Earlier today, the republican fax overhaul plan cleared the house with 227 votes in favor, 205 against. Cspan 3 will continue live coverage of the Senate FinanceCommittee Review of the gop tax reform proposal tomorrow morning if they havent finished today. We head now to a conversation with senators bob corker and mark warner. They sat down with the New York Times for a discussion about bipartisanship and efforts to overhaul the federal tax code. A. We are going to visit for about 50 minutes together. Its kind of like im seeing you in the Senate Subway and the doors are closed and youre trapped taking questions from me. Well take questions from Facebook Live and the New York Times. So we kind of take it as an article of faith that bipartisanship is good. Polling says we want people to work across the aisle. This is a good thing. We like bipartisan bills. But when we get into the nitty gritty of governing, thats not really always the case, that even that as a positive connotation. I know that when democrats were in charge, republicans would say, we dont want to give them any victories, its too close to election year. And then when the tables turned, republicans were in charge and they dont want to help each other. Even pass simple things, simple bills together. We have to start by asking the question is can it happen and is there any point to bipartisanship anymore . And what function does it serve . Senator corker do you want to start with that . Sure. By partisanship means when you pass a piece of legislation it will stand the test of time, when you pass a piece of legislation when you have no support from the other party, the other party tries to unwind it. When you can get 70 or 80 , theres always some overlap, youve got a piece of legislation that again, will stand the test of time. Just for what its worth, in the Foreign Relations committee, we never start a process that doesnt start in a bipartisan way. I know mark on the intel committee, its exactly the same way. Do you agree with that . I agree. And i think its even more important, i think if theres one thing i have learned, and i think maybe one of the reasons we both think we have both had careers in business and the notional idea that we would start and say im going to take ideas from this half of the room, but im not going to take any ideas from this half of the room is just fundamentally foreign to anyone from a business background and also, you know, politics may be the only endeavor that people have a whole career where they have, you know, maybe had a career where their only success has been stopping things, and again that is fundamentally different from the business perspective where you have to get to yes at some point. And i would argue that theres no other system in terms of democracies around the world that is so much built like ours in terms of a whole system of checks and balances. Our system was set up to require that kind of forced compromise, Neither Party has got a monopoly on truth. And if you dont have that bipartisanship, one, as bob said, you dont have them stand the test of time. But two, you end up in this repeated, repeated gridlock, where the rest of the worlds not standing still. I think theres one of the valid debates, if we cant find ways to break through this is, is can this great system we have really stand the test of time . It appears, i have never was never a fan until recently, in parliamentary democracies, but in many ways, whoever wins gets to run the show, until they dont have, until they get voted out or a government falls. I think our system has worked better for the most part. Although in the last, say, eight or ten years, its at least raised questions in my mind. So how did we get so screwed up . You talked about universal truth s. I mean whats going on is . I would like to hear both of your observations, from the u. S. Capitol and also from your home states. Whats happening . I think that whenever were together. Oh, he started the first one. Mark talks. I think we have turned the keys over to the, you know, to often turn the keys over to the extremes in both Political Parties. But how . Theres always been extremes, right . How did they get the keys . I think where they got the keys is they often bring the most energy, they bring somehow we have lost this we as a sense of americans, trumping we as redshirt, blue shirt teams. I would argue and i think this has gotten worse is that we have ended up concentrating too mucht a critique of any respective leader. But republican and democratic respective leaders in both the house and the senate, where it appears, and bob and i have both sat through many of these settings where they say we have always worked together. Theres always individual Power Centers that were distinct. I think we concentrate so much into the Party Leadership now, and then when the Party Leadership is reenforced with the party extremes, we end up with this divide. When he talked about the Party Leadership being distinct. What do you feel chairing a committee that is traditionally bipartis bipartisan, do you agree with that i sessiassessment . I think being chairman of the Foreign Relations committee, our Foreign Policy is so important to the safety of our men and women and all of you, that we should constantly, at least at the shores end, partisanship leaves and we work together. And certainly with Foreign Policy, we want to make sure the things were doing absolutely will stand the test of time. And its just been my nature. I have never been a partisan. But ill get back to some of to some of marks comments. Number one, the countrys divided. And i know people back home dont like to hear this, but washington more fully than people think reflects the country. And the country is very divided. Secondly, think about the way the whole congress has changed, lets just look at the senate. You used to have people up in the northeast that were republicans, that were way more liberal than southern democrats. And so bipartisanship was easier to come by, now as you look at the map, its console lated and the ideology just doesnt overlap as much. Thirdly, we have basically destroyed the senate by using the filibuster for everything. The 60vote threshold is there to end debate. Now the 60vote threshold, when i first came here, it wasnt quite this way, but it was moving this way. I came here in 06, started 07. What happened two years later was all the outside groups started scoring votes not on the actual close of the bill but the closure vote. Right now Chuck Schumer is under pressure to block things with 60 votes, mitch was under pressure, so we have taken something that was actually supposed to be used to stop debate because it had been debated so long, and now were using it to stop anything from going ahead and some way or another, we either have to have greater discipline, i mean it requires you allowing something to go ahead and then voting against it on the 51 vote threshold, or its going to require us to change the rules which i hope doesnt happen. Let me say one more thing. I actually dont believe the country is divided as, i think there are regional differences, but i think even generated a lot of the enthusiasm for mr. Trump was around the just get stuff done feeling from a lot of folks. So, again, dont want to start off with bob and i