Let me start from the top. Our universities today are getting universally dependent on foreign students. Many of them Chinese Students who pay full tuition. That is my first point. 2, there are Disciplines Research that the universities do, that are critical to National Defense and to our economy in some ways. We have two seriously limit the students who are involved in that, so this is not a revolving door and pipeline straight back to china, korea, russia, or whatever, of our technology and research. As ilaria pointed out, coupled with that should be the ability to apply this commercially, to take it to use. So, yes, the answer is we have to look at who we have enrolled in these disciplines in our universities. Take a good, hard look at that. Thank you very much. Commissioner shriver . Just my thanks to the witnesses, most at least most of my questions have been addressed. I will pass point the mission or wessel . Thank you. Dr. Gopal, i appreciate your recognition of rahman barrys work. They have been toiling in this field, as you have, for many years. You use the term willful blindness and i appreciate your recognition of the long term work of this commission. But i would argue to you that willful blindness continues to Cloud Visibility as to many of the challenges we face. Recently, i am appreciative of the work of the administration on an outbound executive investment executive order. It is still limited, in terms of providing us the data on critical supply chain for batteries, pharmaceuticals, et cetera. We have existing u. S. Authorities that this commission has referred to in the past. For example, the department of commerce, the power to compel any multinational business doing business in the u. S. To response to questions that could be used to provide data on supply chains, whether it is batteries, Critical Minerals, materials, or aerospace. You serve on the defense business board, which i think has been mostly focused the last couple years on a Talent Pipeline issues. But what new tools, in terms of transparency and data, do you think would be needed . Dr. Mazzocco, for you as well, i think, for example, fords efforts on blue dont fully identify what is happening in the Battery Supply chain and the ip that is being utilized, there. How do we get to data in a granular sense, when business has been opposing any of those Data Transmission efforts . Dr. Gopal, do you want to start . Yes, i will start. You have posed the question of the decade. In an economy like ours, how do we get business to help with the National Profile . We have seen what has happened in the past. The only way i cai can think of from a purely simplistic view of an executive, is mandating the data. Making sure the data is going to be highly confidential, the security of the data, but in effect mandating the data. And secondly, sir, it is looking at data as a tool and a weapon. That is what it is. The water of the future will be around data. Not asking for every type of data, but asking for the little data that matters when we make our decisions. I know that is an iffy way of putting things, but it is actually true. We have so much data, we need to specify carefully what we need from companies so that you folks can make your decisions on criticality and policy. So it is focusing on the data, what data we have. The data is there, the transparency is there, we need to focus on a lot. The pull on that, if i can. You may remember the defense business board, which has leaders of industry, from cfos to ceos and otherwise, all of whom depend on data to make the right kind of decisions for their businesses. Should that be a higher priority at dod, in terms of supplychain transparency, and transparency in a bpi sense . I dont mean it has to be fully expressed. But we do not know where all the Critical Minerals come from, or where the processing facilities are. China just became illicit just sold its first commercial jets, the c919, and will make further incursions into aerospace. What would you, as a business leader, need. You can do this as a followup. Are you seeking enough within the defense establishment to be able to get the kind of data that is needed to make those decisions . The short answer says yes, sadly. Everybody recognizes the data, the need for data, and the infrastructure that the data needs. Yes, we may not have all the data you are talking about, as a country, i dont believe we do, or as companies. But i do believe we are on the path to getting it. I think from the private sector, we need to mandate the turning over of the right type of data. It is being collected. Dr. Mazzocco, Quick Response . I think it is a very broad question. I appreciate the challenge, there. I think there are different parts to that. To be honest, if i had to pick something, what concerns me more is lack of transparency on Chinese Companies. In the previous panel, there was a discussion about poor access to Economic Data in china. So it is something i would focus on, i do think it is data that is going to be increasingly hard to get, on the actual chinese supply chains, and which companies are operating which sectors and their background. For example, the ones doing fdi in the u. S. Something that came up with ctl, for example. That is one thing to focus on. That is probably going to require a lot of external research, auditing, and perhaps even some sort of highlevel dialogue with the Chinese Government, because this is obviously part of an ongoing challenge, there, that may be undermining american Companies Operating in china as well. So that is one piece of it. I think the other piece, you mentioned ip in the ctlford deal. I cant speak to that personally, but i think that is an interesting point. I think that points to something indicating a reversal of previous concerns in the United States, where that American Companies may have been giving ip away to Chinese Companies, now they are more concerned about Chinese Companies providing access to their ip to American Companies. I think, again, that is something that should be explored and clarified in legislation. I dont think there is any requirement for ctl to give it ip to ford, for example. So i think, if that is identified as a real challenge, and that is something that should be clarified, as i mentioned before. They are identifying actual goals and what companies can and cannot do in the u. S. Is probably important. I think that is all there is time for. There is a long conversation i would be happy to have later. Thank you. Commissioner wong, do you have questions . Yeah. Dr. Mazzocco, thank you for your testimony. I dont know if you have it at hand, because i am having trouble finding the number, but what is the current chinese tariff on u. S. Auto imports . I cannot remember it off the top of my head right now. It is significant. I remember hearing they raised it to 40 at some point in 2018, but there were also reports they might lower it. I was not sure if they ever did that. I just cannot remember. But suffice to say i think there is at least still a 25 tariff on u. S. Automobiles in china. There had been a longtime disparity between the tariff we had placed on chinese auto imports before 2018, i think it was like 2. 