vimarsana.com
Home
Live Updates
Transcripts For CSPAN3 Sens. 20240703 : vimarsana.com
Transcripts For CSPAN3 Sens. 20240703 : vimarsana.com
CSPAN3 Sens. July 3, 2024
Coupled with that should be the ability of how we apply this and take it commercial. So, the answer is that we have to look at who we have enrolled into many of these disciplines in several of our universities. To take a good hard look at that. Thank you very much. Commissioner schreiber. I just want to add my thanks to the witnesses and i think most of my questions have been addressed. Commissioner wessel . Thank you. I appreciate your recognition of robin barrys work. They have been toiling in this field as you have any years. You referred to and used the term willful blindness and i appreciate your recognition of the longterm work of this commission. I will argue to you that blindness continues to
Cloud Visibility
as to many of the challenges we face. You know, recently in appreciating the work of the administration on an outbound executive they need an
Outbound Investment
executive order, it is
Still Limited
in terms of providing us the data on critical supply chains. Batteries, pharmaceutical, etc. You know, we have existing u. S. Authorities that this commission has referred to in the past. For example, the department of commerce and the power to compel the u. S. Or any business doing business in the u. S. , that can be used to provide us data on supply chains. Whether it is batteries or
Critical Minerals
or materials or aerospace. And with the business defense form which has been largely focused on talent issues in the last few years. What new tools in terms of transparency and data do you think would be needed . Doctor, for you as well , i think for example fors efforts dont fully identify what is happening in the
Battery Supply
chain and the ip that is utilized there. How do we get the data in a granular sense when business has been opposing any of those
Data Transmission
efforts . Doctor, do you want to start there . You posted the question of the decade. Having a business to help with the profile. The only way i can think of from a purely simplistic view is mandating the data. Making sure the data is going to be highly confidential. Making sure it is secured that in effect mandating the data. 2nd is looking at data as a weapon. Thats what it is. The future of the world is around data. Asking for the little data that matters when we can make our decisions. It is actually truth. We have so much data that we need to specify specifically what we need from companies so that you folks can make your decision on criticality and honesty. Lets focus on the data and what data we have. The data is there and the transparency is there and we need to focus on the whats. Let me pull on that again. Again you remember the defense business for. As leaders of industries from cfos and ceos who require on data to make right decisions for their businesses. Should that be a priority at dot in terms of supply chain transparency . And, transparency in the ppi sent. I dont mean it has to be fully expressed, but we dont know all the critical mammals come from our processing facilities are. China just became the 1st to sell the c919 will be making incursions into aerospace. What would you as a business leader, and we can follow up, are you seeing it up in the defense establishment to get the data needed to make those decisions . That short answer is yes, certainly. Everybody recognizes the data and the need for data and the instruction that the data needs. If we have all the data that you are talking about, and i believe we do, i still think we need to mandate the turning over of the right type of data. We need to collect it. Doctor, a quick response. I think it is right question and i appreciate the challenge there. There are parts to that. To be honest, if i had to pick something, what concerns me more is the lack of transparency. The discussion about poor access to
Economic Data
in china is something i would focus on. I think it is data that is increasingly hard given that his actual supply chain and which companies are operating in which sectors and the background. For example in the
United States
that came up recently. I think that is one thing to focus on and that is probably going to require a lot of internal research and perhaps even some level of a highlevel dialogue with china and the
Chinese Government
because this is obviously part of an ongoing challenge there that maybe undermining americans and companies that operate in china as well. That is one piece of it. I think the other piece you mentioned ip in the 4th deal. I cannot speak that obviously but i think it is a interesting point. It indicates a reversal of previous concerns in states where
American Companies
were giving away ip to
Chinese Companies
but now we are more concerned about chinese providing access to their ip to
American Companies
. I think that is something that should be explored and by legislation. Think theres any requirement for them to give it to ford for example. It is a challenge and something that should be clarified, as i mentioned before. With defining the actual goals with what companies can do in the
United States
is probably important. This is a long conversation and i would be happy to have it at another time if there are more questions. Mr. Wong, if you have questions . Yes. Doctor, thank you for your testimony. I dont know if you have at hand and im heading troubles i never. What is the current terror on imports . I cannot remember off the top of my head right now that is significant. Yet, i remember they raised up to 40 in 2018 and they were going to lower it but im not sure they did that. I just cant remember. Suffice it to say, i think there is at least 25 tariff on you see autos in china. There has been a long time disparity between the terrace on the chinese automobile import. Before 2018, it was 2. 5 and celebrate raises 25 . Would you say that the chinese and message came out of a combination of a number of policy choices . One are the purchase subsidies you mentioned which were and is not hundreds of billions of dollars. 2nd is protection for tariffs for the largest easy market in the world and you see a 2nd. Number three is lower
Environmental Standards
which allows them to refine and mine
Critical Minerals
at a cheaper rate. As well as lower labor standards. And at the beginning of the industry in china with the theft of intellectual property of western companies and particularly
American Companies
. Are those factors corrected what has built the chinese advantage . I would say yes that they all played a role in they all came at the right time. These policies were initiated around 2010 and by 2015 we started seeing the advancements in a lot of the areas. And many were interested in evs. I think there was a convergence of various factors but they all played a role. I would say the tariffs into china probably were especially significant in ensuring that
Companies Invested
domestically in china to produce capacity. That was certainly the case for tesla, for example. And one more thing is the vehicles had to be produced in china. If im not mistaken, i think the tariff levels between the
United States
, for a long time , the terrible levels they applied in the
United States
