senator, thank you for joining us. this is really an extraordinary bunch of people who individually are themselves, able to make a huge difference. we couldn't be here at a more important time. i'm sure you heard president volodymyr zelenskyy. a couple of days ago president biden signed a $40 billion aid package for ukraine. it was a remarkably seedy bipartisan package. for this to happen in a time when most of the headlines were here although this was partisanship and polarization was an extraordinary achievement. i would like to start with that, but there were other things. where does the u.s. go on climate change, what happens after the midterms, there is no secret that the expectation is both members of congress may change leadership. i would ask you to keep your responses relatively brief and i am going to try to introduce you -- i made the mistake in the greenroom about asking what is the ranking order and i was far more ignorant than i realized. senator leahy, leader of the senate delegation, pro tem of the -- he is third in line to the presidency and chairman of the appropriations committee, welcome. senator robert menendez, chairman of the foreign relations committee. senator roger wicker, senator from mississippi and the raking member of commerce committee. senator joe manchin on my left, you're right. senator of the natural resource committee, and then congressman gregory meeks. chairman of the house foreign relations committee. senator chris coons, where are you senator, senator from delaware, chairman of the subcommittee. perhaps more importantly, as you will see, chancellor schultz is here. 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. i want to start with senator lahey, you have been in the senate i believe 48 years. in year 48 years, have you seen a foreign aid package to a country with war be passed in this way? how unprecedented is ukraine, and what explains the bipartisan support and will it last? sen. leahy: thank you. from the time i came to the senate, until recently, we have tried to coordinate things in a bipartisan way. as bipartisanship itself has diminished in the senate, it has been more and more difficult. but this one, for ukraine, was extraordinary. chairman of the appropriations committee, i found that everybody else was, republicans and democrats, were saying the same thing, how do we move this quickly, and we did. and as president pro tem i have to sign the bill before it goes to their president, i can think of a time 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 had some things in there, senator coons and others recommended to end hunger. these additions from both republicans and democrats were a lot different than it has been in the last few years of senate. zanny: senator menendez, were you surprised at how this came together, and do you think the bipartisan support will last, because if the war continues, there will need to be another ukrainian support package. sen. menendez: i am not surprised on this particular case because ukraine is more than just a battle for ukrainians. ukraine is about whether or not might makes right and force becomes the order of the day, or whether or not we will live in a world in which 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 traveled 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 where you alternately cannot choose who -- ultimately cannot choose who governs you, who you love, how you make your enterprise, or do you want to live in a world where all those things are largely extinguished? freedom is at the heart of it for ukraine in the world. i think this will 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 won't be the end of what ukraine will need, whether a direct offensive assistance and reconstruction, but i do believe the bipartisanship will continue. zanny: senator wicker, 11 republican senators voted against this and 57 republican congressman did, so it there is a contingent republicans not in favor of it. is there risk as the midterms get closer that that increases? and secondly, if control of one or both chambers changes after the midterm, should the rest of the world think there might be a change in congressional efforts to ukraine? sen. wicker: i think the answer 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. i just -- they looked at the world differently and they were very much opposed to us preparing to get into world war ii. i think that has diminished, but there is the element there, and i think there are some voices on cable tv that have amplified that view 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 fast some of $40 billion is because we represent a 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. in the republican leaders, senator mcconnell, made it clear that we would supply enough votes to get this done if we removed other issues that were going to take time. more covid relief is important, there are a number of domestic leads that couldn't ordinary be put in a supplemental bill but it was done 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 will have to be done because we have led in public opinion and shown as our previous speakers have said that it is. >> if i could speak to the issue of bipartisanship, the members of the senate armed force services committee, senator wicker, senator manchin and myself, and the armed services committee in the house as well we pass, every single year, a national authorization, a national authorization, and national defense authorization bill every single year for 60 something years. we are 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 in our national security. zanny: i want to come back to that because one of the interesting questions is to what