Transcripts For CSPAN3 Sens. 20240703

Margaret thank you to all of you for joining us tonight, to our dedicated staff here at George Washington university. To our media partner, cbs news and sirius xm and our incredible production team. Thanks for helping the Bipartisan Policy Center sponsor this wonderful debate. Its the fourth in a series by the senate project. Tonight promises to be an interesting and informative discussion on some of the most Critical Issues facing our country and our world. We are honored that senator chris coons and senator marco rubio agreed to participate in this important program. Thanks to both of them. As you saw in those two video, the genesis of the senate project came from two u. S. Senators who had very different points of view but looked for Common Ground. Youll be hearing from senator tom daschle in a moment with more on their relationship and what it meant for the senate as an institution and for our country and all of us. I also have the privilege of collaborating with senators kennedy and hatch during my time as education secretary during the george w. Bush administration. They set a standard for bipartisanship. There are few people id like to recognize. After leaving the u. S. Senate earlier this year the team at the Bipartisan Policy Center have the good sense to reach out to senator roy blunt during his time roy blunt. During his time in congress he became a leader in looking for ways to work across the aisle. Senator blunt is now an executive fellow at the b. P. C. And we are honored to have his expertise. Bruce perselay is chairman of the edward m. Kennedy institute for the senate, joined by his executive director adam heinze. Matt sandgrin is executive director of the orr hin g. Hatch foundation. He spent 15 years as senator hatchs chief of staff. I also want to welcome frank, the cochair of the commission on president ial debates. He knows a thing or two about debates and were pleased he could be with us. Thank you, frank. This is my first day as president and c. E. O. Of the Bipartisan Policy Center. In addition to serving as cabinet secretary, my career has taken me to the College Campus as president of the university of North Carolina system and until just a few weeks ago, president and c. E. O. Of texas 2036, an organization addressing the most important issues for texas. In advance of its bicentennial my new challenge is here. As we expand the mission of the b. P. C. Ill be the first to admit that bipartisanship may not appeal to the most extreme voices in either party. Were all familiar with the noise in todays political climate, evident on both ends of pennsylvania avenue, on cable television, and on social media. And if we can get beyond all of that noise, there are lawmakers who can and do Work Together to accomplish big things. The only way to create lasting change is to have that debate. Discuss the differences. And find Common Ground. So if youre starving for policymakers who will come together, then i ask you to join us collectively as we work to find solutions instead of sound bites. Im looking forward to todays event and what will come next. Both senator coons and senator rubio have agreed to write a joint oped based on what comes out of their exchange this evening. We look forward to sharing that with you and it will be posted on our website at bipartisanpolicy. Org and of course on the hatch and kennedy websites. It is now my great pleasure to introduce the former Senate Democratic leader, tom daschle. He faced more than his fair share of political battles in his two decades in congress. After leaving the senate he collaborated with three other former party leaders, senator bob dole, senator howard baker and congressman george mitchell, to create an organization that fosters fierce debate and Common Ground. Were here tonight in large part because of his vision and his tireless efforts to make our political process work just a little better. The b. P. C. Is one of his greatest achievements and a Lasting Legacy to toms distinguished career in public service. Please join me in welcoming senator daschle. [applause] sen. Daschle thank you, margaret, for that kind introduction and congratulations. I cant imagine a better way to launch your career with the b. P. C. Than an evening like tonight. Margaret and i had the chance to Work Together when she served as secretary of education with the george w. Bush administration. And i must say, served in a just in a remarkable way. So its so good to have her back in washington tonight. I couldnt be more thrilled to wok her on her very first day here at the b. P. C. And thank her for the leadership and the work she has demonstrated over and over again in her public and private careers these many years. And let me thank you for your work the past year at the helm. Of toe at the helm of the b. P. C. It was a little over three years ago when i commended commented to fellow Board Members a Board Members at the Edward Kennedy institute that at times i didnt recognize the senate the way it was operating today. Often called the worlds greatest deliberative body, today polarization is yen rating our politics and media in an impact. Way that oftentimes is repulsive. Thats why im so pleased tonight to see three great organizations working collectively on a single goal. To create a forum in which we can watch the passionate debate that we expect in the senate. A hallmark of our democracy. And then when possible look for areas of Common Ground. Tonight, we have two people ive admired a great deal. Two distinguished lawmakers who represent two different parties and oftentimes two different points of view. But like each of us, theyre americans first. Senator koontz and senator rubid senator reubie will debate several topics, including Climate Change facing the planet, and our adversaries, and just like our founders who argue, who discussed, and disagreed, theyre going to look for areas of Common Ground as well. Yesterday, as some of you may recall, we marked the anniversary of our constitution. And im often reminded of that scene in the final day of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, its a story that im absolutely certain most of you have already heard. But on this, the day after the anniversary of the constitution, i think it bears repeating. As you recall, residents in philadelphia gathered on the steps of Independence Hall to await the news of government from our founders and what theyd crafted. One of them asked the oldest founding father, Benjamin Franklin who stood at the steps as they were walking out, mr. Franklin, what do we have . A monarchy or a republic . Franklin replied, a republic, if you can keep it. Thats our responsibility. Now nearly 250 years later, can we keep it . After all weve gone through these past years, those words actually ring louder than ever. Tonight were going to have a chance to hear those differences but in a forum that gives two u. S. Senators the space to share their points of view. And yes at times, agree to disagree. But with a level of mutual respect. I had the great privilege to work sidebyside with ted and orrin. They were not only colleagues but they became very close friends. We traveled together, we actually hung out on weekends together. Ted and orrin were two different parties. Two different ideologies. From opposite ends of the country. But despite despite those differences they respected each others point of view. They didnt agree on everything. But in areas where there was agreement, they went all in to get things done to make this country a better place. They believed as i so strongly believe that compromise, compromise is the oxygen of democracy. As a result, their names are on some of the most important pieces of legislation from the 20th and 21st centuries. From the americans with disabilities act to the ryan care act for aids to the Childrens Health insurance program, known as chip. And of course secretary spellings knows so well, major education reform with no child left behind. And consider for just a moment the impact each of these bipartisan bills continue tonight to have on the country. We need a lot more like them in congress. If we want to tack they will big issues facing our country now. I only wish they could be here tonight, theyd be so proud of the work that these three highly respected institutions are doing to carry on their legacy. To the b. P. C. , to the e. M. K. Institute, to the hatch foundation, thank you for bringing us together tonight. And for all the work that you do to ensure we can find that Common Ground. And in the bipartisan spirit of the evening im pleased to welcome one of the newest members of the senate alum society, former republican senator from missouri and now an executive fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center, my friend and truly my friend, roy blunt. [applause] mr. Blunt thank you, tom. Tom is a good friend, our accomplished wives are good friends, which makes it easeor for easier for us to be good friends. Tom has been an adviser of mine since i announce fahd years ago i wasnt going to run for another term. The United States senate is one of the few places in the world where at my age, after 26 years in congress, people would ask why are you leaving so early . I want to join in welcoming margaret, and thanks to kelly who filled in while we wayed for margaret to get here. And with my colleagues, with my friend val demings from florida, we found ways to Work Together. We had an oped published not too long ago, i was glad to be part of that. One of the reasons were here, tom daschles determined leadership that you have to find solutions. I point out that the Bipartisan Policy Center is not nonpartisan. Its bipartisan. And thats different. When tom daschle and i first had a chance to Work Together, i was the republican whip in the house and he was the democratic leader in the senate. Those are clearly not nonpartisan jobs. But i think we both felt then and still feel that the best solutions are found in the middle. They last the longest. They have the most resilience. They serve us the best. A couple of congresses ago, there were 52 republicans in that senate and 48 democrats. My staff came to me one day and said, you do so many things with other members to find one thing you can agree on. We thought wed just check and see how many of the 48 democrats youd been the principal sponsor of the bill with, not just a cosponsor but principal sponsor and the answer was 44. I thought that was a pretty good answer. In my last speech on the senate floor i said to get something done here you dont have to find something you dont have to find somebody you agree on everything with, you just have to find somebody you agree on one thing with and that leads to getting things done. Senator rubio, senator coons and i all came to the senate at the same time and we worked on lots of things together. Senator coons and i worked on the victims of child abuse act every time it needed to be extended. And americorps every time it needed to be extended. Senator rubio and i were sat sidebyside