versus european cars, they were higher on the u. S. Cars for a long time. My right about that . I am not sure i actually dont have that data. I will followup. We will research that. Would you agree there is kind of the , i think there is a strategic surveillance and emphasis on these decisions. It was a conscious decision by the chinese to develop obviously industrial leadership in evs. In particular to build dependents throughout the western world, including in america on these technologies. Also to my majewski industry. Is that correct . Would you disagree with that . I would say policies were 1st launched that the actual focus was to reduce chinas dependence on foreign technology. It was very clear that they identified where
Chinese Companies
had a chance to compete directly with western and nonwestern automakers. Basically since the 1980s, there are several policies in china that have been to do that and have failed in the internal combustion industry. The reason there are ventures between
Foreign Companies
and
Chinese Companies
is because it is mandated to help the
Chinese Companies
upgrade. That never led to their advancement in the industry. By shifting toward electric vehicles and investing in china and electric vehicles, the hope of the
Chinese Government
is not necessarily a homegrown industry but
Homegrown Technology
in china where supply chains could reduce their reliance on american and european and japanese automakers. I would say that is definitely what happened initially. As time has progressed and as time is taking all, i should note that based on my research, wendys were 1st launched, they were fairly obscure and not something that most of the
Chinese Government
was focused on. After a few years it took off in the market was developing and that is where we see more of an understanding of the potential of the industry has an export industry. I think certainly now that i am sure there are considerations of how this could be increasing foreign dependencies in china i dont think that was the case originally. I appreciate your answers and your research. I think a lot of these factors we will have to consider. I am worried and question the wisdom of what i see as the current trend in and states of adopting policies that essentially dovetail with that strategic emphasis of china. Namely subsidies for purchases of pds in the u. S. Outright bans on internal combustion engine. And neither banneds on vehicles and processes for mining and refining here. That would take us right into the strategic positive what chinese are trying to in the ed industry. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you to our witnesses. This is the last hearing unless somebody else has burning issues. This is the last hearing of the year. We are in the process of wrapping up the annual report and we appreciate you coming and offering observations today. That, the hearing is adjourned. K everybody. Good evening and welcome to all. Let me begin by saying thank you for joining us tonight and for the dedicated staff here at
George Washington
university. To our media partners, cbs news and sirius xm. Thank you for helping the
Bipartisan Center
to sponsor this debate. The 4th in a series by the senate project. Tonight promises to be an interesting and formative discussion on some of the most
Critical Issues
facing our country and our world. We are honored that senators have joined us in this important program. Thanks to both of them. As you saw that it came from u. S. Senators that looked for tom
Common Ground
. You will hear from senator tom daschle in just a moment. For what it meant for all of us. I have the privilege of collaborating with senators king kennedy and hatch during the george w. Bush administration and they sent a standard for bipartisanship. And after leaving the u. S. Senate earlier this year, the team at the policy center have a good sense to reach out to senator lott who became a leader and looking for ways to look work across the aisle. Now a fellow at the vpc, we are honored to have his expertise. The chairman of the everett and canady institute for u. S. Senate joints executive director, adam hines. Matt sandgren is the executive director of the warren g
Hatch Foundation
. And i also want to welcome the cochair of the commission on president ial debate. He knows a thing or two about debate and we are pleased he could be with us, thank you frank. This is my 1st day as president and ceo of the bipartisan policy. In addition to serving as cabinet secretary, my career has taken me to the campus of the uterus yet
North Carolina
system. A few weeks ago, the president and ceo of texas 36 addressing the most important issues for taxes and advancement of spies it daniel. My new challenges here as we expand the mission of the ppc. I will be the 1st to set up my bipartisanship a not be subject to the voices of either party. We are subject to the
Political Climate
on television and social media. If we can get beyond the noise, there are lawmakers who can and do
Work Together
to accomplish big things. The only thing to create lasting change is to have that debate and discuss the differences and to find
Common Ground
. If you are starting for policymakers will come together, i ask you to join us collectively as we
Work Together
to find solutions instead of soundbites. Both senator and senator rubio have agreed to right a joint all that based out of their exchange this evening. It will be posted on our site at bipartisan policy. Order as well as the hatch and kennedy websites. It is now my pleasure to introduce tom daschle who has been in his fair share of more political battles. After leaving the senate, he collaborated with other leaders like bob dole, howard baker and
George Mitchell
to create an organization that sponsors fish dictate and
Common Ground
. We are here tonight because of his tireless efforts to make our political process work just a little better. The ppc is one of his greatest achievements and elastic legacy to his career in public service. Please join me in welcoming senator tom daschle. Thank you, margaret, for that kind introduction. I cant think of a better way to launch a career with the bpc then with an evening like tonight. Margaret and i served together when she served as secretary of education of the george w. Bush administration. I must say she served in a remarkable way and it is so good to have her back in washington tonight. I cannot be more thrilled to welcome her tonight at her 1st day here at the bpc and thank her for her leadership and work that she has demonstrated over and over again in her public and private careers over 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. A little over three years ago i commented to my fellow members at the
Edward M Kennedy
institute. At times i did not recognize the senate in the way it was operating today. Often called the greatest deliberative party. There are politics and media in a way that oftentimes is repulsive. I am pleased tonight to see three great organizations working collectively to create a forum in which we can watch the passionate debate we expect in the senate. The hallmark of our democracy. Then, when possible, look for areas of
Common Ground
