 Good afternoon, everyone. I am Zanni Minton-Bettos from The Economist, and I am here to welcome you to this hour-long conversation of the view from Capitol Hill. And I must warn you before we start that I have, I think, an impossible task. Trying to moderate in one hour a panel with six senators and one U.S. congressman, I think it's just literally impossible. I've been wondering what is the collective noun for this august group, and I can't think of one. A herd of cats, possibly. But, gentlemen, thank you and Senator Debra Fischer, thank you for joining us. This is really an extraordinary bunch of people who individually are themselves able to make a huge difference in what America's Congress does. And, you know, we couldn't be here at a more important time. I'm sure you heard President Volodymyr Zelensky this morning, and then the other voices from Ukraine just a couple of days ago, President Biden signed a $40 billion eight package for Ukraine. It was a remarkably speedy bipartisan passage. And for this to happen at a time when most of the headlines one hears about the United States are that this is an era of great partisanship and polarization was an extraordinary achievement. So I would like to start with that. But there are other things. You know, where is the U.S. going on climate change? What will happen after the midterms? It's no secret that the general expectation is that one and possibly both chambers of Congress may change leadership. So we've got a lot to talk about. I would ask you to keep your responses relatively brief. And I'm going to try and introduce you in ranking order. I made the mistake in the green room of asking what is the ranking order? And I'm afraid I was far more ignorant than I realized. So I hope I get this right. Senator Leahy, leader of the Senate delegation to Davos, president pro temp of the Senate, which means that Senator Leahy is third in line to the presidency and he is chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Welcome. Secondly, Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Thirdly, Senator Roger Wicker, the senator from Mississippi and the ranking member of the Commerce Committee. Senator Joe Manchin here on my left, your right, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. And then Congressman Gregory Meeks, congressman from New York, the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Chris Coons, where you sent, there's Senator Chris Coons, Senator from Delaware, chairman of the subcommittee that funds the Foreign Assistance and the State Department. But perhaps more importantly, as you will see, Chancellor Schultz's doppelganger, very clearly. And last but absolutely not least, Senator Deborah Fisher, who is the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. So thank you all. Welcome to all of you. And I wanted to start, Senator Leahy, keeping protocol with you. And you've been in the Senate, I believe, 48 years. In your 48 years, have you seen a foreign aid package to a country at war be passed in this way? How unprecedented is Ukraine? And what explains the bipartisanship of the support, and will it last? Well, thank you. From the time I came to the Senate, until at least recently, we've tried to make foreign aid things in a bipartisan way. As bipartisanship itself has diminished in the Senate, that's been more and more difficult. But this one for Ukraine was extraordinary. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I was talking with everybody, but I found that everybody else was, Republicans and Democrats, were all saying the same thing. How do we move this? How do we move this quickly? And we did. And you know, as President Portem, I have to sign the bill before it goes to the president. I can't think of a time when I was more proud to sign a bill than that. But I was able to tell the president we came together. And we came together and we added some things in there. Senator Coons and others had recommended aid in hunger. I'll let him describe that. But these additions from both Republicans and Democrats, it felt a lot different than it has the last few years in the Senate. Which is wonderful. Senator Menendez, were you also surprised at how this came together? And do you think this bipartisan support will last because almost certainly there will need, if the war continues, there will need to be another Ukraine support package? No, I don't, I'm not surprised on this particular case because Ukraine is more than just a battle for Ukrainians, although in the first instance it is. Ukraine is about whether or not might the international order that we created after World War II is going to survive. And it really is, as I say to many foreign leaders when I travel abroad or back at home, the question of the day Ukraine is the epicenter of it is what type of world do you want to live in? Do you want to live in a world where you are minded or where you ultimately cannot choose, who governs you, how you worship, who you love, how you make your enterprise? Or do you want to live in a world where all those things are largely extinguished? So freedom is at the heart of Ukraine for Ukrainians and for the world. So I think this is going to continue to exist. It will be a challenge because even in the United States $40 billion is a lot of money. But I know that that won't be the end of what Ukraine will need, whether in direct defensive assistance and of course in reconstruction. But I do believe that that bipartisan support will continue. Senator Wicker, 11 Republican senators voted against this and I believe 57 Republican congressmen did. So there is a, you know, not so small in the house contingent of Republicans who