 Good evening from Geneva. Good afternoon in the US. Thank you for joining us. This is one of the most exciting discussions during our devil's agenda week. We're at tail end of this week. We have had more than 50 million people watching or following us in one way or another. But the interest for the US is still extremely high. US is the largest economy in the world, about 25% of the global GDP. More than 40% of the global military capacity is still in the hands of the US. And all the big tech companies, US dollar is still the reserve currency of the world. And President Biden has also called for all democracies to form an alliance together and he will initiate. So we have one senator and three representatives that can give us the best insight also in where we will see US going, US foreign policy so we can't wait to start. Of course we know that there is not a lot of collaboration necessarily in the Congress. Bipartisanship is maybe not what it used to be. But let's see. Maybe there is more agreement than anticipated. I remember the first time I entered the building. I was a young politician from Norway invited as a group and we were sitting with a fire chat talk with Speaker Tip O'Neill and he said to us, when I was elected, my old father in Boston said, Tip, it's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice. Is this something that is lost in US politics? Let's start with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Kirsten, so great to see you. You were a distinguished candidate also during the primaries. You've been a Senator, I think since 2008. Is there room for being nice anymore in the US? Will this change again? Because we used to look up to you guys in every aspect before. Absolutely. And what isn't reported on much is how bipartisan the Senate actually is. Every Congress, I author dozens of bills that are all bipartisan, widely bipartisan. But one of the reasons why I was so active in trying to flip the US Senate so that it could be run by Democrats was that I wasn't often given votes by Mitch McConnell. So despite the last eight years of dozens of bipartisan legislation that if there was a vote called could have passed, we were not given that opportunity. So I'm really optimistic to have a Biden administration where a lot of reforms that I work on in the Armed Services Committee, domestically on the Ag Committee, on the Environment Public Works Committee, infrastructure bills, those are all deeply bipartisan issues. And I know now I'll have a chance to actually get votes on them. And I will have large numbers of Republicans supporting the legislation that I author. So I'm optimistic. And we don't hear a lot of reporting on it, but we do get, I mean, my work on military sexual assault is supported by Mitch McConnell, by Ted Cruz, and by Rand Paul, and Bernie Sanders. So that's the kind of good bipartisan reform work I think our country really needs. Well, that's like squaring a circle. It seems like you made it. I was just wondering, where do you think we will see the most immediate changes on the foreign policy side from this new administration? Of course, we know that President Biden re-entered on behalf of the U.S., the Paris Agreement. But I'm thinking on China trade. Are you going to pull out the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq as President Trump plans relationship with NATO? There's so much to discuss. Absolutely. The first thing that's changed already is that President Biden is going to reassert the United States role in the world. I was at the Westlessness Conference, the Berlin Security Agreement Conference, and I could tell you that there was a lot of concern that America had stopped leading in the world, and that Europe and the EU and the rest, excuse me, the Munich Conference, Europe and the rest of the world would ignore the United States views on certain things. And that's something that Vice President Biden, when he ran for president, and now as the president, is going to do. He's not only reasserted himself on global climate change with a pair of supports. He will re-engage with the Iran nuclear deal, engage all of our allies. He will make sure that our allies know we will stand ready with them on national security. He will renew our relationships with our allies. The president's already reached out to Canada, the relationship that suffered under the Trump administration. He will be reaching out to the EU, to NATO, to assure our allies that we will once again stand with them to make sure that we are going to project leadership and strength. And I think he will have a very different approach on engagement with both the Middle East, but also with China and Russia. I think we need far more engagement that is productive with both of those countries. And I think President Biden has a very robust agenda to create international norms and more secure national security. I think he is going to engage Russia immediately on nuclear treaties. He will engage China immediately on economic issues and to try to make sure that human rights is part of our international norms and part of our international conversations. Thank you so much, Senator. I would like to turn to Representative Ted Deutsch. You're also very much involved and knowledgeable on the Middle East. We met before at the Dead Sea and the congressman. The former administration initiated this Abraham Accords. It seems like this administration will also follow up on those, but we saw also some new policies. Yesterday it was announced that there will be a moratorium on some export to the UAE and Saudi Arabia, F-16s and etc., an assessment of the policies. So what do you expect of changes on Israel, on the Palestinian issue, but also when it comes to Saudi Arabia? Well, thanks for again. I'm happy to answer the question. I guess only one of us gets to talk about whether being nice still matters. So I'm glad the senator got that one. Look, the challenges in the Middle East remain the same. At the top of the list for the United States and for the region is Iran and Tehran having expanded its nuclear arsenal during President Trump's term, enriching uranium to higher levels at Fordow and producing half a kilo per day. And the images of a new centrifuge assembly plant under a mountain of tons, threatening to end international inspections, all of that matters. And so that's going to be a place where the United States