It's hard to concentrate when you're worried about your health. It can feel like there's a wall between you and the rest of the world. Like you can't be fully present. Hello, AXA Health. How can I help? At AXA Health Insurance, we build our teams with people who care. So when you need us, we're here to support you. For cover that cares, search AXA Health Insurance. Pre-existing conditions are not covered. Ugh, can't sleep. Why tonight? I really don't need this. Did I have too much coffee? Shouldn't have scrolled so late. Can I pay that bill? My neighbours are so noisy. Did that email work? Is that Russian money? Too hot, too hot, too hot. At Boots, we know poor sleep rarely has one root cause. Which is why we can help find a solution that's right for you. From advice to products, speak to us to find out how we can turn sleepless nights into a good night's sleep. Boots with you for life. Hey, everybody, it's me, Sam Stein, managing out of the Bork. And we are back with Senator Chris Coons of Delaware. It's been too long, Senator, since you've been on the airways here. So thank you for coming back. I forget what it was we were talking about last time, but so much stuff happens that honestly, it's, you know... Every day is a huge hit. Trump 2.0. I mean, it's... I'd forgotten under Biden, I'd forgotten the experience of, oh crap, you know, that seems to happen to me four times a day. Yeah, no, that's fair enough. It keeps it interesting to say the least. We're recording this on Friday afternoon. It's like 3.30. So we've had a couple of weeks now of incredible chaotic war, bloody war in Iran. This week brought about a ceasefire, but it's not entirely clear that the ceasefire is ceasing fire. What is your sense of where negotiations talks with the Iranians stand? You sit on the Foreign Relations Committee. I don't think they're telling you much from what I can gather, but do you have any insight into what we can expect as the U.S. side talks in Pakistan with the Iranians? Look, I'll just start by saying I think it is a positive that there are any conversations going on that there is some effort at finding an off-ramp. Both in private and classified briefings and in private communications and in public, the administration has done a disjointed, even chaotic job of explaining and defending this war. We're 42 days into it. We've spent as a nation more than $50 billion. We've lost 13 service members who died defending our country and more than 300 who have been wounded some severely. And yet from the launch of this war to today, I can't tell you what the core goals are, so that when Trump says we've already won or Secretary Hegzeff does the modern equivalent of mission accomplished, is it regime change? Hasn't happened. We've got Ayatollah 2.0, the angrier, more extreme sun of the late 80s cancer-ridden Ayatollah. We've got, yes, fewer ballistic missile launchers and ballistic missiles, but they've still got enough that they're launching them all the time at our bases and our embassies and our allies and partners. They've got thousands of drones left. Sinked their Navy? Yeah, lots of their formal Navy has been sunk, but the IRGC still has thousands of light attack boats. And their principal goal, which is to survive the Iranian regime, has been bolstered by finally demonstrating that they can shut the Strait of Hormuz and get the whole world's attention. So they've got equally as powerful, perhaps, as a nuclear weapon in terms of a threat now, the ability to turn on and turn off the Strait of Hormuz. Have we secured or identified where all the hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium are? I don't think we've made any real progress on that. Whether they're buried underneath this Fahan or have been distributed throughout the country, we don't know. We don't have a better or clearer path towards preventing Iran now radicalized by this war going farther along that path. And then last, one of the justifications given for the war was ending their ability to protect power in the region. And while it's true that Hamas and Hezbollah have been dramatically weakened, the Iraqi militias who are influenced by and supported by Iran have been very active. And the Houthis, another one of their key proxies in the area, seem to have woken up and demonstrated their ability to put real pressure on the Red Sea. So here we are 42 days in, more than $50 billion worth of munitions spent and active military action by the United States, partners and allies in the region. And I don't see there were any better off. The average Delorens paying over $4 a gallon for gas now. And we've got real threats and real challenges that are, in many ways, more complicated than they were before. But I want to home in on the ceasefire for a second. Because there was a 10 point plan that was floated. There was a statement from Pakistani officials that there was some agreement. Well, literally, have you seen a single piece of paper that actually describes? Not a single piece of paper, not a summarization from the administration or the State Department, nothing from Raqqa Rehabilis. I said, this is the condition. Okay. One of the components of the proposed ceasefire that was floated out there in the ether, I guess it's not on paper, is that all these conditions will be met by the Iranians or some conditions by the Iranians in exchange for sanctions relief. Is it your understanding that the administration can unilaterally apply sanctions relief to the Iranians? My