. Tonight we have two people i have admired a great deal. Two distinguished lawmakers represent two different parties that oftentimes two different points of view. But like each of us, they are americans 1st. Senator and senator rubio will debate some of the leading issues in our country including foreign adversaries,
Climate Change
, and the planet. Just like offenders who argued and discussed and disagree. They will look for areas of
Common Ground
as well. Yesterday, as some of you may recall, we marked the anniversary of our constitution. I have often reminded of that scene on the final day of the
Constitutional Convention
in 1787. A story that im certain that most of you may have already heard. On this the day after the constitution, i think it bears repeating. As you recall, residents of philadelphia gather on the steps of independence hall. With news of what they had crafted. One of us as the oldest
Founding Fathers
to do the steps as they were walking out. Mr. Franklin, do we have a monarchy or a republic . Franklin required replied, a republic if we can keep it. That is our responsibility nearly 250 years later. Can we keep it . After all we have gone through these past years, those words ring louder than ever. We give two u. S. Senators as space to share their points of view and to agree to disagree but with a level of respect. I have the great privilege to work sidebyside with them. Not only colleagues but they became close friends. We traveled together and we actually hung out on weekends together. They were of two different parties in two different ideologies. They were from opposite ends of the country. Despite those differences, they respected each others point of view. They did not 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 century. From the americans with disabilities act to the act for age. To the
Childrens Health
Insurance Program
known as c. H. I. P. And with major education reform notice no child left behind. Consider that for a moment and the impact that each of these bipartisan bills continue tonight to have impact on our country. We need to have more congress and want to tackle the issues facing our country tonight. They would be so proud that the work that these three highly respected institutions are doing to carry on the legacy. From the bpc to the mk institute to the
Hatch Foundation
, thank you for bringing us together and for all of the work you do to ensure we can find
Cloud Visibility<\/a> as to many of the challenges we face. You know, recently in appreciating the work of the administration on an outbound executive they need an
Outbound Investment<\/a> executive order, it is
Still Limited<\/a> in terms of providing us the data on critical supply chains. Batteries, pharmaceutical, etc. You know, we have existing u. S. Authorities that this commission has referred to in the past. For example, the department of commerce and the power to compel the u. S. Or any business doing business in the u. S. , that can be used to provide us data on supply chains. Whether it is batteries or
Critical Minerals<\/a> or materials or aerospace. And with the business defense form which has been largely focused on talent issues in the last few years. What new tools in terms of transparency and data do you think would be needed . Doctor, for you as well , i think for example fors efforts dont fully identify what is happening in the
Battery Supply<\/a> chain and the ip that is utilized there. How do we get the data in a granular sense when business has been opposing any of those
Data Transmission<\/a> efforts . Doctor, do you want to start there . You posted the question of the decade. Having a business to help with the profile. The only way i can think of from a purely simplistic view is mandating the data. Making sure the data is going to be highly confidential. Making sure it is secured that in effect mandating the data. 2nd is looking at data as a weapon. Thats what it is. The future of the world is around data. Asking for the little data that matters when we can make our decisions. It is actually truth. We have so much data that we need to specify specifically what we need from companies so that you folks can make your decision on criticality and honesty. Lets focus on the data and what data we have. The data is there and the transparency is there and we need to focus on the whats. Let me pull on that again. Again you remember the defense business for. As leaders of industries from cfos and ceos who require on data to make right decisions for their businesses. Should that be a priority at dot in terms of supply chain transparency . And, transparency in the ppi sent. I dont mean it has to be fully expressed, but we dont know all the critical mammals come from our processing facilities are. China just became the 1st to sell the c919 will be making incursions into aerospace. What would you as a business leader, and we can follow up, are you seeing it up in the defense establishment to get the data needed to make those decisions . That short answer is yes, certainly. Everybody recognizes the data and the need for data and the instruction that the data needs. If we have all the data that you are talking about, and i believe we do, i still think we need to mandate the turning over of the right type of data. We need to collect it. Doctor, a quick response. I think it is right question and i appreciate the challenge there. There are parts to that. To be honest, if i had to pick something, what concerns me more is the lack of transparency. The discussion about poor access to
Economic Data<\/a> in china is something i would focus on. I think it is data that is increasingly hard given that his actual supply chain and which companies are operating in which sectors and the background. For example in the
United States<\/a> that came up recently. I think that is one thing to focus on and that is probably going to require a lot of internal research and perhaps even some level of a highlevel dialogue with china and the
Chinese Government<\/a> because this is obviously part of an ongoing challenge there that maybe undermining americans and companies that operate in china as well. That is one piece of it. I think the other piece you mentioned ip in the 4th deal. I cannot speak that obviously but i think it is a interesting point. It indicates a reversal of previous concerns in states where
American Companies<\/a> were giving away ip to
Chinese Companies<\/a> but now we are more concerned about chinese providing access to their ip to
American Companies<\/a>. I think that is something that should be explored and by legislation. Think theres any requirement for them to give it to ford for example. It is a challenge and something that should be clarified, as i mentioned before. With defining the actual goals with what companies can do in the
United States<\/a> is probably important. This is a long conversation and i would be happy to have it at another time if there are more questions. Mr. Wong, if you have questions . Yes. Doctor, thank you for your testimony. I dont know if you have at hand and im heading troubles i never. What is the current terror on imports . I cannot remember off the top of my head right now that is significant. Yet, i remember they raised up to 40 in 2018 and they were going to lower it but im not sure they did that. I just cant remember. Suffice it to say, i think there is at least 25 tariff on you see autos in china. There has been a long time disparity between the terrace on the chinese automobile import. Before 2018, it was 2. 5 and celebrate raises 25 . Would you say that the chinese and message came out of a combination of a number of policy choices . One are the purchase subsidies you mentioned which were and is not hundreds of billions of dollars. 2nd is protection for tariffs for the largest easy market in the world and you see a 2nd. Number three is lower
