with providing more funding for science and technology research, we take you live now to the senate floor, here on "c-span2". the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o mighty god, to you all hearts are open, all desires known, and from you no secrets are hid. strengthen all who put their trust in you empower our lawmakers to glorify you by following your precepts. may they please you both in their desires and deeds. lord, grant that the words they speak and the thoughts they think will be acceptable to you as you pour upon them the abundance of your mercies. prosper your providence through their efforts according to your holy will. and, lord, we continue to intercede for ukraine. we pray in your mighty name. amen. the president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leader ship time is reserved. a senator: mr. president. the president pro tempore: the senator from nevada. ms. rosen: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: he's also the ceo of rasmussen global. thank you for joining us. >> pleasure to be here. >> we've been many weeks between the actions of russia and ukraine. what is your assessment of what you've seen particularly from nato countries? >> i encouraged by the unity and countries. so putin has achieved the opposite of what he wanted. he has unified nato at the same time i think we have overestimated the strength of the russian military. they have failed to achieve their goals so now they have diminish their ambitions. they will focus on eastern and southern ukraine now. >> do you believe any of the nato countries currently are under direct threat from vladimir putin and russia? >> no. he knows that if he attacks a nato country he would be faced with a determined military response from nato. and then that matter obviously nato would be the winner. he knows that. >> direct attacks aside, just a is reported as far as poland and bulgaria the cutting up of natural gas is this another means of attack is not a direct attack? >> absolutely. for a long time we have no that putin uses energy as a weapon. of course europe is extremely dependent on imported russian oil and gas. but i think putin inadvertently now has paved the way for an energy embargo from the european union. i hope that next step in the european sanctions against russia will be an oil embargo, and that will really hit putin's war machine. and that's the best way we can put a quick end to the war that is to stop financing putin's war machine. that's why i think european union as soon as possible should introduce an embargo on oil and gas from russia. i think next up will be oil. >> when it comes to pollute and bulgaria as well, if natural gas is been cut off due nato countries come to the assist us for supplying or other able to supply their own needs of natural gas? >> well, poland, for instance, is able to provide gas itself. they have storage. and they have built lng plants so they can get liquefied natural gas as well. bulgaria is in a bit more, get a situation, so they will be helped by neighbors. during recent years european union has made a lot of gas inner connectors which allows the free flow of gas across borders and that's an efficient weapon against putin's attempts to blackmail individual countries. so other eu countries will help bulgaria. >> our guest with us until 8:30 a.m. he thought as questions is 202-748-8000 for those you in eastern and central time zone. 202-748-8001 and a mountain and pacific time zones and if you want to text us this morning you can do so at 202-748-8003. mr. secretary general, much of the mid-including the ukraine president still pushing for possibility of ukraine entering data. is that a possibility? >> not in the short term. i think the very interesting proposal from zelensky was actually a reached out to russia saying we are willing, he said, to accept -- willing to step a status as a neutral country. but in exchange we demand security grantors in another form, another kind of security equivalent to what we could of got through nato membership. so in that case it would be up to the united states, uk, france, turkey and other countries to deliver low security guarantees that ukraine otherwise would have gotten through nato membership. so it putin really has a will to achieve a peace agreement, he could have described that as a victory. he prevented a ukrainian nato membership. he ensured neutral status, and the ukrainians could depict it as a victory because they got their security guarantees in another way. but i think for putin this is not a real negotiation. he has no real will to obtain a peace agreement. it is a trap. >> another perspective on ukraine membership in nato came earlier this week. there was some senator rand paul. he was questioning the secretary of state antony blinken about these issues of ukraine entering knitter. i want to play you a portion of what had to say and get your perspective on. >> why was it is so important last fall before this invasion to continue agitating for ukraine's admission into nato? >> thank you, senator. not a question as agitating for ukraine's admission. it's a question for standing up for the basic principle that we strongly adhere to, that there should be and will be an open door policy when it comes to nato membership he is her sovereign decisions for european countries to make and, of course, a decision for the nato alliance to make in terms of making sure that a country that wishes to join actually adds value to nato. this goes to the heart of the international system and international order, and part of that is the basic principle that one country cannot dictate to another the choices it makes about with whom it allies. its foreign policies. it's decision or not to try to engage with the european union with nato. >> yet as we speak, and we see that instruction in ukraine, we also hear pronouncements from president zelensky saying you know what, maple we might consider neutrality is a possibility. there could have been voices before this invasion. instead of agitating for something that we knew our address are absolutely hated and said was a red line, as recently as last september, before you sign the agreement once again agitating for nato. russia said it was red light. there is a justification for innovation. i'm not saying that but the reason for the invasion and i think it's added nothing. in fact, had ukraine been in nato as you advocate of fort and many others have advocate for come we would now have troops in ukraine. we may still have the destruction but we also have troops in ukraine. if you were to put them in now if it is to policy you want them in now that means american troops go. the one good thing about them not being in is the most bellicose of our members are not advocating for u.s. troops right now. that's a good thing. we've not had advocacy for u.s. troops because they're not part of nato. had they been or other to become part of nato that meet u.s. soldiers will be fighting in ukraine and do something i very much oppose. >> mr. secretary general, what you think of the exchange? >> very, very interesting exchange. that tells a lot about an ongoing discussion in the u.s., but i can say i'm 100% in agreement with secretary blinken. this is not a question of us agitating for ukraine membership of nato. it's a question of the fundamental principle that obviously all countries have an inherent right to decide their alliances themselves. it's not for putin to dictate his neighbors whether they want to join nato and european union. it's their decision and in collaboration with nato and the eu. we will take those decisions. it's not for putin. could we accept that putin dictates that finland and sweden are not allowed to join nato? obviously not. it's a ridiculous idea. so i really agree with antony blinken, and i would caution against this movement in the u.s. that rand paul represents, which is an isolationist view that will end up becoming the u.s. retreating from the world. and we know from history that once the u.s. retreats, you will leave behind a vacuum internationally, and that vacuum will be filled by the bad guys, and that is exactly what putin, xi jinping, kim jong-un affect have done during recent years. we need a determined american global leadership. >> our first call for you comes from robert in new jersey. you are on with the former secretary-general of nato. robert, go ahead. robert, new jersey, hello? >> caller: hello. >> go ahead, please. >> caller: yes. i've never voted for republican but i must say i completely agree with what senator rand paul assessment was in the exchange, there was talks about the fact that russia should not be allowed to dictate whether or not ukraine can be neutral or not. however, we know that the united states has done this time and time again. right now you have a conflict which is bring because the solomons island in the pacific ocean is on a pact with china. the united states just said, anyone can read this, that if the solomon islands does is packed with china for military action is the off the table. so this is just the common ways in which words can differ based on which country is saying it. russia should have security on its border just like the united states should. and if nato forces are going to put more weaponry on ukraine, i see they are logical and taking action against it, although the lives that are in the mix shouldn't be, you know, all the death shouldn't happen, , howev, nato is constantly agitating this and they're fighting for the last ukrainian. >> host: that is robert in new jersey. >> guest: there's a clear difference ideologically between china and the u.s. china is a dictatorship, the united states is a democracy. i support democracies, and that's why of course we have now to strengthen the voice of the world democracies in kind of alliance of democracies. as regards russia, actually we have not in any way strengthened russia. to take russia's considerately y concerns into account has been so many times. russia is not a victim. we have reached out to russia on several occasions, each and every time we've reached out to russia before it. 1997 we offered russia permanent representation in the midst of nato headquarters in brussels to tell them you can watch, you can see what is going on. our enlargement of data is not directed against you. it's our acceptance of eastern/central european countries want to join nato. so time and again we have reached out to russia and taken their security concerns into account. there is no justification whatsoever for russia's unprovoked attack against ukraine. >> host: the news reporting a couple of days ago that it was the kremlin basically saying by supplying weapons from the west and to what's going on, , and escalation or at least an aggravation and that it's almost a threat towards the former soviet union. would you accept that? >> no, not at all. what we are doing is on request of a legitimate ukrainian government, we help them with weapons, economically and in many other ways. we haven't put nato troops on the ground in ukraine, so we're not part of the war, but obviously we will support a democratic ukraine against an autocratic russia. >> host: this is stephen in connecticut. stephen good morning. you are next up. >> caller: good morning. and to the caller from new jersey, did you see what that russian army so-called did to the civilians? it was outrageous. it was sinister. it was evil what they did to those people that the photos out of their are disgusting. fact it was so bad i would say that was the point, because a lot of german newspapers, the germany said enough is enough. and for the first time they started setting and transcending heavy weapons. i just want to ask you, mr. rasmussen, like it's obviously they need artillery. artillery -- we can't like, like putin needs and offramp. we can't like push him totally back against the wall. it's hard to forecast the future, but what is the way out of this? >> guest: yes, actually a good question. what is the way out of it? i described a moment ago how i could see a way out of it, namely, zelensky has offered neutral status for ukraine, no nato membership, but in exchange he wants security guarantees. i think those security guarantees from the international community should be supplemented by a robust ukrainian defense so that the ukrainian military is capable of defending ukraine against new russian attacks. also, saying it would apply deployment of up international peacekeeping force in eastern ukraine to monitor the peace agreement. so i could see elements in a solution, but putin does not want a peaceful solution to this. he thinks he can win militarily, but he cannot and should not be allowed to win. i think strategically it's of utmost importance to make sure that the ukrainians when the battle in eastern ukraine, that will determine the future of the world order and the future of the security architecture in europe. so we will need to deliver all the weapons and all other kinds of assistance that ukraine is needed, and do it quickly. >> host: this is of you are off of twitter saying i'm afraid that when one mistake away from military strike to a nato nation. if this happens what should the nato