are not in favor of this. Is it, is there a risk that as the midterms get closer that that increases? And secondly, if control of one or both chambers changes after the midterms, should the rest of the world think there might be a change in congressional attitudes to Ukraine? No, I don't think, I think the answer to your question is no, they should not worry about that. Before World War II, there was a relatively strong group of America firsters led by patriots like Charles Lindbergh. They just looked at the world differently and they were very, very much opposed to us preparing to get into World War II. I think that certainly has diminished, but there's that element there. And I think there's some voices on cable TV that have amplified that view. And so that was reflected in the 11 no votes in the U.S. Senate and the 40 or so in the U.S. House. The reason we were able to approve this vast sum of $40 billion is because we were representing public opinion in the United States. The reason we were able to do it so fast is that we kept other extraneous, though important, issues away from the bill. And the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, made it clear that we would supply enough votes to get this done if we remove other issues that were going to take time. More COVID relief is important. There are a number of domestic needs that could have ordinarily been put in a supplemental bill, but it was done speedily because it was only about Ukraine and we reflected public opinion. I think when the 40 billion or when Ukraine comes back as we know they will, the next tranche will have to be done because we have led in public opinion and shown as our previous speakers have said how important it is. Senator Fisher, you wanted to jump in there. If I could speak to the issue of bipartisanship. You have three members of the Senate Armed Services Committee here. Senator Wicker, Senator Manchin and myself. And the Senate Armed Services Committee in the House as well, we pass every single year a national authorization, a National Defense Authorization Bill, every single year for 60 some years. We're not good at messaging that and we need to be because it does show when it comes to national defense, national security, we are able to work together as a committee, but also as the Senate and the House to be able to address our national defense and our national security. So I wanted to come back to that because I think one of the interesting questions is to what degree the war in Ukraine permanently changes the national security outlook. But first, Senator Coons, I wanted to ask you about it is true that there is currently bipartisan public support for Ukraine, tremendous public support. Are you confident that in a world of high inflation, cost of living hits, all of those things that that support will last? It's certainly something that in Europe worries people. No, that worries me. I think it worries all of us. As long as the Ukrainian people continue to fight so bravely and so fiercely, as long as Russia continues its brutality and the commission of war crimes, there will be plenty of reason for us to be engaged and concerned and supportive. But you're right that the average constituent, not just in my state or our states, but also in the West is likely to be as concerned or more concerned about the rising price of groceries or gas or health care or other issues about the return of growth in the economy. We still have not finished with this pandemic and it may in the fall come back. We still have not really resolved energy security, although it is now reshaped by this conflict. I think Putin is counting on the West to lose focus. And I think that is our real challenge is to ensure we're providing enough support for Ukraine that they can make real gains on the battlefield soon and get to some negotiation that is obviously Ukrainian led. Ukraine should be making a decision about how this resolves as President Duda of Poland said yesterday. But I am concerned about the focus. President Biden is currently in the Indo-Pacific meeting with heads of state of the Quad because there are other issues that are shaping both the response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine and that we have not yet resolved around both climate change, the pandemic and other issues. We'll come to those two, I hope. Congressman Meeks, you've just left Moldova, I believe, and you've been visiting other European allies of the United States. Do you think the world trusts that the sustainability of this scale of US support? Well, I think they do. I think that what they see now, and that's the reason why you see Senate delegations as well as House delegations traveling Europe going over the place so that we can show that we are together and we are focused on it, and that we are united. One of the things that is important, you know, I travel, we, as you said, we just was in Moldova. We were in Poland. We're going to Finland. But we're doing it in a bipartisan way because we want folks to see that we are united. And as a Congress too, I know that a lot of folks are listening to our domestic politics. But we want to show that this is important for Ukraine and important for the world. Because when you talk about, and I think Senator Coons just mentioned it, you know, when you talk about what Russia is doing currently at the part of Odessa, which is preventing food, wheat, and grains from getting out, we could have a huge starvation issue on the continent of Africa, for example, and throughout and at causing the inflation. So we go out, we listen, and the last thing that we do is it shows that America and we are in a bipartisan