recollection, Sam, is that there are some sanctions that are unilaterally waivable by the administration and some that are statutory and mandatory and that require congressional action. Look, bluntly, right before Trump launched the full-scale assault on Iran, I actually expected him at the last minute to say, aha, I have a deal that is better, deeper, broader, whatever, than Obama's Iran deal that I tore up. But that would, frankly, look awfully similar. It would trade sanctions relief for getting IAEA inspectors back into Iran for downblending and constraining their enriched uranium stockpile and maybe some constraints on ballistic missiles or maybe some constraints on their proxies in the region. And I think that may be where this ends up, if there is a productive negotiation and there actually is a ceasefire. Oh, 100% where it ends up. I mean, the broad contras of that 10-point plan actually look more favorable to the Iranians than the GCPOA. What kind of, I guess, people who would look at this and say, well, Congress is not some just sort of secondary branch, although it feels like it, to be honest, no offense. But there are roles that Congress should be able to play and some oversight that Congress should be able to play in this process. One of them is, of course, just supplementing money for the military. So the budget request was $1.5 million. Trillion. Or defense... Trillion. Sorry, not billion, trillion. Thank you for the catch. It's been reported that there's a $98 billion supplemental request just for Iran. What's the appetite on the Hill for this type of cash? I think in my caucus, very limited for several reasons. One is, if this were to be used as a backdoor way to authorize the war, to point to our appropriations and say, well, they've appropriated the money for it, so they've implicitly authorized it. Look, War Article 1, and we have the constitutional role and responsibility of authorizing war. They did not come to us for an authorization of the use of military force. They did not meaningfully come to us before launching this war. And so I think there's real opposition in my caucus to a supplemental that could be construed that way. In terms of replenishing our supplies of advanced munitions, you know, Patriot interceptors, for example, something that we need and something that we've used a huge number of, I think there may be some willingness to do that after the administration comes forward with some accounting for what the hell they've done with the hundreds of billions of dollars in reconciliation money they got last year. There's all this fanciful golden dome stuff and lots of one year acquisition. And so, you know, they, the Republican majority appropriated a massive slush fund for the Pentagon last year that they have never fully accounted for. So I think before you would see any of us supporting a supplemental to, you know, replenish our stockpiles, we demand seeing that. And frankly, I think the likelihood that we'll do any supplemental while this war is ongoing is very small. It's an interesting point about how that can serve as a de facto authorization for the war. I hadn't thought about it that way. Obviously, there's an appetite for your colleagues on the Democratic side of the ledger to actually have an authorization vote on the war and it's been tabled on various points. Will we ever get to a place you think where we'll have a just sort of a straight up and down vote? Do you authorize what's happening in Iran? Yes, I do think that both Senator Kaine, who's really made the war powers act and war powers resolutions an area of focus and good for him, he's managed to get us to actually, you know, legally deauthorize the, what is it, 2001 and 2004, I think, AOMFs. That were long used to authorize all sorts of other military activities. That is a privileged resolution, which is a nerdy way of saying it gets a vote. And even though we're in the minority when filed, it gets a vote. And so I've been talking to a number of colleagues about how do we directly show disapproval of ongoing military action and show pressure towards a diplomatic resolution. Senator Schumer also has a mechanism that he intends to pursue in the coming week that will move in that direction. So there's lots of moving parts, but I do think we should be on the record and we should have every member of Congress voting up or down whether they supported this military action. And now the backdrop of this, I mean, not the backdrop, it's part of this, is that Donald Trump has spent the past couple of weeks very critical of NATO for not forcefully supporting this war in Iran. Never mind that he launched it without consultation or that he's throwing Greenland, putting that aside if you can. The NATO Secretary General, Mark Ruta, came to America to talk with Trump. It was a long talk, it was over two hours. And then he went on TV a couple of times to talk about that talk. And I was struck, and I don't know if you were struck by the way that the Secretary General talked about NATO itself. I mean, this is the man who's in charge of running NATO and he was openly critical of certain, he didn't name him, NATO State, saying they failed on their mission. I couldn't quite comprehend that someone who's leading this entity would be that openly critical when NATO itself has been targeted by Trump. I don't know if you share my interpretation of Mark Ruta's comments. Everyone assumes that he's doing this because he needs to curry favor with Trump and