Environmental Standards<\/a> which allows them to refine and mine
Critical Minerals<\/a> at a cheaper rate. As well as lower labor standards. And at the beginning of the industry in china with the theft of intellectual property of western companies and particularly
American Companies<\/a>. Are those factors corrected what has built the chinese advantage . I would say yes that they all played a role in they all came at the right time. These policies were initiated around 2010 and by 2015 we started seeing the advancements in a lot of the areas. And many were interested in evs. I think there was a convergence of various factors but they all played a role. I would say the tariffs into china probably were especially significant in ensuring that
Companies Invested<\/a> domestically in china to produce capacity. That was certainly the case for tesla, for example. And one more thing is the vehicles had to be produced in china. If im not mistaken, i think the tariff levels between the
United States<\/a>, for a long time , the terrible levels they applied in the
United States<\/a> versus european cars, they were higher on the u. S. Cars for a long time. My right about that . I am not sure i actually dont have that data. I will followup. We will research that. Would you agree there is kind of the , i think there is a strategic surveillance and emphasis on these decisions. It was a conscious decision by the chinese to develop obviously industrial leadership in evs. In particular to build dependents throughout the western world, including in america on these technologies. Also to my majewski industry. Is that correct . Would you disagree with that . I would say policies were 1st launched that the actual focus was to reduce chinas dependence on foreign technology. It was very clear that they identified where
Chinese Companies<\/a> had a chance to compete directly with western and nonwestern automakers. Basically since the 1980s, there are several policies in china that have been to do that and have failed in the internal combustion industry. The reason there are ventures between
Foreign Companies<\/a> and
Chinese Companies<\/a> is because it is mandated to help the
Chinese Companies<\/a> upgrade. That never led to their advancement in the industry. By shifting toward electric vehicles and investing in china and electric vehicles, the hope of the
Chinese Government<\/a> is not necessarily a homegrown industry but
Homegrown Technology<\/a> in china where supply chains could reduce their reliance on american and european and japanese automakers. I would say that is definitely what happened initially. As time has progressed and as time is taking all, i should note that based on my research, wendys were 1st launched, they were fairly obscure and not something that most of the
Chinese Government<\/a> was focused on. After a few years it took off in the market was developing and that is where we see more of an understanding of the potential of the industry has an export industry. I think certainly now that i am sure there are considerations of how this could be increasing foreign dependencies in china i dont think that was the case originally. I appreciate your answers and your research. I think a lot of these factors we will have to consider. I am worried and question the wisdom of what i see as the current trend in and states of adopting policies that essentially dovetail with that strategic emphasis of china. Namely subsidies for purchases of pds in the u. S. Outright bans on internal combustion engine. And neither banneds on vehicles and processes for mining and refining here. That would take us right into the strategic positive what chinese are trying to in the ed industry. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you to our witnesses. This is the last hearing unless somebody else has burning issues. This is the last hearing of the year. We are in the process of wrapping up the annual report and we appreciate you coming and offering observations today. That, the hearing is adjourned. K everybody. Good evening and welcome to all. Let me begin by saying thank you for joining us tonight and for the dedicated staff here at
George Washington<\/a> university. To our media partners, cbs news and sirius xm. Thank you for helping the
Bipartisan Center<\/a> to sponsor this debate. The 4th in a series by the senate project. Tonight promises to be an interesting and formative discussion on some of the most
Critical Issues<\/a> facing our country and our world. We are honored that senators have joined us in this important program. Thanks to both of them. As you saw that it came from u. S. Senators that looked for tom
Common Ground<\/a>. You will hear from senator tom daschle in just a moment. For what it meant for all of us. I have the privilege of collaborating with senators king kennedy and hatch during the george w. Bush administration and they sent a standard for bipartisanship. And after leaving the u. S. Senate earlier this year, the team at the policy center have a good sense to reach out to senator lott who became a leader and looking for ways to look work across the aisle. Now a fellow at the vpc, we are honored to have his expertise. The chairman of the everett and canady institute for u. S. Senate joints executive director, adam hines. Matt sandgren is the executive director of the warren g
Hatch Foundation<\/a>. And i also want to welcome the cochair of the commission on president ial debate. He knows a thing or two about debate and we are pleased he could be with us, thank you frank. This is my 1st day as president and ceo of the bipartisan policy. In addition to serving as cabinet secretary, my career has taken me to the campus of the uterus yet
North Carolina<\/a> system. A few weeks ago, the president and ceo of texas 36 addressing the most important issues for taxes and advancement of spies it daniel. My new challenges here as we expand the mission of the ppc. I will be the 1st to set up my bipartisanship a not be subject to the voices of either party. We are subject to the
Political Climate<\/a> on television and social media. If we can get beyond the noise, there are lawmakers who can and do
Work Together<\/a> to accomplish big things. The only thing to create lasting change is to have that debate and discuss the differences and to find
Common Ground<\/a>. If you are starting for policymakers will come together, i ask you to join us collectively as we
Work Together<\/a> to find solutions instead of soundbites. Both senator and senator rubio have agreed to right a joint all that based out of their exchange this evening. It will be posted on our site at bipartisan policy. Order as well as the hatch and kennedy websites. It is now my pleasure to introduce tom daschle who has been in his fair share of more political battles. After leaving the senate, he collaborated with other leaders like bob dole, howard baker and