listening to them. So we're not just talking and telling them, we're listening to our allies, what their needs are, their concerns are, so that we can try to work collectively together to make sure that Putin is not successful, and we defeat him, we bring Ukraine back, and then we move forward with energy resources and, you know, climate is a big issue, and we can make a change together. So that's the message that we're sending. So you've all spoken with one voice on this, and it's very powerful, but just to be absolutely clear before we move on to a different topic, if there is, and judging by the scale of needs that Ukraine has, it is likely that another support package will be needed later in the year, either before the midterms or just after. Are you all confident that that would pass? Anybody not? No, I'm just going to say something. Yeah, go ahead, Senator. I just wanted to make sure that Senator Leahy, you put your hand up. I just want to be very clear that this is a very distinguished group of congressmen and senators to be able to tell the world that you are utterly confident there would be another support package would be a powerful message. I'm confident for one major thing. All of us have read the history books of what happened World War II, Stalin going after Finland, and so on. But that's reading the history books. The difference today is the media, and some of them have lost their lives in the media in covering this. They've gotten such a clear picture to the whole world, the atrocities of families being machine gunned on the street, hospital schools being bombed. This has made everybody realize I want to let the others speak, but I'll give you one one example. You look at Finland. Finland always stayed out of NATO. The public opinion polls were against joining NATO. Once the images of what's happened in Ukraine came out, the public opinion turned overnight. And Finland now wants to join NATO. I think that the public opinion in the United States is turned overnight. And I'm hoping that it will bring about in our country at least Republicans and Democrats working together with a strong purpose. Thank you. Senator Manchin, you are on many counts one of the most pivotal people, if not the most pivotal person in the Senate. What is your take on the likelihood of sustained support for Ukraine? And then I wanted to follow on by asking you about the rest of the president's agenda, where this doesn't seem to be the case, this bipartisan support. Let me speak about Ukraine first. What Putin, Putin's war on Ukraine and Ukraine's determination resolve in the sacrifices they've made for the cause of freedom has united the whole world. But it's united us as Senate and Congress. I think like nothing I've seen in my lifetime, I think we're totally committed to supporting Ukraine in every way possible. As long as we have the rest of NATO and the free world helping, I think we're all in this together. And I am totally committed as one person to seeing Ukraine to the end with a win, not basically resolving in some type of a treaty. I don't think that is where we are and where we should be. Can I just follow up and ask you what you mean by a win for Ukraine? I mean, basically moving Putin back to Russia and hopefully getting rid of Putin. So moving back to the book, moving back to pre-February or out of all of Ukraine in Turkey? I think Ukraine is determined to take their country back. And also getting rid of Putin, you said? Well, that's going to be the Russian people do that. This is Putin's war. It's not Russia's war. I see. I see. Thirty second intervention before Joe gets into the domestic agenda. Yes. The American public reserves the right to change their mind. And we've seen this happen. I think over time there was less support for our involvement in Afghanistan, less support for our involvement in Iraq. Some of the Republican opposition was because there was a concern that in as in previous conflicts, the money won't be spent efficiently and well. There were some people who were arguing for adding an amendment that would have had to go back to the house to make sure there was an inspector general that could watch over every dollar of the spending. So I think there'll be there will continue to be support if the American people feel like the money is being spent wisely and efficiently. And if it seems that we're getting somewhere in advancing the American agenda, I agree with him 100 percent that we have to show the confidence, reliability and efficiency to affect this bit of transparency that basically the American public not only expects, but they demand and they should. And that's our position. So I think what Roger has said there is absolutely true. But I'm just speaking as one senator. Basically, I believe strongly that I have never seen and what people I talk strategically have never seen an opportunity more than this to do what needs to be done in Ukraine has the determination to do it. We should have the commitment to support. So I'm saying yes. Let me just add to what Senator Wicker said. Also, I think the American people know once upon a time, there was a question, you know, when you came and talked about Europe, whether everybody was going to participate, you know, they were saying some were saying, well, NATO was not paying enough paying their fair share. But in this, we see everybody coming together. Everybody's making a contribution. Everybody is doing what they have to to make sure that Ukraine does win. You see countries, you know, that we're stronger together than ever. Not unity, I think, resonates with the American people also. So they don't think that we're out there by