5 before it was raised to 27. 5. This goes to my question. Would you agree with me that the chinese advantage in evs came out of the combination of a number of policy choices . One of the subsidies, the purchase subsidies you mentioned. Those were tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. Second is protection through tariffs of their market, which is the largest automobile market, the largest ev vehicle in the world, the u. S. Is second. Number three, lower environmental standards, which allows them to refine and mine minerals at a much cheaper rate, as well is much lower labor standards. I think, importantly, at least at the beginning of the ev industry in china, the theft of intellectual property from western companies, particularly American Companies. Are those factors correct in what has built the chinese advantage . I think, yes, they all played a role. I would also say it came at the right time. I think these policies were initiated around 2010, and by 2015, we started seeing the Technological Advancements in a lot of these areas, and at the same time, chinese consumers were really interested in evs. To be honest, i dont think many predicted that, even in china. I think there were conversions of various factors, but the ones you mentioned all played a role. I would say that the tariffs into china were probably especially significant in ensuring that Companies Invested domestically in china to produce capacity. I certainly think that was the case for tesla, for example. One more thing, i think to on qualify for subsidies in china, the vehicles had to be produced in china. Okay. If i am not mistaken, i think the tariff levels between the United States the tariff levels that china applied to the United States, versus those they applied to european cars, they actually had higher tariffs on u. S. Cars for a long time, and i think they still do. Am i right about that . I am actually not sure, sorry, i dont have that data on hand. We will research that. But that goes to my question. Would you agree that there is i think there is clearly a strategic veil, a strategic impetus behind these policy choices. It seems there is a conscious decision by the chinese to develop an industrial leadership position in evs , and in particular to build dependence throughout the western world, particularly in america, on the technologies, and also to undermine u. S. Industry. Is that correct . Or would you disagree with that . I would say that, when the policies were first launched, the actual focus was to reduce chinas dependence on foreign technology. So this was very clearly identified as a technology where Chinese Companies stood a chance to compete directly with western and other automakers. Basically since the 1980s, i think, there have been several policies in place in china that aimed to do that and largely failed in the Combustion Engine vehicle industry. The reason there are now some in a joint ventures between Foreign Companies and Chinese Companies is because that is mandated as an effort to help put Chinese Companies upgrade. That never really led to their advancement in the industry. So, by shifting toward electric vehicles and investing in evs, the hope of the Chinese Government would be that obviously we have talked about how it is not necessarily homegrown technology, but a technology that was developed in china, and where supply chains could be more controlled by Chinese Companies, to reduce their reliance on american, european, and japanese automakers. I would say that is certainly what happened initially. I think, as time progressed and as the industry took off i should note that, based on my research, when these policies were first launched, they were fairly obscure, is not necessarily something most of the Chinese Government was focused on. But after a few years, it really took off, the market was really developing. I think that is when we see more understanding of the potential of this industry as an export industry. I think, certainly now, i am sure there are considerations about how this could increase foreign dependence on china, in line with dual circulation. I dont think that was the case originally. I appreciate your answers and the subtlety of your research. I just think a lot of these factors, we will have to consider. I am very worried, i question the wisdom of what i see as the current trend in the United States of adopting policies that essentially dovetail with that strategic impetus of china, namely subsidies for purchases of evs in the u. S. , outright bans on internal Combustion Engines, and either bans on or extremely difficult permitting processes for mining and refining here. That would seem to back us right into the strategic pocket of what the chinese are trying to do in the ev industry. We had to take a very close look at that, but thank you for your testimony. Thank you to our witnesses. This is the last hearing, unless somebody else has some burning issue, this is the last hearing of the year. We are in the process of wrapping up the annual report. We very much appreciate you coming at offering observations today. With that, the hearing is adjourned. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government. We are funded by the Television Companies and more, including comcast. You think this is just a Community Center . It is more than that, comcast is partnering with 1000 enities and is to create wi fi, so the students can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. Comcast supports cspan as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. This year, book tv march 25 years of shining a spotlight on leading nonfiction authors and their books. With talks from more than 22,000 authors, newly 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 biographies. You can watch book tv every sunday, on cspan 2, or online at tv. Org. Book tv, 25 years of television for serious readers. Chris and marco rubio participated in the senate product debate series, hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center, the orangey hatch foundation, and the Edward Kennedy institute. Topics included the prisoner swap with iran, competing with china, Climate Change, and the upcoming 2024 president ial election. This is one hour 45 minutes. Hey, everybody, good evening, and welcome. I am margaret spellings. Linda began by saying thank you to all of you for joining us tonight, to our dedicated staff here at George Washington university, to our media partners, cbs news and sirius xm, and our incredible production team. Thanks for helping the Bipartisan Policy Center sponsor this debate. It is 