George Mitchell<\/a> to create an organization that sponsors fish dictate and
Common Ground<\/a>. We are here tonight because of his tireless efforts to make our political process work just a little better. The ppc is one of his greatest achievements and elastic legacy to his career in public service. Please join me in welcoming senator tom daschle. Thank you, margaret, for that kind introduction. I cant think of a better way to launch a career with the bpc then with an evening like tonight. Margaret and i served together when she served as secretary of education of the george w. Bush administration. I must say she served in a remarkable way and it is so good to have her back in washington tonight. I cannot be more thrilled to welcome her tonight at her 1st day here at the bpc and thank her for her leadership and work that she has demonstrated over and over again in her public and private careers over 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. A little over three years ago i commented to my fellow members at the
Edward M Kennedy<\/a> institute. At times i did not recognize the senate in the way it was operating today. Often called the greatest deliberative party. There are politics and media in a way that oftentimes is repulsive. I am pleased tonight to see three great organizations working collectively to create a forum in which we can watch the passionate debate we expect in the senate. The hallmark of our democracy. Then, when possible, look for areas of
Common Ground<\/a>. Tonight we have two people i have admired a great deal. Two distinguished lawmakers represent two different parties that oftentimes two different points of view. But like each of us, they are americans 1st. Senator and senator rubio will debate some of the leading issues in our country including foreign adversaries,
Climate Change<\/a>, and the planet. Just like offenders who argued and discussed and disagree. They will look for areas of
Common Ground<\/a> as well. Yesterday, as some of you may recall, we marked the anniversary of our constitution. I have often reminded of that scene on the final day of the
Constitutional Convention<\/a> in 1787. A story that im certain that most of you may have already heard. On this the day after the constitution, i think it bears repeating. As you recall, residents of philadelphia gather on the steps of independence hall. With news of what they had crafted. One of us as the oldest
Founding Fathers<\/a> to do the steps as they were walking out. Mr. Franklin, do we have a monarchy or a republic . Franklin required replied, a republic if we can keep it. That is our responsibility nearly 250 years later. Can we keep it . After all we have gone through these past years, those words ring louder than ever. We give two u. S. Senators as space to share their points of view and to agree to disagree but with a level of respect. I have the great privilege to work sidebyside with them. Not only colleagues but they became close friends. We traveled together and we actually hung out on weekends together. They were of two different parties in two different ideologies. They were from opposite ends of the country. Despite those differences, they respected each others point of view. They did not 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 century. From the americans with disabilities act to the act for age. To the
Childrens Health<\/a>
Insurance Program<\/a> known as c. H. I. P. And with major education reform notice no child left behind. Consider that for a moment and the impact that each of these bipartisan bills continue tonight to have impact on our country. We need to have more congress and want to tackle the issues facing our country tonight. They would be so proud that the work that these three highly respected institutions are doing to carry on the legacy. From the bpc to the mk institute to the
Hatch Foundation<\/a>, thank you for bringing us together and for all of the work you do to ensure we can find
Common Ground<\/a>. I am pleased to welcome one of the newest members of the society, former republican senator from missouri and our fellow at the
Bipartisan Policy Center<\/a>. My friend. A plus. Thank you tom. Tom is good friend and our accomplished wives are good friends which makes it easier for us to be friends. Tom has been a good friend after i announced a couple of years ago i would not run for another term. United
States Senate<\/a> is one of the only places in the world where at my age, after 26 years in the congress, people would ask why you were leaving so early. But, i had good advice from tom as i did that and i want to welcome margaret. What a big 1st day. Not everybody has a 1st day like this. And thanks to kelly who during the year that it took to convince margaret to do this job, i am glad to be an executive fellow. One of the two executive fellows here at the
Bipartisan Policy Center<\/a>. We found ways to
Work Together<\/a>. We had an odd and bed not long ago and i was glad to be part of that. And with tom daschle s determined leadership. The by paulus
Bipartisan Policy Center<\/a> is not partisan, it is bipartisan. I was the republican 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 and have the most resilient. They serve as the best. A couple of congressmen congress is ago, there were 52 republicans and 40 democrats. You do so many things with other members to find one thing you can do great on, we thought we would find many of the 48 democrat you have been a principal sponsor of the bill with and not just a cosponsor. The answer was 44 and i thought it was a pretty good answer. In my last speech on the senate floor, i said to get something done, you dont have to find someone you really about everything with. You just need to agree on fun things and that agrees to getting things done. We came to the senate at the same time and worked on lots of things together. We worked on the child abuse act every time it needed to be extended at americorps every time it needed to be extended. Senator rubio and i sat on the
Intelligence Committee<\/a> for several years that we served there. Everything with intel issues to daylight savings time and full life extension. We were for it and everybody will be four in about six weeks or so. There were two people exchanging ideas that we have to find a solution to. We are lucky to have it okeefe from cbs news here as a person to see this debate answer some of those questions. And we also welcome not have to come and sing the
National Anthem<\/a> and i would like for you all to stand as she comes to do that. O say can you see by the dawns early. Oh, say, can you see, by the dawns early light, what so proudly we haild at the twilights last gleaming . Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro the perilous fight, oer the ramparts we watchd, were so gallantly streaming . And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof thro 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, senior white house editor political correspondent, and okeefe. Thank you for tuning in. This is in partnership with the
Kennedy Institute<\/a> and the
Hatch Foundation<\/a> and the