ourselves. We're with our other allies who believe in democracy and makes it for a better tomorrow. And I think that message also helps keep us together. And I think that we'll resonate with the American people to keep them together. That's a very important point, Congressman, but it begs, I think another question, which is there's a very, very strong transatlantic alliance, transatlantic unity on this. But in other parts of the world, there is, you know, countries are staying neutral or indeed not not backing the US and Europe. I think it's two thirds of the world live in countries that did not support sanctions on Russia. So Senator Coons, one of the things that got cut out of the bill was the covid support. Is there a sense in which and the food crisis, I think, is another which is going to really hit people in the rest of the world? Is it important for the United States to broaden the coalition of support beyond the very important transatlantic alliance? Yes, I think it's important for all of the countries that are concerned about the outcome of this conflict in Ukraine to also engage in addressing the other issues. There's a hundred million displaced people in the world, the highest number ever in history. The UNHCR just said the covid pandemic, we may be done with it, but it's not done with us and there's a real chance that there will be another variant and we are on the verge of being able to fund and deploy the next generation mRNA vaccines that are being worked on now by Moderna and Pfizer. The five billion for overseas covid assistance got wrapped up in other issues and as Senator Wicker said correctly, Senator Schumer, Senator McConnell, there was an agreement in the Senate to move the aid to Ukraine quickly and then return to the question of the global covid relief. There are other countries, India, South Africa, Indonesia, many that are sort of looking at where does this play out and asking what is their role in the future and is this work about respecting sovereignty and rule of law? Is it a fight of democracies versus authoritarianism and we need to be mindful of how they see the treatment of Ukrainian refugees versus refugees from other parts of the world? How quickly we've come together to address Ukrainian hunger as opposed to hunger in other parts of the world? The United States is the single largest donor for covid relief and for hunger relief to the world food program and elsewhere, but we need to sustain that engagement and broaden it if we want to bring the rest of the world on board to this work against Russia's aggression. Senator Fisher, let me turn to you there because both agriculture, which I know is a very subject very close to you. Do you think enough is being done there and how much do you worry about the global food crisis? Nebraska's fully understand the importance of agriculture. We help to feed the world just as Ukraine does. We know the importance not just of being able to feed the world and move the products that we have, but also the effect it has in the economy. What we see with Ukraine now is they have the product. It can't be moved. That's going to ripple down and have a negative effect on their economy as well. This is a case where I think every country should be involved because this is going to be a worldwide problem if we see famine and let's be clear. This is Putin's famine if it happens. We have to be clear about that, but we also need to see countries from around the world, not just NATO, not just Europe. We need to include China, for example. Every country needs to step forward and make an effort here to try and address what would be a worldwide problem of famine, but also the possibility of destabilization, not just in those countries, but also worldwide. Thank you. I want to get on to the next slide. I have a couple more on Ukraine and the aftermath thereof. What for you is victory in this? What does the relationship with Russia look like, assuming Putin is still in power? Well, I think in the first instance, victory is how Ukrainians determine victory. It is their country that has been violated. It is their country that has suffered war crimes. And so in the first instance, Ukrainians have to be the ones to lead the way as to what victory is. Now, having spoken to several of our Ukrainian counterparts who are here and in Washington when they visited with us, I think their vision of victory is pushing back Putin and the Russians out of their country, and certainly from when they started in February. But the one thing that I will not cede to Ukraine, although I think we are in common cause in this, is the prosecution of war crimes. War crimes are something that are universal, and they need to be prosecuted. And so in the course of this conflict, when it ends in victory for Ukraine, I think the Ukrainians are going to want to prosecute those war crimes. But if not, we need to prosecute those war crimes. Here, here. Because we need to send a global message, this is beyond even Putin or Ukraine, a global message that in fact you cannot violate the international order, that you cannot use force as a way to change the map of Europe or any other place in the world, and that when you do that and you do that and commit war crimes, there will be serious consequences for it. Can I just ask you, maybe you, Senator? How does the United States do that, given its position vis-à-vis the International Criminal Court? Well, I'm not sure that we don't need a new Nuremberg-like tribunal in this particular case, that ultimately prosecutes the war crimes that have been committed here. But whether through such a provision of a new tribunal specifically focused on this, or for those