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 and senator marco rubio agreed to participate in this important program. Thanks to both of them. As you saw in those two videos, the genesis of the senate project came from two u. S. Senators, who had very different points of view, but looked for Common Ground. You will be hearing from senator tom daschle in just 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 had 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 a few people i would like to recognize. After leaving the u. S. Senate earlier this year, the team at the Bipartisan Policy Center had the good sense to reach out to senator roy blunt, during his time in congress he became a leader and looking for ways to work across the aisle. Senator blunt is now an executive fellow at the bpc, and we are honored to have his expertise. Bruce is the chairman of the Edward M Kennedy institute for the u. S. Senate. Joined by his executive director, adam hines. Matt sandgren is the executive director of the orange e my new challenge is here as we expand the mission. I will be the first to admit that bipartisanship may not appeal to the most extreme voices in either party. We are all familiar with the noise in todays Political Climate evident on both ends of pennsylvania avenue on Cable Television and social media. If we can get beyond all of that noise that 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. If you are starving for policymakers who will come together i ask you to join us collectively as we work to find solutions instead of soundbites. I am looking forward to todays events and what will come next. Both senators have agreed to write a joint oped based on what will come next. We look forward to sharing that with you and it will be posted on our website at bipartisan policy. Org, and of course on the hatch and kennedy websites. It is now my great pleasure to introduce the former Senate Democratic leader. He faced more than his fair share of political battles during his two decades in congress. After leaving the senate he collaborated with three other former party leaders. To create an organization that fosters fierce debate and Common Ground. We are here tonight in large part because of his vision and his tireless efforts to make our political process work just a little better. Of the bpc is one of his greatest achievements and a Lasting Legacy to toms distinguished career in public service. Please join me in welcoming the senator. Thank you for that very kind introduction, and congratulations. I cannot imagine a better way to launch your career on an evening like tonight. We had the chance to Work Together when she served as secretary of education at the george w. Bush administration. I must say served in a remarkable way, so it is good to have her back in washington tonight. I could not be more thrilled to welcome her on her very first day here at the bpc, and thank her for the leadership and the work that she has demonstrated over and over again in her public and private careers these many years. Let me thank you for your leadership this past year at the helm of the bpc. It is not easy, and you have done it well. It was a little over three years ago when i commented to my fellow Board Members that at times i did not recognize the senate in the way it was operating today. Often called the worlds greatest deliberative body. Today polarization is generating our politics and media in an impactful way that oftentimes is repulsive. That is why i am so pleased tonight to see three great organizations working collectively on a single goal to create a form in which we can watch the passionate debate that we expect in the senate. Two distinguished lawmakers who represent different parties. Oftentimes two different points of view. Like each of us, Americans First period they will debate some of the leading issues facing our country. Just like our founders who argued and discussed and disagreed. They will look for areas of Common Ground. Yesterday we marked the anniversary of our constitution. I am often reminded of the scene on the final day of the convention in 1787. A story that i am absolutely certain most of you have already heard. Mr. Franklin, what do we have . A monarchy. That is our responsibility. Now nearly 250 years later can we keep it . After all we have gone through these past years those words actually ring louder than ever. Tonight we will have a chance to hear those differences, but in a form that gives two u. S. Senators the space to share their points of view. At times agreed to disagree. But with a level of mutual respect. I have the great privilege to work sidebyside. They were not only colleagues, but they became very close friends. We traveled together. Actually hung out on weekends together. They were of two different parties. From opposite ends of the country. Despite those differences they really respected each others point of view. They did not agree on everything. In areas where there was agreement they went all in to get things done to make this country a better place. They did believe as i so strongly believe the compromise , but compromises the oxygen of democracy. As a result their names are on some of the most important pieces of legislation from the 20th and 21st century pwnd the americans with disabilities act to the Childrens Health insurance program. Of course the secretary knows so well major education reform with no child left behind. Consider that for just a moment in the impact that 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 tackle the big issues facing our country now. I only wish they could be here tonight. They would be so proud. The work that these three highly respected institutions are doing to carry on their legacy. In the bipartisan spirits of the evening im pleased to welcome one of the newest members. Former republican senator from missouri and now an executive fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. My friend, and truly my friend. Thank you, tom. He is a good friend. Actually are accomplished wives are really good friends, which makes it easier for us to be really good friends. Tom certainly has been a great advisor of mine after i announced a couple of years ago i was not going to run for another term. The senate is probably the only place in one of the few places in the world where at my age people would ask you why you were leaving so early. I had a lot of good advice. I want to join him certainly in welcoming margaret. What a big first day. Not everybody has a first day like this. Thanks to kelly who during the year that took to convince margaret she should do this job and for her to get here i am glad being executive fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center with my friend from florida. We found new ways to Work Together. We had an oped published not too long ago. I was glad to be a part of that. As he pointed out, one of the reasons we are here is his determined leadership that you have to find solutions. I point out that the Bipartisan Policy Center is not nonpartisan. It is bipartisan. Us the best. A couple of congresses ago,est. 