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. Lets get into it. 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 nittygritty of governing, thats not really always the case, even though it has 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 . Sen. Corker sure. Bipartisanship 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 . Sen. Warner i agree. And i think its even more important. If theres one thing i have learned, and i think maybe one of the reasons we both think we we both have had careers in business and the 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 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 truths. I mean, whats going on . 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 sen. Corker whenever were together. Sen. Warner oh, he started the first one. 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. Theres always been extremes, right . How did they get the keys . Sen. Warner 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 americans. Redshirt, blue shirt teams. I would argue and i think this has gotten worse is that we have ended up concentrating too much the and this is not 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 bipartisan, do you agree with that assessment . Sen. Corker i would make some different points. 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 average at the 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, 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. Thats all. Now the 60vote threshold, when i first came here, it wasnt quite this way, but it was moving this way. Startedere in 2006, 2007, what happened two years later was all the outside groups started scoring votes not on the actual vote of the bill but the cloture 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 we have either got 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. 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 you alluded to earlier, senator. You are in your own states, do you feel people are living in an echo chamber, if you will . Sen. Corker i think anything you watch past 6 00 in the evening is probably detrimental to your broadness and thinking. 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 cable programs, even though i respect many of the commentators, i really do, i just i cant watch it. And it is sad to me that our nation, 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 if you can build upon that, 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 but it is not. Sen. Warner 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. If you look at a conservative story, to keep you looking again, they have got to produce a more conservative and a 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 wall 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. It is 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, we will have clear consensus that russia massively interfered in our election ss. Interfered in our election. 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 russian interference. Money add up all of the 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 . Sen. Corker i dont know if i want to do the cause and effect necessarily. But no doubt on the russia bill. I mean sanctions bill. Sen. Corker it was a big bill and it did a lot and we had combined that with the north korea bill, and the iran bill, a nd 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. Sen. Corker 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 days, 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, 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 military 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. 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. 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 . I was just curious about that. [laughter] 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 will get back to that. [laughter] 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 . Sen. Corker i wanted to save all that for my book. Just like a teaser. Sen. Corker actually i dont plan to write a book, im just kidding. I havent taken a note since ive been there. Thats always a problem for some people. Sen. Corker i havent, so. So first of all, i dont think people, so yes, theresbeen some so yes, there have 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 adviser. I am talking with generals and others. Nothing has really stopped. Whos one of those people sometimes would get called for times a week by the president. 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 about 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 were things kind of got a little bit more terse was after the charlottesville deal. And i just and i want to have and i do not want to have all of 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, ok . [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