will work with our allies, will work with Israel, will work with the Gulf States, will work with the Europeans whose interest in Iran, particularly the precision guided missile program, is real. So that's going to be an immediate focus and you've seen the conversations over the past few days of the need for Iran to come into compliance with the deal. And then the United States moving forward diplomatically. And I know we'll have more of an opportunity to talk about that more broadly in the region. I think that the actions that were announced just this week are important. When it comes to Saudi Arabia, there is a re-examination of the arms sales, taking a pause to reassess both the importance of the relationship and the importance of American values being front and center in that relationship. That's something that's consistent with the way that the Biden administration is approaching foreign policy as a whole, really leaning in with our values. You talked about the importance of democracies to this administration. Well, so too the importance of human rights. And so I think that's going to be a big topic of conversation. Initially, some of what the last administration did to try to bind the hands of this administration, I think, will require a re-examination. Addressing the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is something that we need to focus on, again, together and not within constraints imposed in the final moments of Secretary Pompeo's tenure. So I think we'll focus on Iran as the security challenge, but then the economic opportunities, I'll finish with this, the economic opportunities are significant both in the region from the Abraham Accords for the relationship between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain, the other parties to the Abraham Accords. But the Biden administration recognizes that by continuing to build upon that, to bring more countries into the tent, we're going to both be advancing our own interests and the interests of our allies. But we're also, by focusing on economic opportunities, we'll also be strengthening the security opportunities and the security needs that we all face in the region and beyond. Thank you. Just a short follow up question on the JSPOA, the deal that President Trump ended with the Iranians. The feeling is now that the new administration wants to, do the new administration want to go back to the old JSPOA or is it a renewed one? And you said that it also will happen in dialogue with Prime Minister Netanyahu, but the Israelis don't want any deal with Iranians on this because they say a deal will then just lead to the fact that they will just prosper economically and then they will use this on other undertakings around the world. And I guess this is also quite a difficult issue inside both the Senate and the Congress. But of course, you have the majority there now. Sure. Look, again, I think it's important for you to acknowledge the moment that we find ourselves in since leaving the JSPOA, Iran is now further down the line toward both toward the movement toward a nuclear capability and moving outside of the terms of the JSPOA. So diplomacy is key. And just this week, the administration again made clear an interest in reviving nuclear diplomacy and returning to the JSPOA if Iran comes back into compliance, but also throughout this entire through the campaign and the early days of the administration, they've also been clear that it's important for us to consult with our allies in the region and focused on lengthening and strengthening the deal. Those are words that we've heard consistently. And I think that they're important. And those are the kinds of conversations that are going to be taking place with all of our allies, all of whom share the same goal of both preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, from preventing Iran from furthering its malign activities in the region, and specifically on the issue of precision guided missiles and their missile technology, making sure they're moving on that. But Iran has to come back into compliance with the deal. That's the initial step. And that's the critical piece of this diplomatic effort at the outset. No, that's very interesting. So they need to then do something with the and also then get into compliance. And then you can restart the discussion. I also have to call on the only Republican among the four of you, or I will be accused of being partisan here. Adam Kinzinger, great to see you again, Adam. When you listen to the Senator and to your colleague now, Deutsch, and see the new foreign policy that is laid out by the Biden administration, what can you support? And what are your concerns? It's going to blow your audience away. I think there's a lot that we can work together on. And quite honestly, I do think maybe we've forgotten a little bit and kind of last few years. But there is a lot Republicans and Democrats agree on these. First off, there are three Democrats. And I like them all. So that's going to make headlines too. But yeah, I think on the Iran deal specifically, there is some agreement, which is we do want to get back into a deal. I think the key is to make sure that that deal is something that prevents Iran malign activities. Because why is it that we care about Iran having nuclear weapons? Because they're not a good player in the region. And that's going to be important. Things like reestablishing strontis with NATO, working multilaterally is important, I think, on trade policy, actually fighting trade fights with allies instead of taking on all kinds of trade fights at once, especially when it comes to protecting and defending ourselves against unfair Chinese trade practices. And I think the other thing is to be pretty good agreement in terms of how do we go after the biggest competitor, frankly, right now, which is China? How do we defend ourselves economically, our allies, strengthen alliances, build a military that isn't stuck in the 20th century, but can compete whether it's in space and information and everything to deter Chinese activity, malign activity, so that we don't end up in any kind of an armed conflict? And also on Russia, I think the policies of the last administration on Russia were good. What I didn't like was the fact that the word spoken about Russia weren't. I mean, never in a line malign word said about Vladimir Putin. Well, I think I'm