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 b a couple of congresses ago there were 52 republicans in the 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 cant agree on. We thought we would check to see how many of the 48 democrats have been the principal sponsor of a bill. Not just a sponsor by the principal sponsor. The answer was 44. We all came to the senate at the same time and worked on lots of things together. We worked on the victims of child abuse act every time it need to to be extended. Americorps every time he needed to be extended. Senator rubio and i were side byside on the Senate Intelligence committee for several of the years that we serve there and everything from dealing with the intel issues to daylight savings time, full time extension, which we are both for and almost everybody in this room will be for in about six weeks or so. Wondering why we did not get that done even though we will point there was one day when our daylight savings bill passed unanimously. Although ive never been quite sure how many senators were there the day it passed unanimously. We are here for an oxford style debate where two people stand on the stage and Exchange Ideas about issues we have to find a solution to. 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 Foreign Relations committee. Senator rubio, go ahead. Sen. Rubio i think u. S. Global leadership is important, it needs to be adjusted to the times in which we live. A perfect example, i think we should be a country if youre friendly and aligned with the United States we should be good to you and supportive. If youre an adversary we should be firm with you and may have to engage on an issue. What i get from leaders in latin america, they wonder is it better to be mean to america . Is it better to be cross ways with america . You seem to be they seem to spend more time and attention on you than they would otherwise. This is tough for us to accept. This was once a union polar world, we were the only country that could pronl power everywhere. Thats no longer the case not because america has gotten smaller but the world is more complex. We should care about all the things that are happening on the planet. We have to prioritize the ones that have direct impact on our National Interest. Our National Interest has to be at the forefront of where weall kate resources and spend our attention on how we make these decisions. Some nayses in some places and some crises have greater impact on our National Interest. This doesnt mean we want to act counter to National Interests of other nations but sometimes itll be in conflict. What matters to the sus important. Ill put it to you this way if United States leaders dont put National Interest in the United States first what leaders in the world will . Thats our number one obligation. So i think thats the part where our Global Engagement needs to be tailored, perhaps more than it was even five or 10 years ago. Ed are we a reliable ally and partner . I think about the questions i have been asked by foreign ministers, heads of state. In dozens of countries in recent years. We just sen. Coons we just adopted that no president can withdraw us from our most enduring alliance, nato. Theres a reason for that. Whether its strengthening our alliance, 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 were fighting to hard to expel russian occupiers is because we committed to this. 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 our attention span, not just individually but collectively, if we flag in our 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 to invade or occupy or undermine countries by force. Ed youre both on the Foreign Relations committee. Youre both also on appropriations. Ukraine, as you mentioned, is seeking even more assistance, president zelenskyy will be here this week. Give us a sense where thats headed . Are they going to get the money . How much . Is there push to have Strings Attached or have better accountability real . Sen. Coons theyre doing a great job at transparency and accountability. Last time i was in kyiv was with senator portman last year. One thing we did was meeting with those prosecuting and investigating russian war crimes was to meet with a team following, track, tracing where our funds and resources and equipment are going. It is an active war. So one has to be a little patient about every single piece of equipment. But overall, i think weve got a very strong system of accountability. Both senator schumer and senator mcconnell, both of our caucus leaders, and many of the chairs and ranking of the relevant key committees have spoken up privately and publicly about the importance of this funding. Because of what it sends as a signal. Putins strategy is to wait us out. Its a strategy he followed in chechnya. Its the strategy he followed in syria. Its a brutal, aagressive, world war i style war of attrition. We cannot let him win. Putin will only stop in ukraine if we all collectively stop him. So i think this funding is critical. Sen. Rubio i generally agree with that. There are three things that are important. One, do we have a National Interest in whats happening in ukraine . I believe we do, not an unlimited interest but an important one. If the United States tomorrow announced we werent doing anything more with ukraine, were gone, it wouldnt just be felt with ukraine, every Alliance System would be put in doubt if youre japan, taiwan, south korea, anybody, theyd say, thats america doing what we thought and feared they might do. Number two, china is on russias side. I want putin to lose this engagement. Theres a National Interest. The second thing is, what are we supporting . What is the strategy . I think here is where the difficult part is the Ukraine Ukrainian view is they seek to retake all the territories that rightfully belong to them including crimea, are we helping them recapture where they were before february 2022 . Thats the important isnd answer, what are we putting it toward . And how much can we afford to do . Heres where the real challenge comes in. We dont have unlimited resources. Primarily what were providing is weapons. We give them a system off our shelves, we have to replace it. We have to fund our own defense. These arent necessarily things you can order on amazon and get delivered on two weeks. It take longer for me because im sanctioned by china. You cant order these things when they come online. We dont have the industrial capacity in some cases to make them. Im cautious in this endeavor that we are not depleting our own stockpiles in a way thats diverting from what i believe is potentially one of the most catastrophic things we should we may see before the end of the decade and that is a temptation to the