degree the worn ukraine permanently changes the national security outlet. the first, senator coons, i wanted to ask you, is it true there are currently public support for ukraine -- tremendous support -- are you confident in a world of high inflation, cost of living, all of those things that that support will last? it's something that in europe worries people. sen. coons: 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 commission of war crimes, there will be plenty of reasons for us to be engaged in support. you are right that the average constituent not just in my state or our state, but also in the west is likely to be as concerned or more concerned about the rising price of groceries, gas, health care or other issues about their turn of growth in the economy. we still have not finished with this pandemic, and it may come back. we still have not really resolved energy security, although it has now reshaped by this conflict. i think putin is counting on the west to lose focus, and i think that is our real challenge, to ensure we are providing enough support to 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 the president of poland said yesterday. but, i am concerned about the focus. president biden is in the indo pacific meeting because there are other issues that are shaping both the response to russia's aggression and ukraine and that we have not yet resolved around both climate change, the pandemic and other issues. zanny: we will come to that. congressman meeks you reflect that you have been visiting other european allies of the united states. do you think the world trust the sustainability of the scale of u.s. support? rep. meeks: i think they do. that's the reason you see senate delegations and house delegations traveling to europe and going all 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, i traveled, we were in moldova, we were in poland, we went to finland, but we do it in a bipartisan way because we want folks to see that we are united as a congress. i know a lot of folks are listening to our domestic politics and we want to show them this is important for ukraine and important for the world. because when you talk about what russia is doing currently, as a part of odessa, preventing food, wheat and grains from getting out, we could have a huge starvation issue on the continent of africa and throughout and causing inflation. we go out, the last thing we do is show that america, and we are listening to them, so we are not just talking and telling them, we are listening to our allies, but their concerns are so that we can were collected together to make sure that putin is not successful and we defeat him, we bring ukraine pack, and then we move forward with energy, resources, climate is a big issue and we can make a change together. so that's the message we are sending. zanny: you have all spoken with one voice on this and it's very powerful. but just to be clear before we move on to a different topic, judging by this scale of needs that ukrainians have, it is likely that another support package will be needed before the midterms or just after. are you all confident that that would pass? anybody not? go ahead, senator. 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 absolutely confident there would be another support package would be a powerful message. sen. leahy: i'm confident for one major thing. all of us have read the history books and what happened in world war ii, stalin going after finland and so on, and that's reading the history books. the difference today is the media and some of them have lost their lives in the media. they have gotten such a clear picture to the whole world, the atrocities, families being machine-gunned on the streets, hospitals, schools being bombed, this has made everybody realize -- i will let the other speak, but i will give one example, you look at finland, the public opinion polls were against joining nato. once the images of what was happening in ukraine came out, the public opinion turned overnight in finland now wants to join nato. i think that the public opinion in the united states has turned overnight, and i'm hoping they will bring about in our country at least, republicans and democrats working together with a strong purpose. zanny: senator manchin, you are by many accounts, one of the most pivotal people, if not, one of the most pivotal in the senate. what is your take on the likelihood of sustained support for ukraine, and i want 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. >> putin's war on ukraine and ukraine's determination resolving the sacrifice they have made for the cost of freedom has united the whole world. but it has united us as senate and congress like nothing i have seen in my lifetime. i think we are 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 are all in this together, and i am totally committed as one person to seeing ukraine to the end, with a win, now basically resolving in some type of a treaty. i don't think that is where we are and where we should be. zanny: what do you mean by a win for ukraine? sen. manchin: moving putin back to russia. zanny: moving back to pre-february? sen. manchin: i think ukraine is determined to take their country back. >> and also getting rid of putin's what you said. sen. coons: this dispute -- >> this is putin's work, not russia's war. >> 32nd intervention before joe gets into the domestic agenda. the american public reserves the right to change their mind and we have seen this happen. over time there was less support for our involvement in afghanistan, support for our involvement in iraq. some of the republican opposition was because there was a concern that, as in previous conflicts, the money won't