keep the alliance intact and it may be so. But at some point is he going too far in being critical of his own entity? That's a fair question, Sam. And look, one of the things that's been stunning to me is Trump's ability to achieve something really significant and then dump all over it at the same time. So just this is just within his political calculus, within his political world, he ran in 2016 on like modernizing NAFTA, like, you know, scrapping and updating NAFTA. And then in his first term, he actually got it done. I'm Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Democratic majority, worked with President Trump and they got the USMCA, which is the today Canada, US, Mexico trade agreement. And almost the first week that Trump became president the second time, he's threatening to make Canada the 51st state and trashing the trade deal. What idiot negotiated this? What a horrible trade deal. It's like, I don't know, maybe you. Well, the same thing's happening with Iran where he's like, all these presidents have let it get to this place. And it's like, well, you were, you were president. The relevance to the NATO point. I am going to bring this back. The relevance to the NATO point. So he can play and complain, complain, right? Free loaders, you know, they're not pulling their way. And he scares the living daylights out of them and Ruta pulls them all together. And I was there for the summit in the Netherlands. All of NATO came to the table and said, okay, we are gravely concerned about Putin and Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine. We are gravely concerned about our shared security. And they stepped forward and committed to three and a half percent of GDP based military spending 5% total in support of collective defense and paying the entire tab for all the munitions for Ukraine. And they're doing it. I mean, we're talking hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of additional spending and the largest economies in Europe, you know, Germany and Italy and France and the UK. I mean, they are making major investments. We were already at the point where the Baltic States and Poland Poland, excuse me, we're at 3% of GDP, but getting these other big economies at that level is really something. So why on earth would he not say NATO? Thank you for stepping up. Thank you for picking up hundreds of billions of dollars of slack. You're my great and trusted partners and allies. Oh, and by the way, we just pulled all of our American minesweepers out of the Persian Gulf right before I started this war. And the only people who've got minesweepers are let's guess NATO allies in Europe. So instead of berating them, attacking them, minimizing them, threatening to take Greenland and crazy crap like that, threatening to use tariffs to bring them to their knees, just a little bit of recognition of what they've already done. I think could have produced a positive outcome here. This is where Trump's like madman, you know, you never know what he's going to do yet. Next, I think overperforms. Most of NATO is profoundly alarmed at Trump's obeisance to Putin. I mean, you know, he invites Putin to Alaska, rolls out the red carpet, hugs the guy. You know, this war criminal who's carrying out this horrific war of aggression in Europe. He acts like, oh, we're best buds. You know, all I got to do is hug you and you're going to stop killing civilians. And he dresses down Zelensky in a shocking and appalling way. You don't have any cards yet because you just took them away. I'll never let you in the NATO. And yet the next day after the Alaska summit with Putin, Putin's launching missiles and drones at civilian targets in Ukraine, basically saying to Trump, are you looking at me? And Trump this week is going to decide whether to extend the sanctions relief for Russia. Trump's war against Iran means that Russia is making more money now than they were before. The Iranians are making more money now than they were before. I think that Ruta is desperately doing his level best to hold the NATO alliance together. Is he overperforming in, you know, calling Trump his daddy? These are pretty desperate moments. And there are a good number of NATO allies who are convinced that the foundation of our alliance, the trust that they should have in the United States as the guarantor of their security, is inevitably fading. I mean, just look at Mark Carney, Prime Minister Carney's speech at a major summit in Europe earlier this year about how the middle powers Rearranging in. Inter-NATO members need to begin for a future. So you're saying that the job requires a certain amount of debasing oneself and being vaguely critical of NATO states for not being, you know, supportive of enough of Trump. And you just have to suck it up because ultimately the goal is keep the alliance. I think ultimately the goal is keep the alliance, but there's two other observations I'll make. One, I led a statement with Senator McConnell and so the payers, you know, Senator Reid and McConnell, we have a whole group of us say NATO is the most important security tree that we've ever been a part of. And Trump continues to say and do just appalling things. His Easter Sunday tweet, his truth social statement about, you know, erasing Iran civilization. Yeah, he's acting in ways that are way outside the boundaries of, you know, any normal state. And so what we've seen in the other countries who've either gone on bended knee and given him, you know, gold gifts or stood up