disagreeing. Neither of you mention the media and i want to know what you think about this bifurcated media culture where people are getting their information only from one news source and there isnt this universal truth that only you and i agree upon, im failing from the New York Times, so we dont have to worry about that. I just let that go, i let the other media worry about that, you are in your own states, do you feel people are living in an echo chamber, if you will . Well, i first i think anything you watch past 6 00 in the evening is probably detrimental to your wildness in thinking. So i its been very damaging and unfortunately, so many people that we represent, only get their information from one news source. Its just sad, people ask me, where do you get your news, corker . I said well i get up and i read the new york post, the washington post, and i scan all those things and read many articles at length. And thats how i start my day. So you know, i have an idea what hes thinking about things. And yet most people go through life and now kids, are just getting these headlines, which dont you know, which dont give any news, but the evening table programs, even though i respect many of the commentators, i really do, i just i cant watch it. And its sad to me that our nation is, its really entertainment, we know that, right, its a business model, where you basically keep your base riled up, mad at the other side, and to build upon it, if you want to go even more energetic and more extreme in what youre doing you make more money. Thats unfortunately what people are viewing as news but its not. I think it hurts. We both grew up in the age where you started with Just Three Networks and you had three folks and you basically, you know, trusted walter cronkite. And there was a common fact set that you could then argue about, but you didnt question the validity of what they were saying. And one of the things i the russia investigation has been fascinating on so many levels. But one of the most fascinating has been understanding, you know, and im i was in the Technology Business longer than i have been in politics, im pro tech, im pro innovation, but this enormous ecosystem that we have created with social media and people who only receive their news through devices. You know, the average couple of guys who kind of flipped on folks on facebook and google, they make this pitch now, that we look at our devices about 150 times a day. And again, were the only kind of asset where were looking at devices and were actually giving those devices every time we look at those devices more information about us. Theyre trying to get our kids to look at our devices 250 times a day and the algorithms are not necessarily driven on one side or the other. To keep you looking again, they have got to produce a more conservative and more outrageous followup story. The flip side being the case on the liberal side. Where is that common square that tv or New York Times, or wal street journal, they might have different editorial columns, but they start with the same news fronts. But now we have a whole new set of facts and unfortunately, with a relatively little bit of money and a few number of hackers to manipulate news that comes on any of our devices, no matter how nonfactually based, thats only going to get exponentially worse, its a huge issue. You mentioned the probe into the russia interference into our elections, so lets talk about that a little bit more. You and senator burr have made a real effort to make that collegial and bipartisan, so do you think in the end your committee can produce a consensus document . I think on a lot of issues well have clear consensus that russia massively interfered in our elections. I think well have consensus that they didnt touch the vote but touched 20 elector systeming and they need to up their game because theyll be back. We need to figure out a way, to sort through, i hope in collaboration with the companies, the social Media Companies that they bear some responsibility, at least around disclosure, to kind of be partners with us. I think there remains a huge open question, one of the things Bill Richards and i have tried to do, was there collusion, or was there not collusion, im keeping an open mind until the very end. We have got more people to talk to. I think if we could come with a bipartisan conclusion, i think it would be extraordinarily valuable to the country. You know, having a on an issue as important as this, having some split, i think would be very detrimental. But time will tell. Does it bother you that the president of the United States is using the biggest bully pulpit that exists in the country basically to look into all the probes into russia, is it basically a witch hunt . Theres not a Single Member of our intelligence community, including all the people that President Trump has appointed who have that conclusion. Theres not the facebook, googles and twitters, who were reluctant to acknowledge and frankly blew off some of the suggestions at first have come around, they have reached that conclusion, if you talk to the french about the massive amount of russian interference in their election cycle. They know about the Misinformation Campaign and the disinformation campaign. And the dutch, they hand count their ballots because of interference concerns. All the money that the russians spent in interfering in our elections, the dutch elections and french elections and double it, its still less than the cost of one new airplane. So this is a great investment in kind of, the way i think 21st century conflict will start to play out. And yes, of course it bothers me that the head of our government, because we dont have a whole of government approach to stop it. It could be the chinese, it could be some other entity Going Forward on how we prevent that. So looking at that, in an odd way, do you guys think that President Trump has in a sense created some bipartisanship . Obviously its pushed a lot of democrats im not done. Its pushed a lot of democrats farther to the left. Remember when we came back and we said theres going to be a lot of moderate democrats who are going to vote for the health care bill, it didnt work out there, and republicans are pretty behind the president. But is there an area where democrats and republicans are standing together. Senator shots from hawaii has said we need to put our policy differences aside and address this in the white house. Do you think in that way there is a bipartisan coalition. I dont know if i want to do the cause and effect necessarily. But no doubt on the russia bill. I mean sanctions bill. It was a big bill and it did a lot and we had combined with that the north korea bill, and the iran bill, a follow on iran bill and we had 98 votes on the floor, two negatives, Bernie Sanders and rand paul. I rest my case. So thats a form of bipartisanship with those guys. And look, we have we i dont want to jinx something, but theres numbers of other things that i think will be coming out of the committee that matter that are going to be very strongly bipartisan. It but i just think that i think whats happening in the senate is that i have seen the senate and i think mark, i think your committee is doing the same thing, i know we are in Foreign Relations. I watch other committees, i think theyre