who do participate in the International Criminal Court, the world has to make a very clear and concise message, powerful one, that you cannot commit war crimes with impunity and get away with it. Otherwise, authoritarians in other places of the world will do exactly that. Senator Ahe, how would the U.S. do this, if it's not? Well, I totally agree with what Senator Menendez said, and you note that the Russian soldier that was captured, brought to trial, is basically admitted guilt. I worry that Russia, claiming some Ukrainian purpose, humanitarian purpose in bringing the Ukrainians that were under siege in the factory out, may be holding them as hostages, knowing that they're going to face war crimes. This, what we have seen, and again, I cannot praise the international press and those who put themselves at risk, I mean, your publication, everybody else has talked about this, what they have shown, everybody knows these are war crimes, and if they're allowed to go unpunished, then history will repeat itself. We must, we must make a stand, we must make it clear now, the world must say these war crimes will be punished. Senator Wicker, could I just ask you as one of the Republican members of this panel, I mean, there have been times in the past when your Republican colleagues have been less than keen on the international criminal court. You know, how do you see this? Do you see it as much of a priority as your colleagues, and will the U.S. be front and center of making this happen? I think Bob Menendez said it correctly, the forum really doesn't matter, but the world criminal court has jurisdiction over this and can be used, and I would be comfortable with that. We don't have to be a signatory party to that, but again, I do believe that the chairman has an alternative idea that has some merit. The important thing is that the decision makers be prosecuted. I'm not quarreling with this foot soldier being the first prosecution, but clearly it is Putin, his oligarchs and his generals that bear the brunt of inflicting this wound on the world that we really thought was 70 years in the past. Thank you. We've only got 20 minutes left, so reluctantly I'm going to switch to other domestic priorities. And Senator Manchin, I'm going to turn to you because you are, for obvious reasons, absolutely central to any progress being made on President Biden's domestic agenda. Question one, do you think any other legislation, meaningful legislation will get passed before the midterms? Well, first of all, we'll look at what we've been able to accomplish so far, which has been tremendous, and in a bipartisan way. Everyone overlooks that, thinking we haven't done anything. President Biden has had more success than most any president in the first term, and we should agree to that. Next of all, yes, I do. I believe there's an opportunity. There's a responsibility and opportunity that we can do something. First of all, inflation is harming every person in America. Everyone's filling it hard. It's inflicting pain on the world. So we should be looking at getting our financial house in order, paying down our debt. We should be looking at also our drug pricing. There's no reason in the world why we can't negotiate for Medicare having better pricing, and also for different types of medicines, especially whether it be for diabetes and things of this sort that they need for insulin, that that should be something that's life-saving and very affordable. Those things can be done, and we know that. Next of all, the third thing is going to be energy and climate, and you can't do one without the other. The United States of America has an abundant supply of natural gas and oil, and we can use our fossil and the cleanest technology humanly possible to make sure that we are reliable, we have reliability, and we have security. If you have that, then we're going to be able to replace some of the more pollutant energy in the world and help backfill all of EU, if you will. Natural gas, we have our platforms that we're talking about, and that is something that we're developing, but also we have the ability to go down two paths, a path of investing in some of the technology that's going to be needed for the transition that will happen. But eliminating one and for the other one, that's the European model that Germany followed, it wasn't successful. We should not repeat that. The United States has the ability to be an energy leader and also a supporter of our allies around the world that are having problems right now. So just to be clear, to those people outside the United States who worry that the ambitious climate agenda of the president hasn't really gone very far, you're saying that there will be... We have done an awful lot, and that's not cracked, what we have done already. And the bipartisan infrastructure bill, that's more than it's ever been done. And we have so much more that we can do. But you can't do it by abandoning the fossil industry that gives us the ability to have reliability and security, not just for our nation, but what the world is needing today, all of our allies and friends, you can't abandon that. And right now, we have a little bit of a discussion going on of which way this is going to go. But if we're going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars investing in a new technology that's going to be needed for the transition of a carbon-free or carbon-less environment and an energy sector, then you have to be able to make sure that can intersect and take care of this. You can't replace one until you have something to replace it with. Senator Coons, how do you see this, and particularly put it into the changing