something that's always characterized the appropriations process. [4:41] Both sides agree to that to keep the appropriations process moving forward, and so, yeah, I'm concerned about that, because it seems to me, at least, that what Chuck Truman and the Democrats want more than anything else is another government shutdown. [4:53] They shut it down twice in this last year, and they think it benefits them politically, so we're going to do everything we can to give them opportunities to vote, to keep the government open, to fund the government. [5:05] CR is not the ideal way to do it. Appropriations bills is the right way to do it, and hopefully, eventually, they'll come around to that conclusion, but you can be assured that we will be taking every step possible to ensure that the government is funded, and that the Democrats have lots of opportunities to vote to ensure that it is. [5:25] On housing, we're close, and I've said that, as you know, a number of times, but I think right now, we are very, very close to landing this. [5:45] We're going to move forward on it later today. We're going to vote on a motion to proceed to it. [5:50] We've got a message from the House that enables us to do that, and I would hope, you know, wrap it up, at least here in the Senate, so the House could vote on it when they get back next week and get it on the President's desk. [6:01] But there are a couple of slight, I would say, tweaks, and without getting into particulars or details here, because I want to see this thing closed out, and right now, I'm trying to give space to the people who are negotiating it to ensure that that happens. [6:15] But there's a lot of good in there, and I think it maximizes both the equities the House has in it and the Senate has in it, and both parties have had opportunities to weigh into this. [6:27] But in the end, it's about increasing the supply of housing in this country and making it more affordable, and I think that is something that the American people want to see us working on. [6:35] I think this bill accomplishes that, and I hope that when it's all said and done, we will have a big vote in both the House and the Senate and a bill that the President can sign into law. [6:44] Leader, the Washington Post is reporting that the cost of the ballroom is now $600 million. [6:49] Taxpayers could be on the bill for half of that. [6:51] Are you comfortable, given how much of an issue of affordability is where constituents potentially paying for a project like that? [6:57] I haven't heard a response yet from the White House to that reporting, so I'll withhold judgment on that. [7:04] I will say, and I've said this before, that there are important security requirements that go with any building project in the White House. [7:13] We want to make sure that any additions made down there are completed in a way that ensures that the President and others in his administration are safe and secure. [7:25] And I think that that is something that I feel like we have a responsibility to do. [7:29] And so the Secret Service and other agencies that protect the President are obviously going to be paying a lot of attention to how this thing is structured, how it's built. [7:40] And I do believe that there is certainly some expectation that there would be dollars allocated for that purpose that would go above and beyond the private money that's been raised. [7:49] But I haven't seen any of the details on that reporting and haven't seen a White House response to it. [7:54] So, you know, that's my general view overall about this, but we'll get you more when we have those specifics. [8:01] Well, I think that the, for sure, in my view, a lot of the objectives have been achieved. [8:23] Completely, say, eliminated, but certainly diminished in any way their nuclear capability. [8:31] It's buried deep underground now, and obviously when it comes to their Navy, we've destroyed, I think, the number is 161 ships. [8:40] When it comes to their air defenses, if you look at their capabilities, ballistic missiles, production facilities, all those sorts of things have, I mean, [8:49] we have done great damage, I would say, to Iran's ability to inflict terror and kill people in that region and around the world. [8:59] So, yeah, I think they've achieved a lot of their military objectives, and the question now is whether or not the Iranians want to come to the table [9:06] and be, you know, participate in a Middle East that actually allows for an economy, a secure place for people to do business. [9:19] And we're going to find that out soon enough, I think. [9:21] And that's a matter of something, but I think you've agreed on what's in there. [9:24] I don't think, I certainly have not yet, although we are requesting that, [9:31] and I assume we will at some point hear from the administration with greater specificity about what's in that memorandum. [9:38] I mean, we're all hearing in generality that it's been reported so far, [9:42] but until I get more specific information, I'm going to hesitate to say anything more about it. [9:47] Thank you. [9:48] Thank you.