on the Senate Intelligence committee for several of the years that we served there and everything from dealing with those intel issues to daylight savings time, fulltime extension. Which we are both for and almost everybody in this room will be for in about six weeks or. So wondering why we didnt get that done even though i will point, there was one day when our daylight savings bill passed unanimously in the senate though ive never been quite sure how many senators were there. The day it passed snamsly. Were here for an oxford style debate two people stand on the stage and Exchange Ideas about issues we have to find a solution to. Lucky to have ed coe keefe from cbs news here ed okeefe from cbs news here to see that this debate answers some of those questions. Also lucky tonight to welcome nadia to come and sing the national anthem. Id like for all of you to stand as she comes to do that. O say can you see by the dawns early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilights last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight oer the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming and the rockets red glare the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there o say, does that starspangled banner yet wave oer the land of the free and the home of the brave [applause] please welcome tonights moderator, cbs news senior white house correspondent, ed okeefe. Ed good evening. Im ed coe keefe, white house and Political Correspondent for cbs news. Welcome to the Senate Project Debate taking place here on the campus of George Washington university, in washington, d. C. To those of you watching on cbs news or through sirius xm, thank you for tuning. In this is a partnership between the edward m. Kennedy institute for the u. S. Senate, the orrin g. Hatch foundation and the Bipartisan Policy Center. The organizations joined together to create a forum in which elected officials can discuss some of the most important issues of our time while also looking for arias of Common Ground. Delaware democratic senator chris coons delaware democratic senator chris coons and Florida Republican senator marco rubio have agreed to join us on this stage and senator rubio selected topics of china and Global Leadership. Senator a coons chose energy and the environment. The third topic will focus on the u. S. Senate as an institution and the state of our politics today. Each senator will present opening arguments, followed by rebuttal my job is to give them the time and space to have that debate and leave it to them, primarily, to have that conversation. The audience behind me has assured me, assured me, theyre going to remain quiet for the next hour except right now as we welcome senators coons and rubio to the stage. [applause] ed didnt realize we were getting such a hollywood opening. Thank you gentlemen, senators, for being here. Senator rubio opted to go with the issue of china and u. S. Global policy. So senator rubio, first with your opening argument, and then well hear from senator coons. Sen. Rubio thank you. Its an honor to be here. Ive done a lot of debates over the last few years but usually we have 10 other people on stage calling each other names. This should be interesting and productive. I picked the topic of china, its not really about china, its about us. 80 years from now salespeople will write books about this century. Most of us wont be here. Therell be a couple of chapter on vladimir putin, but that book, the story of the 21st century will be about what happened between the United States and china. What happened . Did one overcome the other . Did one become predominant in the case of china . Were they able to find a balance and coexistence to their relationship . Whatever the outcome i think will define the 21st century. Weve made some bad mistakes over the last 30 years. Neither of us were in the senate at the time but policymaker we did have a bipartisan consensus in this country. That was that the cold war was over, the free world had won, now it didnt matter anymore where the market sent jobs because all these jobs could leave but dont worry, better jobs will replace them and pay you more. And once china got rich and prosperous, etch if they cheated their way there, theyll become just like us. It sounds stillly now but it benefited everybody, it benefit silicon valley, the chamber of commerce and other industries. It was a terrible mistake. It does matter. Nationhoods matter. The ability to make things matters. It did matter those jobs were leaving. They were not replaced by better paying jobs for the people who lost them, maybe for others. The result is not just having an impact on america but on every single western industrialized country on the planet. Everyone is going through an upheaval because of this at the core of it is china make no mistake, china is an expansionist power. An expansionist power. Think about over the last 100 years as the west is decolonized, walking away from colonization, in inner mongol goala and tibbett, theyve taken over hong kong, portions of northern india. Theyve claimed the entire South China Sea to make it very clear that they intend to take over taiwan one day. This is an expansionist power. They also economically cheat. They steal 600 billion a year of intellectual property. Their companies can do whatever they want in america but our companies cant do whatever we want over there. Capitalism did not change china. China changed capitalism. They used it against us as a weapon. They empower and empowered and enabled and depp fiezed deputized hundreds and hundreds of industries and their lobbyists to influence american policies. Were running out of time to reverse this. Its an extriertdnary, historic challenge, one we need to confront with open eyes and truly understand that they do not view this as a winwin situation. In their boif the last 100 years are an aberration and it is their rightful place to be the worlds most powerful country and i for one dont want my children or grandchildren who are yet to be conceived or at least born, i for one dont want them to inherit a world where the most powerful nation on the earth is a fascist police state that condemns uighur muslims to work camps. That oppresses its people and that empowers that sort of authoritarianism around the world. I think its an extraordinary challenge and one i hope we can build a new consensus on. Ed senator coons . Sen. Coons thank you, ed. Thank you to the Bipartisan Policy Center and thank you to senators daschle and blunt. G. W. , my wife annie, family and friends for being here tonight. To senator rubio, marco, thank you for agreeing to this evenings discussion. To look back at how this started, we agreed to the agree act in 2011, five different ideas we wove together to challenge our parties which at that time were already showing pieces of that agree act had to do with protecting our inventions and our innovations from chinese predaition. I largely agree with senator rubio that china is the leading challenge to the american way of life. To our security. To our inventions and innovations. To testing our global standing. They have engaged in death trap diplomacy through the belt road initiative. They are threatening our supply chains and access to everything from pharmaceuticals to semiconductor chips. As i came into the senate i was leaving eight years in a Manufacturing Company and i knew all too tellwell how chinese theft of our inventions, our trade secrets, was a critical challenge. So one of the very first bill us got involved with was teaming up with thensenator orrin hatch to pass into law the defend trade secrets act. It was based on an experience i had in the private sector where someone we thought was a trusted partner in research was in fact a p. L. A. Agent who ran out the door with a laptop full of some of our most important inventions. At the time the law didnt allow a private Sector Company to take private action to recover that set of trade secrets. Now it does. As the chair of the africa subcommittee in my first two congresses with my dear friend Johnny Isakson of georgia, i could see how chinese offerings of investment in infrastrur infrastructure were tempting african developing nations and we werent offering and alternative. I worked hard with thensenator bob corker to pass a bill to help create the Development Finance corporation to provide an alternative that was more transparent, more sustainable, that met our values. Im working hard to provide the resources d. F. C. Needs to be something that can meet the moment of that challenge. And last, in terms of the issue of threats to semikungtors and our supply chain, the real risks posed to taiwan, not just the risk to their independence and freedom but the risk to our defense and our system, i worked with senators of both parties to help shape and pass the chips and science act in the last congress. I think its critical to show that we can solve problems. China is an absolutely critical threat. Ill close with this. The most important thing we can do is to strengthen our democracy by showing that we have answers to challenges of this century. Thats why im excited to be on the stage with you tonight is to show you that we is to show that we can find Common Ground together. Ed youre fre to rebut. Sen. Rubio its a nice statement, i dont know how to rebut that. First of all let me say the issue of china, there is a developing consensus in the country that this needs to be confronted even in congress. I would say that the divisions on this issue arent necessarily always partisan. It generally falls in line this way. If youre an industry or a business thats done quite well with your investments in china youre going to come up with all kind of creative reasons we shouldnt go too far in pushing so that doesnt always fall along neat partisan lines. In many cases some of the real challenges we have faced have been in my own party with regards to some of these issues. There were many who would say we should trust the market. I hate socialism. Its a failure. This country is facing a crisis because of immigration away from socialism from veans way la and tua. The mark will find the most efficient outcome which is generally the right jut come. What do you do when the most efficientout come is not in the National Interest in it is more efficient to depend on them for 80 of the pharmaceutical ingredients because its cheaper. But we shouldnt. We can go down the list, industry after industry. That desire to confront this is a new consensus. I think whatll be our challenge is this is not an issue that lends ourselves to incremental. I. The challenge sex trierdnary. This is by far the single greatest adversary this nation has ever confronted. They are much more powerful than the soviet union ever was. They were never industrial or technological ones. And i do think that our concern needs to be matched by a level of urgency in both Political Parties. Its not enough to say we are going to pass a bill that says nasty things about china. Thats tactical. We have to have a Strategic Point