to him in the terror fights. The countries that have stood up to him have done better than the ones that came on bended knee. So I think NATO needs to do both everything they possibly can to keep the alliance strong and together. And we in Congress have a role in that and begin to demonstrate some independence. You need to come open the straighter for moves. The UK held a conference didn't invite us and kind of said, here's what we are willing to do, but we're not going to come bail you out right now. And so I do think they're hitting the right balance. I'm going to talk about another alliance, which is the US Israel Alliance, because clearly as I mean, look, I haven't been around as I'm around for 20 years. So it's not that long, but I've never seen these two countries work off of different scripts like this, at least openly. Now, I think the Trump administration is still outwardly friendly and towards Israel and obviously a deep alliance there. But you can tell behind the scenes are frustrated with some of the stuff that any of us done. Putting that aside, Democrats are even more frustrated and you can see it everywhere. And so I just sort of a general question. I want to ask, I want you to summarize the state of the Democratic Party's posture towards Israel. What would you say? I'd say that there is a profound disgust and distrust with the Netanyahu government and with what in particular Smotritch and Ben Gavir and his cabinet are doing with the sort of creeping annexation of the West Bank by supporting settler violence with the horrific humanitarian crisis in Gaza that while it is less awful than it was months ago, really has not been fully addressed or resolved. And bluntly to the point you just made about the Trump administration, when the Netanyahu government struck Qatar and attempted to kill the negotiators who were trying to negotiate the ceasefire with Hamas, that's when I think Trump finally lost all patience for it. And there was some stepping back by Netanyahu. Hold on. And yet this seems to be a tactic that has happened again. I mean, the Iranian negotiators were targeted during the negotiations. I don't understand. Maybe I'm naive, but why would you target the negotiators in these high stake diplomatic moments? Doesn't that just absolutely put an end to the possibility of any diplomatic offer? Maybe that is the goal, right? Look, I think Netanyahu's core objective is regime change in Iran and whether that is by breaking it into domestic chaos and civil war, or there is an actual change to some more friendly regime, I'm not sure that he cares. And for the United States and for our Gulf regional allies, having Iran just collapse into internal domestic turmoil and produce millions of refugees and a series of sort of warlords who keep, you know, plinking away at, you know, Qatar and UAE and Saudi, like, that's a really bad outcome. So even though Trump is claiming there's been regime change, no, there hasn't. There's been a regime succession. You know, Ayatollah one, Ayatollah two, but the IRGC is still firmly in control of the country. I think it was a despicable thing to say help is on the way and then do nothing and watch tens of thousands of Iranian protesters be machine. Is it, I just can say it's yes, I agree we've done nothing in the aggregate, but there was a weird, there's a weird little aside that Trump let out of his mouth where he said we had sent arms, I think, presumably to the Kurds, but that they just kept it to themselves, and they didn't do anything with it. And I don't, I have no idea anything more beyond that. Maybe you have some insight into what that was. None that I can share. What the, the hamfisted attempt at trying to use the Kurds as a wedge into Iran, I think was not well conceived or executed. And, and bluntly, you know, one of the things that that happened when doge, you know, sort of tore through USA ID and the State Department and some of the entities, you know, like Voice of America, we lost a lot of critical capacity and staff career folks in the State Department and the Center for Global Media who were capable of communicating with Iranian people who had a lot of experience in how do you support resistance movements or uprisings or political opposition. We sort of gave away a lot of that capacity by shutting down. Had not thought about that, had not thought about that angle at all, but it's definitely worth exploring. What have we known for years are the tools that Iran could and might well use if we launched a full on regime change effort, cyber attacks, cyber attacks on the United States and terrorism through sleeper cells and a core group of the most experienced counter Iranian counter terrorism and cyber folks were dismissed just before this war started because they were also FBI agents or national security officials who had been involved in some way in investigating Trump previously. Yeah, I remember that one that was ill conceived before planning. It did give me flashback to them in the first term getting rid of the pandemic preparedness office right before COVID. That was not a good time. Before we get to domestic matters, just I was watching, I think it was P. Buttigieg this morning on CNBC and they were sort of talking about, you know, they were going back and forth and one of the questions that was confounding everyone on the panel is like, what's the offer? Like how do we get out of this? You know, gas is at insane levels over $4 a gallon oils back over 100. You