beginning to rise to the occasion. In some ways, and again i want to be careful about my comments because of some of the things that happened in the last 60 dayiday da dayss, i dont mean this in any way to be pejorative, i dont think theres anything coming out of the white house that typically would come out of the white house. Like on a health care bill, typically a white house would produce what they want to pass, instead, 3w50boom. Tax reform, they worked a little more closely together, we did. But i think the senate is kind of rising to the occasion. I have been so proud of the most recent hearings we had. We had a hearing with tillerson and mattis on the authorization to use himilitary force, outstanding, we just did one on nuclear issues, outstanding. And i feel the senate kind of moving back to the place that i think all of us would like for it to be. I think we still are going through some big issues right now and i realize from marks standpoint and many standpoints in an inappropriate way, were using reconciliation to do really big issues. It and, you know, thats not the best way to do it. But generally speaking, i see the Senate Taking up some of the vacuum that, where you might have things directly coming out of the white house, theyre not happening and the senates taking the lead. That was a very understated assessment of the can executive branchs management style. Youve been a little bit more candid in recent weeks about some of your feelings, youve been a match for the president on twitter. Was it good having him out of the country . He focuses on trump and corker, so lets just go on. It but i have a comment to follow on. I promise. In terms of your personal journey, shall we say, you kind of played an inside outside game, if you will, when the president was first elected. You didnt back down on your criticisms of things they did in the administration. But everyone knows that you were on the short list, i dont know that the president actually asked you to be secretary of state. That was something people assumed you wanted to do. Well get back to that. Not his first rodeo, you know. You tried to go over to the white house, and tried to show them the error of their ways, you really tried to do things. And at some point, something made you throw up your hands and say forget it. What can you tell us behind the scenes of that. I wanted to save all that for my book. Just like a teaser. Actually i dont plan to write a book, im just kidding. I havent taken a note since ive been there. It thats always a problem for some people. I havent, so. So first of all, i dont think people, so yes, theres been some issues at the top. But mnuchin was in my office today. Ivanka was in my office on thursday, pence called me thursday, tillerson and i talk a lot. So its not like, i mean these are the people i was dealing with anyway. You know, our office is in Constant Contact with, you know, the National Security advisor. Im talking with generals and o others, so nothings really stopped. Yes, i was one of those people who sometimes would get called sometimes four times a week by the president. I was one of those people when a big decision was being made and he had his staff sitting around the oval office, they would call me on the speakerphone before a big decision was being made. And im still someone that is being called by big things. But i think what probably began the i was critical when i needed to be critical and i was constructive when i needed to be constructive. Both were meant actually the criticisms was they were meant to be constructive. I think where things kind of got a little bit more terse was after the charlottesville deal. And i just and i want to have all this rewritten again and all that. But the governing model of dividing your country to solidify your base is just not one i can adhere to, okay . So [ applause ] there was something about that episode that turned the volume up a little bit. And actually, you know, my comments were actually aspirational. The adult daycare part . Thats an interesting aspirational comment. It had progressed a little bit by that point. But i said that he had not yet demonstrated the stability nor some of the competence necessary to be successful, but the country needed for him to be successful. The world needed for him to be successful. You know, it went about 30 days before we had another meeting. And so we did, and, you know, talked it through and i knew it was going to come up, so i said, mr. President , this is my quote. I stand by it. And so, you know wait, what happened then . And then what did he say. Because i dont ever say what other people say. Im just going to leave it there. But, you know, obviously, the meeting ended fine and then and then, i dont know what the second series of stuff was. I think, you know, one sunday morning, the sunday morning shows were repeating something i had said. I dont know what it was. But it generated a it generated a tweet. And i have never tweeted anything out, ever, like that in my life. And i was coming home from a workout with my wife, getting ready to go to church, and my phone was blowing up and todd was calling who was in the audience, and i just typed out the response. And todd said lets take a 20minute deep breath on this one. But we felt like it was the right thing to do. I dont like that kind of thing. Thats not who i am. It just not the way i conduct myself. But i think that from time to time you have to push back. You cannot let things like that stand. I want to get to the relationship, and i want to talk about taxes. And i know that we cut you off, so tell me fwwhat you were thinking before. My stuff about process is going to be kind of boring. It always is, ive been meaning to tell you that for ten years now. Ill make it a little bit i cant imagine your tweetage. I would you know, i dont want to agree with him now, but i do think there are some moments in the Foreign Relations committee, the intelligence committee, we have virtual unanimity, we just did a fairly significant bill that didnt get a lot of attention right now. But nine democrats and nine republicans on some relief for community banks. Bob and i were putting the band back together on gse reform, which is literally one of the most complicated issues i have ever dealt with. But there are some things that frankly just pissed me off. As somebody who wanted to be there, to get to yes. It i mean, you know, you take the health care process, which was, you know, for all the bad the democrats did on obama care, the majority this time took that and it was 10x worse in terms of trying to get things secret and a process that was only trying to be done with one team and i left now, because im actually missing a vote or two, that i can already tell you what the results will be. I spent years trying to get the country to focus on the debt and deficit. You know, i was theed a v ed a r the simpsonboles plan. I am for the country working together. Everyone knows im genuinely by partisan. But this process, when its done with one team only, i mean there was a great visual contrast. They had president reagans proposal from the last time we reformed our tax code, held up today, a big old book, and President Trumps, which was a threepage flyer. And we are talking about something now that is going to potentially in dollars going to affect, positively or negatively, its going to add 4. 