CNN "CNN Newsroom" - Transcript: Interview Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD)

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

CIUTTO: Let's discuss this now with Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota.

Senator, thanks very much for taking the time this morning.

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R), SOUTH DAKOTA: Good morning.

SCIUTTO: So on the shutdown, you had a rare show of unity from former Homeland Security secretaries, five of them, including the president's chief of staff. He was chief of staff for this president when this shutdown began. John Kelly saying end this shutdown now because it is threatening national security. What is your response to that?

ROUNDS: Nobody wins in a shutdown. We shouldn't have had it in the first place. Question is, how do we get out of it? You have two leaders, Speaker Pelosi and the president that both have to have some way out. We'll have these votes today. I don't think either one of them is going to pass. But it's taken us 30 days to get to this point. It never should have taken this long to get to this stage.

But at that point then I think cooler heads can start to prevail. And I think we'll find something in the middle. Neither -- nothing in the middle has yet come up that either side can agree to. The president did --

SCIUTTO: But let me ask you this.

ROUNDS: Yes. Go ahead.

SCIUTTO: Because the Democratic proposal is simply to reopen the government for two weeks while negotiations continue so that these 800,000 people including Coast Guard sailors can get paid and not have to go to food banks to feed their family. Why not like your Republican colleague Cory Gardner vote for that bill to reopen the government just for a short period of time while those negotiations go on?

ROUNDS: Because at this point if the president does not agree it would take two-thirds vote in the Senate and in the House. Most of us don't think that we've got two-thirds of a vote to do that because it would take a presidential veto in.

SCIUTTO: Would you vote for it?

ROUNDS: Not if all it does is delay it.

SCIUTTO: Would you vote for it --

ROUNDS: Not if it all we do is delay this until such time as we work through our way through the process, have a presidential veto and then have to override it or at least look at an override on it. We're better off to find a solution before that and one which is palatable to all sides.

SCIUTTO: But aren't you then enabling --

ROUNDS: I think it will be --

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Sorry. Aren't you then enabling the president here to in effect hold these workers hostage for political reasons? Because it seems like the dynamic here is he does not want to yield on the wall because he feels he would be punished by his base. It's quite a price to pay, is it not, to see DHS employees, Coast Guard employees, IRS employees, you name it, having to go to food banks to feed their families?

ROUNDS: You can say the same thing about our colleagues on the other

side of the aisle because what the president is saying is make a deal for -- with us on securing that border. We'll redefine, we'll make modifications. Speaker Pelosi to this point has said nothing for you. I will not come off dead center. That is just the same thing as you're suggesting with the president except the president did modify his original proposal.

Nobody seems to understand that this is going to take modifications on both parts. And I think we're getting close to that point today. The question is, is there are a plan B? I think there may be. I think there's several options out there that both sides might be able to say, we don't like it but it's better than continuing this absurd shutdown.

SCIUTTO: I want to ask you this because Wilbur Ross, the Commerce secretary, made some comments this morning about those federal workers who aren't getting paid. Have a listen because I want to get your reaction.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SCIUTTO: And you have the Commerce secretary there who of course happens to be a billionaire saying he doesn't understand why these people have to go to food banks. Does he not understand the predicament these people are in?

ROUNDS: I think what he is suggesting is an alternative but it's not one that's palatable to a whole lot of people and it does suggest that maybe we're not understanding how serious this is, not just to federal government workers, but to contractors and also to the people that they offer services to. It's not like these individuals, these 800,000 individuals and contractors aren't providing services to the rest of the American public.

Ag workers in South Dakota, farmer who need to be able to get in and get plans made for the coming year, individuals who need loans approved through different federal agencies including the Department of Ag, all of those are feeling the impact of this.

Look at our Coast Guard. We have guys that are going on a five-month deployment out of South Dakota right now on Coast Guard, they don't know what they can do to feed their families. We provided a specific alternative which right now our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said no deal on Coast Guard until we make a deal on everybody.

So there is a lot of blame to go around here for a lot of pain and suffering that is absolutely unnecessary. And I think in the future Congress should hold itself accountable by simply saying, if we don't get all of our work done, come hell or high water by September 30th, we don't get paid either. And that means we don't get any back pay.

SCIUTTO: Right.

ROUNDS: We put it in. I'm one of the co-sponsors on the bill. But some people say well, why is Congress getting paid when the rest of the government, as a lot of other federal employees are not.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

ROUNDS: And the reason is because Congress cannot alter its own pay without an intervening election in between. So our best bet is let's fix it in the future.

SCIUTTO: But before we go, I want to ask you a question on another topic on Russia. You voted in favor of lifting sanctions on a Kremlin ally, Oleg Deripaska. Why, I wonder, did you, particularly when he had a role in the interference in the 2016 election?

ROUNDS: The original limitations that were put on the businesses that he is actively involved with was designed to change his behavior. We had actually Secretary Steve Mnuchin in, secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin in. We heard briefs from both the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the Banking Committee who's both said look, we've looked at this thing. They have honored what we demanded of them in terms of the limitations that we put on them to begin with. They have complied with our law. We don't like it.

SCIUTTO: But those limitations --

ROUNDS: We wish we had another alternative. But we don't --

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Those limitations are not --

ROUNDS: Then we're not following our own law.

SCIUTTO: To be fair, those limitations are not as severe as the secretary described them. According to the "New York Times," documents show that Deripaska and his allies, they will keep majority ownership of these companies. How is that a fair punishment for an ally of the Russian president who helped Russia interfere in the U.S. presidential election?

ROUNDS: The information that was received just this week was not

information that most of us had seen when we made our decision last time. We're going to take another look at it. But I will also tell you that in this particular case the idea was not to destroy the company but to impact the individuals responsible for the illicit activities.

SCIUTTO: I see.

ROUNDS: But the other side of this is that if we would have destroyed the company, the remnants would have either been nationalized by Mr. Putin, making him stronger, or it would have been bought by one of their competitors, a Chinese competitor who would have loved to have taken over those for pennies on the dollar. So we found ourselves in a very precarious position of do you ignore the recommendations of both the Treasury secretary and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee as well as the chairman of the banking committee who have looked at it?

SCIUTTO: OK.

ROUNDS: Or do you -- you know, in this particular case, we didn't want to send a message to the rest of the world that even though it says in law and in our rules that they have complied, do you turn around and simply say we're just going to change our mind right now and our rules and our laws are going to take, you know, second place to our own opinion.

SCIUTTO: Right. To be clear, I did hear you right there saying you're going to take -- you and your colleagues are going to take another look at this and you might consider --

ROUNDS: Yes --

SCIUTTO: -- putting these sanctions back on.

ROUNDS: Well, I think we're going to take a second look at whether or not the information, the new information that's been provided was provided to the --

SCIUTTO: OK.

ROUNDS: To the folks who are providing us with the advice.

SCIUTTO: OK.

ROUNDS: And whether or not that would change their opinion on whether or not we should proceed.

SCIUTTO: OK. Senator Mike Rounds, thanks so much for taking the time this morning and the hard questions.

ROUNDS: You bet.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source