Shapers. [applause] hope you enjoyed the hot chocolate bar on the way in. Holly reuben and her team had for us, we love the Christmas Music as well. Welcome to cspan. Thank you, cspan, for being here, and welcome to the cspan audience, and welcome all of you. Axios is here to make you smarter, faster on the topics that matter, and we follow the same format with our events, bringing smart brevity to bring you into the worlds of business, tech, media and politics. Id like to thank the bank of america for making this series of news shaper conversations possible. We appreciate especially this great doubleheader that weve had, and i want to thank all my axios colleagues who are here. Were honored tond have this morning somebody who has been my governor and who has been my senator. I am a constituent, and we have this morning the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee and senator from virginia, senator mark warner. Senator . [applause] so without the smart and brevity, im not sure i fit in either of those categories. And you are a morning person, so thank you. Not the case, not the case. [laughter] so were down to four days til christmas. This is not your usual pattern. Yeah. My normal shtick in any event that i come to in december is that i am well known for leeing groups in with twelve days of christmas, but i guess thats not on the agenda this morning. So, senator, we have the tax cut, the biggest since 1986. Could would business have lived with less . The corporate rates have been cut down to 21 . Would it have been possible to get business to support something less . Well, mike, this is [inaudible] probably the most single disappointing legislation that ive been involved in in the eight years ive o been in the senate. And i have been desperately interested in doing appropriate tax reform. I was the founder of the socalled gang of six that said the Simpson Bowles plan made somex sense. At that moment the bid and the ask around simpsonbowles was in that 27, 28 rate on the corporate rate. That would have been done in a fiscallyresponsible way. I think businesses would have been ecstatic at a 25 rate. And how much money would that have saved . That would have saved for every point, roughly you safe about 100 billion. So the differential between a 21 and 25 is about a 400 billion savings. But let me take a minute, if you can, and say what my critiques a little different than maybe some of the Traditional Democratic critiques of this bill beyond all the process battles, beyond the fact that this was done in the dark, that there was no bipartisan effort that, frankly, tax reform is donehe best with transparency because if you dont have it, youre going to screw it up. And if we look back historically to the 86 act, that ended up having 88 votes at the end of the time and stood the test of time for 30plus years. This piece of legislation absolutely will not. So, wait, you think that part of this will be undone . I think that there will be there are so many mistakes that have been made in the legislation t not consciously, t because tax policy is enormously complex that within the First Six Months of this this coming year therell be a fixit bill that will come about. One, we could have done this in a fiscally responsible way. The estimates are that its going to add a trillion to what i would argue is over 2. 2 trillion to the debt, and were already 20 trillion in debt. Has not a good circumstance in terms of future investment. Thatss because youve got the existing debt hole, but you also have the additional interest off of that deficit, that debt. And, frankly, the presumption that many of of the perm tax cuts would be extended, point number one. Two, our colleagues have said this is going to be more simple. Baloney. Our tax code is going to be exponentially more complicated particularly around passthroughs. Third is, clearly, ive got concerns that the disproportional benefits all went to folks at the top. Fourth is, and this is one that i think will be an area of a huge amount of focus Going Forward with, i think they while wellintentioned got a lot of the International Tax component, just the setup of it, frankly wrong. And we maymp see the reverse of what is expected take place where this will actually incent more and more businesses to move more jobs offshore because of the, well, theyve got the international average, and you can still game where you put your factory versus where you put your intellectual property in a way that could be abusive. So what is so disturbing to me was, and i had lots of conversations with both businesses and republican colleagues about in that said, and i support a lower tax rate. I support repatriation. They could have said, hey, were going to allow you to bring this money back at a very favorable rate, but why dont you, business, or guarantee youre going to put a meaningful Training Program in place for everybody that makes less than 80,000 a year. Or, last point, not only for your business, but your supply chain, if youve lost a lot of jobs that have gone international, why dont you agree to put them in communities that have been hurt by trade. There was, i think, a real willingness from the business community, i felt, to engage in that dialogue. But this was done in such a rush to provide a tax cut, not reform, a tax cut by this arbitrary date of christmas that i think, unfortunately, this is a huge missed opportunity and will come back and bite my republican colleagues. And when you look ahead to november, do you think that they will regret it politically . Absolutely. Absolutely. There is show me a time in any wep democracy western democracy where when youve got an economy thats running at relatively full steam, and were relatively low unemployment, that you do a massive tax cut thats not very well targeted with entirely or borrowed money, youel will not see the growth assumptions that have been built many and, frankly, the growth