hopeful that the Biden administration can match policy actions such as stopping Nord Stream 2, which I know there's disagreement with our allies on, as well as matching that with the rhetoric because Vladimir Putin knows he will advance in a region or anywhere just until he hits a brick wall. And we need to both verbally and physically set that brick wall there. So yeah, there's going to be disagreements as there always are. There are going to be members of Congress on both sides that try to make all these issues political, but the core of the defense kind of group in Congress or in the White House, I think understands that areas where we can all work together, it's really beneficial to America and our allies. No, thank you. Thank you so much for that. I guess one of the areas where there is a lot of bipartisanship is maybe one of the most crucial foreign policy issues moving forward is the G2, the relationship between the US and China. Congressman, do you think it was a cardinal mistake of the former administration to drop the TPP, you know, also then building trade alliance in East Asia where the US was a part? Because the thinking behind that, I understood, was that it would also infuse some checks and balances. And if you agree, do you think there is a way of taking up that option again or is it dead? So I don't think it's dead. And, you know, keep in mind in the 2016 election, both Hillary Clinton, as far as I remember, and Donald Trump said, TPP is dead. And I thought that was a huge mistake, you know. To build, we have a lot of great allies around China and to be able to create a construct where in essence the United States as a significant part in writing the trade rules, which typically benefits everybody, and then to compete with China in unfair trade practices surrounded by free trade allies of the United States, I think would be great. You know, I was in Australia a few years ago and they made an interesting point. They said, you know, sadly, not by our beliefs, but the US is our security partner. And unfortunately, China has become our economic partner. And so I think if this administration can reengage and sure, of course, that we're defending, you know, American producers and consumers, but find areas where we can plug back into TPP, even if there has to be some renegotiation, I think the partners in TPP would be all in. And I think that would be massively beneficial to allow the free market itself to align differently given frankly, COVID pandemic and unfair treatment in China. And I think it beneficial for the world, frankly, when it comes down to to fair trade. Adam, I understand that you were one of the 10 representatives on the Republican side in the House that wanted to accept the recommendation from the electoral college. Is that correct? And why did you do that? And how has that been received in the Republican Party? So there are about 80 that voted or 90 that voted to accept the electoral recommendation I voted to impeach. Look, it was, you know, within the base is not accepted very well. They're pretty upset. My hope and my belief is that over time, leadership is not about just doing what, you know, people say, in some cases, that's important, but you also have to lead you have to present a vision. And I think for too long, both parties, but I can particularly talk about the Republican Party since I am one, has been more interested in what does it take to get elected and less interested in how do we lead people to a to a bright future. So that's what my goal is, is to present that vision and try to lead the party. And, and I think it was important, especially given the events of January 6, to put a red line down and say, when you start to question without evidence the election integrity of the United States, the only thing that makes a democracy in a republic survive is the belief that when you go to vote your vote counts, if that somehow is is told that that's not the case. And there's some secret alliance that actually controls things. It leads to violence and a failure of democracy. And as your other three guests will tell you, it's now a little more difficult for us to talk to leaders of other countries about how to do democracy in this short moment. I think it'll change. And I think actually the lesson is, look, democracy helped through all of this. In fact, a few hours later, we were down doing the work of the American people. But the bottom line is I can't sit by and watch this kind of destruction happen and feel at peace with myself in the position that 700,000 people put me in. Well, thank you for sharing that. Let's move to Representative Stephanie Murphy. You're also an expert on security policy. You worked a lot on that also in the past. I saw that President Biden had his first also call with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg yesterday. Will there be a new approach to NATO and Article 5? Can people in Europe look at this differently than they did the last four years? I certainly think there will be a new approach, not just to NATO, but to our other alliances and our partnerships across the world. And I think that's critically important in this particular moment. When we look at the global challenges that are facing the United States, whether it's Russia or China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, terrorism, pandemic disease, the whole range of issues really can be addressed best when we do it shoulder to shoulder with our allies. And I think one of the big challenges that we face when it comes to nation states, and this is where I think organizations like NATO plays, is that when we think about the bad actors, or not bad actors, I would say maybe our adversaries or folks who are challenging the global world order, what they are trying to do, whether that's cheating the system through cheating on trade rules or on and they're trying to do so in hopes that I think alliances and global institutions are mechanisms by which we can hold these actors to account so that they both benefit from the benefits of being a part of the global world order, but they do so with the responsibility of behaving in a responsible way. And I certainly think that we are seeing an era of better relations with our allies and it makes us stronger on a foreign policy and national security front when you're working together. And when do you expect President Biden to