know, we're looking at like long term economic consequences, even the rosy scenario where months of elevated prices, which is going to have add on effects and inflation. And like, we're all trying to figure out what do we do to get out of this now. And I, and I don't think they had a good answer on the panel and I don't know if there is a good answer. Just a simple observation. Don't renewables look better now. All those massive wind projects that were permitted and underway that Trump canceled or cut, you know, countries in the world that have got robust solar and wind and geothermal and their own resources that are not part of the world market are benefiting and those that have abandoned them or failed are really suffering. Small point, but a real one. I think I think Trump's war of choice against Iran has created a new problem, which is that Iran is asserting control over the Strait of Hormuz. And they've got now a chip that is really going to be hard to get out of their hands. And they've still got the enriched uranium stockpile that even though they may not be able to turn it into a deliverable nuclear weapon, they can certainly turn into a dirty bomb. And they've demonstrated that they have the ability to keep launching Shahed drones by the hundreds nearly indefinitely. So we are in a spot that means a negotiated ceasefire and peace deal may be the only way forward. The challenge is that's going to leave a lot on the table. That had we simply gotten to this point without this war, we might have gotten a better deal. Yeah, I mean, you didn't offer a really great offer him to be. But I was like, there is one like I don't think the negotiated the negotiated settlement is the is the obvious one, but it requires us to sort of acknowledge that this was done in Folly or that the JCPOI probably was fine. The other off ramp is take the aircraft carriers and the Marines and the 82nd Airborne and go in hard and try to seize control of the Strait, seize control of Card Island. We will have thousands of American casualties. I don't think that's happening. A brutal slog. And on the other side of it. Yeah, you might be able to squeeze off the funding for the regime. You might now have new leverage against China. You know, our Gulf allies might feel somehow reassured that we were willing to put American blood and treasure at risk again in the Middle East. But I think the odds of that becoming a disastrous quagmire are high. Pretty high. All right, switching domestic. So you're on the judiciary committee. Never a dull moment there. We have, I guess, not opening because Todd Blanche is currently occupying it, but Attorney General Pambandi was let go and presumably at some point in time, Donald Trump will nominate another attorney general for the post. A lot has changed since Pambandi was confirmed. There was, I look back, there's only one Democratic Senator who voted for us, John Fetterman. But I am kind of curious, you know, your colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle and you talked to them presumably. Do you think they're thinking about the next Attorney General has changed too knowing that Trump is just openly viewing the Justice Department as sort of a cog in his political machinery, if not a defense department for himself. So it is stunning, Sam, that Pambandi in her confirmation hearing kept saying no, no, no, the era of retribution is over. We are going to depoliticize the you didn't believe it though, right? I didn't believe it. That's why I voted. But we now have clear evidence that Trump pushed and pushed and pushed for her to direct and demand the investigation and prosecution of his perceived political enemies. Two federal grand juries refused to indict charges that has almost never happened. You know, the saying a federal prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich through a grand jury. It's very rare. Now Trump is going to be pushing for someone even more aggressive and loyal. And I hope and pray that several of my Republican colleagues, knowing that Trump isn't ever going to be on the ballot again, and that this will end badly for them. We'll look at it and say, you know what? No, no, I'm not voting for this Attorney General. I am not hopeful, but I am prayerful that they'll just happened. And you know, look, Tom Tellis still serves with me on the judiciary committee. Good point. Good point. I was questioning in the oversight hearing of Christie Knome. Like, I thought Sheldon Whitehouse and I asked really tough, really hard questions. Then it gets all the way down to Tom Tellis and he says, and about your dog. I thought, wow. I forgot about that. He took real umbrage over the dog. If you're thinking about holding your job, the people of North Carolina, here's a list like never got the FEMA aid they deserve. So he started with a legitimate constituent issue. And then you just hammered and hammered and hammered. I am hoping that Senator Tellis will similarly say I'm not voting for anyone who has a direct directive from the president to prosecute his political enemies. But I don't know if he will. And there's nobody else on that side. Well, come to think of it, that's, you know, he's held up the Ken Warsh nomination because of the retribution campaign against Powell. So there is some, you know, that and he has obviously a sauce buffer in felines that were killed by, you know, or dogs are killed by. So they got two types of people that they can't nominate here. And in all honesty, can you even