consumptions that are built into the republican plan no economist has predicted. I think it will fall short. I think you will see actual job loss. And i think particularly if the president and his allies move to what they will call welfare reform which is just code for taking on medicare, medicaid and Social Security suddenly saying, oh, my gosh, we dont have enough money, and now weve got to cut the social safety nets, i think that will come back and do you think that this bill will cost Senate Republicans the majority . I think there is a list of challenges, one being this focus on tax cuts. Two, i dont see how, from what ive heard, there could be a real effort to do meaningful infrastructure. Again, one of the aspects that could have come out of the tax reform effort well get, the president s economic adviser, gary cohn excuse me, sir. Go ahead. No, i was just also going to say and theres that other little looming problem out there around the russia investigation. So i think theres a variety of factors that at this moment in time dont bode well. Were going to turn to the russia investigation very shortly, but and excuse me for that, but i just wanted to interject yesterday on this stage the president s economic adviser, gary cohn, told us on january 3rd theyre turning to, a, infrastructure, and, b what they call welfare reform. You call it entitlement reform. What are the chances, take them one by one, what are the chances of getting democratic votes on an infrastructure package . Well, mike, i think the, you know, as somebody who prides myself that every piece of legislation ive worked on ive had a republican partner, you know,n ive been this tax bil has left me and i think a number of others bitterly disappointed. Because i think we could have added value to this process. And as we move to infrastructure, gosh knowser we need it. But i dont know how theyre going to have a meaningful infrastructure plan when the president s own budget cuts funding to the highway trust fund. I mean, my fear is theyre going to come up with a plan that focusesth on additional Tax Advantages more for equity without real money. All the Tax Advantages in the world and all the tolling in the world doesnt pay back certain rural bridge repair and other things that are not paid more just reading between your lines, it sounds like be they played their cards right, it would have been possible to get democratic votes. If think there would have bn a much greater chance if they had not approached the tax bill thee way they had. I dont think theres a chance for a flurry of tax theres plenty of equity out there for infrastructure. M trucked be some additional there could be some additional debt. Ive got legislation that says we ought to have a debt vehicle, were the only International Country in the world that doesnt have a Debt Financing tool what you ultimately need on infrastructure, new money. And im not sure where theyre going to get it. So for those or who are tweeting, hashtag axios, 360, senator warner saying that the way the tax bill is handled makes it less likely they can get democratic votes on infrastructure. Is the same true of welfare reform . I think it becomes virtually impossible to take on entitlement reform. And i okay. Back in the and they would need 60 votes for that. It would need 60 votes. And back in simpsonbowles phase, we had a recognition that with an aging population there are ways that you can improve the longevity of medicare and Social Security and ways that actually helps protect the most vulnerable and maybe makes somebody like me whos been successful pay a little more. But when we did that plan, we started with those reforms were teed as well to a trillion dollar increase in revenues, not what were looking at now, a 2 trillion decrease in revenues over the next decade. Senator warper, i mentioned at the top among the hats you wear, youre vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee, so youre helping run one of key hill investigations of the russia matter. Yesterday on the senate floor you gave a red lines speech where you talked about your red lines warning the president not to fire the special counsel, bob mueller, and not to pardon witnesses. Why did you feel the need to give this speech at this moment . Mike, i dont go down to the floor and give long speeches a lot of times. I know how much Additional Information that were receiving on the intel in our investigation. Weve not reached any conclusions, but the importance of what were doing i said a year ago this iss the most important thing ill ever work on, i feelin that more strongly today than even a year ago. And we dont even have near the tools that Robert Mueller has in his investigation. Where hes already had two indictments and two guilty pleas, and i believe more to to come. So over the last number of months, there started with some really fringe voices around the august recess saying, you know, maybe mueller is weve got to indict muellers integrity, question this. And at that moment i was really proud because at least in the Senate Democrats and republicans alike all said, no, no, need to protect the special prosecutor. Because remember how we ended up with a special prosecutor. Because nobody would have ever presumed that a president would fire a sitting fbi director and then go out and basically trash that fbi director in a white house meeting with the Russian Foreign minister. That took place. And so there was chaos, and Rod Rosenstein did the right thing, and he picked a person with impeccable credentials, lifelong republican bob mueller. And then those voices, and it seemed like there was an effort to curtail that because democrats and republicans alike said we need to protect the special prosecutor and allow him to finish his job. But a funny thing has happened as weve seen some of these plea bargains come forward. You have one news network who one of their commentators who have called this