response be? >> guest: no doubt that if a nato country is hit the russians, there will be a determined military response. but i think it's part of a credible deterrent that you're never too specific and advanced about how you will react. it goes, if russia attacked a nato ally, it also goes it putin uses weapons of mass to function, tactical nuclear weapons, biological or chemical weapons in ukraine, the would be a response but we shouldn't tell putin in advance how we will respond. in general, i think nato leaders should be a bit more cautious not to exclude any action. i think too many leaders have been too eager to tell putin that they don't want to do this and that. that leaves putin bigger room of maneuver because he knows exactly where the red line is. we should never ever define clearly where the red light is that we should never ever tell him in advance how we will respond, but he should know we will respond. i think that's part of a credible deterrence trundle our next call is from william also in new jersey. you are on with our guest, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. mr. rasmussen, maybe you could put some things up. there's a lot of people that are making the connection between the brigade and nazis. you've been in europe for a long time. what is the actual compass or any idea how many nazis actually are in the ukraine? and what is your reaction to that? thank you. >> guest: yeah, thank you. that's one of the myths on which one of allies on which putin has built his invasion of ukraine, to denounce a phi ukraine but it is not true. there are not many if any nazis in ukraine. the president by the way has to do his background, and ukraine has properly declared that they have never ever had conditions operate as they do have today. they are respected community in ukraine. so it's really a lie upon which putin has legitimized his attack against ukraine. >> host: here is mark in fort lauderdale. hello. >> caller: hello, good morning. as always thank you for c-span. i'm sitting here listening want him on the phone, a lot of these calls make me kind of want to talk about something different than i originally called and but i'm going to stick with my original plan. going back to the rand paul video talking to blink and, my question, or my statement to mr. rasmussen angrily perhaps would've been helpful to mr. lincoln yesterday, a lot of times diplomats get too wordy, too long, go on and on and on. rand paul squish was basically did russia attacked ukraine because nato is trying to claw up next to russia? during the time you with ahead of nato, was the process for nato to go to countries and say hey, you want to join us? or was a process for the countries to approach nato and say hey, we would like to go with you guys because we think you can help protect us? if it's the countries that a come to nato and say we want you, what's the problem with that? nato is not out there seeking new members trying to overwhelm russia, is it? >> host: thanks, mark. >> guest: that's a question spot on because it is the latter. countries in eastern and central europe requested membership of nato. they asked us, couldn't we join nato? back in 2008, already, we had a heated discussion at a summit in nato on wishes from ukraine and georgia to join nato. we discussed whether they should be granted so-called membership action plan. we couldn't agree on that. instead we agreed a statement at the summit in 2008 that ukraine and georgia will become members of nato, and we have based our work on that ever since so it's not ask campaigning for countries to join nato and european union. actually many of them think that nato and the eu are too much enlargement. it's because those countries requested membership and we have handled that according to all the well-known principles. >> host: the president announced earlier this week that diplomats would be returning to ukraine. his intention to nominate bridgette brink, the current ambassador of slovakia, to go to ukraine. what do you think of these efforts as far as diplomatically? is it's far past diplomatic efforts or is it still a possibility that diplomacy could work? >> guest: we should always keep diplomacy a chance obviously. and it's a very good signal to both ukraine and russia that diplomats are returning to kyiv. i also appreciate that secretary blinken and secretary austin visited kyiv recently, because it's a clear signal to russia that we are expecting the ukrainians to actually win this conflict. so all those gestures where european leaders have visited kyiv and met with president zelensky are very important both to encourage the ukrainians and to discourage the russians and send a clear message to putin, we expect the ukrainians to be the winners. >> host: let's get one more call him. this will be from debbie in rhode island. >> caller: good morning, mr. rasmussen. i have questioned it was highly publicized in the news and otherwise that mr. putin was targeting children and civilians. so the concern i had is, for a few days they were televising the drama school with children,, some they said were hundreds of up to a thousand people up there in this building. on either side of this building or large signs that said children. so if putin was targeting civilians why was it advertised? and then a few days later it showed the same building but, of course, it was targeted, which as a mom, as a parent, broke my heart because i thought why was that done? so could you explain why was it advertised that they were in that building? thank you very much. >> guest: i don't know the background for any announcements of their presence, but what we can conclude is that the russians are committing war crimes in ukraine. and, of course, they should be held to account. that's a complicated process but i think for a lot of reasons we have to pursue those cases. such attacks against civilians, both children and adults, are a clear war crime and should be treated as such. >> host: anders fogh rasmussen come forward secretary general of nato joining us for this conversation. thanks for giving us your time today. >> guest: it was a pleasure to be here. thank you. >> host: represented adriano espaillat serves of the dean district of you, democrat, also the second vice chair of the congressional hispanic caucus joining us now on "washington journal." thanks for your time. >> guest: thank you for having me. >> host: the caucuses meet this week. earlier this week met with president by. what was a goal of the meeting? >> guest: i think the goal of the meeting was to catch up on several issues, not just immigration but also infrastructure, student loans and a host of things i think that are important to the american people. the caucus is not just immigration focus. with focus on host of issues. >> host: but according to reporting, correct me if i'm wrong, title 42 and immigration issues was large part of the meeting? >> guest: it was, and during the meeting of course a court decision came through so we were privy to the information. but we did discuss issues regarding potential executive orders and, of course, title 42 as well try and when it comes to title 42 what is the caucuses stand on its removal or its planned removal later on this year and what is your own personal take on it? >> guest: first and foremost, title 42 is a cdc mandate. it pertains to the covid-19 pandemic and it was used by the previous administration to circumvent immigration laws that were implemented as a immigration tool. that was a mistake and, of course, the cdc has already began issuing opinion that things as on the change regarding the pandemic and it should be a limited. so this is a policy, public policy that is based on science and it is based on medical opinions, and we should follow. >> host: when it comes to the lifting of it, what makes it justifiable as far as the conditions are in the united states? why do you think it is ready to be lifted? >> guest: the conditions, although the pandemic is still very much alive, but it's not at the same level that it was in the past. we all know that. and, of course, there is no evidence that, in fact, migration will fuel an increase in covid-19 cases. and so as such they should be eliminated, whatever measures we should take regarding immigration should be done particularly and exclusively within that realm, not using public policy that pertains to the covid-19 pandemic as a tool to enforce immigration law. >> host: one of your caucus members henry clay earlier this week on the sunday shows talked about his concerns over the lifting of it saying if we talk to people on the ground there's another situation that should keep it in place. also he cited the administration as a rolled out a plan to deal with what happens after title 42 is lifted. what do you think about those concerns from a member of your caucus? >> guest: i think he made this comment, that it of homeland security has issued a six-point plan which is the beginning of a response that will obviously increase the number of border patrol, that it will increase transportation of the work we do with nonprofits at the border, a host of issues. it would stiffen penalties for smugglers. so this is a new plan does been issued. since he made that statement come in addition to the president's budget has a requested increase of $621 million for the immigration courts, a $6.3 billion increase for the office of refugee settlement, as well as additional funding for case law and backlog reduction. so much has been put on the table to address what may occur. >> host: our guest with us until 9:00 if you want asking questions it's 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats and independents 202-748-8002. 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003. you talked about the six-point plan. as a case to be made to put the plan in motion to see if it works for a couple of months before lifting the title 42? >> guest: i think we should lifted and temperament the plan. that's the american way. we are still a nation of immigrants and folks have the right to seek refuge. that's been a long-standing tradition of america, where you come from ukraine or one of the tribal countries, if a mom is coming with her 12 or 13-year-old child. that mom should be able to come to the board and make the case to see whether or not we will allow her as a refugee, and we will take its case by case. i think that's the american way. that's the way it is been all the time and we should not divert them are very core values. >> host: you have a background in legal issues appear when it comes immigration cases are you concerned about the current and not a backlog and immigration courts and what you think the administration is doing to alleviate that? >> guest: yes, i am very concerned. for that reason president biden has asked for $621 million to increase immigration courts and the administration also has requested $765 million specifically for caseload and backlog reduction. in addition to that i may add that we feel very strongly and we discussed with the president that the petitions that are put forward our families to reunite with their loved ones should be expedited. many people wait for a decade or more before they're finally reunited with their families. there are 4 million people waiting abroad to reunite with their parents and other family members, and we should be able to expedite that as well. the united family is for a stronger family and stronger families make a stronger america so we should also invest money in that. >> host: we have seen not only in this administration but radius ones as well dealing with where to house people as they wait for these things to play out. do you think this issues and the problems we've seen over the administration's have been resolved? >> guest: one of the things that he didn't ask for is greater transportation funding. as you may remember, the unaccompanied minors, there were issues of trouble connecting them with their parents. some of them were on the east coast and they were all the way out in arizona or somewhere on the west coast. so all the way on the other side of the country. we've asked for additional transportation money to try to connect and reunite family members, particularly children and parents. >> host: our guest is with us until nine. lease as in oklahoma and startst us off on a republican money. you are on with adriano espaillat from new york. good morning. go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: good morning. i was calling about the title 42. and the notice a lot of people were talking about the fact that we are being overrun. i agree. but it's not really title 42. i do not think it should be lifted right now, and the reason is that we just got covid under control. and i think that it we lift it right now we're going to bring in a bunch of people with covid and it's going to spread all over again. i really think that title 42 should just stay right where it is and allow the american people to get over this covid. i think it is just too soon to allow a lot of people to come in that are infected. >> host: that's lisa in oklahoma. representative, go ahead tricky thank you for your opinion. there is no verifiable evidence to show