geostrategic environment? I mean, the transformation in Europe's energy supply mix that's underway now is extraordinarily dramatic. Is it, and I'll just radically oversimplify, but is the U.S. going to become a major gas exporter to Europe? And hence, what does that mean for the climate transition? So two things, if I could. The example that Chairman Manchin was citing, the German example, was that they went away from nuclear before they had an alternative to over-reliance on Russian gas. There was a lot of concern expressed, a lot of criticism about that over-reliance on gas. And because of Russia's aggression in Ukraine, that's now exposed the German economy. There's other countries in Europe that are making significant strides, both in the green economy transition and in pledging to get off of Russian gas and oil. But we have to use American resources to be available as an alternative energy source because of the geostrategic situation we're in. If we're going to also make the transition to producing many more electric vehicles, to producing green hydrogen through electrolysis, we have to be attentive to the United States not also being vulnerable by lacking the critical and strategic minerals required for that. So if there's certain minerals, you know, whether it's cobalt or it's copper or it's other critical minerals for the production of clean energy that are not currently mined and processed in the United States or in North America or in friendly countries, we're also going down the same kind of path Germany did. So Senator Manchin has been talking with a bipartisan group about isn't there a path forward on strategic minerals? So I think he's proposing coming forward with a broader strategic vision around our energy future in response to this moment, and I'm hopeful we can make real progress on that. If I can follow up on that, the North American continent has the ability to be the energy juggernaut of the world if we have Canada, United States, and Mexico with the amount of critical minerals that we have deposits in those three countries on one continent working together seamlessly, we will absolutely reduce our dependency on Asia, on China right now who does 80% of the processing has a total control on most of Monopoly, if you will, on the critical elements that we need. We can't move into electric vehicle and being dependent on foreign supply chains. The United States, that's not who we are, it's not how we became who we are. So we're looking at this, putting it together to be able to do something that hasn't been done and hopefully give this security and also the confidence that we're there. We're all in this. We've been talking to the EU. We've been talking to their energy people. They need our LNG. We have six platforms working now. We got two more. We're able to get up and replace what Russia has taken off the table. And Russia, Putin has weaponized energy. And I'm concerned that China could do the same with critical elements of minerals. Senator Menendez. Senator Menendez, I agree that we have an emergency of the moment. We have a crisis in Europe and elsewhere in terms of energy needs as a result of the war in Ukraine. But it is my hope that we do not, in the midst of the crisis, forget the opportunity that exists to move to a greener energy economy with a type of energy that we don't have to depend on any country for, wind, solar, electric vehicles, biomass, and of course the essential minerals that my friend Senator Manchin talks about. Those are all critical elements of making sure that we have a planet that is sustainable for all the aspirations that we have. So yes, we have an emergency of the moment. We have a challenge to meet. We need to meet that. But that doesn't mean that we can keep our eye on the prize, which is to ultimately meet the challenge of global climate change and the economic opportunities that that unlocks in terms of finding these new renewable energy sources that are cleaner and that will preserve the environment. But Senator, isn't one of the elements of that having a clear and predictable regulatory environment? And that doesn't seem at the moment in renewables to be the case in the United States. And actually many renewables companies are in quite a lot of trouble because of policy decisions from this administration. So I guess from the rest of the world's perspective, the US is a little bit all over the place on this. Well, I think there's there's several things. You know, first of all, we talk about this administration as if it's been there forever. It's been there for about 15 months, 16 months or so. So let's recognize that. And it comes into office in the midst of a tremendous uproar in our own country in the midst of a once in a century pandemic that had to be dealt with and ultimately meets that challenge not only for the United States but helps lead the world. So it has been a little preoccupied. And then, of course, we have the challenge of Russia and Ukraine. But I believe the administration is focused on a pathway to make sure that we both help lead in the world and cooperate in the world towards an energy future that doesn't end up realizing the video we saw at the beginning of this conference. If we do not change our permitting process, we will not be able to change and transition into a cleaner technology and a cleaner environment and be self-reliant. We can't do it. The average permitting process in the United States of America averages around 10 years. Around the world, it's basically two years. Unless we're determined and our environmental community becomes our partners and we work together, it's not going to happen in America. I can assure you