of view in regards to how serious the threat is and take measures that make sense. And that respond to how serious a threat this is. With serious proposals. We can only do this as a bipartisan consensus around this, not half measures. Hopefully well be table arrive at that point in our country at that level of urgency to get something done. Ed let me ask you both. President biden was asked to characterize the u. S. China relationship in a recent visit to vietnam he said in part, quote, we think too much in cold war terms. He later added the relationship instead should be about, quote, generating Economic Growth and stability in all parts of the world. Is that the right approach to china . Sen. Rubio i dont think this is anything like the cold war. I never used that terminology. The cold war was scarier but ease year to understand. They wanted to spread marxism all over the world. He the chinese dont care if you become a marxist or not. They want you to owe them a bunch of money if you owe them as much as your economy is worth, youll owe youll do whatever they want. They seek to become a dominant military power in the indopacific region but they want to project power all over the world. They seek to dominate all the industries that are going to be key to the 21st century. They dont talk about this anymore, but made in china 2025. They said were going to dominate these 10 industries. Some of them are things like heavy machinery. Not just some of the high tech stuff. I think we have to view it in that way the chinese would like to the communist party of china would like to avoid confrontation with the United States as long as possible because they believe the longer they can extend this, the longer they can continue their lies without conflict setting them back. But we should be under no illusion they do not have a winwin mentality and we should also be under no illusions about this we are here tonight to talk about arias of agreement and consensus. Thats not a tradition in the political culture. Its not. Its not going to translate to Foreign Policy ed senator coon, is it a cold war or Something Else . Sen. Coons its Something Else but ill reference some ways it seems eerily reminiscent. We are in a contest of wills with a different system. The high these communist party which under xi jinpings leadership has taken a sharp turn to control and repress its people. To be more active and engaged in what was the independent private sector formerly in china. And as senator rubio has said, significantly more expansionist. Regionally and globally. And that in that way this is somewhat similar to our contest with the soviet union a contest of two very different systems. With different understandings of individual rights and liberty and where our greatest strength is our Global Network of alliances. Our alliances were critical to our success in the cold war and i would argue our alliances with countries with common values that are free market societies, open societies, with are robust media that respect the right of individuals and free and mare elections. Thats the world we now need to embrace and lead. I would argue we are. When xi jinping and his emissaries go around the world, i have heard this and seen this in dozens of countries i have visited, they say we are a declining power. They say the United States is inevitably headed downward and they are inevitably ascendant we can prove them wrong. But doing so begins by strengthening our own internal capability to show that democracy delivers and by embracing our Global Network. Ed so we both agree china is bad. Were not in a cold war. Sen. Rubio theres one point i would put a different are we allowed . Usually theres someone scream, thats not in the rules. Ed go ahead. Sen. Rubio i think the world will look different than the one senator coons describes in the cold war. I think theres clearly a block of nations coming together, probably not Something Like a formal military alliance but certainly some sort of Global Cooperative between china, russia, iran, north korea and others. Coalition of the sanctions, i guess she right term. And then and then obviously nations that have respect for the things we have discussed or to have common interest in us in preserving things like freedom, democracy, liberty, individual liberty, a concept foreign to the Chinese Communist party. They have no concept of individual liberty as we would define it. Then theres a third group eric merging countries. Theyre doing what youd do if you were an emerging country. Ill cut the best deal i can with both sides. Can i get weapons from the u. S. . Can i get cheap huawei systems from china that are effective . I think we have to be mature and strategic how we approach that in many cases. Senator coons is an expert on africa issues. Many of those country, they dont want to be forced to pick a side in this. They want the benefits of both. Thats one of that existed somewhat in the cold war but i think itll be really pronounced in this new area. Ed i want to ask you both a Senate Question related to china. Majority leader schumer is said to be preparing a bipartisan troip china. Is that a good idea . Sen. Coons many senator have never been to china. Many have a view and understanding of the p. R. C. That is informed by what theyve read or seen on television. And like many places ive been in the world i think you cant grasp what china is today, what its capable of in scope and ambitions without spending time there. I first went to china decades ago. I most recently went there leading a codel. And was shocked at how much of a difference there is in their development and technology. And in the directness with which theyre willing to just sit down and lay out that they are intending to meet us and in some places replace us. Thats a challenge they have, an ambition, on the world stage. We are capable of having collaboration and cooperation and we have to consider that. On critical areas. Whether its nuclear proliferation. Counterterrorism. Managing pandemics. Dealing with Climate Change. Theres a mixed record across those four. Theres also areas where we have to be cleareyed about their competition with us, for those nonaligned countries. And how we to understand their engagement need to meet with them and hear from them. But frankly also if you havent seen china on the ground in the last decade or never been there at all i think its hard to grasp. To go to taiwan and to go to the p. R. C. , and to see in a chinese context a robust democracy and open market economy. And a country controlled by the c. C. P. Is to be informed about the challenges ahead. Ed senator rubio . Sen. Rubio i will not be on that trip, im banned from china its one of those trips where 10 people go, if im one of them, only nine may come back. I will tell you my only concern, i generally, you want to go and meet with leaders and talk to them. But my only concern is the way it would be perceived. Perception is real. The perception and mindset that, the way the world views america right now, unfortunately, forget about who is president , who was president , who will be president. Just in general, we cannot sustain our attention span, well talk about things for three months, thats our longterm planning. Then we move on to Something Else. In the end, their viewpoint is no matter how much these politicians talk tough, they like buying stuff from shein. Ive never ordered from there but i hear its cheap. They are so addicted to what we can provide them that in the end theyre limited in what they can do. And my fear is that theyll perceive these leadership trips as an indicator of us looking for a strategy, and accommodation on that front if they want to go, i hope the message they take and deliver is a strong one. Ill be watching here from the crites because i cant go anyway. Ed both of you also agreed to take on the broader topic of u. S. Leadership. Its something you confront every day as members of the fo both of you also reigagreed to on the broader topic of Global Leadership, you just alluded to. It is an issue you confront every day as members of the Senate Foreign relations committee. Lets spend a few minutes on that topic. U. S. Global leadership is important. I think it needs to be adjusted to the times in which we live. A perfect example. This is simplistic, but we should be a country where if you are friendly and aligned with the United States, we should be good to you and support of. If you are an adversary, we should be firm. That is not the message. What i get from leaders in latin america, they have started to wonder if it is better to be mean to america, they seem to spend more time and attention than they would otherwise. The other thing that has to come into play is National Interest. This is tough to accept because this was once a unipolar world. We were the only country in the world that can project power everywhere. That is no longer the case, not because america has gotten smaller, but the world is got more complex. We should care about all the horrible things on the planet, but we have to prioritize the ones with the direct impact on National Interest. National interest have to be at the forefront of where we allocate resources and spend attention on and how we make these decisions. Some nations and some places and some crises have a greater impact on National Interest. I dont think we should ever feel guilty about putting National Interest this is not to me we want to act counter to the interests of other nations by design, but sometimes they will be in conflict. What matters to the u. S. Is important. I will put it to you this way, if United States leaders dont put the interests of the United States first, what leaders of the world well . That is the number one obligation. That is the part where Global Engagement needs to be tailored, perhaps, more than it was five or 10 years ago. Are we a reliable ally and partner . That is a key question currently being asked around the world. When mice i think about our place in the world i think about questions ive been asked by four ministers, opposition leaders, heads of state in dozens of countries in recent years. We just adopted an amendment to the Defense Authorization act that i think senators rubio and senators kane led. Nobody can drive from our most Enduring Alliance in nato. Whether it is strengthening the end dosis indopacific are pulling together japan and south korea or investing in the expansion of nato, this is a moment in our role in the world where our National Interest is to be a strong and reliable ally. One of the reasons many of us are fighting hard for more resources for the ukrainians fighting so bravely to expel the russian invaders and occupiers from their land is because we have committed to this fight. There are 47 other countries contributing collectively as much, if not more, than we have. This sends a signal around the world. If we flag in our enthusiasm, to the point senator rubio made about concerns about attention span, individually and collectively, if we flag in enthusiasm and support for the fight of ukraine, it