these been efficiently and well. there were some people who were on for adding an amendment that would've had to go back to the house to make sure there was in inspector general that could watch over every dollar of the spending. so i think they 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 are getting somewhere and advancing the american agenda. sen. manchin: i agree with him 100%, we have to show the reliability and the transparency that basically the american public not only expects, but they demand and they should. but what roger has said is true and i'm just speaking as one senator, basically i believe strongly that i 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, that's all i'm saying. >> let me add to it senator workers said. once upon a time there was a question when he came and talked about europe whether everybody was going to participate. some were saying, well, nato was not paying enough, they were not paying their fair share. but in this we see everybody coming together, everybody is making a contribution, everybody is doing what they have to to make sure that ukraine does win. you see countries that are stronger together than ever. that unity resonates with the american people also in we are not out there by ourselves, we are with other allies and i think that message also helps keep us together, and i think that will resonate with the american people to keep them together. zanny: that's a very important point, congressman, but it asks another question which is very strong transatlantic alliance, transatlantic unity on this. in other parts of the world there is countries who are saying neutral or not packing the u.s. and europe. i think it's two thirds of the world living countries that do not support sanctions on russia. senator coons, one of the things that got cut out of the bill was the covert support. is there a sense in which the food crisis, another that will hit the blue and the rest of the world, is it important for the united states to broaden the coalition of support beyond the very important transatlantic alliance? sen. coons: i think it's important for all the countries concerned about the conflict in russia and ukraine. also engaged in addressing the issues, there are 100 million displaced people in the world, the highest number in history. the covid pandemic, we may be done with it but it's not done with us, and there's a chance there will be another variant, and we are at the verge of being able to fund and deploy the next generation mrna vaccines being worked on by moderna and pfizer. the 5 billion for overseas covert assistance got wrapped up in other issues, and as senator wicker said correctly, senator schumer, senator mcconnell, there was an agreement to move the a to ukraine quickly and returned to the question of the global covid relief. there are other countries, india, south africa, tunisia, many that are looking at where does this play out what is their role in the future, and is this work about respecting sovereignty and rule of law, is it a fight of democracy versus authoritarianism, and we need to be mindful 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 and other parts of the world, united states is the single largest donor for covid relief and 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 onboard to the work against russia's aggression. zanny: let me turn to you because both agriculture, which i know is a subject very close to you, do you think enough is being done there, and how much do you worry about the global food crisis? >> nebraskans understand agriculture. we help 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 that it has in the economy. but what we see with ukraine now is that they have the product, if it cannot be moved that will 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. 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 to address what would be a worldwide problem of famine, but also a possibility of destabilization, not just in those countries, but also worldwide. >> just a couple more on ukraine in the aftermath thereof. senator menendez, wet for you is victory in this, and what is the relationship with russia look like? assuming putin is still in power? sen. menendez: 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. having spoken to several of our ukrainian counterparts who are here and in washington when they visited with us, i think their version 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 i will not heed to ukraine, although i think we are a common cause of this, is there prosecution of war crimes. war crimes or something that are universal and they need to be prosecuted. so, in the course of this conflict, when it ends in victory for ukraine, either ukrainians will want to prosecute the war crimes, but if not, we need to prosecute those were crimes, because we need to send a global message, this is beyond even putin or ukraine, a global message that you cannot violate the international order, you cannot use force as a way to change the map of europe or any other place in the world, and when you do that and do that and commit war crimes, there will be serious consequences. >> can i just ask you -- [applause] >> how does the united states do that vis-a-vis the international criminal court? >> i'm not sure we don't need a new newman like tribunal in this particular case. that ultimately prosecutes the were 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 and other places of the world will do that. >> how would the u.s. do this? sen. leahy: i agree with what senator menendez said. you know that the russian soldier that was captured and brought to trial basically admitted guilt. i worry that russia claims some ukrainian