Chinese Military to move militarily against taiwan, a direct test against not just the assurances we have made in that rebut in ways that could redefine the global order permanently. If were not prepared yes, we have a National Interest on the scale of one to 10, its a five. It is not an unlimited National Interest and not immune from Public Opinion where americans are asking, i have this problem and face this other problem and find billions for that and nothing for this. That is a real challenge and gets harder every month. Where would you put limits on the National Interest . Senator rubio the National Interest is to make sure russia is not successful. He would invade and zelenskyy and would be greeted as liberators. His leaders were telling him. And they tell them want they want to hear and it didnt work out that way and make sure he is never successful. Anything beyond that congress has to debate. I dont want them to take crima. That wasnt americas posture before the invasion. There needs to be a strategic view that guides us and how much to spend. Senator coons the Ranking Member of Foreign Relations has remind us that ukraine has the Third Largest arsenal. Russia, u. K. Persuaded them, the budapest memorandum signed by those countries with the commitment to protect their territory. We made a commitment. Second, our president has said as long as it takes. Third, we have expanded nato. Nato has new members who are incredibly capable and i think that means strategically putin has failed. Why the wagner group marched on moscow out of frustration to achieve their aim and out of frustration at the corruption and inep thy thud. Who is Putin Meeting with . Kim jongun. We are making progress. So it is hard to say that on a 110 i put this at an 8 or 9, i would. We are no resolution to this war unless putin says there is no way out. We need to be committed as long as it will take. And it will take less long for putin to conclude he cannot win. 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. Senator rubio these are tough issues if you are an american citizen is unjustly detained. Youve paid money for it and we gave concessions in venezuela and made a deal in exchange for americans. We exchanged narco terrorists, we sent them back. Its not a sign of weakness, but put a price tag on americans. From haiti to iran, venezuela saying if we find an american, we can arrest them. Lets take them because we can get something in exchange for them. That is the difficulty. I also think the context of that and the cash that was frozen, the context was part of the broader effort to try to revive the iran deal which is unrevivable. It is not that americans are coming home. They realize we can get something for americans. Lets take them. Whether in vends waila, russia or iran. Small but important points these are iranian frozen assets, not money from american taxpayers going to the Iranian Regime but i understand the signal it sends as we try to negotiate to bring americans home. Having sat with the families with several of those on their way home. I celebrate the return of americans. Its about 6 billion and there will be guardrails placed on that money. There are members of your party are you confident the guardrails will hold up . Senator coons i do. The regime do on not have a good track record. What does have a good track record on innovation, and they are increasing all the capacities they have been able to carry out in terms of longrange Missile Systems and hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. That is why the assets were frozen so they wouldnt be able to dedicate it to those things. In the global broadcast, that money will be spent the way they think it needs to be spent. They have been pretty clear of it. I dont think we should be counting on it and that money will be used that they have been spending it on, sponsorship of terrorism and increasing nuclear capabilities. You would figure out that the money is being spent the wrong way . Senator rubio you would see the end product, hezbollah has more money. Theyll try to hide it but they deny they are behind those things now. The expansion they have carried out even with sanctions in place are pretty substantial. What they supply others with in that region is pretty substantial imagine with another 6 billion on the way. We are dealing with a regime used acquisition of these weapons not as a way of survival to achieve their aim of sheer dominance in the region. Senator coons at the end of the day regime that is driving greater and greater risk is russia. Sitting with north koreans. We need more artillery and what concerns me is what technology, what capabilities, what secrets the russians are going to give for those. And strengthening our pressure, our collective global pressure on russia for its conduct in ukraine and partnership with these other regimes is a critical place in the world. We found some agreement. That is a good sign. Move to the second topic of the evening chosen by senator coons, clean energy and the environment. Senator coons u. S. China relationship is the defining issue for u. S. National security and Climate Change is the defining issue for our world. We are from two states that are the lowest line in the whole country. I am seeing more and more what i call not just global warning and tornadoes in places we have never seen them. And wildfires devastating communities and hurricanes pummeling states in particular florida. In response to this, i started the Bipartisan Climate Solutions caucus. 77. We have a meeting with critical Industry Leaders to talk about the path forward in a clean energy transition. In the case of confronting china, i had a strong area of legislating and working with senator collins on chemistries and and hydrogen bills with senator cornyn. I support Nuclear Energy as part of our Nuclear Security and now kevin cramer to get these emissions intensity measured and begin to move the chinese economy through common action. One of the biggest things accomplished in the last congress is where we might disagree. The Inflation Reduction Act put 369 billion of incentives into the american economy. It is restoring manufacturing. There are groundbreaking on plants in texas, and ohio. It shows a sharp contrast how the United States is responding and how europe. Europe through regulation. The United States, through incentives. I spent time in a Manufacturing Business before i came to the senate and nothing strengthens our society more than restoring being a country that builds things. We need to build security and have to confront that the world is transitioning to a cleaner energy economy. We have a lot of hard work to do together. As a member of the caucus, senator rubio would be one of my legislative partners. Senator rubio i would say im all for dealing with mitigating the sea levels are measurable. Heres the impact that it has. I have nothing against electric