sends clear signals, i think, to others in the world who would also seek to change boundaries and invade or occupy or undermine countries by force. Youre both on the Foreign Relations committee and both on appropriations. Ukraine, as you mentioned, is seeking even more assistance. President zelenskyy will be here this week. Give us a sense of where that is headed. Will they get the money . How much . Is the push to have Strings Attached or better accountability for how it is spent real . I will say that they are doing a great job at accountability and transparency back with us. The last time i was in ukraine was with senator portman last year. One of several things we did, in addition to meeting with human rights advocates and those who are prosecuting and investigating russian war crimes , was to meet with the team that was following, tracking equipment, but overall, both senators and many of the chairs in raking of the relevant key committees have spoken to privately and publicly about the importance of this funding because of what it sends as a signal. The strategy of putin is to wait us out. It is the strategy he followed in chechnya. It is the strategy he followed in syria. It is a brutal, aggressive world war i style war of attrition. We cannot let him win. Putin will only stop in ukraine if we all collectively stop him. I think this funding is critical. I generally agree with that. I would say three things that are important. The first is, do we have a National Interest in what is happening in ukraine . I believe we do. Not unlimited, but an important one. At this point, especially. If the United States tomorrow announced were not doing anything more with ukraine at argonne, the impact would not just be felt in ukraine, the entire alliance would be put into doubt. With your japan or south korea or taiwan or anybody, you start to say, that is america doing what we feared they might do and what weve been told by their adversaries they would do. Number two, china is on the side of russia. That already tells you which side we should be on. I want putin to lose. There is a National Interest. And what are we supporting . What is the strategy . Here is where the difficult part is. The ukrainian view of it, at least as it appears, as they seek to retake all the territories that rightfully belong to them, including crimea, or are we help them recapture where they were before february 2022 . That is an important answer we need from this administration. What are we putting this towards. The third is how much we can afford to do. Here is the real challenge. We dont have unlimited stockpiles. Primarily, we are providing weapon systems. We give them a system off our shelves and we have to replace that. We have to have enough to fund our own defense needs. These arent necessarily things you can just order on amazon the get delivered in two weeks. There needs to be a strategic view that guides what we get them and how much we are able to spend. How far should we be willing to go . As far as it takes. No less conservative than jim rich, the Ranking Member of Foreign Relations, has reminded us over and over that in 1994 ukraine have the thirdlargest Nuclear Arsenal on earth. A group of countries settled down and persuaded them to give them their nuclear weapons. The budapest memorandum signed by those countries was a commitment to protect their territorial integrity. We are lawyers. Jim tends to weigh this around and say, we made a commitment first. Second, our president has said, as long as it takes. Third, we have expanded nato. Nato now has new members who are incredibly capable. I think that means that strategically putin has already failed. But lets take a moment to look at why the wagner group marched en masse a on moscow. Out of frustration to achieve their aims and out of frustration at the corruption and ineptitude of the russian military. Who is Putin Meeting with . Kim jongon, why . To get a resupply for artillery. When he has to go to north korea to get artillery for his war, we are making progress. It is hard to say that up to attend, i would put this at eight or nine. The signal it sends. We are more likely to see a resolution to this more when putin concludes he cant wait us out and that we are determined. It seems contradictory to say we need to be committed as long as it will take, but when we are, i think it will take less longer for putin could do conclude he cannot win. I want to ask you about the news today of the prisoner swap between the United States and iran. Especially in the context of Global Leadership. The United States continues to engage adversaries in this way. What does that do to you as Global Leadership . These are tough issues. Your never unhappy when an american. This is a difficult thing. We paid money for and gave concessions, for example, in venezuela where we made a deal with them in exchange for americans. We released convicted narcotraffickers. They were nephews of the dictator there. Here is the problem. It is not just a sign of weakness, you now put a price tag on the head of americans. Now you have rogue elements all over the world from haiti to iran to venezuela and any worlds say we will find an american we can arrest, especially if it is something lets take them. We can get something in exchange. That is where the difficulty lies here in making these deals. I also think the context of that, in addition to the cash that was frozen and freed up, the context was probably part of the broader effort to try to revive the iran deal, which i think is not refundable at this point. It would be a bad idea. That is my biggest problem, not that americans are coming home, but that now elements around the world realize we can get something in exchange for americans. This is whats painful about meeting with the families of americans held in prisons unjustly overseas, which i have done many times. We actually are cosponsoring a bill to create a National Hostage day and flag to remember those who are being unjustly detained around the world, whether in venezuela, russia or iran. To be clear, these are iranian frozen assets that are being released for humanitarian purposes, not money going from you as taxpayers to the iranian regime. But i understand those who are concerned about the signal it sends as we continue to negotiate to try to bring americans home. Having sat with the families of several of those who are now on their way home, more than anything, i celebrate with them the return of americans. It is about 6 billion the United States says that will have guardrails placed to make sure the money is only used for humanitarian purposes. Some members of your party have expressed skepticism about the guardrails. Are you confident they will hold up . I am optimistic. It is an understandable concern. The iranian humanitarian regimes, the regimes who married tatarian programs dont have a good track record. What does have a good track record is the innovation on uav that are armed. They are increasing capacities they have now been able to carry out in terms of missile systems, longrange missile systems, the sponsorship of hezbollah and other terrorist organizations around the world. This is where they put their money. That is why those assets were frozen in the first place, so they couldnt dedicate it to those things. As their own leaders have said on television and on global broadcast, that money will be spent however they think it needs to be spent. They have been pretty clear. I think we can be hopeful it will go to humanitarian, but i dont think we should count on it. In fact, i think we should expect it should be doing what iran has spent money on for the last two decades, the sponsorship of terrorism and increasing military capability. I imagine you guys will be able to figure out by way of intelligence agencies if the money is being spent the wrong way . You would see the end product. I have a lot more uavs and long range missiles. Hezbollah suddenly has more money. They will try to hide it, but they deny they are behind those things now. At the end of the day, the expansions they have carried out, even with sanctions in place, have been pretty substantial. Their capabilities and what they have supplied others with in that region is pretty substantial as it is. Imagine another 6 billion. We are not dealing with humanitarians, were dealing with a regime that views acquisition of these weapons, not just a way of survival, but to achieve their aims of dominance in the region by shiites. Lets be mindful that at the end of the day the pariah regime driving greater and greater risk is russia. It is sitting with the iranians and the north koreans and saying, we need more. We need more drones, more missiles, more artillery. What concerns me among many other things is what technology, what capabilities, what secrets the russians are going to give in exchange for those. This is a critical moment. One of the core arguments why strengthening our pressure, collective global pressure on russia, for its conduct in ukraine and for his partnership with these other pariah regimes is a critical piece of our place in the world and strategy going forward. We have found some agreement. We are going to move on now to the second topic of the evening chosen by senator regarding climate, energy and the environment. Go ahead. I think if the u. S. China trade war should ship or challenge or contest is the defining issue for you is National Security, Climate Change is the defining issue for our world. We are from two states among the low was lying in the whole country. Actually, the most vulnerable to sea level. I am seeing more and more weather weirdness, not just global warning, but tornadoes in times and places weve never seen them, wildfires devastating whole communities, and hurricanes pummeling states all over, but in particular, florida. In response to this, something that is a challenge all of us face, as part of the Bipartisan Climate Solutions caucus, which has 14 of us, including senator rubio. In fact, this week we have a meeting with Critical Minerals Industry Leaders to talk about the path forward in a clean energy transition. Again, as was the case in confronting the challenge of china, i think i have a strong record of over a decade of legislating in this area, working with senator collins i green chemistry, Carbon Dioxide transport with saturday cassidy, Hydrogen Initiatives with senator corman, the nuclear workforce. I support Nuclear Energy as part of our path forward. Now with kevin cramer, senator from north dakota, the act to begin to get the omissions intensity measured so we can harmonize with the eu and begin to move the chinese economy through common action. One of the biggest things accomplished in the last congress was something where we might disagree, the Inflation Reduction Act of the put 369 billion of incentives into the american economy. Is restoring american manufacturing. There are now groundbreaking on battery and car plants in texas, georgia and ohio. Frankly, at the end of the day, i think it shows a sharp contrast between how the