4 trillion, its got all these kind of exploding time bombs in it, gimmicks, 500plus Million Dollars of billion dollars of these exploding things, that will add another 2. 2 trillion. And the kind of unwillingness to sit down and say, hey, yeah, we got to find a way to make america competitive on an international basis, and we ought to make our tax code simpler, that would mean lower corporate rates and that would mean trying to bring money back, those are all goals that, sign me up, put me in coach, i spent years trying to get on the finance committee. And its been such a bitter disappointment to see that process not work. And so many, im not going to mention bob, but other republican colleagues that would privately come to me and say hey, i know this is not the right way to do it. And it felt like after the Health Care Debacle took two or three times of failing, it took this effort, that i think a lot of times our colleagues asked how can we put some fixing together on the health care. And some momentum got going and then it slowed down again. If this effort around finance fails, we ought to be able to do this in a way that makes ourselves more competitive, but doesnt add to a 20 trillion debt that we have got. The lack of fiscal responsibility is such an embarrassment, and again, bob has been a leader on this as well. But if we could just play back, if we if you and the press would just keep better notes of all the things we say, so when we switch back and forth, whoevers in charge and just play them back to us, we might get better policy. We do take note. I want to talk about your relationship, but lets just talk about this tax deal, since you brought it up. The house is going to vote on that, the package that would raise the debt by well over a trillion dollars over ten years, likely passed without a single democrat. You were complaining about the process, you mentioned the obamacare process. Super interested to know if you think that is a positive comparison, even though that ended up being a completely partisan product in the end. And now you think the tax situation could have gone better . Of course were not complete. But, look, i think both sides of the aisle have, through the years begun to take greater and greater advantage of something called reconciliation that was never intended to be what it is. And reconciliation is the process by the way, where one side of the aisle, if they have control of both sides can pass with just a 50 plus one vote. So its not good, the rules that define it are very confining, so you cant really end up with a product that works as well as if you did it under whats called regular order. But 6 where 60 votes are needed . Where 60 votes are ne s ars d you dont have the byrd rule and there are things that keep you from doing it in the most elegant and appropriate ways. But its not a good process. I think we certainly could come up with a Better Process if we took a longer period of time to make it happen. And so you end up in a situation where you say, look, i dont really i wish we were doing it in a different way, but this is the way its being done, that decision is being made, at a different level, so then you come into do you like the substance or not . I mean, is it substance that you agree with or not . And i think that, you know, for the republicans, the two things that they felt they were elected on was Health Care Reform and tax reform. And i think, i hope that whats going to occur is that after this process is completed, we can move to a regular order issue where theres not sort of an urgency around dealing with those two issues and moving them out of the way. The only thing i would add to that, though, is at least, unlike others bob has actually done a lot of this. The other tennant that i heard from so many of my republican colleagues when i was taking incoming when we looked at entitlement and other things, is we shouldnt add excessively towards our debt. I work in the only place in america when were 600,000 in the red this year, we highfive each other. We would be bankrupt if Interest Rates were 200 basis points higher than they are right now. And the notional idea that theres not a way to sort through. At some points you do have to have some facts. We have the worst of both, we have the highest tax rate in the world, we have the most complicated tax code. America ranks in total taxation, even when you look at were 31st out of 33 nations. So we need to have a tax code that still generates the money to pay the bills. And im not advocating a european style government at all. And i would hope what bob would think about this is if this effort doesnt go through, i have heard people say, well, gosh, democrats will, youll crow about it and, you know, move on and well be at a disadvantage. Ill say right here in front of everybody, who if this effort doesnt go through and you want to find a way to make American Business tax competitive, you want to find a way to bring back 2 trillion thats caught overseas, you want to bring back some modicum of middle class tax relief, sign me up, but lets do it in a way thats got a little bit of input from both sides and also doesnt add dramatically to the debt. Because going back to what bob earlier today, and im not going to say virginia is going to be a precursor of next year, although i hope it will be [ applause ] sounds like a biassed group here. This is the New York Times. So youre validated. So all youre going to have is youre not going to have any certainty, because if the democrats win next year, the first thing theyll try to do is undo a one party only solution on something thats as important as taxes and health. I mean this is not it is rocket science, but its not so complicated that theres not a way to recognize that we ought to figure it out together. And if i could on that, since we have both, in many ways, i feel like i have been one of the biggest deficit hawks. Yes, you have. In the senate, voting against really, really popular bills, one of two people against a very, very popular veterans bill because it broke the bank. And, you know, it wasnt even attempted to be paid for. If when this bill is completed, if i feel that the growth assumptions are out of line and we are not during this tenyear window, going to have a bill that doesnt add to the deficit and hopefully lowers the deficit, im not going to vote for it. I mean just know. Thats why mnuchin was in my office today. Thats why and i dont mean that i mean that they im not out here advocating why dont you go out and tweet something again. Im not advocating for any parochial issues, by the way, i havent asked for a single thing in this bill, by the way. Shouldnt you at this point . See, the growth assumptions are and theyre not completed yet. But i actually think its possible the growth assumptions are going to be in line to where this thing is not going to produce deficits, but lets see, and theyve got to prove that out. And one of the things that people have to when you use the 1. 