that the covid-19 pandemic has been fueled by migration patterns. in fact, it has been fueled by our lack of taking measures to prevent the pandemic from spreading, not vaccinating, not taking the tests that we need to take to determine whether we are positive or. in fact, the migrants that are coming in are mandated to be vaccinated once they come in. so i don't see how that will lead to a spread of the pandemic. so most people think that the pandemic is decreasing. i believe that it is and there is no evidence whatsoever to show that migration patterns have contributed to the growth of the pandemic in the past. >> host: we will hear next from peggy, aggie honor line for democrats. she is in washington state. hello, go ahead. >> caller: i think my question might have been answered, but, about the covid being vaccinated. so i know we have a lot of covid vaccines that are really close to expiring and stuff. so i was wondering why couldn't they be fully vaccinated? two doses of vaccine plus a booster before anybody is legally allowed to come into this country? >> guest: i agree. in fact, i came as an immigrant to this nation and i remember as a little boy being vaccinated for regular doses of vaccines that i was given, given to anybody who came to the country. so there is no reason why we should not continue to do that. in fact, we used to joke about at our house, my siblings and i. we would say i still have the mark from the vaccine, it is my passport. it is been done in the past and it should be continued to be done now. >> host: representative, you serve as an appropriate on the appropriations committee, the administration is asking for close to $100 billion in 2023 on immigration related issues. as an appropriate or what you think of the request and what you think it will go? >> guest: it is a good request, a robust request. they get answers many of the questions that the callers may have, and the american people have concerns with. i think the administration is doing a good job and including by the way working with those countries to ensure that we discourage migration and we get to the root cause of the migration in countries like el salvador, guatemala and honduras. >> host: the administration sent the vice president to do with these conditions it has anything come out of that? >> guest: job creation is one of the efforts we want to explore. i mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the house message to accompany h.r. 4521, which the clerk will report. the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. 4521, resolved that the house disagree with the amendment of the senate to the bill entitled an act to provide for a coordinated federal research initiative to ensure continued united states leadership in the engineering biology. mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: thank you, madam president. from the beginning, the biden administration has displayed a hostility to fossil fuels. president biden set the tone on day one of this administration when he canceled the keystone x.l. pipeline, environmentally responsible pipeline project that was already underway, and it was to be paired with $1.7 billion in private investment in renewable energy to fully offset its operating emissions. he almost immediately froze new oil and gas leases on federal lands, and is only now making new onshore leases for sale after being ordered to do so by a federal judge. his first budget contained tax hikes on conventional energy production and his budget this year released in the midst of an energy crisis calls for hiking taxes on fossil fuel companies to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. and the list goes on. perhaps even more troubling, however, is the more insidious campaign the president has been conducting against conventional energy production using the long arm of financial regulation and government pressure to directly or indirectly discourage investment in fossil fuels and other industry's dislike by his political base. the securities and exchange commission issued a completely unworkable proposed rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose information not only about their own greenhouse gas emissions, but about those of their suppliers and even their customers. clearly attempting to make companies diminish or outright cut ties with traditional energy. never mind whether this expanded environmental, social and corporate governance or e.s.g. as it's called, desired by the far left can be accurately or consistently measured, much less proved to have a positive impact on the economy or for the climate. but the administration doesn't stop there. the commodities future trading commission established a so-called climate risk unit that potentially seems designed to pressure is industries to making certain investment choices. the federal reserve, which has zero business inserting itself into debates over climate policy, is suggesting that it should provide, and i quote, supervisory guidance, end quote, to large banks on so-called climate-related risks. similarly, the office of the comptroller of the currency issued drafts on climate related financial risks. president biden's climate envoy, former secretary of state john kerry, has actively, actively pressured banks not to invest in fossil fuels. and disturbingly the original draft of the national credit union administration draft strategic plan for 2022 to 2026, though it's since been revised, went beyond discouraging investment in conventional energy production and actually suggested that investing too heavily in agriculture, agriculture could be problematic for climate-related reasons. now, i'm not sure, where the nationals credit union administration thinks our food is going to come from if banks and credit unions don't provide capital to farm and ranch clients. all ever these measures are designed to directly or indirectly discourage investment in conventional industry production and other industries that the far left believes interfere with its unrealistic environmental agenda, and that is a problem. while i am a longtime supporter of clean energy, and do many from a state that in 2020 derived 83% of its energy generation from renewables, the fact of the matter is that our country is nowhere close to being able to eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels. clean energy technology is simply not advance advanced to the point we can replace all energy production with renewables. cutting off investment in clean, responsible oil and gas production will do nothing but drive up energy prices for american consumers and increase our reliance on energy from unstable or unfriendly countries, which i might have often extract energy in far less environmentally friendly ways than do u.s. producers. americans are already struggling with high energy prices, thanks in part to the biden administration's hostility to domestic oil and gas production, and i don't think too many americans are eager to see energy prices rise even further. in the worst-case scenario, limbing investment in u.s. conventional energy production could not only drive up prices, but contribute to fuel shortages here at home as we may end up seeing with countries that are overly reliant on russian energy i'm pretty sure there aren't many americans who are eager to wait in line at gas stations for a rationed amount of gas, and it's not just high energy prices that americans could have to worry about. if democrats take their climate hysteria as far as discouraging lending to certain sectors of the agricultural economy, like livestock, which now seems possible, americans could also see food prices rise sharply. i think it's safe to say that it is the last thing american families need in an economy that's already beset by 8.5% inflation. not to mention the fact that agriculture should actually be regarded as a good investment when it comes to climate change considerations. american agriculture should be learninged as part of -- learning lerve regged, and our farmers have a invest have vepsed interest in the last and water. add in the biofuel sector, and we can responsibly provide food, fuel, and fiber for the nation. in fact, the department of energy found that ethanol derived from increasingly higher crop yields has a more than 40% lower life cycle carbon footprint than gasoline. beyond all this, mr. president, is the fact that the president's attempt to dictate investment by privately owned banks, credit yiewbons and companies is a misd companies is a misuse of the financial regulatory system. the president's use of the financial regulatory system to pressure companies on energy investment has all-too-familiar echos of the obama administration's operation choke point initiative, which used the federal deposit insurance corporation and department of justice to target companies whose activity the obama administration didn't like. the question also becomes where does this end? the government is already pressuring companies on firearms and energy investment, and now they're there are dangerous signs that agriculture could be targeted on perceived climate-related grounds. well, what's next? is the biden administration going to pressure banks not to lend to company who don't espouse the biden administration's extreme abortion agenda? or who donate to causes the biden administration doesn't support? is he going to pressure banks not to lend to states with laws the administration doesn't like? these are legitimate questions as we've seen more than once, the biden administration doesn't have a lot of tolerance for those who disagree with its far left policy goals. concerns like these are one reason why i led ten of my fellow republicans earlier this month in accepting a letter to the president expressing our alarm with his administration's use of the financial regulatory system to attempt to choke off lending to conventional energy production and potentially target american agriculture. and i will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that the biden administration and its regulators are not making improper use of executive power to discourage investment in essential production and to pick winners and losers among american industries. americans should not have to suffer because democrats' climate agenda is out of control. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings on the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: runaway inflation is crushing working american families on democrats' watch. the share of americans who say the economy is our most important problem hasn't been this high since the last time democrats controlled the white house. just this morning, we got a devastating quarterly g.d.p. report. the economy actually shrank 1.4% over the last three months. no longer are democrats just presiding over a disappointing recovery. now they've thrown the recovery into reverse and we're actually going backward. we haven't seen inflation this bad in more than 40 years. month after month of skyrocketing prices is exactly what everyone knew would happen if democrats dumped $2 trillion in printed money on an economy that was already ready for a comeback. but democrats rammed through the far left spending so working americans are paying dearly. this week, the same washington democrats who drove this inflation have finally figured out their response. they want to raise taxes on the american people. the democratic leader said this tuesday, quote, if you want to get rid of inflation, the only way to do it is to unto a lot -- to undo a lot of the trump tax cuts and raise rates. no republican is ever going to do that, so the only way to get rid of inflation is through reconciliation, said the democratic leader. now, remember, senator schumer is the same person who said in march 2021, quote, i do not think the dangers of inflation, at least in the near term, are very real. now the same person who predicted that inflation would not happen is saying we have to fight inflation by dramatically raising taxes on the american people. the answer for democrat hurting families once is for democrats to hurt families twice. this is literally democratic economic agenda for your family -- high prices and less money. republicans' 2017 tax cuts just about doubled the standard deductions for household. we created a brand-new zero percent tax bracket for the first 24,000 that a married couple brings in, repealing that law would cut that in half and raise your taxes. that's what repealing .2017 -- repealing the 2017 tax bill actually means. republican tax cuts also double the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000, a tremendous help to working families. repealing the 2017 tax law would slash those credit in half, but that's what democrats say they want to do because of the inflation that they created. this is senate democrats' position. because their bad decisions have hurt americans once, the solution is to hurt americans twice. first they hurt you with inflation, and now they want to hurt you with tax hikes. we'll see what our citizens have to say about that later this year. now, on another matter, yesterday secretary mayorkas testified, quote, we will not lose operational control of the border. but