United States is responding to the challenge of climate and how europe is. Europe through regulation and the United States through incentives. I grew up in the manufacturing family and spent time in manufacturing before he came to the senate. I think nothing strengthens our society more than restoring being a country the bill things. We need Energy Security for manufacturing to be successful in this country, but we also have to confront that the world is transitioning to a cleaner energy economy. We have a lot of hard work to do together. It is my hope that, as a fellow member of this Bipartisan Climate Solutions caucus, senator rubio will be one of my legislative partners i will be citing next year. Hows that for a sales pitch . Go ahead. I would say that i am all for dealing with mitigating the fact that the sea level rises are missile. You can measure it. I have nothing against renewables. I have nothing against electric cars. Nothing against windmills. My big problem with solar is that the chinese control that industry even though we innovated it. We have to rely on them for the batteries for cars. When we talk about the energy part, this is not dealing with that at any cost. Abundant and Affordable Energy is at the core of everything, prosperity, our own prosperity and global cost verity, the ability to grow. Manufacturing, you need abundant and affordable and Reliable Energy sources. I am not accusing the senator saying this, because he is actually approach this from a standpoint of finding solutions that unify people, but i think there are some out there that are selling this mythology that somehow renewables can replace hydrocarbons and nuclear and hydroelectric energy. It cannot. Not anytime in the foreseeable future. If you think about the world today, if everybody else on the planet consumed just 50 of the energy we americans consume, and we consume it right now in this room and in our daily lives and of got used to it and it has led to advances in prosperity, but other parts of the world but the same thing. If they just have 50 of that, you would have to increase Global Energy production by at least 50 to 60 . How are you going to do that simply on renewables . You cant. For the foreseeable future, the world will use hydrocarbons, oil and natural gas. The question becomes who will control that. Who will supply that to the world. The less we supply, the more the opec countries will. This is an industry, by the way, the less you supply, the more money you make because the supply and demand. That is why president of by the had to region strategic disorders. There has to be a balance or we will wind up impoverishing our own economy, and meanwhile, china leads the world in coal fire plant financing and leave the world in excess Refining Capacity for petroleum. There doing the batteries and solar and all that stuff, but their building Refining Capacity for oil, and their building coal fire plant all over the planet because countries that are developing are not going to walk away from that until they have reached our levels. I think we need to acknowledge that. Remissions are down 33 since the 1970s. Today 50 of emissions come out of the asiapacific region. We need to acknowledge that will continue as long as those countries are developing because they need affordable, reliable and Abundant Energy resources. Our world is cooking. It is caused by human activity. And by the omissions they put into the atmosphere. Absolutely, china omissions are growing faster than any other country in the world. If you put a combination china, india and russia, and their omissions from heavy industry, transportation, from the development of their economies, it will swamp anything that we do, and so, many ask why we should restrain our industry and economy at all. Frankly, i would argue we dont have a choice. The models for how much we will end up spending, for how disastrous and destructive it will be if we cannot collectively come up with a path forward, its moms everything else. The number of 1 billion disasters per year have increased year after year after year, and they will outstrip our capacity to sustain them or pay for them here in the United States. So how do we deal with us . Through a market mechanism that puts a price on emissions intensive exports, that protects american manufacturers. If you are making cement, glass, aluminum or steel in the United States are doing it in a clean way, you already are, because youre complying with u. S. Regulations, we should not let dirty, cheap chinese, russian, indian steel, cement, glass into the United States market without a tariff. I am pushing for a border carbon adjustment, a border tariff on those emissions intensive products. My hope is that we will end up in a common approach between the eu, uk, u. S. , canada and japan, australia and south korea, and these open societies that share climate ambition will then say to the chinese, if you want to sell into our markets, you have to meet our standards for emissions. That, and that alone, will change the chinese trajectory in terms of their industry. Otherwise, nice beaches and global conferences, i am skeptical we will make a lasting difference but a market economy and mechanism, that can change the world. I think nationstates will act in National Interest. We decided now. When russian oil was taken off the market place, the amount of nations that gravitated to burning coal because it was cheaper grew exponentially. These are developing countries who want their peace and prosperity. In order to have prosperity, they have to generate energy. Maybe 50 or 100 years from now will be cheaper to generate from some other source other than those hydrocarbons, but not today and not for the foreseeable future. Hydrocarbons will be a part of the matrix. That is true for our domestic i mean, to tell people in florida, you know, our Largest Utility Company has walked away from coal and is doing extensive natural gas and has Nuclear Energy as well. Prices have been stable, and they have been able to retain that, but that took time to build up to that, and they still have hydrocarbons as the backbone, natural gas. The truth of the matter is, the idea that at the Utilities Sector we can replace hydrocarbons with solar and wind is just, the numbers are to there. Its not real. Will have a dramatic impact on the economy and on the cost of living in this country. Other nations are not going to go along, because they need to develop their economies and provide prosperity for their people. You cannot do that today, or for the foreseeable future, with the existing technologies no matter what example we think we are setting. We can, and we should, innovate our way forward through this. Im not sure if the senator is debating with me or someone who is not on the stage. I support nuclear. I support natural gas. It has brought down emissions in the last decade by more than 30 . Switching from coal to natural gas, and relying on cleaner and cleaner combustion of natural gas and nuclear, as we grow the percentage of our portfolio that is geothermal and hydro and wind and solar, is a long term sustainable path. We may differ on how urgent this is. I think the science is clear. I think the numbers are strong. The criticism that we cant make a difference as long as the chinese, indians and other developing economies continue to grow their coal fire power plants and omissions, i agree, that is a critical concern. Anyone of my party who wants to persuade the other party and our public that we have a path forward needs a market mechanism. That is why it put one forward. Senator rubio, senator answered this. I am curious where you come down on the idea that we are in the midst of the hottest year expected, according to forecasters and scientists, ever recorded in the realm of records kept. What is causing these extreme temperatures . At the end of the day, those are measurable. The sea level rises higher than it used to be. You can measure it a project where it will be. Same with temperature events. I get it, the consensus of scientists and others will show you these graphs going out 500 years. The 1930s was pretty hot. They had the dust bowl and wildfires. My point is, its okay. If we think we want to address up and moving towards new Energy Sources that produced less carbon emissions, thats fine, as long as it doesnt devastate the economy. Im not accusing the senator of pretending, he is quite reasonable for the most part, as you have seen tonight. If i debated somebody else, maybe i wish i had a different debate partner for this one. The truth of the matter is, we cant fall under the illusion. Im not claiming he is making this claim, but under the illusion that somehow for the foreseeable future we will be able to provide both industry and individual americans the reliable and Affordable Energy through alternatives that we can provide today through hydrocarbons. We cant and will be able to print at a minimum, natural gas, which we have abundant supplies of, need to be a key part of that for 50 years, 25 years, however long the transition takes. None of us can say what innovations will come along over the next 25 or 30 years that will reduce the price point of some of this and perhaps make other technologies more efficient. If those come on, perfect, especially if we dominate them from the american standpoint. But were not there today or the foreseeable future. This is an issue where the cost of benefits, reallife costs, have to come into play. You can ask europe when you dont make those decisions. It has an impact that undermines their economy. In the case of the ukrainian invasion, forced them to go back to the drawing board and reconsider where to get natural gas from. Let me as aggression more directly. What is causing Climate Change . Again, scientists have published all these reports the say that, since the industrial era, temperatures have risen. I believe that is to be compared with a broader timeframe and worker. There have been instances i will give you an example. This is not a satiety that scientific analysis, but real world. My backyard is full of coral rock. That means at some point in history my backyard, my home, was underwater. I dont wanted to get back to that. I wanted to stop at my neighbors house, my property goes up because i waterfront. All kidding aside, the climate is always changing and adjusting. To ascribe and say, okay, 80 of what is happening as a result of humanity, therefore, we was my about the economy and impoverish ourselves by relying on unreliable sources of energy that are also costlier, i think that is economic suicide. Other nations wont do it. It sounds a lot like, once china gets rich, they will become just like us. We are making a big mistake counting on that. I dont think we should make that decision, no matter how many you and reports they put out, because were not a planet, we are a country. These other countries continue to emit in ways that dwarf, by his own admission, anything we can possibly do. That doesnt mean we should stand in the way of innovation for Energy Sources, but