5 trillion number, its a trillion dollar number because were syncing up current law to current numbers. All of you know that were keeping policies in flaplace. Were kicking the cans. We cant do dock fix this evening. It my point is, i think these guys are over demagoguing it and were overselling it and what i want to do is see whats completed and if i believe its going to add to the deficit, im not going to vote for it. Two quick points, one, show me any time in recent history, modern history, i think any nation and i dont often quote alan greenspan, but i think he said it last week, when youre at virtual full employment and you do a tax cut with borrowed money, good things dont happen. You dont you have huge unemployment and you two a tax cut when you dont have substantial debt, you can pump growth. But with a relatively full employment, borrowed money tax cut has not played out in any nation, i would argue in the last 50 years. And secondly, some of my republican colleagues acknowledged as much today, and this is some of the rules that you have to get around. They made some of the things around business and stuff permanent. And they made some of the things that people really like, the middle class run for five years, and what the republican chairman said is, when i raised the point that that would mean cuts in medicare, he said we always come back and fix those. So we have just created this whole new group of extenders, who i have a lot of respect for, has said this bill is not a 1. 4 trillion number, it is actually a 2. 2 trillion because you add up what will happen when that middle class tax cut runs out and we have to continue it. And you say, well, tell people the real cost. Bobs not on the committee, so he probably hasnt dug into it as much. But this has got a series of exploding policies in it that we just ought to be straight with people, if were going to layer this much on, when we have already, both teams have run up 20 trillion in debt already, we ought to be straight with you. Those questions are being raised in our conference. Im not on the Tax Writing Committee like you are, but those kinds of issues are being raised by our members too. Wanting to close those out so the process isnt completed, i know its not going particularly well in the committee itself. But a lot of those questions, i just want you to know that many of us are asking. Thats a good segue to talk about your relationship. How im not going to use the word bromance, dont worry. How did you guys start to be friends and working together . I came to see him. I got hired i had seen bob with the auto bailout hearings and he seemed like a smart guy. And i had gotten hired and i wanted we had some mutual friends as well. I said you ought to check this guy out, the like the fact that he had been a my your, like tay fact that he had been a business major. And i went that first week and met him and found that we have a lot in common. Did you enjoy seeing him at your doorstep . This wealthy democrat . We both can read a balance sheet, which makes us unique in the senate. No, we have had a great time. And look, we sat together at the first you were elected a president ial year. So we sat together at the inaugural ceremonies and you know, believe it or not, we dont really do that much socially. Shocking. But do you have good fun stories about each other . I mean do you have any . The one that, i think we have used this before. But we were working on doddfrank, and he doesnt like to recall this. But there was like a section of doddfrank that we worked on title 12, actually got 80 votes. And we were trying to work through this stuff, and our staff that had been going through this bill for some time, were not following our direction. So we had a famous beer summit, where we made our we went with our staffs and made us all have beers together so they could hear from both of us. But no, we actually wanted to find a way to get to yes. And it was kind of a little weird that it had to be driven by us to the staff rather than vice versa. Youre like i dont want to do that . And we dgot to yes. Did they say, okay, well do it just for you guys . As the world as gotten complex, and it really is complex. Things are just and they move so rapidly, senate staffs are first of all, they are outstanding. I mean i work around the finest group of young people in my office. That i have ever been around. I love them. And you know, we have these hide aways in the capital, where i dont even know where mine is. Because if ive got five minutes, i want to go back and meet and talk with my staff. But they drive so much of what happens, because were all working on so many things. And unless they have got the direction, i think his staff, generally speaking, does now, i know my staff does also, they know we want to get to yes on deals. But at that particular time, these issues were it was a pretty big issue and contenti s contentious, and i think, you know, there were some personality issues that existed there, some protection issues existing. But thats what it took and it worked and again, i think the two sections that we negotiated are going to they will stand the test of time. And we did some, i think again, it seems common sense, but is unfortunately, was fairly unique. I think we were both, at least i felt like i had learned up a lot, i thought i knew something about the financial system, but, boy, did i have a lot to learn as it was all melting down. We were going to see a lot of experts. But rather than them going to see me and going to see bob, so we said as schedule allows, why dont we see them jointly. We can then hear each others is and not get a secondhand version. It seems like common sense, but a lot more of that ought to be done. Im glad you mentioned the staff. I dont think a lot of people understand how big a part that is. They can make or break them. You mentioned the gangs before. Do you think theres potential for a new gang to come together in a form on National Security issues . Gangs have a bad, at this point, you know, i spent so much time with the effort around simpson bowls, i think president obama should have endorsed earlier on. But, it was kind of like, for a while, i was relatively new, maybe didnt get the joke we were spending all this time, the leaders on both side, never thought it was going to have a real shot, yet it was such common sense. You have to call things differently. If we ever had a shot to have it on the floor, we would have gotten 75 votes. My best day in senate was 49 senators came right before the first shutdown and so forth. Those of us who were making the pitch oops, were making the final presentation to these folks. Presuming we were throwing in the towel. People, two by two started saying, im in. We had this moment in time where we had the wall street journal and the New York TimesEditorial Board both endorse it. But, it was going to, you know, it was going to take on sacred cows on both sides. It was going to recognize the entitlement programs dont work anymore. On the republican side, the revenue stream was never going to pay the bills for the size government we have. That kind of fundamental moment, i think, putting one or two of those markers on the board. It is important, but just showing in one or two areas that we can still get things done. The thing i worry about the most is we are the greatest country in the world. There was a sense we could take on any problem. I worry at times there were some in the senate that somehow feel it was easier to kick the can or we dont have the wheel to take on big