cars, nothing against make windows and build these windows and rely on solar. Gave it to the chinese and dominate that industry and we have to rely on that. Heres the challenge, talking about the energy part that is not dealing with it at any cost. That is at the core of everything. Our Economic Prosperity and ability to do anythingp manufacturing, you need Reliable Energy sources and im not accusing the senator of saying this because he approached this of trying to find solutions but there are some out there at least they are selling this mythology that renewables can replace hydro and carbon like that. It cannot. If you think about the world today if everybody else on the planet consumed 50 of the energy that we americans consume and we are doing it in this very room. Other parts of the world want the same thing. If they had 50 of that, you would have to increase Global Energy production by at least 50 , how are you going to do it with renewables we cant . Oil and natural gas and the question who is going to control that because the less we supply of it, the more the opec does. The supply and demand is the reason why President Biden had to reach in. We are going to and china leads the world in coalfired plants and lead the world in Refining Capacity. They are doing the batteries and solar but they are building Refining Capacity through oil and coalfired plants because countries developing are not going to walk away from that. We need to acknowledge that. Our emissions are down. 50 of the emissions come out of the Asian Pacific region. They need affordable reliable and Abundant Energy resources. Caused by human nist and the emissions we put in the atmosphere . Senator rubio absolutely, chinas emissions are growing faster. And their emission from heavy industry from transportation to the development of their economy, it will swamp anything we do and so many ask why restrain our industry and economy at all in pursuit of this. I would argue we dont have a choice, the models of how much we will end up spending if we cannot collectively come up with a path forward. It swamps everything else. The number of billion disol arizona disaster per year have increased year after year after year and will outstrip our capacity to deal with them. We deal with it by pricing emissions and protects American Manufacturing that stays if you are making cement glass or aluminum and doing it in a clean way you already are because you are complying with u. S. Regulation. We shouldnt let china russia steel without a tariff. And those emissionintensive products and as ch chancellor schultz proposed in the g7 that we end up in a common approach and these open associates that share Climate Emissions that if you want to sell to our market these are our standards that and that alone will change the trajectory. I am skeptical will make a difference. That can change the world. Senator rubio nation states are going to act in the National Interests. When russian oil was taking out the marketplace the amount of nations grew. And developing countries who want their piece of prosperity. And maybe 100 years from now it will be cheaper to again rate. But not today and not for the foreseeable future. Hydrocarbons will be part of the matrix. And in florida, our Largest Utility Company has walked away from coal and doing extensive natural gas and Nuclear Energy natural gas with Nuclear Energy as well. Prices have been stable. They have been able to retain them. It took time to build up to that point. They stop hydrocarbon and natural gas as a backbone. The truth of the matter is, the idea that we will comment utility sector be able to replace hydrocarbons with solar and wind, the numbers are not there. It is not real. It will have a dramatic impact on our economy. It will have a dramatic impact on the cost of living. Other nations will not go along because they need to develop their economies and provide e prosperity for their people. You cannot do that with the existing technologies, no matter what example we think we are setting. We can, we should, innovate our way forward through this. Im not sure if the senator is debating with me or someone not on the stage, i do support nuclear and 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 clearer combustion as we grow, the percentage of our portfolio is geothermal, wind, and solar, this is a longterm, 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 and indians, and other developing economies continue to grow their coal fired power plants, i agree, its a critical concern. Anyone of my party that was to persuade the other party and the public that we have a path forward needs a market mechanism. Thats why i put one forward. Senator rubio, senator answered this. We come down on the idea, 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 extreme tutors . Those are measurables, like the sea level rising, you can predict where that will be. The same with the tempter event. You can read all kinds of things. Others will show you the graphs out 1000 years or 300 years. In the 1930s, it was a hot year. We had the dustbowl and wildfires. My point on that is, its okay we think we want to address that by moving toward new Energy Sources that reduce less carbon emissions, that is fine. As long as it doesnt devastate the economy. I dont want to pretend, im not accusing the senator of the one pretending. He is very reasonable, as you have seen here tonight. Maybe i wish i had a different debate partner. The truth of. The matter is, we cant fall under the illusion, not claiming he is making this claim come about of the illusion that somehow for the foreseeable future we can provide industry and individual americans a reliable, and Affordable Energy through alternatives that we can today provide through hydrocarbons. We cant. At a minimum, natural gas need to be a key part of that for 25 to 50 years. None of us can say what innovations will come along over the next 25 to 30 years that will reduce the price point of some of this or make other technologies more efficient. As those come on, perfect. We are not there today. We are not there in the foreseeable future. I think this is an issue where the real life cost of benefits have to come to the play. You have to ask europe about when you dont deal with the costbenefit analysis. It has an impact that undermines the economy. In the case of the ukrainian invasion, forces them to go back to the drawing board and reconsider where they will get the natural gas from. Let me ask this more directly. What is causing Climate Change . Specs i just published all the reports that since the industrial era, temperatures have risen. I believe that needs to be compared with a much broader, timeframe and record. There have been instances, this is my scientific analysis with a realworld analysis. My backyard is full of rocks. You cant dig three inches without hitting coral rock. Why dont dig in my yard. You will break