of course, the truth is they already have. the secretary's own customs and border protection personnel are struggling to keep up withs massive, massive numbers. only halfway through the fiscal year, they've already encountered a million people trying to enter our country illegally, and that doesn't count all the people they actually never caught. but now president biden wants to rip away the one remaining band-aid preserving any semblance of law and order. he's canceling the pandemic authorities that let c.b.p. immediately turn people around and actually send them back home. this week, the administration put out a laughable excuse for new border security plan. in this new memo, secretary mayorkas says he aims to have a total capacity to hold 18,000 illegal immigrants in custody at one time. but here's the problem -- that's the number of illegal immigrants that some c.b.p. officials fear we could soon be seeing every single day. let me say that again. the administration hopes they'll soon be able to hold 18,000 people total in custody while the experts warn we should soon have 18,000 coming in every single day. so, perhaps that's why the second main point in this mayorkas memo is this -- moving with deliberate speed to mitigate potential overcrowding at border patrol stations. so if you translate that from washington speak into plain english, it means they want to speed up catch-and-release a whole lot faster. they don't have a plan to secure the border. they have a plan to keep the turn styles greased up and spinning as fast as possible. a total abdication, and the opposite of what the american people expect. now, one final matter, the free world has rallied behind ukraine including by supplying lethal aid the ukrainians need to actually fight and win this war. but it's not enough for americans and our allies to help arm ukraine. we need to modernize and grow our own defenses at the same time. after just two months, our aid to ukraine has drawn down a quarter, a quarter of our entire stockpile of stinger antiair missiles and a third of our javelin antitank missiles. our eastern flank allies' stockpiles of similar weapons have also shrunk as well. so this is a wakeup call and not just our ability to support the current fight. ukraine rate of munitions should cause us to look at our own wartime weapons and munitions are sufficient. this would be less of a problem if we had a robust industrial base to quickly refill our arm ris, but defense -- arm ris, but manufacturers have said that some critical components have dried up and it could be years to replace the weapons we sent to ukraine. we live in a dirngus world, whether it's the escalation of threat by nato today or some other adversary tomorrow. america must be prepared to project power all over the globe. we cannot assume our adversaries will give us time to prepare for battle or to restock in the middle of one. for the sake of deterring the next conflict or winning it, if deterrence fails, we must invest in our military readiness. for two years in a row, the administration has submitted budgets that do not adequately resource our military. they failed to even keep pace with president biden's inflation, meaning a net cut in funding. and with prices soaring, it won't just take longer to build new stingers and javelins, it will cost more for them as well many congress has already given the administration significant tools and authorities to help america's defense industry address the urgent and growing demand for critical munitions and weapons systems. this is precisely the situation the defense production act was designed to address. but instead of invoking the d.p.a., as intended, this administration has entertained far-left schemes to use it for unrelated goals like environmental policy. i'm hear to hear that president biden will visit a facility in alabama that manufactures javelins, i hope he will consider what his administration is doing to ramp up production of other critical munitions and weapons systems. i hope he'll recognize what's needed to enhance america's security and that of our nato eastern flanked allies and eastern partners threatened by china. the president should use the powerful tools he already has to fix this shortfall before it's too late. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum, mr. president? the presiding officer: yes. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, it's been a good week in the senate because two important things happened. first, we finally confirmed every single u.s. attorney that had been blocked by republicans, making the country safer. and today the senate is taking the next big step towards enacting major legislation to create jobs, bring back american manufacturing, strengthen supply chains and unleash another generation of american innovation. later today, we will vote to enter into a conference committee with the house on the competition and innovation legislation. and we will work with the house to finalize this jobs competitiveness bill. we will also vote next tuesday and wednesday on 28 motions to instruct. eight from democrats, 20 from republicans. there's still a lot of work to do before we send this competitive jobs bill to the president's desk. not everyone is going to get what they want, but even so this bill is just -- is going to be just what the doctor ordered, to boost our economy, bring back manufacturing jobs and lower costs for american families. let me say it again. today the senate is moving forward on legislation that is awash with good news for american jobs, american families, american innovation. it's great news for american families who want to see lower costs on daily essentials. it's great news for workers who want to see good-paying manufacturing jobs brought back from overseas. it's great news for our businesses, especially our chip manufacturers who need help strengthening supply chains and it's great news for our innovators, scientists, workers at universities and creators who will help us create new technologies and generate the next wave of good-paying jobs in this century. now we democrats have bent over backwards to get this bill done. we allowed a very long list of motions to instruct. in fact, it's the most votes on motions to instruct of any bill in decades, and it's a sign of both the immense goodwill we have shown to our republican colleagues, and the fact that many members on both sides of the aisle have a stake in seeing the bill finalized. frankly, it shouldn't have taken us so long to get to this point forming a conference on the usica legislation, but once again it's good news that the bill is moving forward. i thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who worked in good faith to help us reach this point and i give a particular shoutout to chairman cantwell as well as senator young, my cosponsor, on this legislation. as i also mentioned, we got more good news yesterday after the senate confirmed every single u.s. attorney that had been blocked by a handful of republican obstructionists. it was about time that republicans finally relented on their dangerous and indefensible blockade on federal prosecutors. i don't think it's ever happened before. these u.s. attorneys are vital to keeping americans safe. they are not political positions. they're entirely dedicated to preserving public safety and protecting our communities. it was totally reckless for a very small band of republicans who claimed to care about public safety to have halted these federal prosecutors for so long just to score political points. still, after months of unnecessary delay, americans in georgia, michigan, nevada, ohio, and new hampshire can breeds a sigh of re -- breathe a sigh of relief that the blockade on u.s. attorneys are no longer blocked. there are still those blocked that deal with national security. republicans should drop their holds on these nomination or else we will have to go through late nights and weekend session it's to get this through. it was egregious for republicans to plea vent the -- prevent the nomination of lisa cook. we will get her confirmed through the senate as soon as we can. lisa cook is an historic and highly qualified nominee. she will be the first black woman to ever sit on the board of governors. her family fought discrimination. she is now professor of economics at michigan state, a former advisor to president biden. an historic federal reserve nominee who accomplished as much as lisa cook deserves far better treatment than what republicans have shown her. nevertheless, the senate will vote on her confirmation as soon as we can. on ukraine and covid. this morning, mr. president -- this morning president biden sent congress his request for $33 billion in emergency funding to support the ukrainian people. this is a big but critically necessary package. i will ensure that the senate prioritizes this funding package so we can get help to the ukrainian people fast, asap. it was also good to see the president get tough on russian oligarchs. i will ask the senate to arm the federal government with the tools necessary to put pressure on russian's oligarchs. we will expand existing forfeiture laws to achieve that end. we need to go after the crooked oligarchs who have gotten rich with putin's regime. the federal government should make sure that their moment of reckoning comes. two months into the war, putin's hopes for a quick takeover of ukraine thanks to the ukrainian people and to the support that the united states has provided with critical weapons. this is a fight against democracy. this is a fight of democracy against authoritarianism. all money spent on ukraine is well spent. we can't stop now, we must make sure the ukrainian people have the help they need for as long as they need it. the senate must work in a bipartisan way to pass another round of time tense sieve covid -- time sensitive covid funding. republican obstruction will not serve the american people. the administration has made clear is needs more covid money right now in order to secure the next round of vaccine doses, testing, and a new lifesaving therapeutics which are so good that if you get a positive test and you take the therapeutic, the likelihood of getting any kind of covid, particularly the more severe kind, is minimal. these are amazing drugs. but what's happening? since we don't have the money to purchase them, other countries are going to the companies, american companies, american innovation that has made them, and god forbid there's another variant, we may not have them all because of delay and political games on the other side stopping the covid legislation. the administration has made clear they need this money right now, and as i said, if we wait, other nations are going to beat us to the punch and america might be left waiting for months before more supplies are made. this is a risk. it may be a few months away but very real. it's a risk that the american people simply can't afford. of course there's a very simple way we can prevent another closure of schools and churches and businesses. republicans should work with democrats to pass another covid funding bill asap. no political games. no poison pills. no dithering about. in short, we must get both ukrainian emergency relief and covid funding relief done quickly. finally, on gas prices and the f.t.c. earlier this morning, i joined with senator cantwell, speaker pelosi and chairman pe lone to detail some of the ways democratsers helping americans to ease the pain they're feeling at the pump. we're focused like a laser on developing and passing legislation to lower costs and improve americans' daily lives. nowhere else are americans feeling the hurt as advicerly and repeatedly as they are when they fill up their tank at the gas station. we are thus working on legislation to fight bad actors who may be using covid in ukraine to jack up prices on consumers to pad their profits. and i intend to put that legislation on the floor. oil is basically an oligopoly. a few small companies dominate. and that means supply and demand doesn't work. that means, for instance, that the biggest 25 energy giants in america reported a breathtaking $205 billion in profits in 2021. if there was real competition, they'd fight to get the price lower to get some market share, but with very little competition, they just keep the price up and the consumer is strangled. one executive even bragged to shareholders about the benefits of, quote, capturing value from high prices. and what are the oil companies doing with all this cash? they're helping their c.e.o.'s and their biggest, wealthiest shareholders. the amount of buybacks is skyrocketing. buybacks do no good. they don't help the worker. they don't help the consumer. they don't even produce more oil. for those who believe that's the way to go. they simply line the pockets of the c.e.o.'s and the biggest shareholders and then they can go back and say i got the stock price up. but not the way you're supposed to in capitalism by making your cosell more, be more productive, but rather by this horrible buyback which has become endemic in corporate america and is very harmful to america. and we're seeing it in oil more than anywhere else right now. so it's high time we need somebody to look under the hood, see what the problem is, and give them the tools to fix it. that somebody is the f.t.c. it's high time for the f.t.c. to roll up their sleeves and drill down on what's going on at the big oil companies. very soon the senate will confirm alvaro bedoya and return the f.t.c. to full strength but congress needs to do more to beef up the f.t.c.'s ability to crack down on potential gas price manipulation and price gouging so we will work on legislation to that end among other proposals to lower gas prices. once again as we reach the end of this week, let me say i intend to put legislation that eases the pain of gas prices on the floor for a vote when it is ready. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from the state of montana. mr. tester: i could hardly hear you but i thank you for that recognition. i'm talk to about an issue that the man in the chair, the good senator from new jersey i know is passionate about. it's certainly something that i know montanans are passion about and quite frankly it is what i do every day when i'm not in this body. and that is talk about rural america and talk about the issues that are facing working families and communities across our state, across our country. those issues being inflation and rising costs and market consolidation and depopulation and drought. last year about this time, i made a quick trip to a town in great falls which is about 75 miles away from my farm to pick up some tires and i was shocked about not only the price but the availability. prices had gone up and the availability was -- well, they were high in demand and there wasn't a lot of inventory. and then when i got back home, almost the same moment in time i got a call from my equipment dealer. this is the first time this has ever happened to me in my 44 years on the farm where the equipment dealer said we're going to have harvest in about 60 to 90 days and if you have any repairs you need to be done on your combine, we need to know what those are today so we can get the parts ordered. otherwise we can't guarantee you those parts will be here. the second shock about the supply chain issues that i was dealt with. so when i came back here to d.c., i rang the alarm about the rising costs that were occurring in rural america and impacting producers in rural america caused by this pandemic. and as i had a manufacturer in my office a few weeks ago saying how this pandemic has made it so they can't supply this america with what they were making, he said, you know, during the pandemic we told folks to go home and the 40 and 50-year-olds have forgotten to come back. so quite frarvetionly this pandemic -- frankly, this pandemic has created some challenges in business, in manufacturing, in agriculture that we need to be paying attention to. and then we've got putin's war in ukraine which has made things worse, particularly in the areas of energy and from a farm standpoint fertilizer has also put a strain on our family farms across this country who, by the way, have already spent years under the gun where things have not been that cherry. so even before the pandemic upended supply chainses and the global economy, we had the previous administration's unnecessary, needless, and quite frankly stupid trade wars which disrupted critical ag markets for the family farmers across this nation and the family farm ranchers across this nation that depend upon trade to make ends meet. in the years since, we have seen the price of grain rise because this administration has done a much better job on trade policy than the last one. but the fact is we've also seen increases in fertilizers, in chemicals, housing and retail food, but the reality is that rural america truly is in crisis today and it has been a growing problem for decades under both democratic and republican administrations here in washington. ag producers have become so reliant on the federal government that in the year of 2020, the last year of the trump administration, 39% of the net farm income was provided through subsidies by the american taxpayer. that is a big problem and it's not something that farmers and ranchers want either. the reason for this is because of market consolidation, because of farm gate prices being artificially low providing this government support. and to further contribute, whether it's buying inputs or selling our products or grain or cattle or post-crops or whatever it might be, consolidation in that marketplace, whether it's on inputs or in the market itself, has made provability at the farm gate a huge challenge to the point where we've been driving folks out of business for decades and decades and decades. it is getting worse. as most folks know here, i have a real life, and that real life is a farmer. my wife charla and i took over our family operation in 1978. this operation is the same operation that my grandfather and my grandmother homesteaded in the early 1900's and that my folks took over from them and farmed through the 1940's, the 1960's, and a good portion of the 1970's. in many ways the little community of which i live is much the same as when my parents lived there. there's a big difference though. the farms now are bigger and they are fewer. this is an aerial shot of our place. and the arrows point to farms that quite frankly farmsteads, when we came to the farm there were families that lived there. there were people that sent their kids to the school that live there. and now those place, those farmsteads and those farms that go with those farmsteads are farmed by other people. in fact in my home county which is -- it's a big county, a big agricultural county, since 1987 we've lost nearly 35% of our farms. the numbers have gone from 752 farms down to 477 farms. this is from 1987 to 2017, a 30-year period, which is the last that we have data for. in the state of montana overall, operations over 2500 bucks have gone from $20,000 to basically $17,000 as this chart shows. once again the same 30-year period from 1987 to 2017. and across this nation, operations with more than $2500 in sales has dropped from nearly 1.6 million farms to -- down to one and a quarter million farms in 2017, as this chart shows. so look, if these charts show you nothing else, it should show you that from a rural america standpoint and a food supply standpoint and a food security standpoint, we're not healthy. we're heading in the wrong direction. you know, there's been a lot talked about agriculture and its impact on mental health. so try to imagine for a second that you're a farmer or rancher. you're working nearly every day on the land that was your grandparents' or your great-grandparents, potentially your great, great-grandparents. the generations before you did basically the same work feeding people in the same place to make the same living. except that over time the numbers, they don't work out anymore. the amount of money you've got coming in when you sell your product isn't that much different than it was years before but yet input costs have gone up. and by the way, i might add they're not much that different than the year before because we had some serious consolidation in the marketplace which i'm going to talk about in a second. yet inputs go up. in the last 40 years i've been on the farm, i've seen mean booms and busts. the price of grain and cattle have gone up. the input costs have risen more than the -- what you're getting at the marketplace. and then when those marketplace numbers drop, the input prices never go down. but getting back to that farmer that you imagined yourself to be like, i want you to think about what it would be like to take over the farm that your grandfather or great-grandfather or great, great-grandfather homesteaded has been successful for generations and now all of a sudden the books don't balance. you don't have enough money to pay the bills. it's not because you're a bad operator. it's not because you don't know what you're doing. it really is through no fault of your own that you can't make it work anymore. and we wonder why we have a challenge of mental health in rural america today. so the question is, why did we lose 345,000 farms in the last 30 years, many of them generational farms? it's because folks can't make the numbers work anymore. and that main culprit is consolidation in the corporate ag world. no competition means you don't get fair prices. so i've listed four companies up here that in the poultry -- for industries, i should say -- in the poultry business, 54% of the poultry processing is controlled by one company. 66% of -- by four companies, i mean. 66% of the hog processing is controlled by four companies. four commodity traders control 70% of the global market for grain, and four companies control over 80% of the beef processing in the united states. now, any one of these sectors -- truthfully, any one of these sectors, those four companies could go out on a golf course and set the price that my neighbors are getting for their products and that the consumer is going to pay for their products when it's on the retail end. and this happens while they continue to -- while they continue to pull in record profits. and the ultimate effect of all this consolidation on rural communities is -- has pushed farmer farmers and ranchers to the brink of extinction. so you ask yourself, why should i care? well, for one, the american taxpayer is paying a pretty penny because of this consolidation. in recent years, we have averaged well over $10 billion a year to help keep american people farmers in the business across this country. i believe it is money well spent. but the truth is, there is not a farmer or a rancher out there that doesn't want to get their check from the marketplace. they do not want it from the federal government. but without it, we would see even a bigger mass exodus out of rural america. they want capitalism. they want their markets to work. they want to make it so it benefits them and it benefits the consumer. and, quite frankly, right now it's not working because we have four companies that control 54% of the food supply in chickens, four companies that control 66% of the supply in pork, 70% in the grain markets, four companies, and over 80% when it comes to beef. there's no competition, folks. there's no competition. and this is also bad not only for the taxpayer but also for our food security. what this pandemic has taught success that when you have big processors with thousands of people that work in these plants and you get an incidence of covid, for example, it shuts the entire plant down because you literally have people in these plants that are working shoulder to shoulder processing meat. so covid goes through these plants like that. so they shut them down, or you end up with a fire like we had at a processing plant in kansas, which obviously the fire shuts the plant down, or we have a cyberattack that happened at one of these big-four g.b.s., which shuts them down. so you say, what the heck? it's just one plant. well, these plants individually make up a large portion of these percentages that i talked about. so what what happens? the marketplace goes away for the farmers, the producers, the ranchers. and on the other end, the working family that goes to the grocery store sees their prices go up. well, we can't afford to eat because the prices are jacked up. so its bad for the producers, its -- so it's bad for the producers,it's bad for the consumers. the fact is, these packers are doing pretty darn well. the last quarter of 2020, tysons food increased their profit over $469 million to $1.3 billion. that's a 140% increase in profit. i don't think there's anything wrong with making a profit. if you're going to have a business that's success, you have to make a profit. but the fact of the matter is, if we're making a profit, these kinds of profits, and it's killing can our folks in family farm agriculture, i don't think that's quite right. and i don't think that's good for rural america, and i don't think it's good for the consumers that live in this country. so, bottom line is we've go to to put some guardrails on the system if we're going to make this marketplace work, because it's not working today. so we've got tomorrow legislative solutions. congress has the opportunity to doing is, and i have worked very closely with -- to do something, and i have worked very closely with the man i think ising in the -- sitting in the chair today. i particularly want to thank senators grassley, phisher, wyden and rounds as well as senator booker for their good work. in the case of grassley, fischer, wyden and rounds, with you put forward a bipartisan cattle price discovery and transparency act that's a long name nor a bill that is going to increase transparency in the marketplace and set regional mandatory minimum thresholds for negotiated cattle purchases. this is going to ensure that the ranchers get a fair price, but it won't ensure it alone. we have to do more. we have to also pass a meatpacking special investigator act which will put teeth back in the stockards act, which was passed back in 1921 because of the consolidation in the packing industry and we are more consolidated today than we were