problems anymore. We have to get our mojo back. The gang doesnt work. Never has, never will. What mitch has done, and i have been on plenty of them, okay . Mitch, you have to give him some credit for this. He is allowing the Committee Process to work. I have never gotten a single call about anything relative to what we are doing in our committee. We do it, we pass the bill, we line up the floor time and we get it done. The way for these things to get solved is through the Committee Process. What might be necessary is not a gang to work on an issue. The professionalism on the committees, the staff there, too, are needed for these things to function right. And the expertise by the senators themselves. What could work in a different way, is, you know, a group of senators, there are not many left o kay . There are not many left, but a group of senators in the center right, center left that own big votes are willing to do things, not on actually producing legislation itself. Anyway, gangs are not a good way of running a government. Now, one of the most intense examples of howdy vided the country has become, if you look at ray moores situation, republicans in town made it clear hes an unacceptable choice for the u. S. Senate. In alabama, we see many in the Republican Party supporting him. Some stating publicly they would rather vote for him even if the Sexual Assault allegations are true because that is better than voting for a democrat. What is your observation about how we get to that place in this state . So, you are the 13th New York Times person today to ask me about this topic. Like that . That way . No, you did it more eloquently. Thank you. So, look, i, personally, thought that before any of these reports came out, before any of them came out, that him and the senate was a bridge too far, just based on his conduct as a judge and all the things that happened. So, i never thought that, you know, hoped he would be in the senate. The head of the nrse put out a poll tonight that is our internal polling that shows he is nine points down in alabama. [ applause ] now, you know, these races, remember what happened in the president ial race, there is a group of people who are very excited about his nomination and theres going to be a low turnout race. Who knows what actually happens. I just, every time im asked a question about it, look, lets see what happens first of all in the election itself. It doesnt appear to me that, i mean all these folks that work on electioneering, im not one of them. I dont think theres an option, yet, that works, unless somehow the whole getting of Jeff Sessions to step down as attorney general, which i hope he will not do, but, unless that happens, i dont see an outcome other than letting the people of alabama decide between the two candidates they have. I guess i was asking you more about the mentality of that. Oh, my gosh, anything is better than a democrat. Do you think that is generational . How do you think we got to that space . Im not sure. If that poll is right, i have seen one of 12. Alabama is very hes down 12 . Yeah. Alabama is a very conservative state. If those numbers, after 2014, i dont trust any polls. Nobody gets the joke. I get the joke. That was really funny. [ laughter ] you know, but, i think come december 12th, things play out, jones is going to win that race. He was a prosecutor. He prosecuted civil rights cases there. I think people will surprise us. I called a friend over the weekend that i know well. He was sharing with me the numbers of people beginning to say, hey, look, lets go ahead and vote for doug jones, this republican. That way, it will be three years. Then, there will be a you know, its very unlikely that the democrat, its very unusual for a democrat to win alabama, right . If that happens, then in three years, we can, you know, well have a democrat for three years then we can elect a republican senator. Thats one person. Obviously, numbers of people are thinking differently today than two weeks ago. There have been provocative articles this week saying they think bill clinton paved the path for this. Relitigating that time period, do you agree with that view . Listen, i think what judge moore done, i think was unacceptable. I also think bill clinton paid a price for his behavior as well. Do you think in retrospect he should have stepped down . Good try, but im not going to relitigate 1996, 2012 or 2016. I think there ought to be the senate didnt get a lot of fanfare recently. We have to make sure all of us from members to staff leaders have appropriate Sexual Harassment and other training. This is not, every institution in the 21st century ought to have that as basic hr code. You alluded to the elections in your home state. Im interested to hear from both of you what lessons you think you have gleamed from that night. I thought the democratic candidate would win. This was the first time posttrump, outside a single congressional race and virginia, as a state, the legislature is still 21 republican. You know, i was surprised at the margin. I was hopeful. But, you know, would people turn out . And folks turned out in massive numbers. It wasnt just folks in the blue areas. Its the first time a democrat picked up a seat in southwest virginia. It was a unique story. A young man named chris hurst and his girlfriend, he was a tv reporter and she was shot on air. A horrible tragedy. He wanted southwest virginia. It included virginia tech. It was showing, i have been a big believer and found a lot of folks in my party, inside my state that, you know, democrats can compete everywhere, but they have to show up everywhere. Just concentrating in urban and suburban areas is not a good plan. Frankly, theres a lot of Rural America left behind and, as someone who advocates being competitive everywhere, i think it was a very good sign. A lot of it was due to the president. The thing we heard time and again is this kind of divisiveness and we, being the home of where charlottesville took place, i was in southwest virginia right after that. I had crowds that i had they were not political, they were town hall and other type events. People were saying, thats not who we are at virginians. They wore it to the side. What should republicans take from that night . I think republicans should take that a lot of people in suburban america, in particular, but generally speaking, everyone, have not liked what they have seen in the first ten months of this year and that, you know, the governor race was one thing. 