fathom someone that Trump might put forward for this post that you would find, you know, is there anything that person could even say to him? A person could even say to assuage you at this point. It's hard. Look, there is a possibility that he'll nominate a sitting senator, the former Missouri Attorney General. And I think part of the calculus in nominating Mark Wayne Mullen was that historically, any senator who gets nominated for a cabinet position gets confirmed because Right. And it's collegial and we've gotten to know them. We've worked together. The horror of ice and and CBP misconduct in Minneapolis and the murder of Alex Pretty and Renee Good and the refusal to deliver concrete changes to ice and CBP standards was so significant that, you know, even those of us who who know and have worked with Mark Wayne Mullen, we're not willing to give him a pass. Yeah, I suspect you'll see exactly the same thing with the AG nominee, even if it's Eric Schmidt or someone else who we all know and have worked with, maybe a former senator. I like Lee. Yeah, I mean, likely. Right. Wow. Do you follow. Do you follow Mike Lee's tour to feed by any chance? Do you see what's happening? I don't. I don't. Just take a dip. Take a dip in those waters one day and report back to us. Okay. Last question because this one occurred to me, but it would come through judiciary. What do you put the odds on for a Supreme Court retirement? I mean, look, this in all honesty, if you're being real politic about it, they could lose the Senate that would close the window. Elito has had, I guess, some health episode at a fed society dinner and he's getting up their age. Thomas is up their age. If you had to put the odds, what would you think here? 7030. I mean, it would fit the pattern that we've seen previously under President Trump where they jammed through a last minute Supreme Court nomination. Trump is very proud of his role in reshaping the Supreme Court, although sometimes sometimes. He was going after Amy Garmie Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, which is stunning. I also bluntly think Trump's going to need something else to distract from Epstein. Now that the First Lady has marched out to a podium and demanded public hearings from Epstein victims and saying, I'm not an Epstein victim. What did you make of that? That was a bit of an odd one. It's stunning, stunning because of two things. First, you know, she's calling for more hearings with the Epstein victims. Epstein's victims do not need to be re victimized. Pam Bondi needs to testify about how she badly mishandled the redactions and the and the disclosures. And how she frankly has been acting to cover Donald Trump and his circle of, you know, Epstein class friends. And I think the most important thing about Melania Trump's press conference at the White House was what she didn't say. She did not say, and I'm confident my husband engaged in no wrongdoing. I didn't know Epstein or Glane Maxwell and neither did he. I didn't have any relationship with them and neither did he. She didn't say that. She instead said, we need to have more hearings and then we'll know the truth. Powerful men need to be held accountable. I thought that was pretty stunning that it was apparently unknown to the president that his wife was about to go out and make those statements that they didn't consult that he wasn't standing there. And she made no positive reference to him. I thought that was stunning. It was a little bit odd. Just so people understand, they had to consult on some of them, right? Like they literally used a part of the White House for the for the statement. You can't just show up and have a lectern there without coordinating. But then no one asked, hey, what is this about? Like, what are you going to be talking about? At some point, something was lost in communication or deliberately withheld in communication. Unless I missed it, there was no immediate, you know, President Donald J. Trump endorses this message and calls for him. This is the guy who's been saying the whole thing is a Democrat hoax the whole time. Well, apparently, there's not believe it's a cop. There. Okay. All right. So we got a bit to look forward to as you're saying, potentially, Bondi getting hauled back up. I know the house wants to do it. Potentially a almost assuredly another AG nominee confirmation, potentially a Supreme Court confirmation hearing some resolution at some point to what's happening in Iran. It's a lot. You got a lot of heavy. A lot. I'm looking forward to tonight. Artemis Splashdown. Artemis. I have seen the Americans and Canadians that advances our sense of, you know, our role in the in the heavens and space exploration. I don't know about you, but I'm of an age where watching the Apollo moon landings as a little kid was genuinely inspiring. And I was struck that the president couldn't restrain himself and like actually have a few days of positive news. He instead, you know, had to threaten to wipe out a civilization. While the astronauts were trying to have a pretty shining moment of unity looking back at the earth. Well, maybe they're looking for another civilization and they want off this ride. All right. Senator Coons, thank you so much for doing this. Really appreciate it. Thanks. And for those who watched us, I appreciate doing that. Subscribe to our feed. We get great conversations like this. Really informal, but informative conversations with sitting senators. Only the bulwark. Thanks, Senator.