Bipartisan Policy Center<\/a>. These organizations joined together in which elected officials discussed important issues of our time. And democratic senator chris and
Florida Republican<\/a> senator marco rubio have agreed to join us on this stage. The topics are china and u. S. Global leadership. Senator chose energy and the environment. The 3rd topic focuses on the u. S. Senate as an institution and policy today. There will be opening arguments followed by rebuttals. My job is to give them the time and space to have the debate and to leave it to them primarily to have the conversation. The audience behind me has assured me they will remain high for the next hour except for right now as we welcome senator and senator rubio to the stage. [ applause ]. I didnt realize we were getting a hollywood opening. Thank you for being here. As you said, senator rubio went with china and use the global policy. We will hear from you senator rubio and then hear from senator. Thank you. It is good to be here and ive done a lot of debates over time and this will be an interesting and productive debate. I picked the topic of china and is not really about china but it is about us. 80 years from now or 70 years from now someone will ride a book about the 21st century. What will it be about . There will be a couple of chapters about
Vladimir Putin<\/a> and other things. The book of the story of the 21st century will be about what happened between u. S. And china. One overcome the other or one become predominant . In the case of china defined coexistence of balanced in the relationship. I think it will define the 21st century and i think we have made mistakes. I will say we because we have been in the 2nd of the time and policymakers had a bipartisan relationship. Thats free world had won and he did better with markets and jobs because the jobs would leave but dont worry because better jobs will, they will pay you more. Once china got rich and prosperous, even though they cheated their way there, they would become like us. It seems silly now but that was the consensus. Then extended wall street a con valley. Frankly it benefited our policy and was a terrible mistake. It does matter. The ability to make things happen does matter. The jobs were not replaced better paying jobs. Its not just having an impact on america, is having an impact on every single industrialized western country in america. At the core of it is china. China is an expansionist power. And the west it has walked away from colonization and with mongolia and spend and they took over hong kong and theyve taken over portions of northern india. They claim the entire
South China Sea<\/a> and they made it clear they intend to take over taiwan one day. It is an expansion of power. They economically cheat. They steal 680 per year in intellectual property. They can do whatever they want in america but our companies cannot do it anyone over there. Capitalism did not change china but china change capitalism. They use it as a weapon and they empowered and enabled it. Hundreds of industries influencing
American Foreign<\/a> and domestic policy. We are running out of time to reverse it. As historic challenge and one we need to open our eyes to truly understand. It is not a winwin situation. In the their point of view, the last 100 years is an apparition. I for one do not want my children or grandchildren who are yet to be born i for one do not want them to be part of a fascist police state which sends people to work camps. I think it is an extraordinary challenge and one i hope they can replace the new one on. Senator thank you to the
Bipartisan Policy Center<\/a> and thinking to margaret and to the
Kennedy Institute<\/a> and the
Hatch Foundation<\/a>. My wife annie, and family and friends who are here tonight. And to senator rubio, thank you for agreeing to this evenings discussion. We literally introduced a bill in 2011 which was five different ideas that we woke together to try to challenge our party. It was showing signs of moving forward together. To protect against chinese predation, i largely agree with senator rubio that china is the leading challenge to the american way of life. They have engaged in death trap policy and they are threatening our supply chains and access to everything from pharmaceuticals to
Semi Conductor<\/a> chips. As i came into the senate, i was leaving the years in a manufacturing company. I knew all too well about chinese policy in our trade secrets. I got involved with teaming up to pass into law the trade secrets act. Based on the experience and it was in fact a pla agent who rattled the door with some of our most important inventions. They did not allow them to take private action to uncover trade secrets and now it does. My 1st two converses with republicans and are from georgia, i could see how the chinese offerings of infrastructure were attempting african nations as we were not offering attempting alternative. So we passed an act to create a
Development Finance<\/a> corporation for an alternative with our priorities and values working hard to provide the resources to be something that can meet the moment of that challenge. And last with the threat of
Semi Conductor<\/a>s and supply chain with the risk posed to taiwan. Not just their freedom but to our system. I worked with senators from both parties to help shape congress. Ies to help shape 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> ed senator coon, is it a cold war or
Something Else<\/a> . Sen. Coons its
Something Else<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a>. 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> a formal military alliance but certainly some sort of
Global Cooperative<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a>. 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 perceive the world a 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<\/a>. 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a>. Our
National Interest<\/a> 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<\/a>. This doesnt mean we want to act counter to
National Interest<\/a>s 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<\/a> leaders dont put
National Interest<\/a> in the
United States<\/a> first what leaders in the world will . Thats our number one obligation. So i think thats the part where our
Global Engagement<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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 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<\/a> in whats happening in ukraine . I believe we do, not an unlimited interest but an important one. If the
United States<\/a> tomorrow announced we werent doing anything more with ukraine, were gone, it wouldnt just be felt with ukraine, every
Alliance System<\/a> 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<\/a>. The second thing is, what are we supporting . What is the strategy . I think here is where the difficult part is the
Ukraine Ukrainian<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> on the scale of one to 10, its a five. It is not an unlimited
National Interest<\/a> and not immune from
Public Opinion<\/a> 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<\/a> . Senator rubio the
National Interest<\/a> 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<\/a> of
Foreign Relations<\/a> has remind us that ukraine has the