we cant pretend anytime in the foreseeable future they will replace what we have become accustomed to. Do you have a rebuttal . Human activity is causing our climate to warp. It is causing devastating changes in climate. Where animals live, where plants grow and thrive, where people can survive is changing, and changing rapidly. Two different mounds i have visited in my lifetime, kilimanjaro and the mountains of central montana, had glaciers 30 years ago. I have been back to both and the glaciers are almost completely gone. It is not my backyard, but another example i will offer of an observation. As somebody trained as a scientist, as a chemist, i now believe that for decades there is compelling Scientific Evidence that the emissions we are putting into the atmosphere, methane and Carbon Dioxide and others, are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and our future as a planet. We are a country, but we are also citizens of this planet. If the planet becomes unlivable, uninhabitable, the millions who will migrate to flee those challenges and impacts for us will be unavoidable. We have to come up with a strategy to bring our two topics together to find a way to drive china towards reducing its emissions in time that we also can innovate and reduce our emissions before it is too late. I think we have a difference of opinion about the urgency of that timeline, but i will close with this. I worked in an Innovative Company in the private sector. I have optimism that we can win the competition to be the dominant Technology Country of this century as we transition globally to a cleaner energy economy. That is part of why i supported the Inflation Reduction Act and the chips and science act. I was excited about the science part as the chips part, because we both have kids, and i worry about the future of this planet, and so do my kids. I worry about the future of the planet too, except i would add this. Yes, Climate Change will lead to all of these disruptions around the world. You know what else will lead to disruptions . The inability of governments to provide Economic Prosperity and a way forward for their people. That is what has happened in haiti and what is happening much of latin america where we see migration. They cant provide for their families. If you cannot provide the abundant and Affordable Energy sources necessary to provide that, you will also have civil wars and mass migrations and things of this nature. Those things need to be balanced when we make decisions. As far as human activity is concerned, the United States is already reduced emissions by 33 by the 1970s. Advances in Technology Changes people are adopting will continue to move us in the right direction, but i dont think we need to subtly overreach and say, were going to do all these things no matter what impact they have on our economy. Again, this point, im not saying that what senator cruz is asking for, senator cruz is asking for, i think there needs to be balance. The one thing we will agree on, irrespective of whatever law we pass or whatever incentives we create, this is the trendline for the foreseeable future, and we need to mitigate against the impacts these are having, where people can build, what they can build, how we fortify against it. Mitigation will be necessary no matter what, and i have long been supportive of that. I have a question the set aside energy policy, concerned about Climate Change, i will take you both home. Senator has alluded to this. You both come from lowlying coastal states. If a constituent comes up to either of you and says, hey, im thinking of buying some property along the coast. Youre not Real Estate Agent or investment bankers, but you are subject matter experts, if they ask you, should i bicoastal property right now . What would you tell them . I would tell them to take a hard look at the fema flooding maps and how inaccurate they have proven to be. When i was we were both in local government, state and county government. In four years, we had a 100 year flood, a 500 year flood, and a 100 year flood in my county. Clearly, this is happening more often than every 100 years. And so, where we issue insurance, where we predict flooding, it is clearly off. I would urge folks to buy on Higher Ground farther back and to think about not buying right on the coastal waterfront. I would also encourage them to look at the history of the delaware coastline, which has moved west over the last century. I do think sealevel rise is a real thing, i think catastrophic events in the climate are pushing where we can inhabit, and i think federal and state policy needs to respond to that. We are ensuring reconstruction the construction of homes and places that are not sustainable. I would tell them to buy on Higher Ground. South florida, anything west of 27th avenue was the everglades. That is what it was forever. People decided to drain them with a bunch of canals, which had a huge impact on the ecosystem, and we will fill in with sand, including miami beach, which is not a real eyelid, it is a rock formation we put sand on, and we will build stuff. That is nothing in the history of the earth. Suddenly the earth decides, you know what . This is still a swamp no matter how much land you put on it or how much you bill. That is something i think requires a level of acceptance and humility. If you want to buy oceanfront property, you need to recognize that, number one and number two, you need to build Something Different than what is there now. Hire, fortified against the wind and maybe gets water, it is a place you may not be able to. There may be places where you cannot protect against floodwaters. I do think there is a conversation to be had, and a serious look to be made, at once you have rebuilt the place three times, as has happened in some parts of the country, i think it is telling you these are areas that are impossible to insure difficult to secure. We have built pretty expensive real estate in those parts. Reality tells us we have to mitigate as best we can. I think it would depend. It is a place that has the geology with the state something you can build that is stronger protected against water, that would be fine. But some areas you simply will not be able to rebuild. Having senior neighborhood in little havana, if yours because coastal property, were in real trouble. Thank you both for engaging on that what i actually did not think you would give specific answers. I appreciate you did. Were going to move on to the grab bag portion of the evening. Will talk about bipartisanship, because this is, after all, hosted by the partisan policy center, and about the senate, because this is the senate project. Let me start with this. Senator why are you here tonight . Because who works at the Bipartisan Policy Center recruited me. I am here because i believe, as we heard at the outset from her two friends, the former senators, that Bipartisan Solutions are lasting solutions. I am here because of that exchange with one of our framers, one of the founders, Benjamin Franklin. A republic, if you can keep it. In the tumult of the last couple of years, i have moved from confidence about the future of our democracy to grave concern. We have seen in our 13 years in the senate together how frequently we are voting, how frequently we have regular order, how frequently we are meaningfully legislating. The senate floor is empty and silent most of the time. And so, i am here because i was invited to take the stage with someone who has served as long as i have been with whom i have legislated across the arc of our 13 years. I just turned 60 last saturday. I started to ask myself how much more i can do , how much of an impact i can have. I am confident that without this work, without reigniting the spirit of hatch and kennedy, we really are at risk of losing this most sacred project of our republic. Senator rubio. Im here primarily to convince chris to agree with me on everything, but apparently has not worked. All kidding aside, i was a couple things. First of all, i think one of the most important things is to understand what bipartisan means. Bipartisan doesnt mean you agree even on the issues specifically and how to solve them. It means you agree the process matters to solving problems. You have to have a process. The lack of that, especially in this day and age, is actually hurting the country. I think there are some real challenges our nation is facing. Not just in politics. In many ways our politics is a mirror that reflects culture and society. American politics is polarized because america is polarized. What were trying to do in america has always been hard. We are as diverse a society and culture as has ever existed on the planet. And yet, somehow, we have to figure out a way out of all these different people with different ideas to build one nation. That is hard. Other places may have it easier in that regard. We also have a First Amendment and a democratic process in which people can address themselves and choose their leaders. We have country which california and mississippi are very different. One of the wisdom behind federalism. Is having a real impact on us and the world. Other countries and leaders watch our news and watch these reports and think this nation is falling apart. They think we are on the verge of a civil war. The think we are about to implode from within. It invites adventurism, and that is dangerous. I think it is important anytime we have an opportunity, whether on the stage or the for the senate, to show there are principles and how we behave. The lack of that invites adversaries to do things that act against us. One more point that is really important. We have to understand that, with all this talk about partisanship, and i know it is happening, there are a lot of people in this country that are really angry at the political system for a lot of different reasons. They feel like they have been left behind, ignored. If you like all the economic benefit have gone to certain parts of the country at their expense. It is manifesting itself in a way i think is creating an extraordinary realignment in politics. In ways that are unpredictable. That is messy and loud and is happening in an era in which polarization is encouraged. Senator will tell you this. If you want to get famous in politics today, say outrageous and nasty things. You may never pass a bill, you may never make a difference, but you will get on television and the whole country will know your name. I think it is important to understand that today we live in a media culture that rewards and encourages that kind of behavior. It draws more clicks and viewers. We are incentivizing that behavior. I get it, 24 hour news has to make money. Conflict and outrage generates ratings. Bipartisanship and working together on things does not. But will also destroy our country. When the level polarization paralyzes you and makes you incapable of confronting serious challenges, then you have a big problem. It is not the nastiness that is the problem, ultimately, it is the inability to act because of it that