15 seat house to flip the way it did, that said something. More powerful. Sometimes you have a candidate that doesnt come across. When that many people won, i think its very evident that whatever level people are watching, they dont like what they have seen the first ten months. Can they crawl out . Can republicans repair at this point . You say republicans. I mean, theres a lot its, sure. I think, has the if you are going to talk republicans in general, i think that the base of the Republican Party probably is disappointed, also. Its interesting. The people in the middle have been very disappointed. The people on the left have been very disappointed and they are very energized. The people on the right are disappointed for opposite reasons and because of the things they hoped to happen didnt. But, lets face it, without getting too particular here, i think people are responding to tone. The tone in america right now and there are a few people that are very responsible for that. Do you think some people might experience a challenge in a primary as a result . Oh, i dont even know if he even runs again. You dont know what happens. Both parties both parties are divided. The democrats are able to keep themselves more together right now because they are in opposition. Its always easier to do that. The Republican Party is going through quite a challenge. You know, its some of the extremes are baring out and, you know, the election was a reaction to things that people are seeing in their lives, especially in rural tennessee. You have so many people who have work worked hard all their lives, they went to high school, a couple years of community college, raised their kids, but they are not further along. They are not where they thought they would be. 30 years ago, they thought they would be in a different place than today. Both parties have to figure out how to address that issue. So many people in our country do not have the standard of living or living a way of life they thought they would. We havent figured that out, Neither Party. Its creating a chasm in our party. You know, lets face it, the president won by blaming a lot of that on others, right . It was somebody else that caused you to be in this place. Thats not the kind of republican i am. Thats not the kind of republican a lot of us are. And, so, you are going to see, you know, challenges, if you will, to, quote, what republicans are in the future and if these guys are in charge again, they are going to have same kind of challenges taking place. That could almost sound like a campaign platform. Are you interested in that . You know, im my interest is to finish as strongly as i can over the next 13 months, 13 1 2. I am going to miss what i am doing, tremendously. You know, when i ran, i kind of ran on a missional kind of way. You know, matter of fact, i ran against harold ford and both of us said to folks in tennessee, we couldnt imagine serving more than two terms, yet im going to miss it tremendously. Yet, what i want to do over the course, miss affecting people, miss doing things that cause peoples lives to be better. So, what i want to do over the next 13 1 2 months is make sure we, our staff, do everything we can to make as much difference as possible, then take stock of what we do after. Senator warren, your calling card was you would be a moderate democrat, do you think thats worked out . What happened to that . He said that, not me. You know what . I think i have stayed true. I echo what bob is saying. I got elected governor on the notion you shouldnt have to leave your hometown in the 21st century. I dont think either party figured that out. I would argue that, to a degree right now, both Political Parties are in politics. One side of the Republican Party with unfettered markets. The other side, a democratic side that is in a top down, one government regulation can fix everything. I did really well in the business sector. I dont think modern american capitalism is working for people. People are giving up on that. When they give up on that, they go to the extremes. I would argue, you need a political philosophy that is geared from the 21st century. Nobody is going to have the same job for 35 years the way my dad did. We have a social contract that was built on the prejumpsumptio working the same job. We have to change that. We ought to have a tax show to invest in Human Capital the way it invests in physical. Train a worker, thats a cost. I think the Capital Markets need to be structures so that im not sure the pressure the businesses are under today, we would create the same companies created post world war ii because theres so much focused on short term quarterly profits. The companies are the exceptions. The tech companies, almost all of those are companies where the founders still control the company. So, i would argue, what i hope the democrats would do and i think when they are at their best is not the old left right liberal conservative, whoever is the future party and doesnt simply try to, you know, wistfully look back to goodold days. I can tell you as somebody, you can get freaked out about artificial intelligence, machine learning, the things i have seen on social media. This rate of change is going to go up. Im not sure the political debate is keeping touch with that at all. I think we are going take some questions. For those of you in the audience who would like to ask questions, theres mikes on either side of the room. Im going to take questions from Facebook Live here. Im going to give you a oneword answer before i turn to them. Trump runs, warner as a democrat, who do you vote for . You know i said one word . Id write bob corker in. Okay then. From nytimes. Com, how can there be bipartisanship if they use rules to bypass. Do you think it can happen in that context . Yes, i think, you know, the two issues i mentioned are republicans feel on must do issues. They dont feel like they are going to be a lot of help on those, want to get them out of the way. Thats not the case on tax reform, i think it could. After that, the reconciliation is only available for certain kinds of things. The other issues, yes, we have to use regular order. I think if there was one thing the country should have learned from, and i argue the democrats did try, if you look at the end of the day where obamacare and doddfrank were, one party. You cannot do big things in this country without having bipartisanship. Maam. Thank you for this evening. Members of the public sometimes get wind their representatives in congress think or feel and say things differently in private than in public. Im wondering if you feel that contributes to the disengagement, the disillusionment americans feel with the process or, conversely, do you feel you need less, not as much transparency. Your meeting with the expert in private where you can ask questions sounds like the committee meeting, just not in front of the cameras where theres more showmanship to get on the evening news. Im wondering where you fall on that spectrum between needing more privacy and being more productive to get things done or more sunshine. If its not in that spectrum of private versus public, what solutions do you see . Campaign finance . The fairness doctrine. What is the way forward . Thats a fair question. Want to take it . [ laughter ] look, we have briefings all day long. People are in and out of our office all day long and our staffs office all day long. I wouldnt want that to change. Being a senator, if you go about it seriously is like getting a ph. D. And almost, so many topics. Thats why people like being senators. Its challenging. I think, as far as the public part goes, thats about right. We dont really talk. Mark and i wouldnt be talking any differently if we were out having an adult beverage. But, you know, i dont think that is the issue at all. The Public Committee meetings, by the way, we have all kind of classified briefings where we are down in the skiff, no one can hear what is happening. I dont think that part is the issue. Ill let mark talk about him. I would argue that, you know, we are both lucky because we came to these jobs with Financial