Ledyard King

The News-Press

WASHINGTON — Florida Sen. Marco Rubio ran for president in 2016 and declared he would not run for re-election last year if he did not win the White House.

But three months after losing a bruising Florida primary contest to Donald Trump, the Republican from West Miami reversed course, and won a second six–year term, and returning to Capitol Hill in January.

Over the past year, he was at the center of key issues debated on Capitol Hill: tax reform, pediatric cancer cures, the Russia investigation and a retooled Cuba policy, among them.

Rubio sat down with reporters to discuss the past year, including his relationship with Trump. The following has been lightly edited:

Q: You expressed a lot of frustration with being a senator to the point that you had not planned to seek re-election in 2016. You don't seem as frustrated now.

A: For someone who a year and half ago wasn’t sure he was going to run for re-election, I’m glad I did. We’ve probably gotten more done in the past 10, 11 months than we did or could have in the first six years, and I think that’s a function of three things: one, being in the majority; two, having a Republican president; and, three, six years of experience learning a little bit more how the process works.

More:Marco Rubio, who was ready to leave the Senate a year ago, finds his stride in 2017

More:Tax bill drama: Rubio threatens a 'no' vote, Lee a maybe unless child credit is expanded

More:Senate passes bill to improve cancer drugs for children

More:Sen. Marco Rubio guiding President's Trump Cuba policy to be unveiled Friday

Q: You traded insults with Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign. What's it been like working with him now?

A: A campaign is a campaign and governing is something else. I’ve said less than stellar things about Democrats, too, and once the election’s over, we have to govern. We can’t live in a cycle of perpetual campaigning. By and large, it’s been a good working relationship. I don’t agree with him on everything. I never said I did. And I shouldn’t pretend that I do.

Q: Some examples?

A: My ability to work with him on Venezuela and Cuba was phenomenal. We had some disagreements on elements of tax reform. On the Child Tax Credit, Ivanka was very supportive. There were other people on the economic team that were not. And we had to work through that.

Q: You voted for the tax bill after winning a key concession on the Child Tax Credit. Your view of the overall bill the president just signed into law?

A: If I were king for a day, this tax bill would have looked different. I thought we probably went too far on (helping) corporations. By and large, you’re going to see a lot of these multinationals buy back shares to drive up the price. Some of them will be forced, because they’re sitting on historic levels of cash, to pay out dividends to shareholders. That isn’t going to create dramatic economic growth. (But) there’s a lot of things in the bill that I have supported for a long time (such as) doubling the Child Tax Credit. And it is better – significantly better – than the current code.

Q: Was the Child Tax Credit a tough sell to your own party?

A: I had numerous people in the think tank world, and the donor world and even in the member world who said to me, "This is welfare. It’s for people who don’t pay taxes." So, we had to spend a lot of time educating people on the reality about the Child Tax Credit. It isn’t welfare. It’s directly tied to work. You can’t get it if you don’t have a tax return. You can’t get it if you don’t have earned income.

Q: Polls show most Americans didn’t support the tax bill. Are you worried this will hurt Republicans in 2018?

A: (People’s) opinion today is based on what they’ve read and what they’ve been told it does. But if I’m against the tax bill because I don’t think it’ll actually cut my taxes and I get my first paycheck in February and it has $200 in there that didn’t used to be there, I’m going to notice that. By the time we get to November of next year, their opinion about the tax bill is not going to be based on media coverage. It’s going to be based on what their paycheck is telling them.

Q: What do you want to see happen with the program that protects young undocumented immigrants known as “Dreamers” whose protection from deportation ends in March?

A: I can tell you what I don’t want to see happen — hundreds of thousands of young people who have made America their home basically their entire lives in many cases suddenly lose their jobs, lose their licenses, lose their businesses and potentially be deported.

Q: You think both parties can come together on this?

A: It’s unrealistic to think you’re going to get 60 votes in the Senate and a majority of the House and a presidential signature on a permanent change to the immigration status of hundreds of thousands of people and not pair that up with permanent changes in enforcement. And the obsessive opposition to anything that involves enforcement by those on the left is beyond me. Even if there weren’t a single Dreamer in the United States, we should still be doing these things.

Q: There are increasing accusations from some in your party that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump associates colluded with Russia in the 2016 election is tainted and should end. You agree?

A: From his reputation and everything I know about him, I remain convinced that when this is all said and done, Mueller is going to only pursue things that are true and he will do it in a fair and balanced way. I think the best thing that can happen for the president, for the country and for everyone is that he be allowed to complete his investigation as thoroughly and as completely as possible and that we allow the facts from that investigation to lead where they may.