because we cannot be stopped. We want something and we want someone else to do all the dirty work for us. We've got to be self-reliant and we've got to do it better and cleaner than any place in the world. But we've got to accelerate the permitting process. Senator Leahy, how do you view this? You have the benefit of more experience than everybody else here. Do you think that the environment is such that the kinds of acceleration that Senator Manchin is talking about are possible? Well, I think we have to face up to the problems right within our own country. I mean, look at the forest fires and the drought and very, very significant parts of our country, places where a lot of agriculture, people, so on. It's just the pictures you see on the news of large water reservoirs now down 50, 100, 150 feet. That doesn't come back. But it also tells us that we have to look at all the rest of the world where this is happening. I think you're going to find the future if we don't face up to this. Wars will be fought not over oil or minerals. Wars will be fought over water. And that is something that I don't think the world is truly prepared for. The drought and starvation and the pressures militarily, economically, politically, be caused by that. So if we don't face up to the fact that we have a real climate challenge, I mean, everybody will talk about it. Nowhere near enough is being done. But do you? Yes, go ahead. I do want to get a word in here as a Republican. Central Menendez is right that we do have a temporary crisis that is going to require us to use more fossil fuel than the administration initially projected and hoped to do. But the first day in office for President Joe Biden, he shut down the Keystone XL pipeline, which basically brought crude down to the refineries in a more efficient manner. We're still using the crude. We're still doing the refining. It just costs more, and it takes longer now to get it down to New Orleans and the Mid-South by truck. The president, in spite of the fact that countries in Europe are having to go back to coal, they're having to adjust to what is happening, he continues to shut down domestic production. Just within the last few days, the president cut off permits for some more drilling, and I think that will be a major factor in the huge spike we've seen in fuel inflation in the United States, and I think it's going to be a factor in the midterm elections. Thank you. We're getting a sense of the rich diversity of opinion in the United States Senate, which is great. I wanted to then continue with you, Senator Wicker, because I think one thing we'll all be asking ourselves is if one or both chambers switch leadership after November, what's actually going to change? Well, for one thing, I think it's likely to change, if for no other reason than history, in all of your elections, the president's party generally loses seats. If he loses one seat in the Senate, it changes. I think the border is an issue. I think people still remember the disaster in Afghanistan. But if Republicans win the House and the Senate, there will be a protection for the 2017 tax cuts. In the United States Senate, the consensus-building 60-vote requirement of the filibuster will be protected for the next two years. And it's something all of us have spoken in favor of over time. There'll be more pressure for more defense-building and less pressure on increased domestic spending, and there'll be more emphasis on lifting the burden on job creators. So there will be those changes in the United States Senate. If, as expected, we win the majority. Now, I think we're likely to win, but we can lose it if we try, and we've proved that before. If I could say something on the finances. The financial cuts of 2017 was the only thing that every Democrat agreed was weighted unfairly, right, wrong, or indifferent. That was our impression. There's a couple of ways that you can make adjustments. You can make it because you want to expand programs so we need more money. That's not going to work. You make it because it's punishing, because we think somebody at the top of the ladder got more advantages than the people that are struggling to come up. What we need is a competitive tax code that spins off enough of us for us in the United States to take care of ourselves, pay down our debt, and live within our means. You can't do that with the existing tax code we have unless you slash everything to the bone. So what we're saying is making it competitive. And hopefully my Republican friends, if we're able to do that, would look at it in a very positive situation that we're moving in the right direction. We're paying down debt. We're dedicating revenue to debt. And we're getting our financial house in order. Minton, you've just heard it. If Democrats continue in government, they're likely to chip away at the most successful tax cut the United States has ever seen. By the outtake of 30 seconds, it brought investment back from Europe to the United States, and revenues increased. And right before the pandemic, our economy was roaring under the 217... Senator, I'm going to cut you off here because this is getting... This is... We're moving... It's good, but we're moving from an interesting insight for the rest of the world of what things are like to a party political broadcast on both sides. So yes, Senator Menendez. Well, your question was what will change? First of all, I don't see that my Republican friends will have the majority in both houses. I think the Supreme Court's potential decision on Roe versus Wade, which is about women's reproductive rights, may be a dramatic change, at least in the Senate election. So that's number