purpose and humanitarian purpose in bringing ukrainians to were under siege in the factory, they would hold them as hostages knowing that they are going to face war crimes. what we have seen, and again, i cannot praise the international press and those who put themselves at risk and your publication and everybody else talked about this, what they have shown, everybody knows these are war crimes, and if they are allowed to go unpunished, then history will repeat itself. we must make a stand, we must make it clear now, the world must say these were crimes will be punished. >> senator, could i just ask you as one of the republican members of the panel, there have been times in the past when your republican colleagues have been less than keen on the international criminal court. how do you see this? do you see it as a priority as your colleagues, and will the usb front-end center? >> i think bob menendez said it correctly, the forum doesn't really matter, but the world criminal court has jurisdiction over this could be used and i would become to but with this. we don't have to be a signatory party to that, but i do believe the chairman has had alternative idea that has some merit. but the important thing is that the decision-makers be prosecuted. i'm not -- with this footsoldier being the first prosecution, but clearly it is putin, his oligarchs, and his generals, that they are the brunt of inflicting this wound on the world that we really thought was 70 years in the past. >> we've only got 20 minutes less -- left, so reluctantly i will switch to other domestic priorities. senator manchin, i will turn to you because you are, for obvious reasons, absolutely essential to any progress being made on president biden's domestic agenda. do you think any other meaningful legislation will get past? sen. manchin: we look at what we have been able to accomplish so far, which is been tremendous and in a bar partisan or way. everyone overlooks that. president biden has had more success than most any president in the first time. yes, i believe there is an opportunity and responsibility that we can do something. first of all, inflation is harming every person in america. everyone is feeling 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 look at our drug pricing. there's no reason the world we can't negotiate for medicare having better pricing and also for different types of medicines , whether it be for diabetes and things of this sort that they need for insulin, whether it's life-saving and very affordable. those things can be done and we know that. in the third thing is going to be energy and climate. and you cannot do one without the other. 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 we are reliable, have reliability and security. if you have that, then we are going to be able to replace some of the pollutant energy in the world. natural gas, we have our platforms that we are talking about, and that is something that we are developing, but also, we have the ability to go down too fast. passive investing in technology will be needed for the transition that will happen. but eliminating one, and for the other one, that's the european model that wasn't successful. we should not repeat that. the united states has the ability to be an energy leader and support our allies around the world that are having problems. >> for those people outside the united states who worry that the ambitious climate agenda of the president hasn't gone very far, you're saying that -- sen. manchin: that is not correct. what we have done already in the bipartisan infrastructure bill. that has never 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 with 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 are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars investing in the new technology that is going to be needed for the transition of a carbon free or carbon less environment and energy sector, then you have to be able to make sure that can intersect and take care of business. you can't replace one until you have something to replace it with. >> how do you see this, and a wet has entered the changing geostrategic environment? the transformation in europe energy supply makes is underway now and is extraordinarily dramatic. is the u.s. going to become a major gas exporter to europe, and what is that mean for climate? sen. coons: the example that chairman mansion was siding, it was going away from nuclear before they had an alternative to overreliance on russian gas. there was a lot of concern and criticism about the overreliance on gas, and because of russia's aggression in ukraine, that has now exposed the german economy, there are now other countries in europe that are making significant strides both in the green economy transition period and 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 are in. if we are going also make the transition to producing many more electric vehicles, to producing green hydrogen electrolysis, we have to be attentive to the united states, also being vulnerable by lacking strategic minerals required for that. if there are certain minerals, whether it's cobalt or copper, or 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 are also going the same -- down the same path jeremy did. senator mansion has been talking with a bipartisan group about a path forward on strategic minerals. i think he's proposing coming forward about a broader strategic vision of our energy in response to this moment, and i'm hopeful we can make progress on that. sen. coons: -- sen. manchin: 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 deposit in those three countries on one continent working together seamlessly, we will absolutely reduce our dependency