in 1921. so this will give the department of ag a team of investigators within the usda with subpoena power dedicated to preventing and addressing anti-competition practices in the meat and poultry industry and enforcing our nation's antitrust laws that are currently on the books. and i'm asking my colleagues when these bills hit the floor -- and i believe they will hit the floor, hopefully this work period -- to pass these bills, get them to the house so we can get them to the president's desk as quickly as possible. if you take these two bills, the meatpacking special investigator bill and the bipartisan cattle price discovery bill -- by the way, they're both bipartisan -- and you combine that with the dollars that the administration has put out to small meatpackers, to expand and start up meatpackers, we will infuse more competition into this marketplace and that will be good for producers, and it will be good for consumers, and we will not continue to see this decline in rural america. look, a well-fed citizenry is essential if a democracy is going to survive. with the consolidation that we've seen over the last many decades, we see the potential for food to become a serious problem in this country and potentially even weaponized. rural america is going to dry up if we don't fix this problem. it's going to continue to see this diagram where we see fewer folks on the land and we see bigger corporations manipulating food prices because, quite frankly, they've already found out -- they being the big packers -- that they can have it their way because they've had it their way for a long, long time. and because they've had it their way for a long, long time, consumers are paying higher prices, because floss competition -- because there is no competition. without any regard to what people can afford, it's all about the profit margins, which -- i'll show you that one again, too. it's all about record profits. it's not about making sure that we have food security. it's about how we can maximize our money at the expense of families. and, by the way, the same is true on the agriculture side of that -- of the equation. we'll maximize our profits and we don't care if these generational ranchers go broke. we don't care. somebody else will buy if. we'll still get the cattle. it'll be some big hedge fund in new york city. it's okay. so we need to do something because our citizenry needs to have access to food that they can afford. these two bills are going to help capitalism work for farmers, and it's going to help capitalism work for consumers. because i'm telling you, when capitalism works, everybody does better. i said this problem has been around for over a hundred years, since the packers and stockyard act was passed in 1912. so there will be some in this -- in 1921. so there will be some in this body that will say, things will be just fine. i can guarantee you one thing for sure. if you look at where we have been and predict where we are going, if we do nothing, there will be very, very, very few people living in rural america. family farm agriculture will be dead in this country, and if we lose family farm agriculture, this country will change for the worse in a major way for all the reasons i've already put out. so i'm going to tell you what. folks serve in this body because they want to do right by the next generation. they want to make sure our kids and grandkids have the same opportunity we have, they want to make sure this country remains the greatest country on earth. i think implore the members of this body, when these bills come to the floor -- and they will come to the floor because i think they're g.a.o.ing to -- they're going to come out of agriculture in the next week to ten days -- i hope that you put your shoes, put your feet in the shoes of those people that are involved in agriculture. and i hope you put your feet in the shoes of the consumer because if we do these bills, we will be putting the country back on the right track for food security for the long term. thank you, madam chair. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to complete my remarks prior to the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: first of all, i want to associate myself with the comments of the senator from montana, and i wanted to ask a question because, look, i hear from my cattlemen about this all the time. i think the issue is, they think they're going to get a price. they think the they're going to grow beef. they think that they're going to have some certainty in this marketplace, only to find at the last minute, when the beef is about to be delivered to the packinghouse, the packinghouse comes up with a scheme or scenario to drive their price after our growers have made these investments. is that right? mr. tester: yes. so look, you have a situation where you have four companies that can grow 82% of the meat in this country. that's not competition. you're not going to get fair price. and but the way, these ranchers all have fixed cost. it's not like you can cut their costs. they have fixed costs. right now because of the drought west of the mississippi, hay prices are at an all-time high. all this stuff exacerbates the problem. what we need is more competition. we will get more competition. and when we get more competition, it will be fairer for everybody, both the producers and the consumer. ms. cantwell: i thank the senator from montana for articulating this issue. too many market control, not enough transparency. and our growers basically get stuck with having invested costs never to recuperate them because somebody used that market power to basically lower those costs. and you know we've seen this a lot. we've seen them import a ton of canadian beef right at this very moment, right when they're about to deliver u.s. product into the meat marketplace. oh, we just dropped the price because they just let in a whole lot of supply from canada. the gentleman from montana is talking about something that is existing in other aspects of our economy, too, so i'm very glad that we're trying to better police these markets and do a better job. i know you and the gentlewoman from mississippi have focused on this issue. we very much appreciate you doing that. we're about to go to conference on the united states innovation and competition act, in the house -- and the house america competes act. this is a long time coming. i want to thank leader schumer and senator wicker, also senator young and other senators who worked hard to help us have this process today. obviously i hope my completion will vote yes to compound this motion and go to conference and allow for these various motions to instruct. it's been 324 days since the senate passed this bill, june 8, 2021, and it's been 488 days since we authorized the chip program. i'm here to implore my colleagues to get this done today and to say that we need to move faster. we just heard yesterday from commerce secretary gina ramon dough who said even in ukraine, weapon replacement is being hindered by a lack of chips. we know that we are facing other problems talking about beijing with further lockdowns. what does that mean? it means fewer people producing product. it means more serious supply chain issues. if you're serious about america's competition, americans being allowed to build more and invest more in the united states, onshoring of our manufacturing supply chain, our competitiveness, then you want to vote yes and go to conference. we've had so many letters in the last month, the american society of engineering education, tech companies who believe in the competition and the opportunity that we've seen writing us saying please get this legislation done. and we've seen used car prices shoot up 40% because semiconductor shortages have basically created havoc in the automotive market. and it's clear that our european and asian counterparts aren't waiting. they're moving ahead trying to deal with the supply chain shortage because as the secretary also told us yesterday, the shortage is well defined. we know that it's going to last well into the future. that is there is demand. so the question is for the world economy is are you going to try to meet that demand and the answer is there are a lot of people that are going to try to meet that demand. the question is are we going to try to meet that demand, and the longer we wait, the longer we take to meet that demand, the more the investment is attracted to go somewhere else. now, the united states of america believes in having the leading edge semiconductor production and we're excited that that next generation of chips could do so many things for the smart appliances, smart tools, clean energy economy, obviously communications economy, next generation of all sorts of technology as it relates to our telecom sector. but we need to get this bill done. we need to resolve the differences between the house and the senate. and we need to have bipartisan support to show that the united states senate can function legislatively on an issue that's not a mandatory or annual bill but a process by which an issue presented to us as a nation, supply chain, competitiveness, manufacturing issues, and we can get the job done. we in the united states pride ourself of being a nation of inventors. we are a leader in global technology. we know that we can solve our problems by solutions that we together, business and labor and government and r&d investment can bring the best ideas to fruition and help us as a nation. but we have to show that we, democrats and republicans, house and senate, can master the next step in the innovation process, and that is what these underlying bills do. it basically allows us to dust off our r&d skills and say let's do more translational science. so we've had lots of letters from people supporting tech hubs, investments of universities working with business in a centralized location to solve engineering problems and move ahead. we have the manufacturing extension partnership program and many of our small and medium-sized businesses who need access to technology and supply chain data to better compete in a global economy and provide security want this legislation. so the risk of inaction are too great to ignore. the u.s. innovation and competition act is clearly part of our supply chain solutions. i urge my colleagues to not only help us by invoking cloture and going to conference but helping us resolve these issues in a timely fashion so we can send a price signal about the investments that we wouldn't to make -- that we want to make in the united states of america to make our nation and our manufacturers more competitive. with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to insist on the senate amendment to h.r. 4521, an act to provide for coordinated federal research initiative to ensure continued united states leadership in engineering biology, agree to the request from the house for a conference and authorize the chair to appoint conferees on behalf of the senate signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to insist upon the senate amendment agreed to the request by the house for a conference and authorize the presiding officer to appoint conferees with respect to h.r. 4521, an act to provide a coordinated federal research initiative to ensure continuing united states leadership in engineering biology shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. and the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: vote: vote: vote: the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are 29. three-fifths of the senators duly chose chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about the biden border crisis. right now our nation is facing a dangerous national security crisis at the border and it's all because of the policies and the actions of president joe biden. now, there are a lot of crisis cease that we're facing, there's the border crisis, the crisis of high gas prices, the crisis of inflation, which is at a 40-year high and there is the issues of international affairs with vladimir putin on nato's doorstep, having invaded ukraine. when you hear about all of these, the ones i hear most in wyoming is that of inflation and illegal immigration. the thing that has really brings this to the fore136 -- fore today is that on may 23, the crisis will get worse. on may 23, the experts tell us, including people from this own administration, that the number of people illegally coming to this country could double or even triple over night. since joe biden took office, there have been millions and millions of illegal crossings from our southern border into the united states. the border patrol estimates that more than 700,000 illegal immigrants have gotten away from them since joe biden has taken office. this includes 62,000 people just last month. it works out to about 2,000 illegal immigrants vanishing into the united states every single day. these are the ones that got away. these aren't the tens and tens of thousands who are coming through the process of being registered and released into the united states. once they get in, most likely they will never leave. under joe biden we are breaking record after record and these are the wrong kind of