yourself. That means at some point in history, my backyard was underwater. I dont wanted to get back to that. At a minimum, i wanted to stop at my neighbors house so my Property Value goes up. All kidding aside, the climate is always changing and adjusting. The point is to ascribe and say, 80 of what is happening as a result of humanity. Therefore, we must wipe out our economy and impoverish ourselves by relying on unreliable sources of energy that are also more costly. It is economic suicide. The other nations will not do it. It sounds a lot like china want to get rich, they will become like us. Once it become rich, they will become cleaner. That is a big mistake. I dont think we should make that decision, no matter how many un reports they put out. We are not a plan, we our country. The other emitters continue to emit that dwarf our own admissions. Do you have a rebuttal . Systemic human activity is causing our climate to warm. It is causing devastating changes in our climate. Where animals live and where plants grow and thrive, and where people can survive is changing and changing rapidly. Two mountains i visited my life, kilimanjaro and the mountains of Central Montana had glaciers 30 years ago. I have been back to bolt and the glaciers are almost completely gone. It is not my backyard, but its another example of an observation. As someone who trained as a scientist and chemist, i do believe that 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 our atmosphere and our future as a planet. We are a country, but we are also citizens of this planet. If the planet becomes unlivable or uninhabitable, the millions of will migrate, or fleeing those challenges for us, will be unavoidable. This is way that we can reduce our emissions before it is too late. I think we have a difference of opinion of the urgency of the timeline. 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 the 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 as excited about the science as i am about the chips. I worry about the future of the planet, so to my kids. I worry about the future of the planet as well, i would add this, will Climate Change lead to all of these discussions around the world . The inability of government to provide Economic Prosperity and a way forward for their people. That is what happened in haiti and much of latin america. They cannot provide for their families. If you cannot provide the abundant and affordable Energy Sources necessary to provide that, you will have civil wars and mass migrations, and things of this nature. They need to be balanced when we make these decisions. As far as human activities, the United States reduce its emissions by 33 since the 1970s. Advanced technology and changes will move us in the right direction. I dont think we need to suddenly overreach and say, we will do all these things do matter what impact it has on our economy. On this point, im not saying that is what you are asking for, i dont want to march with everybody on stage. Something there should not be any balance. I think there needs to be. There needs to be. One thing i think we will both v agree on, irrespective of the laws we pass or whatever incentives we create, this is at the trendline for the foreseeable future. We need to mitigate against the impact of where can people can build and how we fortify against it . Mitigation will be necessary no matter what. I am long been in support of that. I have a question for both of you setting aside Energy Policies and ill take you home. Senator alluded to this. You both come from lowlying, coastal states. If a constituent comes up to either view and says, hey, thinking of buying property along the coast, you are not Real Estate Agents or investment bankers, but you are leaders in that subject matter. [ laughter ] if they asked you, should i purchase Coastal Property right now, what would you tell them . I would tell them to take a o hard look at the fema flooding maps, and how inaccurate they have proven to be. When i was in the local government, we are both from local, state and county governments, 4 years, we had the hundred year flood in a 500 year flood, in my town. Clearly, this was happening more often than every hundred years. Where we issue insurance, where we predict flooding is clearly off. I would urge folks to purchase on Higher Ground and further back, and to think about not purchasing right on the coastal waterfront. I would encourage them to look at the history of the cosine of delaware, which has moved west over the last century. I do think the sea level rises a real thing. I think it is is mike events are pushing where we can inhabit. Federal state policy needs to respond to that. We are ensuring the reconstruction of homes in places that are not long term sustainable. I would tell them, word of caution, maybe you want to purchase on Higher Ground. A real life scenario, goes back 80 to 100 years. South florida, anything west of 37th avenue was the everglades. People decided, we will go and drain it with a bunch of canals. We will fill it in with sand. Go to miami beach, which is not a real island it is a rock formation. That was 60 years later, but 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 you build. That is something that i think that except the level of humility. If you want to purchase oceanfront property, you need to recognize that. You need to build something that is different. You need to have something fortified for wind and higher. In some places, you may not be able to. There may be some places where a you cannot protect it against floodwaters. I do think there is a conversation to be had, and a serious look to be made, once you rebuild the place three times, which does happen, i think it is telling you that these are areas that are impossible to ensure and difficult to secure. We have built some expensive real estate. Reality tells us that we will have to mitigate against that as best we can. It would depend on what people are looking to build. It is a place where the geology is sustained. You have to build against water. For some areas, you simply will not be able to. Having seen your neighborhood , if yours becomes Coastal Property, we are in real trouble. Thank you both for engaging on that one. I did not think you would gives us a vague answers. I appreciate that you did. We will move on to the grab bag portion of the evening. We will talk a bit about bipartisanship. Well talk about the senate. This is the senate project. Let me start with this. Senator , why are you here tonight . Bipartisan senator recruited me. I am here as we heard from the outset, that Bipartisan Solutions are lasting solutions. I am here because of that exchange with one of our founders, benjamin franklin, it is a republic, if you can keep it. In the last couple of years, i have moved with 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 and how frequently we have regular order. We are looking