one. Number two, I do worry. I do worry. My colleagues here are not part of that caucus, but I do worry that in the Republican Party, there are very strong voices of isolationism. And if anything, we have learned in Ukraine, in COVID, as it relates to global climate change, we cannot hermetically seal the United States off from the rest of the world. And so I concern to what degree that isolationist trend ultimately becomes a majority and makes it more difficult to pass the type of legislation and the engagement that we are now leading in the world once again. As someone who spent the previous four years talking to our allies around the world who felt that our closest allies had their fingers stuck in their eye and that some of our, like Putin, some of the persons that we should have considered our biggest adversaries were warmed up to, I am concerned about that. And I give the President enormous credit for bringing the world together in the most significant coalition to lead the sanctions effort on Russia, which sanctions generally has not been a European appetite. Thank you. Representative Meeks, you've been very patient. And you asked me a question earlier about whether or not our allies trust us. And one of the questions when we say that we're back at the table, what they always ask is for how long? What will happen? They fear that if things change, if the vote change, that we will have the isolationists back in control and we will not be part of the global structure in the way that we are. And that's a huge issue. And I know people talk about inflation is going to be an issue in this election. Well, it's as if the inflation was caused by Joe Biden, when in fact there's inflation all over the world. And if you look as every place that I've traveled, yes, we have 8% inflation in the United States. But most places elsewhere is in double digits or greater, some 10, 15, I was just left in Laudable, they have 30% inflation. So this is not something that was caused the economy of damage by Joe Biden. It is a worldwide incident where you talk about recovering from COVID, where you talk about recovering dealing with the Putin's war. So this is not, and if you look at jobs and others and unemployment then in the United States it has improved on the Joe Biden. Senator Coons briefly and then Senator Fischer. I'll just say that on this stage that question, how much can you count on us? I'll express a real appreciation for the Republicans who are with us on the stage and the Democrats who are here on this stage. Senator McConnell led a delegation to Kiev and really worked hard in his caucus to ensure the votes for the $40 billion package. Speaker Pelosi also led a delegation. It's my hope there will be a bipartisan delegation. The larger point is that there are leaders in both parties that recognize the urgency of our sustained support for Ukraine. And I'll close by saying I think the best thing that President Biden did in leading our engagement and our response was to closely consult with our allies first to lead in alliance and in partnership with our European partners. And I think that's what produced some unprecedented action. The Swiss have not imposed a whole lot of banking sanctions in the past. The Swedes really sat out the Second World War and have been actively engaged. The welcoming of Finland and Sweden into NATO. This is collective action, but it is an important example of both President Biden's leadership, but also the Republicans and Democrats in Congress pulling together. I would like to say that bipartisanship is still an opportunity for all of us. It's lasting. Any time we do something by ourselves, it doesn't last. When we do it together and these are all of our friends we work very closely with. Well, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I'd just like to hear from Senator Fischer so we have another Republican voice. What do you think is going to change after November if control of that? I think the audience has had a really good look into politics in the United States. I believe you've heard about the concern and also the very positive attitude that those of us on the stage and the majority believe in the national defense, national security, which I think solidifies our place as a world leader because we understand the importance of a strong United States and strong leadership to be able to have a more secure and safe world. Now, when we get to other issues you saw some disagreements and that's what we have every single day in a 50-50 Senate. I think what we'll see change will be a focus by my conference on addressing the needs that I hear back home, which is inflation, which is the cost of gas, the cost of food, what it's costing people on fixed income where investments aren't seeing the returns that they did, where there's concerns about the security of our southern border, where there's still people who bring up Afghanistan and watching the United States withdraw from that, which I believe was a tipping point in public opinion towards the administration. All of that crime, all of those things are going to have a play in the election that we have for the midterms this year and you will watch it play out as we do as well. Senator, thank you. Yes, to you, Senator Leahy, the very last brief word. One thing to keep in mind no matter what the elections are, Joe Biden will still be president and let me say this as the longest-serving member of either the House or the Senate. I can look at and have an optimistic view or pessimistic view of the future. I will leave in January, but I have an optimistic view. Well, I can't think of a better place to end. Thank you all very much indeed.