investigation a coup. Youve got a president ial spokesman who said, you know, quoteunquote, the fix was always in on donald trump. You have, i havent seen the whole story, but my understanding the president s son having some new conspiracy theory. And then you have some comments that, to my mind, seem beyond bizarre coming from are certain members of the house. So it appears that as mueller gets closer, the coordinated drum beat was increasing. And i felt with what i know and how i think this would put us into the realm of a constitutional rye can sis crisis should he act and with congressco potentially leaving town for a few weeks, i wanted to go down and, hopefully, lay a marker down with the white house. But equally importantly, you know, call on my colleagues that this is a moment, god forbid that will happen. I want to take the president and his lawyers at his word that he has no intention of firing the special prosecutor, but i also would add or hopefully not issuing pardons or getting rid of Rod Rosenstein. But i hope in this will never be a moment that well never have to act upon, but i think real character of how this congress and this senate will be judged will be how we react if we work to take that kind of action. Senator, if we had music, we would have suddenly dark, rumbling music based on what you said just then. What do you think is going to happen while congress is away for the holidays . I hope that we, you know, have a Great Holiday season and nothing goes on. That would be but do you have intelligence otherwise . Or what do you fear or what are you trying to suggest . Mike, im not suggesting anything other than the fact that the tone and tenor of the comments coming out of certain of the president s allies both elected and otherwise should send a chill through all of us. I mean, that rule of law trumps any individual person in our country. We have division of powers. There is not executive action without restraint. And again, my hope is that come back from the recess and you can say, well, you know, warner, nothing happened. That would be, that would be the best outcome. A senator, in your speech you talked about the growing, a growing seemingly coordinated effort to undermine the Mueller Investigation coordinated by whom . I think that is a fair question. I dont know who its coordinated by, but i would say this that when yesterday morning the association of fbi agents and if you were ever to make a broad sweep at least in terms of the fbi agents that i know, the vast majority of them are republican. But the Fbi Agents Association came out with a very harsh comment directed at the white house and the president saying, you know, he does not serve Law Enforcement writ well, writ large well when his comments undermine basically not only mueller, but in effect the whole integrity of the fbi. And i would say, i would be astounded at this, but for the fact that early on in his tenure this same Prime Minister refused to accept this same president refused to accept the unanimous conclusions of our whole Intelligence Community in terms of russian active measures and intervention in our elections. So when a president or allies go out and undermine Law Enforcement or undermine the Intelligence Community, you know, the damage that is done, the damage thats done longer term to kind of our institutions validity lord knows, we know what he says about you folks in the press, but usually doesnt matter, democrats or republicans, things like the integrity of the Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement in this countrynt he generally been kind of off limits in being questioned. And i think were getting into, again, uncharted territory. Senator, if you look at your tv interviews over year, youve been pretty candid on what you have and dont have in your investigation, what you know and dont know. Your view of how much there is there seemed to have waxed and waned over years. Where are you at the moment . We continue to both have interviews, and we continue to receive documents and information. Ill repeat what i said earlier. When i said a year ago that this investigation was the most important item ill work on in my public life, i feel that more strongly today thans i did a yer ago. I feel it is absolutely critical that the full truth come out. Now, i also want to take a moment and step back and say im really proud of our committee. Ive got a great working relationship with richard burr. Our committees maintained bipartisan approach. Weve had some bumps, but we are still kind of, you know, proceeding ahead. Weve got a number of witnesses scheduled for january. And i would say weve really, you know, not shyly, but say weve really put some points on board already. One with, there is complete conclusion from everyone in government with potentially the exception of the president that russians massively interfered in our elections in a coordinated way that was unprecedented. And that conclusion has, frankly, helped now as weve seen french who are much more atubed to some of this than we were attuned. Brits who have gone back and reexamined brexit. I think from a national and international standpoint, that acknowledgment is important from a National Security standpoint. Secondly, the russians attempted to tap into not change votes, but tap into 21 states electoralin systems. At first, dhs was very slow at acknowledging that or telling the state election officials. They had this caf and aesque example pause they werent cleared. The chairman and i said, no, thatsic ludicrous. Now there is a much better relationship, theres actually a Bipartisan Group out of harvard work on electoral security. And in our state, in virginia, i pushed the state board, and we changed out some of our Voting Machines that were potentially vulnerable. So and the most important piece of this is, and where i think weve made the most progress, and that t is exposing the underbelly of social media. I me