endangers our future. Is not a good explanation . Works for me. Let the record reflect i dont work for a conflict focus channel. [ laughter ] let me ask you a more practical question about how the senate works and how you guys spend her time in washington. This may be uncomfortable, and maybe it is naove, but i will ask anyway. Senator rubio, when was the last time you went to dinner one on one with a democrat . Oneonone . Probably two and half years ago , but he lost his election. I am kidding. Probably 2 1 2 years ago. I will be honest with you, i am not a night person to begin with. Breakfast is a better question. Okay, breakfast with the member of the other party . Probably eight months ago. Here is what people have to understand. First of all, there is only 100 of us, so Everybody Knows everybody. Second, today you are fighting about something, but next week, that person may be on your side on the same issue. I know people think we walk by in the hallways and spit on each other and call each other names, but you know these people. You have fought with them on 10 things that had to work on one or two. Generally speaking, the most coveted thing for any bill you file is to get a cosponsor from the other party. It is a highly coveted thing. Who can i find from the other party to make it bipartisan . That is still coveted. What is more problematic is, believe it or not, bipartisan bills that make sense are the hardest things to pass these days. They dont move the needle politically. They dont get the attention maybe they deserve. If it is not controversial, people figure it is not that important. That is become a real challenge in that regard. My experience, by and large, is that individual members, for the most part, have good working relationships. There are always people who may not like each other for this reason or that, but generally, i think it is pretty productive. Getting the result is the problem. And then you have to pass it through the other chamber. Senator have you done anything socially with any of the eight republican senators who voted against certifying the 2020 president ial election . I have. It is funny you should mention that specific question. Im a regular participant in the weekly bipartisan breakfast. That is why i didnt ask about breakfast. That was a breakfast that that was not the breakfast i was at, by the way. On the matter of lunch, i will briefly mention a dear friend of ours, senator johnny i districts and, for a decade hosted a bipartisan barbecue lunch where he had a whole crew drive up from georgia and provide barbecue. Johnny would stand up and say this is simple. Barbecue brings people together, i will give a long speech. Find a member of the other party you dont know well and have not sat with and sit with them. Lets eat. Senator port and i continue that tradition. This thursday that is happening again. Please come. I like barbecue. [ laughter ] it is great barbecue. But of those eight senators, the store i was about to tell was, i was a speaker at the Prayer Breakfast three or four months ago. As i was reflecting on a particular passage of scripture , it became clear to me that it was really a challenge to me directly. I was holding a deep grudge that i would not resolve against those who voted in the senate. The january 6 situation was a gravely concerning day. A number of the folks who, even after that, were unwilling to reconcile, i was refusing to speak to. One of them was in the room. So i stood up and spoke that morning about my own need for humility and for open heartedness and a willingness to be reconciled, even to people against whom i was holding a fairly profound grudge. That senator and i have now introduced and passed a piece of legislation that actually goes back to the histories of our two states, both of which were segregated by expanding the brown versus Board National Historic Site to include my stay in his state. I have not reconciled with all of them, but i have made some progress. Fair enough. Senator rubio, you alluded to this a little bit and that there is 100 of you and you know each other. You know that organizations like the one sponsoring this, you know columnists and newspapers are commentators on the less angry Television Shows might pine for those days when you all lived in washington, we all hung out after work. Is that a naove way of looking at how washington should operate now or can operate now . In terms of . In terms of finding bipartisan consensus and making sure the process works. I think the first thing is, will people know each other, it is a lot harder to hate each other. You might disagree, but who among us doesnt have a member of our family or coworkers someone where you have disagreements on things. But you know them holistically as a person. You dont just know who they voted for and how they voted on the last bill and know what bumper stickers i have on the car, you know them as a father, a mother, a neighbor, and i think that is always important. I think in the senate that happens a little bit more. Committees are smaller. You end up working with people and have to make a point of seeking that. I dont know if we will ever get back to a time where everybody lived in washington and vacationed on weekends for a lot of different reasons. I think that gets more difficult. I dont think you necessarily need to have that to have that level of cooperation and the ability to Work Together and know each other holistically. In the end, you may not end up agreeing on nine out of 10 things, but you will be able to work on things you have common interest on. I go back to what i said, the most coveted thing in washington, at least in the senate, is a bipartisan cosponsor on your bill. Everybody wants one because it makes her bill more likely to pass. I think it makes it easier to do that when you know that person personally. In my case, there was a time when a senator and i were passing so many bills together the people started mistaking us for one another. That happens. I think senator will tell you that is will. There people you end up creating those sorts of relationships with because the committees and the interests of the state or a particular interest you might have. That includes traveling abroad, which is something i hope to be able to do more of in the years to come. There is a subject that has earned a lot more attention in recent months because of who lives in the white house and some of the people both of you serve with. I want to quote something one of her colleagues, mitt romney, recently said. He called the u. S. Senate a club for old men. The average age in the senate is 63 years old. You are both under average in that regard. Senator just turned 60, and senator rubio just turned 52. Interview, how old is too old to serve in the United States senate . I think it is less a matter of years that it is of capability, focus and engagement. I actually had a debate on the senate floor with a republican colleague a decade ago about term limits. There is a basic difference between structurally having an age limit or term limit and saying that we trust the electric. This is what elections are for. The electorate should look at us and say that you seem to have lost a step or i support this person and think they are seasoning their experience and relationships that will make them a stronger legislator, even into their fourth or fifth term and eighth decade. Over the course of the 13 years we have served together, we have seen folks younger than us who, perhaps, did not succeed at the job, and much older than us, who passed landmark legislation together. I think it is hard to say that this is the age limit. 65 with mandatory retirement. But the question of engagement, acuity, capacity is one that is in front of us all the time. I look back at the last congress, the last two years, and it is one of the most legislatively accomplished in decades. The bipartisan accomplishments of the last congress stripped out and exceeded anything in the last 30 years. I think, in no small part, that is a tribute to the seasoning capabilities of some the folks who served in the senate and the current president. You would not put a number on it . I would not. I agree that there is no number. I think it has to do with your capacity to do your job. Chuck grassley knows everything that is happening, remembers everything, and knows when youre on the wrong side of an issue he cares about and will let you know why youre wrong. I dont think that a number is age driven, i think it is more capacity driven. There is one thing i would point to beyond what people appointed to in the past, and that is that i think they are two times comes a time for all of us when you ask yourself why youre still doing a job. Takes a certain level of fire and passion to do it well and to do it for the right reasons. Whenever that moment comes that you are no longer excited about doing the job or becomes difficult to get excited, or you feel like you are working towards a goal, that is a moment to reflect on why you were still there. I admire people who decide that they have done what they will do and now will move forward and move on to do Something Different. Whatever age they make that decision. That is a big part of it. And so, i dont think you can put a number, the age on it, per se. Especially nowadays when we have people of a significant age achieving extraordinary things. It has to do with your ability to do the job with the same level of energy and intensity your constituents and the country deserves. I realize im asking this to senators represent states with a large retirement population, few are sensitive to this, so i appreciate the info. Many of whom are still voting well into their 90s. That is why you have to be careful. [ laughter ] there have been proposal to potentially allow estate to appoint a temporary replacement somebody will be out for a while for health or other reasons. Would either of you be supportive of delaware or florida considering Something Like that . That is a decision a state legislature should make. It depends on the state in the context and the reasons they would take that up. There are many different ways of filling vacancies. What youre talking about is a temporary until the senator returns . Yes. I dont know. That sounds kind of weird. There is a real inconsistency there. The new person that is appointed , how are they going to file any bills . They dont know when the other guy will come back. So what happens to the work you did . Honestly, it 70s cases, i would hope the people who love these people or people close to these people would encourage them at some point that maybe it is time for a transition. Generally, people get that right for the most part. But none of us, i think none of us controls one day youre doing great with health and the next day something could happen in your life to change that dynamic. I heard this morning about a member of the house and will not run for reelection because of a diagnosis and made it difficult and poignant decision in that regard. It is a tough one. But i dont know about