Success behind us. A lot of men and woman we work with, hes got an hour plus flight, not the worst. I get to drive home each night. Its a real blessing. A lot of men and woman we work with, they worked really hard to get here and they dont have resources. You suddenly say you have to raise 20, 30, 40 Million Dollars when you want to get rehired. Thats crazy. You need independent redistricting. People ought to use representatives and politicians choosing their folks. I think there is, he said we dont socialize much. We have gone out. Its hard to call somebody an s. O. B. After you talked to them and got to know them in terms of their kids. We both had challenges with kids. We share those things. It builds a binding. I think the fact that theres not i think the senate is much better than the house in terms of people getting to know each other. The fact that both teams, we are basically here for three days a week for the most part. Both teams eat lunches with their own team. All these things, there is a notion, if you know someone, you know, its easier to find common element. I think these kind of things make sense. In terms of arguing for, not arguing for less transparency, but you need a chance to kick back with folks of the opposite side. You have a question, sir . Thank you guys, once again for this talk. Its great. Im a student, so i want to talk more about the future of things. So, senator corker, for you, with the conservative party or the Republican Party, we have seen them kind of move away from more of the fiscal responsibilities since george bush and Big Government spending and now President Trump. How do i talk to my more conservative friends into being more fiscally responsible . And senator warner, you inspired me with your fiscal responsibility talk rather than what we have been hearing in the arena with Bernie Sanders out in the field. How do i talk to my more left winged friends in the Democratic Party about fiscal responsibility and what it means for the future of the country . Look, theres no question that the Medicare Part d component that was passed under president bush unpaid for, part of whats happening. By the way, he is a friend i like and respect more so as time goes by. [ laughter ] no, i mean, i dont mean that i didnt like him when he was here. Im saying i really like i agree with him. Then, the katrina thing happened. I think he felt himself wrongly accused of being not as openminded, ill use that word, then more money began to be spent. Then president obama came in and all of a sudden, republicans got religion on spending, right . In other words, my friends on the other side of the aisle that had religion when bush was there lost their religion and liked spending money. Now, thats generally speaking. Not every person, of course. Now, whats happened is, look, its like a party atmosphere, as i have said many times publicly to you and your colleagues here. Its like a party, again, on election day this last year. I dont recognize my side of the aisle, as it relates to those issues. Its unfortunate that it ebbs and flows. You get a lot more fiscally conservative when the other side of the aisle is in office. The problem is for you, a young student in north carolina, the greatest threat to our nation is not isis, its not north korea, its not russia getting involved in our elections, the greatest threat to our country is the fiscal issue and almost no one cares about it. Almost no one cares. Well have enough money coming in in the next couple years, the deficit is going to grow the next couple years. This is the way it was during the entire obama administration. I dont mean that to be critical, we were coming out of a recession. Today, we are going to be at a point where, constantly, the amount of money we have coming in will only pay for the entitlement programs. Thats all, nothing else. Wont pay for the military or education or highways. Wont pay for anything else. That is our future, we only have enough money coming in to pay for the entitlement programs. Let me give you two things. I dont think, i mean, i have had this debate with folks who claim to be super progressive. I think theres nothing progressive about refusing to acknowledge the math. I think Social Security and medicare are great programs. When i was your age, 15 people were working for every one person in retirement. Today, its three people. Dont blame us, blame the doctors. If entitlements squeeze out everything else, americas Business Plan right now, this is with the end of obama and worse with trump is for every dollar you send to uncle sam, we are spending seven cents on education, infrastructure and r d. As a business guy, i never invest in a business that spent less than 10 on work force, equipment and staying ahead of competition. That is a bad Business Plan. The only way to relieve that, unless you, you know, raise taxes beyond what people would expect is to be fiscally responsibly and realize government needs to look at those investments. Sir, you have the last question. Make it good. This is Campaign Finance related question. This building is dedicated, in some ways, to the freedom of information act. You guys in congress praise transparency in government. If you had to publish your daily schedules showing the amount of hours spent fund raising, on dinners or call log centers, would that embarrassment be enough to cause you to change the way campaigns are financed to look more closely at citizen or publicly funded campaigns . If you had to reveal your schedule, your call logs, your visitor logs the way the secretaries of the department have to do under foye ya and the way the president has to do under the records act but you make yourselves exempt. I was imt 1200 tax overhn with 227 votes in favor and 205 against. This weekend on American History tv on cspan 3, saturday, at noon eastern, the anniversary of the hollywood hearing, family members read from congressional hearing transcripts. Last employment finished a picture called the tall target. In connection with your employment . No. I have been in theater for 25 years, sir. I think im well enough known to all of them from the roles i have played. I stand on the grounds of the fifth amendment. Well, incriminate or degrade me, the word communist is an emotional word of the day. Its rich. At 6 00, on the civil war, a discussion on civil war monuments. It was about victory. The victory in many ways celebrated in so many confederate monuments. Was the victory over reconstruction . Sunday at 4 00 p. M. , the 1944 world war ii propaganda film on the north africa campaign. President of the United States welcomed the Prime Minister of great britain. The gravity of the moment brought them together. At 8 00 on the presidency, the book 26 seconds a personal history of the film. Gradually, starting in the late 60s, versions of the film began to leak out. People began to see it. When they saw it, because of the way that the film looked, it did not look like what the Warren Commission concluded. American history tv, all weekend, every weekend, only on cspan 3. Next on cspan 3, education secretary, betsy devos talks about how she wants to change the education system, focusing on school 06 choice and schools for students. Critical thinking, collaboration, communication and creativity. The speech is followed by wilbur