call for this alliance of democracies that he mentioned during the election campaign? I think also Secretary Blinken underlined that and how will that alliance look? I think they're probably already laying the framework. I think one of the most exciting things and hopeful things for me is that the Biden administration has staffed their national security team with old hands basically folks who have been involved in the execution of foreign policy and national security for some time with Jake Sullivan as a national security advisor, Tony Blinken at the State Department, Floyd Austin at the Department of Defense and the Congress just provided him a waiver so that he can serve there in that capacity as a former military general. And then Bill Burns at the CIA and Apple Haines at the DNI, that is a powerhouse team. And I am certain that they are already laying the groundwork for pulling together this alliance. And the other thing that's really refreshing and the reason why I'm confident that they're already laying the groundwork for this is that these are all people with the Biden administration, you see a return to policymaking, whether it's on the domestic front or the foreign policy front, in normal predictable ways. So, you know, policy papers are written, memos are written, people are briefed, they build a stakeholder support so they're doing outreach to the hill, all of these things that allows the United States to speak on voice, as opposed to watching the erratic Twitter feed of one individual. This is a team that's working together to ensure that we have a coherent strategy as it relates to our allies and our adversaries, and that we as a nation are united behind it. And I think that's incredibly important when we talk about strong smart national security. Thank you so much. I just want to remind the watchers that you can also submit, send us questions, and the Senator and Congress representatives are willing to also answer those. I want to go back to you, Senator, on China-US relations, because this is probably the most defining question for this decade. China, 20% of the global GDP, US 25, but also China now with much more military capacity than before. So, there are different schools here, those that want to do a full decoupling, US system and allies of the US keeping one system, and then China and potential allies, or should there be areas where you can collaborate, and then there are areas where you will decouple and how to find the right balance here. President Xi Jinping on Monday during one of our recession here in Davos agenda week, he really was concerned about the new cold war. So, where are you on this, and where do you think the Biden administration will be heading? President Trump's approach to China was deeply destructive. He would create enormous division and created a trade war that really harmed US economy and different sectors of the economy severely. For example, in agriculture, when I was running for president in Iowa, I talked to pork producers and corn producers and ethanol producers, and their number one, two, and three buyers were China. So, when you're at a trade war and your markets are dried up, it really hurts the economy. President Trump didn't have a plan or strategy in place to deal with technology when he wanted to attack TikTok, for example, as a possible Trojan horse. He not only was extremely aggressive, but then as soon as some of his buddies got in on the deal and had an economic incentive to allow TikTok to stay in the United States, he set back. And so, that creates instability and it undermines norms. So, I believe under the Biden administration, there will be a much more thoughtful approach with regard to China. We do need to stand up to China when they break the rules and when they dump steel on the market and do other unfair trade practices. But President Trump spent so much time devaluing and dismissing international organizations, many of them couldn't do their jobs well. The World Trade Organization, for example, did not have President Trump's support. So, under President Biden, he will restore the norms, he will restore the stability of international organizations, and he will be able to address China a little more directly. I think President Biden should look at the entire array of issues where we can get along with China. We should be engaged very aggressively economically. The more we pull them in, the more we create ties, the more we do joint ventures, many of our other values I think will begin to transfer. I think it's important to recognize that China has undermined human rights horribly during the Trump administration. What's happened to the Uyghurs in particular is deeply disturbing with forced sterilizations and other huge humanitarian and human rights abuses. But I do think if we can focus on engagement, we might have more sway in influencing how China sees other issues. If we are stronger partners economically, we may be able to then begin to take on shared national security threats in the world of cyber. We need more global cyber norms, and that might be something we could engage with China on productively. We have to make sure that we respond and understand threats that China is creating, whether it's in their military technology development or in where they send their military assets. But again, the more we are engaged economically, it will incentivize China to be less aggressive because of those ties. I think we need a new approach towards China, one that is clear-eyed and understanding of the types of violations that China often makes. But perhaps if we can engage more thoroughly on these many levels, we will have better responses when it comes to issues like humanitarian issues and defense issues. My suspicion is that there will be firm engagement and lines will be, parameters will be delineated, but I do believe a more robust engagement strategy will result in better outcomes for the world community and for shared goals like climate, like cyber security and new norms, and like anti-terrorism. Thank you, Senator. You heard a representative, Adam, he mentioned also the possibility, or I asked him and then he said he would possibly support a revival of the TPP. Is that something you would support? So I think it is something that President Biden will begin to explore. I think he might want to look at the role the United States could play in creating