on asia, on china who does 80% of the processing, has total control, almost a monopoly on the critical elements that we need. we can't move into an electric vehicle and be dependent on foreign power supply. we are looking at this, putting it together to be able to do something that hasn't been done and hopefully give the security and confidence that we are there. we are all in this. we have been talking to the eu and the energy people, they need our lng. we have six platforms working now, we have two more. we are able to get up and replace what russia has taken off the table. in russia, putin has weaponized energy and i'm concerned china could do the same with critical elements of minerals. >> if i may, i agree we have an emergency 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 the type of energy that we don't have to depend on any country for. 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. yes, we have an emergency at the moment, we have a challenge to me, we need to meet that, but that doesn't mean we can't keep our ion 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. >> isn't one of the elements of that having a clear, unpredictable, regulatory environment? and that does not seem to be the case in the united states. many renewable kind -- companies have trouble because of decisions from this administration. from the rest of the world's perspective, the u.n. is a little bit all over the place. >> there are several things. talk about this administration as if it's been there forever. it's been there for about 15 months, 16 months. let's recognize that, and it comes into office in the midst in the midst of a once in a century pandemic that had to be dealt with. and head to ultimately meet that challenge not only for the united states, but the world. he has been preoccupied, and then of course, the challenge of russia and ukraine. i believe the administration is focused on a pathway to make sure that we both help lead in the world, and cooperate towards on energy future that doesn't end up realizing the video we saw at the beginning of this conference. >> we will not be able to transition into a cleaner climate and be self-reliant. we have a process in the united states of america that averages around 10 years . unless we are determined, and our environmental community becomes our partners, it is not going to happen in america. we want something, and we want someone else to do all the dirty work for us. we have got to be self-reliant, and we have got to do with better and cleaner than any place in the world. but we have got to accelerate the committee process. >> how do you do this? do you think the environment is such that the acceleration senator mention is talking about is possible? >> i think we have to face up to the problems in our own country. look at the forest fires and drought. agriculture, people, so on. the pictures you see in the news of reservoirs now down 50, 100, 150 feet. that tells us that we have to look at all the rest of the world where this is happening. i think you are going to find if we don't face up to this, wars will not only be bought over oil and mineral, wars will be fought over water. and that is something i don't think the world is truly prepared for. the drought and starvation, and the pressures militarily, economically, politically. if we don't face up to the fact that we have a real climate challenge, nowhere near enough is being done. >> i do want to get a word in here as a republican. senator menendez is right that we have a temporary crisis that is going to require us to use more fossil fuel than the administration initially hoped to do. 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 are still using the crew, still doing the refining, it just costs more and takes longer to get it down to new orleans by truck. the president in spite of the fact that countries in europe are having to go back to coal, they are 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 more drilling. and i think that will be a major factor in the huge spike we have seen in fuel inflation. and i think it is going to be a factor in the midterm elections. >> thank you, we are getting a sense of the rich diversity of opinion in the united states, which is great. i want to continue, one thing we are asking ourselves is, if we change our leadership in november, what is actually going to change? >> i think it is likely to change if no other reason than in history, the president's party generally loses seats. i think the border is an issue. people still remember the disaster in afghanistan. if republicans win the house and senate, there will be a protection for the 2017 tax cuts. in the u.s. senate, the consensus-building 60 vote requirement of the filibuster will be protected for the next two years. it is something all of us have spoken in favor of overtime. there will be more pressure on different -- defense building. and there will be more emphasis on lengthening the burden on job creators. there will be those changes in the united states senate as expected, we win the majority. i think we are likely to win, but we could lose it if we try, and we have that before. >> the cuts of 2017 was the only thing that there are a couple ways to make adjustments. you can adjust a program to make more money, that is not going to work. somebody got more advantages than the people that are struggling to come up. what we need is a competitive tax code that spends often enough for us to take care of ourselves, pay off our debt, and live within our means. you can't do that with the existing tax code we have unless we slash everything to the bone. if we are able to do that, we are looking at a very positive situation that we are moving