records to break. last year the number of illegal immigrants who have come to the united states is the highest ever recorded. at the same time, america's immigration enforcement is the least amount ever, and to that point, the biden administration seems to think everything is going just fine. yesterday secretary of homeland security testified before congress. i was on a conference call with him the day before where he met with a number of the members of the republican leadership. what the secretary said yesterday is this, he is said we -- he said we have effectively managed to have a number of noncitizens into the united states. to me this is an early an date for the fact checkers lie of the year. they haven't effectively managed anything. the only thing they have effectively managed to do is erase the border completely. the men and women on our border patrol are working around the clock. they're hoarse, although they've -- heros, although they've been vilified by the president of the united states. this crisis is happening because joe biden policies have tied the hands of the border agents. they are being abused and disrespected by this president and administration. on joe biden's first day in office he stopped all construction of the border wall, he ended the remain in mexico policy. they are eliminating a policy that protects the national security of our nation. joe biden is ending title 42. people at home say, what is this title 42? it is a section of our laws that deals with public health at the start of the pandemic people were -- this title 42 by this administration likely saved thousands of american lives, protected our public health. last july joe biden tried to end title 42. he said coronavirus was over. it was behind him. patting himself on the back. and then the delta variant hit the country like a sledgehammer. joe biden and the administration were caught by surprise and people administering testing were running into long lines, empty shelves. he and the administration were caught completely off guard as has this administration been on so many things on the border, on the crisis in afghanistan month after month after month. the administration showed they have no core competence to run this nation. by september of last year, the biden administration was forced to admit that one in every five illegal immigrants coming to this country was bringing disease with them. that's tens of thousands of illegal immigrants bringing disease into a country each month. but now joe biden wants to end title 42 forever and do it on may 23. if it ends, we're told and believe that this will cause a title -- tidal wave of illegal immigration like this nation has never seen before. right now homeland security is preparing for up to 18,000 illegal immigrants each and every day after title 42 ends. that's a half a million people a month. that's more -- that's a population equal to the entire population of the state of wyoming. mr. president, i assume in the state of maine, i don't know the exact population, but if you're bringing in half a million people a day, it doesn't take long to add up to the population of the state of maine. so what are democrats saying about this? barak obama's homeland security secretary once said 1,000 a day would overwhelm the system. joe biden seems pretty happy with 18,000 a day. right now we're at 6,000 a day. we have a system that's overwhelmed and it's going to get a lot, lot worse. joe biden could triple the number of illegal immigrants overnight to 18,000 a day come may 23. earlier this month, former secretary jeh johnson, who i alluded to earlier, he said the current trends are unsustainable. he says it overwhelms communities in texas and arizona. it overwhelms the border patrol. this is barak obama's secretary of homeland security saying that. and i believe secretary jeh johnson is right. recently the head of the del rio texas border patrol union, and my colleague from texas is here, and the head of the del rio texas border patrol was here and said that they are so busy with transportation and processing of illegal immigrants that no one is patrolling the southern border of the united states and i'm certain that the distinguished senator from texas, senator cornyn, who is on the floor will address this issue after i get finished speaking, because he talks to people from texas every day. the crisis that is hitting his home state and hitting this entire nation. so this del rio sector covers an area of 240 miles of border and the head of del rio texas border patrol told us no one is patrolling that section of the border because the personnel are too busy filling out paperwork and moving illegal immigrants from location to location. in humana, arizona, up to 90% of border patrol agents are busy with day care. 90% of them can't spend time guarding the border. large portions of the border in arizona is wide open which is why i believe the junior senator from arizona is so vehemently opposing the president of his own party for a reckless move by a president who seems to disregard the importance of even having a border to our nation. media reports show that 60,000 people right now are waiting at our southern border, they are counting down the days until title 42 is over. some will bring in judges, some may be on the terror watch list. if you're a foreign terrorist on the terror watch list, this is a dream come true if you're trying to get to america. on may 23, we will face a humanitarian crisis, a public health crisis and a national security crisis all in one greater, much greater than the one we are facing today. and is already terrifying americans in every state because with an open border, every state is a border state, every city is a sanctuary city and people are subjected to the drugs and the crime that is coming with it and the deaths that are coming as well. now many democrats are asking and telling joe biden, keep title 42 in place. yet, these same democrats, they voted in lockstep with chuck schumer and joe biden for the last 15 months. they understand today that joe biden's policy is unwise and very unpopular. but these are the same democrats that came to the floor and voted to stop building the border wall. the same democrats who in this very chamber voted to give stimulus checks, send out checks to illegal immigrants when they voted last year. not one of those democrats joined us in supporting title 42 last summer. democrats can run for reelection, but they cannot run from their records. they voted for the biden border agenda and every democrat shares the blame for this crisis. what happens at the border doesn't stay at the border. no, it makes each one of us less safe. border patrol tell us they have caught, so far, 42 terrorists trying to cross the border since joe biden took office. how many got away? we're hearing the numbers are getting up to 60,000 a month, gettaways, how many of those live in our midst? the majority of illegal drugs came over the border. drug overdoses have never been higher. people are dying every day in every state because of drugs being brought in across the southern border by the lax border policies of joe biden and the democrats. if title 42 ends, it's going to mean more drugs, more crime, more death in all of our states. even "the washington post" newspaper, their editorial board, who is not known for being conservative, this is what they recently said -- a migrant surge is coming at the border and biden is not ready. all of america knows that. they know biden's not ready to be president, not ready to run the economy, not ready to help the military, not ready at any level and at the border, "the washington post" points out he's not ready. the article said the effect of lifting title 42 is a new influx of migrants which would compound an existing surge at the border for weeks or much longer. "the washington post" points out and predicts absent progress on addressing the root causes, the biden administration will surely face more chaos at the border. this is an administration of chaos. "the washington post," i believe -- and that's my addition. they've ended it by saying more chaos at the border. i'm adding an administration of chaos. the post is exactly right. this crisis is 100% preventible. it's a crisis of joe biden's choosing and joe biden's making. it is a crisis that is entirely the result of democrats' reckless open-border policies. we need to go back to policies that work. i urged the president -- urge the president to keep title 42 in place. listen to the democrats who are talking to you, in addition to us, mr. president, who say keep title 42 in place and enforce the laws on the books. close the loopholes that encourage illegal immigration. finish the wall. bring back the remain in mexico policy. we know it works. the american people in every state are pleading with joe biden. only about one in three americans support the president's policy at the border. two-thirds don't. overwhelming numbers oppose what this president is doing to this country in terms of how he's affecting the economy, inflation, energy prices, and the border. this is a president at record low numbers on all of those areas, and it's all of his own doing and his own making. mr. president, do not make this your own border crisis even worse. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator for texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, let me start by express anything gratitude to the senator from wyoming, senator barrasso, for laying out the nature of the border crisis that we are experiencing and have experienced at the highest levels in 20 years during the year and a half or year and a quarter, i guess, of the biden administration. but i want to come to the floor and talk about an aspect of the border crisis that is not been sufficiently discussed or noticed and that is the connection between the flood of illegal drugs coming across the border not just with 100,000 drug overdose deaths we experienced in america last year but also with crime and gangs and guns in every community across the united states. from maine to texas, from virginia to california. a gallup poll published earlier this month found that 80% of americans are worried about crime and violence. it seems like there's a new headline every day about carstens carstenss of violence in cities -- about acts of violence in cities across our country. two weeks ago a gunman sent off smoke grenades and opened fire on a crowded new york city subway car. chicago just experienced this most violent -- its most violent weekend this year with eight people murdered and 42 others shout. the gang shootout in sacramento killed six and wounded 12. the american people aren't just noticing this trend. they're demanding solutions. rising crime rates have caused many leaders to change their tune on this idea, this crazy idea called defund the police. new york city, oakland, and baltimore are among the cities to reverse their previous cuts in police funding. and that's for a very simple reason, mr. president. it's because defunding the police is dangerous. there's no question that law enforcement plays an important role in stopping crime. we have to remember that this crime surge is tied to far more than just police departments. i'm reminded of a quote by h.l. minken who said for every complex problem, there is a solution that's simple, neat, and wrong. so when looking at the fact ooshes that -- factors that fuel this upsurge of crime and violence in our cities across the country, we can't ignore a big contributor of that which is the crisis occurring along our southern border. some of the numbers are familiar to all of us. for example, customs and border protection encountered more than 200,000 migrants along the southern border last month alone. the highest number in more than two decades. the total number of migrant encounters over the last 12 months exceeds 2.2 million. you might be tempted to ask what in the world is going on. why are things changing? i want to make one thing clear, though. i'm in no way suggesting that all of these individuals coming across the border are dangerous criminals. many of them are economic migrants looking for a better life, something we all understand. but there are definitely people coming across the border who are dangerous criminals primarily associated with the drug cartels who threaten public safety in every city in america every day. we need to acknowledge that a human flood of people, even people potentially associated with legitimate asylum claims, that that flood of humanity, just having to deal with that many people opened gateways for truly dangerous criminals and the drugs that are smuggled across the border undetected. i'll give you an example of how that happens. last fall more than 15,000 migrants, primarily haitians who had been living in south america arrived at the small border town of del rio, texas, a town of a population of 35,000 people. so all of a sudden 15,000 migrants show up in a town of 35,000 people. it's not by accident. to state the obvious, the del rio border patrol sector did not have the capacity to process and care for that many migrants at a given time. but that was part of the plan of the drug cartels and the criminal