meaningful legislation. Our centocor is empty and silent, most of the time. I am here because i was invited to take the stage with someone that has served as long as i have and have legislated with me. I just turned 60 last saturday, and im starting to ask myself, how much more can i do . How much of an impact can i have . I am confident, 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. Im here primarily to convince crystal cruz me on everything. All kidding aside, i would say a couple of things. I think one of the most important things is to understand what bipartisan means. It doesnt mean that you agree, even on the issues, specifically or how to solve them, means you agree that the process matters to solving these problems. You have to have a process. The lack of that in this day and age is hurting the country. I think, they are real challenges that our nations are facing. In many ways, our politics is a mere that reflects our culture and society. American politics is polarized as america. What we are trying to do in america has always been hard. We are as diverse of Society Culture as has ever happened. We had to figure out away, out of all of these different ideas to build one nation. That is hard. Other places may have it easier in that regard. We also have the First Amendment and the democratic process in which people can express themselves and choose their leaders. We have a country where california mississippi are very different. It is having a real impact on us in the world. Other countries and leaders watch. They watch these reports, they think this nation is falling apart. They think we are on the verge of a civil war. They 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 this stage or the floor of the senate to show there are principles in how we govern ourselves. The lack of it invites our adversaries. I would add one more point, which is really important. We have to understand that with all the talk about partisanship , i am not against it. I know what is happening. There are many people in this country that are really angry at the political system. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like they have been left ignored. If you like the economic benefits go to others at their expense. It is manifesting in a way that is creating an extraordinary realignment in our politics. These are ways that are unpredictable. It is a messy, loud, and se happening in an era in which polarization is encouraged. The senator will agree with what im about to say. If you want to get famous in politics, say outrageous, 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 what your name is. Today we live in a media culture that rewards and encourages that kind of behavior. It draws more clicks. It draws more viewers. We are incentivizing that behavior. I do get it, 24hour memes make money and creates ratings. Bipartisanship and working together does not. They could also destroy our country. When the level of polarization paralyzes you and makes you incapable of confronting serious challenges. Then you have a big, big problem. It is not the nastiness that ise the problem, is the inability to act because of it that endangers our future. Is that a good expedition for why i am here . Works for me. Let the record reflect that i dont work for one of those conflict focus channels. [ laughter ] let me ask you a practical question about how rk the senate works, and how you guys spend your time in washington. This might be uncomfortable or a naove question i will ask it anyway. Senator rubio, when was the last time you went to dinner, one on one with a democrat . Oneonone . R probably 2. 5 years ago. He lost his election. Im just kidding. It has probably been 2. 5 years ago. I will be honest with you, i am not a nice person to begin with. Breakfast is a better question. I would have to look, probably eight months ago. Here is what people dont understand, there only 100 of us. Everybody knows everybody. Second of all, today you are fighting about something, but next week, that person may be on your side on the same issue. I know people think that we walk by the hallway since it on each other and call each other names, but you have follow these people on 10 things and you had to work on one or two. Maybe you have a different perception, the most coveted thing for any you follow is can i get a cosponsor from the other party. It is a highly coveted thing. Where can i find summary from the other party to join with me . 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 that they deserve. If it is not controversial, people think it is not important. That is a real challenge in that regard. In my experience, individual re members, for the most part, actually have good working relationships. There are always exceptions for people that dont like omeach other. Generally speaking, it is pretty productive. That way is getting results. Then you have to pass it to the other chamber. Senator, have you edone anything socially with any of the eight republican senators that voted against certifying the 20 20 election . I have. It is funny you should mention that specific question. I am a regular participant in the weekly bipartisan program. Stomach is why did not ask about breakfast. [ laughter ] on the matter of lunch, i will briefly mention, a dear friend of ours, senator isis and, for a decade, hosted a bipartisan barbecue lunch. He would have a whole crew drive up from georgia and provide barbecue. Johnny was set up and say, this is simple. Barbecue brings people together. I will not give a long speech, find a member of the other party that you dont know well and have not sat with, and sit with them. Lets eat. Senator blunt and i continue that tradition. This thursday, that is happening again. So marco, please come. I need to write that into my schedule. I like barbecue. We are in agreement on that. Of those eight senators, the story i was about to tell was, i was the 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 a challenge to me directly. I was holding a deep grudge that i would not resolve against those that voted in the senate. January 6 was challenging and unsettling. It was a greatly concerning day. The number of the folks that even after that were unwilling to reconcile, i was refusing to speak to them. One of them was in the room. S i stood up i spoke that morning about my own need for humility and open heartedness, and a willingness to be reconciled even to people against whom i was holding a pretty profound grudge. That senator and i have now introduced and passed a piece of legislation that goes back to the history of our two states, both of which were segregated, by expanding the brown versus board to include my state and his state. I have not reconciled with all of them. I have made some progress. E you alluded to this a little bit. And there are 100 of you and you know each other. You know the organizations, like the one sponsong