maybe a new version of TPP. But for a senator from New York, we look at trade agreements typically all senators do based on whether it has a regional positive impact or a regional negative impact. And I did not support the TPP because I didn't think the Obama administration had effectively argued or negotiated provisions to stop corporations from having outsized influences and outcomes where they had disproportionate power to smaller governments and smaller countries with regard to the air and the water and different types of protections that different jurisdictions might put in place. Those are the kinds of things that President Biden and Vice President Harris care deeply about. So I wouldn't be surprised if they reengaged on a new TPP. And I would certainly support their efforts to try to negotiate even stronger protections for workers and protections for environmental regulations across the globe. It is a way that we can project our values. And that's what every president wants to do. So I suspect he will take the opportunity to begin that process. Thank you Senator. Representative Kinsinger, you heard the senator outlay or laying out to be more precise, possible China policy. What's your view on what you said? Do you think that's balancing that you would agree with or would you go tougher or would you trade more? Well look, with all due respect and I think the senator laid out a really good plan. I disagree with parts of it. First off, I think further deeper economic ties with China is exactly the mistake we've made over the last number of decades. We were under this belief that if we brought China into the world community that they would change their ways. And in fact what we saw is they took that for granted, took advantage of it. American companies that go there and get their intellectual property stolen, cyber attacks, cyber intrusion. So I think I look at China slightly differently. But I do think it's not going to be a total decoupling. I think there are going to be areas we have to decouple. There are areas where U.S. and allied national security is basically dominated and controlled by the Chinese government and the Chinese economy. You look at rare earth minerals for instance and things along that line. So I think we have to, as allies, kind of get past the politics of the moment and look at areas where we do have a real concern. The F-35 fighter jet for instance, I don't know what it is, maybe like 800 pounds or something crazy like that are rare earth minerals. And you can imagine what happens if we get into conflict with China and all of a sudden that's a concern. So I think we have to be clear-eyed about it. I think, you know, working with allies for instance on our farmers, right? So I have a huge agricultural district too. My farmers were all in in many cases on fighting China even though it cost them because they understood what was at stake. And I think that's where alliances to say things like if China decides to buy corn from somewhere else, you have to stand with us and refuse to sell them corn for instance so that we can all work together for a more fair policy. And then just lastly, I'll say this. The reality is China has a lot of questions to answer about COVID. A lot of questions about why were they buying up massive amounts of PPE before we knew this virus existed. You know, why was Taiwan ignored in the WHO? Why did Tudros cast the tide vote against declaring this a pandemic? Why are inspectors not allowed to do full inspections? Why have documents been destroyed? And I think that's really important to get to the bottom of because as allies, China is going to come in with probably a lot of free money and incentives when we have hurting economies. And we need to be clear-eyed about what that comes with, the strings it comes with, the debt diplomacy and say, you know, in the long run we've got to stand together. That's why I'm critical to Trump administration on, you know, the kind of blowing up of alliances. But I also do think we need to continue to be clear-eyed about the fact that China's not our friend and they don't intend to be our friend. We engage with them to an extent. We don't seek war with them, but we also have to defend ourselves. So thank you so much. I think we discussed around 35 minutes without really getting into COVID. That was like a COVID-free zone for 35 minutes. But it is a terrible pandemic. We know that a lot of people really, really are badly affected. A lot of people have passed away. I want to go to you, Representative Deutsch again. We all follow also the situation in the US here. We are also faced now with what is called like vaccine nationalism. Countries are now competing to keep their vaccines, get their people also vaccinated. But one of the things that we have seen is COVID anywhere is COVID everywhere. And we have seen that the new strains, the new variants, they come in countries where there is less vaccination. And if there are new variants, maybe the vaccines will not work. And maybe later on, if you have vaccinated all your people, it can come back. So how to, of course, have a domestic policy on vaccination and fighting COVID, but also making sure that this is a global issue. COVID doesn't know any borders. Well, you're exactly right. It's really challenging as we're confronting this to try to deal with this on a country-by-country basis. Because as you point out, this is a global pandemic. This is not just a question of what happens in the United States and the decisions we make here. But that's the reason why it's so important for the United States to re-engage. It's the reason why rejoining the World Health Organization is paramount. It's the reason why the first meeting that the United States participated in with the World Health Organization featured Dr. Fauci, only by working together, only by recognizing the challenges that we face globally, will we be able to overcome this. And that means even looking beyond just the immediate questions of air travel to and from countries and seeing that travel shut down, but ultimately looking out to how to ensure that the vaccines will actually get out to the world. Because we're only going to be in a position to fully crush this virus when we've dealt with it globally. And that gets back actually to a lot of the conversations that we've been having already about how to ensure that we're engaged with