organizations associated with them. but in response the administration moved border patrol agents from other check points to the del rio sector to try to help. but of course that's exactly what the cartels hoped for. taking people off the front lines and other sectors to handle the surge of migrants in del rio opened up avenues for the drug cartels to smuggle their poison into the united states. administration officials later told congressional staff that this massive surge of my gants was -- migrants was, they acknowledged, part of a coordinated effort by the cartels. they directed the haitian migrants to show up at a single location in a small town on the border to make sure that other paths into the united states would be cleared for their illicit contraband of drugs. talk to any border patrol agent and they'll tell you that this happens all the time. the cartels are very sophisticated. they know how to game the system. they watch. they wait. they coordinate. and at the right moment they bring their poison into our country. in many cases they're moving drugs, everything from marijuana to methamphetamine to heroin. but in recent years customs and border protection has seen an alarming increase in synthetic poippeds, -- opioids, fentanyl coming across the border. as we all have learned fentanyl is a uniquely dangerous drug because it's so potent. a lethal dose can fit on the tip of a sharpened pencil. in the first three months of this year, customs and border protection seized nearly 1200 kilograms. now, kilograms 2.2 pounds so that's 2,640 pounds of fentanyl were seized at the border, enough to wipe out the entire u.s. population. cartels and criminal organizations aren't just trying to smuggle their product into the united states. they have to have a way to distribute those drugs across our country. and that's where the criminal gangs come in to the picture. last tuesday agents from the rio grande valley border patrol sector arrested an ms-13 member. ms-13 is one of the most violent gangs on the planet. the following day agents arrested an 18th street gang member, and over the weekend agents arrested four additional gang members. this all happened in one border patrol sector in less than a week's time. what we need to remember when we look at all this data is that these are just the ones we know about. we have absolutely no idea how many drugs and criminals has slipped through the cracks. now, the border patrol has a name for this. they call it the getaways, but the truth is we don't really know how many people have gotten away undetected to smuggle drugs or dangerous criminals into the united states. by one estimate, 385,000 getaways came across the border in 2021. and there's a reason they didn't turn themselves into the border patrol. they're not seeking asylum. they're not saying i've been persecuted in my home country and thus eligible for asylum potentially in the united states. these people, these getaways are the ones that don't want to be detected by law enforcement because they're up to no good. mr. president, i think this chart shows the network of gangs and criminal organizations operating within the united states. you know, most of the time we all think well, the drugs come across the border and we forget what happens next. but as you can see, cartels -- this is a d.e.a., a drug enforcement administration chart. as you can see the cartels and transnational criminal organizations have a presence in most major cities across the united states. many of these are members of dangerous gangs who want to make money so they sell drugs in their local community. and they fight for territory, for market share. they commit other property crimes, other crimes of violence, carjacking, larceny, armed robbery in order to fuel their need for money. so once cartel members and their gang associates get drugs across the border, where do they go? well, they go to chicago. they go to detroit. they go to atlanta. they go to new york. they go to san diego. they go to virtually every community in our country where they are then distributed to people to feed addictions which result in overdoses and death. it's not just a border problem. this affects every single community in our country. last year the special agent of chicago's d.e.a. office spoke about what happens when these drugs and criminals reach your backyard. he said cartels use every means possible to get drugs from mexico into the united states and then to local markets. in chicago that means predominantly to the gangs that control the drug markets in chicago. but it's not just chicago. it's literally every community in america. these are the same gangs that fuel the overdose end, the same ones -- epidemic, the same ones that perpetuate crime and gun violence. these are the same gangs that engage in deadly fights over control for territory and market share. and the cruel reality is this is happening on a daily basis in every community in our country, which is contributing to the spike in violent crime and the public's reasonable concerns that they've expressed about it, including boneheaded ideas like defunding the police. a drug enforcement agency report from 2017 acknowledged that drug trafficking profits -- and i quote -- increase the staying power of both street gangs and drug trafficking organizations, close quote. the more money they make, the more drugs they are manufactured and brought into the country and spread throughout our communities. no community in america is safe. a rural, an urban, a suburban community, none of them have been spared the pain and suffering of the drug overdose epidemic. drugs which predominantly come across our southern border by these criminal cartels. i mentioned it before but it's worth noting that last year we hit a grim milestone in america. for the first time on record more than a hundred thousand americans lost their lives to drug overdoses in a 12-month period. now i remember what happened when al qaeda hit the united states and killed 3,000 americans on 9/11. we declared war. and we committed ourselves to rooting out these terrorists that exported their -- this terrorist plot to hit our homeland. when a hundred thousand americans die of drug overdoses, what do we do? well, we throw up our hands. we say there's not much we can do about it. supply meets demand, and there is some truth to that but it's not the whole story. as i said, in recent years the number of drug overdose deaths cause add by synthetic drugs has skyrocketed. virtually all are made from precursors from asia -- primarily china -- shipped to mexico, manufactured there in an industrial operation which can make a fentanyl tablet look a lot like some other medication that you might take, and many people -- too many people have died thinking they were taking a drug for some condition only to find out it was laced with fentanyl and resulting in their drug-overdosed death. the alarming increase in the supply coming across our border foreshadows even worse overdose statistics in the months to come, and fentanyl isn't the only dangerous drug. federal -- methamphetamine, coc, heroin. according to the d.e.a., the drug enforcement threat assessment, 92% of the heroin that comes to the united states comes from one place -- from mexico. 92%. so when you zoom out and get a broader perspective and quit looking through a soda straw at what's happening at the border or, you see it's not just an immigration issue. the drugs pouring across our border make this a public health crisis as well. and the criminals sneaking across our border who are distributing these drugs all across the country are a public security crisis, a public safety crisis. the unlicensed guns that the gangs use to protect their territory makes this a gun violence crisis as well. every single american should be outraged by what's happening at the border, but if you don't care about 2.2 million people showing up at our front doorstep, if you don't care about the 100,000 americans that died of drug overdoses, do you care about the spikes in violence and crime in your neighborhood, in your local community? all of these are inextricably intertwined. i don't care if you're a liberal democrat or an independent or a conservative republican, this failure of the federal government to deal with our border crisis is absolutely appall ago, and it hurts -- absolutely appalling, and it hurts us all. i've heard someone say, every city is a border town these days, and this makes that point. this state of chaos is dangerous for the migrants who turn themselves over to human smugglers who care nothing about them, only the money they can generate from smuggling them into the united states. i've seen the bleached bones of migrants left behind, injured or sick, because the coyotes, the smugglers care nothing about them but just the money they can garner from smuggling them into the country, not to mention the girls and women that are sexually assaulted in the long time from their home country into the united states. it's unfair to the border communities i represent. we have 1,200 miles of common border with mexico in texas. any governor, my state legislature, the people i represent are outraged that the federal government is not living up to its responsibilities. it's unfair to those communities, most of which are hispanic majorities, by large majorities, who are sympathetic to the desire of people for a better life, fleeing no jobs or violence. but they're having to pay the price now, not just with the flood of people coming across the border for which the federal government is completely unprepared. they also have to deal with the opioid abuse and the criminal organization oz that are flooding our communities with fentanyl, heroin, and other dangerous substances. but it's not just the border. cities all across this country are combating violent crime at numbers that we have not seen for decades. this is directly tied to the drug business at the border because the criminal gangs are the ones who distribute those drugs in our communities. and this is the status quo -- the status quo is deeply unfair to the men and women of law enforcement, including the border patrol, who put their lives on the line to secure our border and protect our communities. last week texas lost a 22-year-old soldier who was doing a job that the federal government should have done, but he was there at the southern border as part of a state national guard effort called operation lonestar. texas army national guardsman specialist bishop evans was attempting to rescue two migrants who appeared to be drowning as they were crossing the river from mexico. he disappeared into the treacherous waters of the rio grande and tragically did not survive. making matters even worse, initial reports from law enforcement indicate that the two migrants that specialist evans was trying to save are suspected of drug trafficking. there are a million and one reasons why president biden should want to address this border crisis, and it's absolutely inconceivable to me that his administration has done nothing to make this better, and i would argue through some of the 309s promise -- through some of the policies promulgated by director mayorkas, he's actually made it worse, he's made it more attractive to come and attempt this dangerous journey from their home into the united states. he's made it easier, given the business model of the cartels, to get more of those drugs across the border and into our communities. -- contributing to the crime wave that's shocking so many people. as we head into the summer months, which are traditionally the busiest times for border crossings, the biden administration needs to do something. and met me just say, mr. president -- and let me just say, mr. president, i'm prepared, i know a lot of us are prepared on a bipartisan basis, to do what had we need to do to end this crisis. if the biden administration doesn't want to lead in the effort, at least they can allow those of us here in the congress to come up with ideas like my bipartisan, bicameral border solutions act to try to address this crisis that we cannot tolerate any longer. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if there is no further debate, question occurs on the compound motion. the chair thanks the senator. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be o there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: vote:

Related Keywords

Montana , United States , Afghanistan , Nevada , China , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , San Diego , California , Russia , Ukraine , Mexico , Arizona , Wyoming , Finland , Poland , Chicago , Illinois , New York , Georgia , New Hampshire , Oakland , Texas , Washington , Kremlin , Moskva , Canada , Guatemala , Haiti , Solomon Islands , Brussels , Bruxelles Capitale , Belgium , Michigan , Mississippi , Germany , Oklahoma , Maine , New Jersey , Bulgaria , Kansas , Kyiv , Kyyiv , Misto , Ohio , France , Turkey , Americans , America , Ukrainians , Russian , Montanans , Ukrainian , German , Haitians , Russians , American , John Kerry , Alvaro Bedoya , Jeh Johnson , Al Qaeda , Anders Fogh , Barak Obama , Lisa Cook , Henry Clay , Joe Biden , Kim Jong , July Joe Biden , Antony Blinken ,