in the right direction, paying down debt, dedicating revenue to get, and getting our financial house in order. >> if democrats continue in government, they are likely to chip away at the most successful tax cut the united states has ever seen. it brought investment back through europe to the united states, and revenues increased. and right before the pandemic, our economy was roaring under the 2017 -- >> senator, i'm going to cut you off here. the move is good but we're moving from an interesting insight for the rest of the world on both sides. senator mendez? >> your question was, what will change? first of all, i don't think my republican friends will have a majority in both houses. i think the supreme court's potential decision on roe v. wade, which is about women's reproductive rights may be a dramatic change in the senate elections, that is number one. number two, i do worry. my colleagues here are not part of that caucus but i do worry that in the republican party are very strong voices of isolationism. if anything, we have learned in ukraine and covid as it relates to global climate change, we cannot hermetically seal the united states off from the rest of the world. i'm concerned 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's spent the previous four years talking to our allies around the world, the fact that our closest allies had their fingers stuck in there i eye, like putin, some of the persons we should consider our biggest adversaries we were warming up to. i have concern about that, and i gave the president credit for bringing the world together on and the most significant coalition to lead the sanctions effort on russia. sanctions generally had not been a european appetite. >> you asked me a question earlier about whether or not allies trust us. one of the questions they always ask is, or how long? what will happen? the fear that if things change, if the vote changes, that we will have the isolationists back in control and we will not be part of the global structure in a way that we are. 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 at every place that i travel, yes, we have 8% inflation in the united states. but most places elsewhere, it's in double digits or greater, 10, 15. 30% inflation. this is not something that was caused the economy damaged by joe biden. it is a worldwide incident where you talk about recovering from covid, recovering from dealing with putin's war. and if you look at jobs and others and unemployment in the united states, it has improved under joe biden. >> senator coons. >> i'll just say on this stage that question how much can you count on us, i will express real appreciation for the republicans who are with us on the stage and the democrats who are here on this stage. senator lead a delegation to kyiv and really worked hard in his caucus to ensure the vote for the $40 billion package. speaker pelosi also led a delegation. it's my hope there would 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 will close by saying i think the best thing 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 19 -- banking sanctions in the past. the swedes really sat out the second world war and in that 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 republicans and democrats in congress pulling together. >> i would like to say that bipartisanship is still an opportunity for all of us, it is lasting. and a time we do something ourselves, it doesn't last. when he do together, we work closely. >> what do you think is going to change after november? >> i think the audience has had a really close look into politics in the united states. i believe you have heard about the concern, and also the very positive attitude those of us on stage, and the majority believe in national defense, national security, which i think solidifies our place is 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. when we get to other issues, you saw some disagreement. and that is what we have every single day in a 50-50 senate. i think what we will see change will be a focus by my conference on addressing the needs that i hear back home, which is inflation, 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 is concerns about the security of our southern boarded. where there's 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 the midterms this year. and he will watch it play out as we do as well. >> senator, thank you. yes, you, the very last brief word. >> no matter what the elections are, joe biden will still be president. and let me say this as a longest-serving member of either the house or the senate, i can look at, have an optimistic you view or pessimistic view of the future. i believe in january but i have an optimistic view. >> i can't think of a better place to end. thank you all very much indeed. [applause] indeed. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satell [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] announcer: he was endorsed by former vice president pence and prevailed over david perdue, who was endorsed by former president trump. kemp will now take on the democratic nominee stacey abrams in the 2022 general election. announcer: next, a hearing looking at the inequities in the financial system or people with disabilities. a panel of disability rights advocates discussed access to housing, employment opportunities and job training. this hearing was held by house financial services subcommittee. they talked about the growing number of people newly disabled due to long covid. >> this hearing is entitled diversity in people with disability, exploring inequities in natural services for persons with disabilities, including those newly disabled due to long-term covid. i now recogniz