other countries and with the private sector to make the vaccine available and make it available everywhere. Thank you. Of course, it's quite amazing that in the less of a year you have developed all these vaccines usually takes eight to 10 years to develop. So that's a major breakthrough. But at the same time, it's very interesting to hear how you think the US have handled this pandemic. So let me go to you, Stephanie Murphy again, from a scale from an A plus to an F, where do you think the US is on handling this pandemic so far? I'm going to be a bit careful here, but it would be very good to hear your own grading of the handling of the pandemic in the US, the largest economy, most powerful nation in the world. Well, let me just say that I used to be a Department of Defense national security specialist, and I did work on pandemics and benchmarked against what are the standard operating procedures when you are trying to deal with a pandemic. I would have to say that I'm going to and also a former college instructor, I would say that we're still at an incomplete as far as a grade. But to date, under the Trump administration, I think there were some very big missteps. And that was the politicization of the pandemic. The virus did not care whether we were Republican, Democrat or independent. It just needed a warm body to inhabit and then spread through and the politicization of the basic health hygiene mechanisms, the low tech mechanisms to keep our communities safe, like masks and hand washing and social distancing, really set the country back because we still have a significant number of Americans who do not believe that COVID is a real thing. They have bought into the idea that it is a conspiracy theory that was created by Democrats, to which I say, well, Democrats must be awfully convincing because we've convinced the entire world that COVID is a reality. And that has actually set us back here in this country because people aren't willing to take the bare minimum measures to keep themselves and their communities safe. Additionally, I think the logistics and the communications around the pandemic has been lacking. The communications has been inconsistent and it has been led by politicians. In a pandemic, the people who should be front and center are health experts and they were often sidelined or forced into situations that were uncomfortable. I believe Dr. Fauci said he often felt like the skunk at a picnic because he wanted to talk about facts and science and the administration wasn't open to that. Additionally, on logistics, trying to take care of a country as large as ours and help deliver testing and contact tracing and now the vaccine distribution, you need to have a robust logistics operation. And quite frankly, the past administration wasn't up to task on that. They promised a lot but didn't quite deliver on those things. And it left it to be a bit of a hunger game situation with the states all competing for resources of PPE and now vaccines. So the good news though is that we now have the Biden administration that has laid out a plan for how it intends to use bonds and it has asked the Congress for the resources to be able to respond and we're working hard on that to ensure that we can get those resources out so that the Biden administration can implement its plan and so that we can put this virus behind us and begin to look towards the things we need to do for an economic recovery and just stop the needless loss of life. Thank you. Senator, it was called even a hoax bluff in the beginning of the pandemic. Do you think there are many million Americans that still think this is not for real? First question. And the second one, when we watched what unfolded the sixth of January, I think we were really, really not believing what we're seeing. I guess the four of you were at the Capitol that day too and no law enforcement is following up on this. How long will it take to build a more inclusive and you will see a less America that is less polarized? Will it take decades or do you think this can heal much faster than we can anticipate? If you look back at history, it has been also this kind of polarization before. We should not forget that and you know that much better than we do, but how do you feel? Because you're a lot out with also your constituents. Yes, so January 6th was deeply disturbing. It was frightening for the members of Congress that we're there trying to complete our elections and finalize the electoral college vote, but the anger and the violence that the protesters and rioters brought to the Congress and brought to our place of governing was pretty severe and disturbing. The hatred and anger is still present throughout the country. Unfortunately, President Trump does bear responsibility. He did incite that crowd to insurrection. He did tell them to march on Congress and his statements in the weeks preceding really left it open to people thinking they had to take this into their own hands, which would lead many of them to believe that the president meant violently. So we will do our impeachment trial in the Senate. We will address that in the next couple of weeks, and we will have transparency and accountability. But your broader question, how long does it take to heal? President Biden said he wants to heal the soul of America. He ran as a healing candidate, one who wanted to bring the country together. And I have every faith he will use his position as president to do exactly that. But I believe to start healing, we need transparency. We need accountability. We need justice. Those are the kinds of things that people need to see because they need to understand does the Constitution not matter anymore? Do our laws mean anything? And the way you do that is certainly holding the rioters accountable individually. But you also need to hold accountable the news services that aren't news that are opinion, that we need oversight and accountability over ultra right-wing conservative media that doesn't tell people that what they're saying is opinion and not fact. We need oversight over the social media platforms. There was insufficient regulation oversight and accountability for these various online groups and online organizing platforms that were selling and distributing lies, saying that the election had been stolen, creating groups to create insurrection and create a response that was violent. We have to do our job in Washington to create more accountability. But I am a person of faith and I am a Christian and I believe that our job is to love one another as ourselves, to treat each other as we want to be treated. That is the golden rule and that is part of our Judeo-Christian heritage in this country. And we've lost sight of that. We've lost sight of the notion that we should care for the least among us, that we should care for the people who are homeless in poverty, hungry immigrants, people who are incarcerated. Those are divisive issues in Washington, but they shouldn't be. They should be common ground. And I think if we start focusing on helping the least among us, listening to one another, finding where the fear and anxiety lies and trying to create security there instead is how you will heal this nation. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to do that now because we do not want a violent future. And I think we can. And that's what I try to do in my state. When I was first elected in 2006, I was elected to a two-to-one Republican district. All my mayors and town supervisors were Republican. And so I always listened. And that's why I always try to start legislation with Democrats and Republicans at the table together to write it from the beginning. I think it's the best way to govern. It's how President Biden wants to govern. And then just last, you mentioned your first question was about COVID and that people don't know it's dangerous. Again, that starts with accountability on the social media platforms, on the news media platforms. And it also starts with our government. And one of the ideas that I've put forward is for a global One Health and Spillover Surveillance Act as an initiative to create a working group between all of the agencies that are responsible. It's akin to the 9-11 report that we called for after 9-11 because there was so much siloing of national security information. Well, that siloing still exists when it came to global health information and to stopping something like a pandemic. So we need to coordinate amongst our government and our agencies and bring together expertise to make recommendations to Congress so that we can avoid this kind of pandemic in the future. And part of that has to deal with facts and making sure that facts are given the credibility and the weight that they used to get and have not gotten under the Trump administration. And so that is part of our responsibility to address this pandemic right now and to begin to heal the country. Thank you so much. Moving over to you, Adam, I heard said the golden rule. How long will this polarization last? Is it possible to heal? I guess you might even in the future be telling your grandchildren how you voted, also on the impeachment piece. You said that was a question of integrity and moral for you. So also very interesting to hear your reading of this. Yeah, look, I mean that that was the easiest vote I've ever taken, honestly. And I don't mean it was easy, like I didn't care. It was an easy decision. It's tough vote, easy decision. And you know, I think that's part of healing and moving forward and saying something's not okay. When it comes to the pandemic, I mean, look, I predicted actually in March that masks would become political because everything is and it did. I didn't know I'd be right, but I was. And that's like, you know, this idea that we will never wear a mask because it's oppression, but it's also, you know, if I'm outside by myself alone and somebody yells at me for not having a mask on, that's silly too. We just need to do common sense things. The big problem is social media. We have allowed ourselves to be radicalized because we are outperforming the human brain now in information. So the platforms in essence that are feeding us information are outperforming our ability to think rationally. We're going from seeing news for one hour a day to about 12 hours a day. We're allowing ourselves to see the other side as the enemy and not, you know, strategic competitors within the political system. And so I think part of it is yes, leaders have to tell the truth for sure. My party bears all the responsibility for January 6th. The president does. But we also need to have told the truth and I called out QAnon for instance a year ago and people said, you shouldn't be giving them attention. I said, I think we're already too late. We have to be open and honest with that. We have to be compassionate to the people that have fallen prey and understand that that's like deprogramming them, you know, from a call and show them the truth, show them information. And I think we need to be realistic about what the goals are. You know, you'll never have real like unity in this country. I think we can be unified as Americans. But like the Republican Party, for instance, instead of trying to unify with the Democrats, because we have big differences, but it should go back to being the loyal opposition. We will be, we will be true to our conservative beliefs and oppose where we must, but we're also going to be loyal to America above all else. I for instance, you know, serve for six years, I guess under President Obama. I never once said a bad word about him when I was overseas, because to me, first off, that doesn't help if I tell somebody, it just makes us look bad. If we can get back to that and then see each other as humans that have different opinions, we'll be all right. And I'm more optimistic that it won't take decades. It may be a rough few years, but we'll get there. No, I know you have a distinguished army background. Were you in the Congress the 6th of January yourself? I was, and I was on the floor at the very kind of beginning of when they broke the barricades. I went to my office and I'll tell you, it was one heck of a day. You know, I took my gun to work actually, which I usually carry a pistol wherever I go, except onto the Capitol complex, because there's so many police. But I kind of had predicted violence for weeks before that. So, you know, at one point I was barricaded in my office and for about 20 minutes when we didn't know exactly the extent of the breach, I thought I may have to defend myself. That is not a feeling that the United States of America should have. And as much as I condemned, for instance, the riots in the summer, there is no comparison between the riots in the summer and an attack on