Third Largest<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> and iran, especially in the context of global leadership. The
United States<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> caucus. 77. We have a meeting with critical
Industry Leaders<\/a> 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<\/a> as part of our
Nuclear Security<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> is responding and how europe. Europe through regulation. The
United States<\/a>, through incentives. I spent time in a
Manufacturing Business<\/a> 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<\/a> and ability to do anythingp manufacturing, you need
Reliable Energy<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> had to reach in. We are going to and china leads the world in coalfired plants and lead the world in
Refining Capacity<\/a>. They are doing the batteries and solar but they are building
Refining Capacity<\/a> 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<\/a> region. They need affordable reliable and
Abundant Energy<\/a> 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<\/a> 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<\/a> 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 Interest<\/a>s. 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<\/a> has walked away from coal and doing extensive natural gas and
Nuclear Energy<\/a> as well and prices have been stable and able to retain that but took time to buildup and havent backed away from hydrocarbon or natural gas. Going to replace hydrocarbons with solar and wind, the numbers arent there, not real and dramatic on the economy and cost of living and other nation are not going to go along because they need to provide prosperity to their people and you cannot do that today with the technology no matter what example we think we are setting. Senator coons we should innovate our way through it. Im not sure if he is debating with me. But i support nuclear and i support natural gas switching from coal to natural gas and relying on cleaner combustion of natural gas. Thermal, hydro, wind and solar into a longterm sustainable. I think the science is clear and i think the numbers are strong and the criticism that we cant make a difference as long as the chinese and indians and other economies continue to grow their emissions, i agree. That is a critical concern. Anyone who wants to persuade the other party and our public that we have a path forward needs a market mechanism. Dust bowl and bunch of wildfires. My point is tease ok if we want to adjust that towards new
Energy Sources<\/a> thats fine as long as it doesnt devastate you are economy. We have a reasonable approach for the most part and maybe i wish i had a different debate topic on this one. We cant fall under the illusion that somehow for the future we are going to provide industry and individual americans with reliable and
Affordable Energy<\/a> that we can provide today through hydrocarbons. At a minimum natural gas which we have abundant supplies of that. How long that transition takes. What innovation will come along the 40 years that will make technologies proficient. The real life costs come into play and you can ask europe what happens in their climate decision. It has an impact that undermines their economy and ukranian invasion and where they are going to get natural gas. What is causing
Climate Change<\/a> . Senator rubio there are published reports that due to the industrial era, temperatures have risen. That needs to be compared with much broader time frame. Give you an example, my back yard is full coral rock. I dont dig in my yard anymore. That means at some point, my back yard and my home was under water. I want it to stop like my neighbors house. And we must wipe out our economy and impoverish ourselves by relying on unreliable sources of energy. It is economic suicide. It sounds like china wants to get rich and like us. Big mistake. I dont think we should make that decision no matter how many u. N. Reports because we are not a planet, but a country and will continue to emit. Anything we could possibly. Stand on the way of innovation but we cant pretend in the foreseeable future that they can replace what we have been accustomed to. Senator coons humans are causing changes in our climate. Where animals live and plants thrive is changing rapidly. Two different mountains, kilimanjaro and the mountains of
Central Montana<\/a> had glaciers 30 years ago. I have been back to both and the glaciers are almost gone. Someone trained as a scientist or chemist i believe that there is compelling
Scientific Evidence<\/a> that the emissions methane,
Carbon Dioxide<\/a> are changing the chemistry of our atmosphere and our future as a planet. We are a country but citizens of this planet and if the planet becomes unhabitable and people will flee, those challenges and impacts for us will be unavoidable. We have to bring our two topics together to find a way to drive china towards reducing its emissions in time that we innovate and reduce our emissions before it is too late. We have an urgency. I worked in an
Innovative Company<\/a> in the private sector. We can win the competition to be the dominant
Technology Country<\/a> in this century as we transition globally to that. I was excited about the science part as about the chips part because we both have kids, three and four, and i worry about the future of this planet and so do my kids. Senator rubio
Climate Change<\/a> is going to lead to these disruptions. The inability of government to provide
Economic Prosperity<\/a>. That is what is happening in haiti and latin america. They cant provide for the families. You cannot provide
Affordable Energy<\/a> resources and you will have civil wars and mass migration and they need to be balanced when making a decision. As far as human activity, the
United States<\/a> has reduced its emissions by 33 . Technology will move us in the right direction. We dont need to overreach and say we are going to do these things. On this point im not saying that is what senator coons is asking for. I think there needs to be. And on the one thing we agree on is irrespective of whatever law we pass or incentives we create, this is the trend line and we need to mitigate against the impacts, what they can build, where they can build. I have long been a supporter of that. I have a question of both of you, energy policy. Senator coons has alluded to this, you come from lowlying coastal states. If a constituent comes to you and says im thinking of buying some property along the coast, you are not
Real Estate Agents<\/a> but you are subject matter experts, if they ask you should i buy
Coastal Property<\/a> right now, what would you tell them . Senator coons i would tell them to take a hard look of the fema maps and how inaccurate. We were both in state and local governments. In four years we had a 100 year flood, 500 year flood in my county. Clearly this is happening more often than every happen hundred years. I would urge folks to buy on
Higher Ground<\/a> farther back and to think about not buying right on the coastal waterfront and look at the history of delawares coastline which has been wet over the last century. I do think