that proposal. Actually have not heard that. Did you make that one up yourself . Do you know, i did not. I am from one of the factbased channels. [ laughter ] real quick, as we wrap up, you need questions to each of you. Senator rubio, you said youre not taking sides in the republican president ial race. What is it that you might like about the floridians who are running for the republican nomination . Everybody is moving to florida. I have to go through my brain up. The sitting governor and the former president. Just to be frank, when President Trump was president , i was able to get Public Policy achieved. The Child Tax Credit expansion wasnt as high as i wanted, but it was a real expansion that happened with tax reform. I think about some the policies we adopted in the western hemisphere. We had significant influence. We had natural disasters in florida, he was very responsive. And i think Governor Desantis has done a good job. Generally, people dont move to a state that is poorly managed and chaotic. That is not where florida is, because of the leadership he put forward. Their other tim scott is one of my closest friends in the u. S. Senate. He has a strong message. Ambassador nikki haley supported me as well and did a great job at the web. Im not leaving anyone out on purpose, i think all these people provide a really strong choice. We will see how it plays out. I think, frankly, one of the reasons why i dont think it matters what senators think about primaries is that very few americans wait for their center to tell them who to vote for when it comes to president. These will be highly watched and followed races. Republican voters will choose a nominee, and we will go from there. Senator if President Biden wins another term and secretary of state Antony Blinken ops to leave, what qualities with the next, sure the neck secretary of state possess . Should be from the same state as the president , at least. [ laughter ] speaking on behalf of three gentlemen of great stature, he should stand at least six feet tall and have a full head of hair. Luck, i have Great Respect for secretary blinken and the National Security and Foreign Policy team the president has put together. He is entitled to pick whoever he wants. I asked for his guidance on how i can best contribute to this administration and is pointed if it was to stay in the senate and craft bipartisan bills. That is the task i have put myself to. If you look at the last two years, i think the outcome has been very positive, not because of me, but because of a dozen on both sides. I was frankly saddened to read the atlantic piece on mitt romney and why he is retiring from the senate. It is my hope that, whoever is the next president , and i have a strong favorite, the current president , that he will be served by a cabinet that has the understanding and knowledge of how to move legislation in the congress. We are grinding down into an inability to confirm ambassadors, to confirm judges, to pass legislation. Weather in the cabinet, at home in delaware, or in the senate, it is my hope that we will have a next congress and administration that is committed to our role in the world, to the rule of law, to human rights as being a core part of our National Interests and fundamental values, and to democracy. At the end of the day, this is the only country in Human History committed to liberty and justice. I dont want to see this experiment and back. But if he calls . I will consider it. Fair enough. There we go. I want to make something very clear. If he offers it to me, i too will not serve under President Biden. I was going to ask if you would vote for him, but i wont ask you if he is nominated anyway. It is time for closing arguments. Senator rubio. I appreciate you hosting this. This is really important. I do believe the country is in the middle of a real political realignment that challenges both Political Parties to find i actually think at the end of the day, our political process is much more polarized the maybe everyday people are from all walks of life. I think it is an important moment to understand that we will never go back to the past. You cant go back, the future is inevitable. We have to shape the future that recognizes key important things. The first is that they should matters. At the end of the day, our job, more than anything else, is to deal with what is in the best interest of america. It doesnt mean at the expense of the world, but i think a good and Strong America is good for the world. That includes having an economy that, yes, expect ablebodied people to work, but also an economy that make sure it is producing stable and dignified and Reliable Work for people to sustain a family contribute to community and things that are critical to the future of our country. Were being tested on the international stage. Where not of been tested in Foreign Policy or military, projections is better, were also being tested on how we perform the behavior at home. People watch what is happening in america. Whether it was january 6th or the debates every day in our politics. It influences the views of adversaries on america. Senator said this earlier and i will echo it. Our adversaries, particularly china, aggressively go to the world other people. They say america is a hollowed out nation in decline. All they have to do is look at their political process, a messy it is, how does undulate is. They cant even fund the government and keep it open. How can you rely on them to come to your defense . I think we have to be cognizant of that as we work through disagreements, which are real, and at the same time, be cognizant that people out there are frustrated and feel disconnected, abandoned and disenfranchised from those in power. We have to recognize that is real and given a voice. My hope we can build a governing consensus. We had one in this country even during the cold war. We had a little bit to the left and to the right, but there was a governing consensus that the soviet union and marxism needed to be defeated. I think we have a similar challenge now that will take a lot of work in a difficult environment to pull that together. Appreciate the chance tonight to at least help model how some of those conversations will go. Maybe not perfectly, but i hope it is one more example of the kind of things we can hopefully achieve together if we give it a shot. Senator let me tell you a quick story about three different women and the roles they play. When we were first elected and came to washington, we were from different backgrounds, different states, did not know each other or much about each other. Marco was a high profile National Figure that had been catapulted to election. I had defeated someone who went on tv and said she wasnt a witch. [ laughter ] i would see, perhaps, as more of the accidental senator and marco as the rising star. But within our first week here, one person, adrian, graduated from the same high school i did and who was a business leader, texted both of us and said you should get to know that other i see the hand of providence and the fact that it would just happen to have both our cell phone and was able to get inside our lives. I have a dear departed grandmother, who was very conservative and presented every dime of taxi ever paid. She said to me once early in my career, dont ever forget your paystub says legislator. I want to know that you are doing it. Every time you catch that paycheck, dont you forgot you are paid by the taxpayers to do that job. It is my hope that out of this discussion tonight, we will go back to legislating together. Senator rubio and i have legislated in support of israel and advancing human rights and challenging wagner and chinas human rights violation, advancing innovation and investment in science and technology and i hope we will do more. I went to the National Constitution center late 2017 when they were giving the liberty metal to the late john mccain. It was my friend joe biden, then Vice President who introduced him. He spoke longer than senator mccain introducing him. Senator mccain delivered a remarkable speech. This was late in his life and he knew the end was coming. If you havent watched it, go watch it, it is a love letter to america. And, it was a striking night. I went on and said to my wife, annie, how tragic that this incredible generation of senators is passing. So clear tonight on that stated that they knew each other, they knew each others expenses, they knew which of his kids, they travel together, they stayed in each others arms. They disagreed on a lot of important things but they trusted each other and each knew the other was a patriot committed to our nation. My wife, as she so often does wouldnt let me wallow in that moment. She said thats your job, buster. I said excuse me . And she said go find republican friends and partners or make new friends and partners. Invite them to delaware, go to their homes in their state, sit with them, legislate with them, work with them so that somehow at some stage, 10 or 20 years from now, some other, americans might look at the two of you and say how inspiring to have two such different senators so willing to legislate together. That is why im here tonight. Democracy is a verb. It has to be an active verb and it only remains a democracy if we do it together. Our thanks to senator and senator rubio. Its a monday night in the washington, they couldve been doing a lot of other things tonight. Like watching football. We will get you there. Hopefully we provided a little bit of the nudged that senator talked about. That is why i know this reporter was eager to debate tonight. Thank you both for doing it and your staff for making the time. Our thanks to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Edward M Kennedy institute, the only jihad foundation and this American University graduate will think George Washington university for hosting us, im ed okeefe from cbs news, thanks for watching us, good night. 023] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org cspan is your view of government. We are funded by these companies and more, including comcast. Nearly 900 cities and festivals visited and 16,000 events. Book tv has provided viewers with 92,000 hours of programming on the latest literary discussions on history, politics, and biography. You can watch a book tv every sunday on cspan 2 or or online at booktv. Org. 25 years of television for serious readers. Cspan now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and ondemand. Keep up with the days biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u. S. Congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. You can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for the cspan tv network and cspan radio. Cspan now is available in the apple store and google play. Download it for free today. Cspan now, your front row seat to watching this anytime, anywhere. National security and Health Policy advocates discussed the possible use of the military to combat the illegal flow of fentanyl across the southern border. They consider legislation in