a branch of democracy that underpins whether or not we can actually govern ourselves or not. And so, to me, it was a very tragic day. But I think in the long run, the story will be positive, which is democracy even in the face of this held. Well, thank you so much for sharing that. Stephanie, your connection is a bit shaky. So, if you, I'll come back to you after Ted, but if you can look into it. I was thinking, Congressman Deutsch, after also hearing now what Adam said about social media, can democracy survive social media the way we see it today without any more restrictions? It's a really important question, Borgen. I appreciate it. But I just like to take a moment and expand the conversation. This is the World Economic Forum, and we're American legislators, and so I'm happy to talk about what's happening in America. But let's remember that we're having this conversation as Uyghurs in China continue to be put into camps, as Navalny sits in prison, as Maduro runs Venezuela, and I could go on and on. The rise of authoritarianism, the threats to democracy globally, globally, did not start in the United States, did not happen as a result of the pandemic. These are challenges that we must face together globally. And I, and even after we talked before about the global nature of the pandemic, but the pandemic of authoritarianism is what we're going to be battling and the fight for democracy and human rights and free expression and the role of a free press. That's what's going to be front and center for years to come. I think it's going to be the most defining issue that all of us tackle around the globe in the coming decade. And social media, to your point, social media is a part of that. And there is responsibility that comes with the decisions that for-profit companies make about what they're going to allow on their platforms. That's a conversation that has started in this country that has gone a little further in other countries and that this Congress, I believe, will take up in a very serious way. This is not just a question of certain voices and whether or not we deem something censorship or not. This is about how companies, platforms are used to advance voices that pose threats to the very democracy that we celebrate and ought to celebrate and that we will be defending, as I said, for weeks and months and years to come, both here and around the world. Thank you so much for sharing that, Ted. And I think the fact that we have one senator and three representatives from the Congress here discussing for an hour so deep, also quite complicated issue in a free way, of course, speaks to democracy in the U.S. But I think also the expectations for and from the U.S. is very high globally. Let me then, since we only have three minutes left and the we're a Swiss organization, so we should be on Swiss time and end on time. Let's hope your connection is better, Stephanie. We are looking at a lot of also new threats. I mentioned also, of course, dealing with social media, but we know cyber is very much out there, attribution, how to react, but also we see that terrorism is still there. We also have asymmetric conflicts. We see that countries use also proxies in attacking each other. So very complex security picture. How do you think the Biden administration will reform the military and the U.S. to be better prepared for the new realities? Thank you so much for coming back. I apologize about the technology here. But I do think that there are a lot of challenges that we can take on, but we're not going to just get the solutions from government. We're going to also have to rely on industry to help us approach that wide range of challenges that you laid out. And I think of my community in Florida is a great example of places in America that represent the kind of innovation and American can do it that will help us address these problems. And a really great example is that we have two places in Central Florida, one that is an area that supports national security. It works on modeling simulation technology and cyber, and it has universities in that location. It has private companies there. It has government, military branches all working together to address these issues. And then a little further south in our district, we have an area called Lake Nona, and they are becoming a hub for health sciences. The places where you solve problems like vaccines or pandemics, they have incredible technology, and they're bringing together communities, education, the sciences, and just the innovation. From the government perspective, what we can do is to ensure that they have a level playing field on the global stage and set the stage so that we can unleash American innovation and work with our allies to address these big issues, set good international standards for how we work together, and how we can ensure that the technology and products that come out of democracy-loving countries are the ones that dominate, especially at a time when we see authoritarian countries trying to push their products and their values through their products all across the world. And I will wrap up where we started, which is to say this has been a great session, and I found myself agreeing with Adam on a wide range of things, whether that's the United States re-looking TPP as a way to counter China or the problems of radicalization within our country and the need to address that so that we can call out the problems here and move forward to brighter America, living into our American values. And so I'm ending optimistic. I'm optimistic about government's role, the private sector's role, our ability to work with our allies, our ability to work with our colleagues in Congress to get things done for this new century that, while it presents a lot of challenges, also offers a lot of opportunities. Well, thank you so much. I would also say that the U.S. is very privileged to have leaders like yourself. I think we're all been very impressed with the answers. The U.S. is in good hands. We hope for a little bit more of the golden rule. We hope of a little bit less partnership. We hope for a little bit more of cooperation. But I would like to thank you so much for being with us for a full hour answering all the questions. World Economic Forum is very proud to have hosted you. So thank you so much and have a great weekend, hoping to seeing you soon and in the real doubles next year.