Sea Level Rise<\/a> is a real thing and i think federal and state policy needs to respond to that. We are ensuring the construction of homes that are not longterm sustainable. Maybe you want to buy on
Higher Ground<\/a>. Senator rubio it goes back 80 to 100, miami with the everglades and people said we are going to drain it with a bunch of canals and fill it in with sand including miami beach which is not a real island and build stuff here. That is 60 years later and nothing in the history of the earth. The earth decides you know what . This is still swamp how much you build. That is something that i think requires humility. If you want to buy ocean front property you need to build something different. Higher, fortified against the wind and water and some able to. And i do think that there is a conversation to be had and very serious look to be made that once you rebuild the place three times which is happening in some parts of the country, it is telling you it is impossible to insure and those are expensive real estate and we have to mitigate the best we can. But it would depend what people are looking to build. Something that you build to protect against water. Having seen your neighborhood in little havana, thank you for engaging on that one. I appreciate it. We are going to move onto the grab bag portion of the evening and talk a little bit about bipartisanship because is hosted by the
Bipartisan Policy Center<\/a> and let me start with this, senator coons, why are you here tonight . Senator coons because i was recruited. Im here because i believe as we heard from the outset the former senators that
Bipartisan Solutions<\/a> are
Lasting Solutions<\/a> and im here because of that exchange with one of our framers, one of our founders, its a republic, madam, if you can keep it. I have moved from confidence about the future of our democracy. We have seen in our 13 years in the senate together how frequently we are voting, how frequently we have regular order and meaning to legislating. Our senate floor is empty and silent most of the time. I was invited to take the stage with someone who has served as long i have and legislated as long as i did. I just turned 60 last saturday and how much more can i do, how much of an impact can i have and im confident that without this work without reigniting the spirit, we are at risk of losing this most sacred project of our republic. Senator rubio im here to convince chris coons to agree with me on everything, but that has not worked. First of all, i think one of the most important things is to understand what bipartisan means. Doesnt mean that you agree even on the issues on how to solve them, but it you have to have a process and lack of that especially in this day and age is hurting the country. Other countries and leaders watch our news and watch these reports and think this nation is falling apart and think we are on the verge of a civil war and implode from within. I think its important any time we have an opportunity on this stage or on the floor of the senate to show there are premises in how we behave because the lack of that adversaries act against us. We have to understand that with all this talk about partisanship and i know what is happening. There are a lot of people in this country that are angry at the political system. They feel they have been left behind and ignored and all the benefit have gone to certain people and manifesting itself that is creating a realignment in our politics and its messy and loud and polarization is encouraged. Senator coons will tell you this, if you want to get famous say outrageous nasty things. You may never pass a bill but you will get on television and we live in a media culture that encourages and rewards that behavior. It draws more clicks and more viewers. And conflict and generates ratings. But it will droi our country. When the level of polarization makes you incapable of confronting serious challenges then you have a big problem. Its not the nastiness but the inability to act because of it that endanger our future. Is that a good explanation . Senator coons i dont work for one of those conflict channels. How the senate works and how you guys spend your time in washington and this may be uncomfortable and maybe naive question. Senator rubio, when was the last time you went to dinner oneonone with a democrat . Senator rubio maybe 2 1 2 years ago. And ill be honest with you, im not a night person, breakfast pass. When did you have breakfast. Eight months ago. Everybody knows everybody. Today you are fighting about something and that person may be on your side on the same issue. We walk by in the hall ways and and you have to work on one or two. Maybe you have a different perspective. The most coveted, can i get a and where can i find in my party. What is more problematic believe it or not bipartisan bills that make sense are the hardest things to pass these days. Noncontroversial and people think that isnt important. Individual members for the most part have good working relationshipses and there are some reasons that some people may not like each other. And you still have to pass it. Senator coons have you done anything socially with any of the eight republican senators who voted against certifying the 2020 president ial election . Senator coons i have. Im a regular participant in the weekly bipartisan
Prayer Breakfast<\/a>. And on the matter of lunch, im going to briefly mention,
Johnny Isakson<\/a> hosted a bipartisan barbecue lunch and drive up from georgia and johnny would say barbeque brings people. Find another member of the other part that you dont that well and sit with them. Senator plant and i continued that tradition, this thursday, that tradition is continuing. Of the eight senators, the story i was about to tell, i was the speaker at the
Prayer Breakfast<\/a> three, four months ago and as i was reflecting on a particular passage of scripture that it was a challenge to me directly because i was holding a deep grudge that i would not resolve against those who voted. January 6 was a fairly challenging, unsettling, grateful concerning day and the number of folks who even after that were unwilling to reconcile, i was refusing to speak to. One of them was in the room. And i stood up and spoke that morning about my own need for humility and open hard he hadness to be reconciled against those who i was holding a profound grudge. That senator and i have just passed a piece of legislation that goes back to the history of our state, expanding the brown versus board
Historic Site<\/a> to include his state. I have not reconciled with all of them but i have made some progress. Senator rubio, you have known each other and know organizations like the one who is sponsoring this and commentators on the left angry
Television Shows<\/a> will pine when you all hung out after work, is that a naive way of looking at how washington should operate now or can operate now in terms of","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia801406.us.archive.org\/21\/items\/CSPAN3_20231019_231400_Sens._Chris_Coons__Marco_Rubio_Participate_in_Debate\/CSPAN3_20231019_231400_Sens._Chris_Coons__Marco_Rubio_Participate_in_Debate.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20231019_231400_Sens._Chris_Coons__Marco_Rubio_Participate_in_Debate_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240703T12:35:10+00:00"}