>> you talk about the agencies themselves and inspectors general, i wondered your thoughts on the select subcommittee on the coronavirus and it work if you go to their homepage right now, they will give you the number for the coronavirus tip line to report waste, fraud and abuse and relief fund. >> the select committee was a great idea. ... pieces of legislation we had. but we have never really gotten together and realized its full potential. therethe question occurs on ther nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

. >> senators vetoing in the affirmative. bennett, booker, collins, duckworth, hickenlooper, cain, mernendez, scott of florida, and warren. >> mr. rounds eye, mr. cruise. senators voting in negative, cassidy, cruz, johnson, tubberville.

ms. baldwin,

aye. ms. cortez masto, aye.

whitehouse, aye. mr. schatz, no.

>> didn't forget to vote. >> ms. shaheen, aye. build blumethal, aye. is hyde-smith no.

mr. murphy, aye. mr. portman, aye.

>> mr. lujan, aye. mr. reed, aye. >> ms. stabenow, aye.

>> ms. cantwell, aye. mr. lanford, no. >> mr. young

no. >> mr. warnock, aye. >> mr. murphy, aye.

ms. klobuchar, aye.

>> mr. leahy, aye.

ing. >> mr. heinrich, aye, mr. scatz,

aye. >> mr. cotton, aye.

>> ms. feinstein, aye.

>> mr. chester,

aye. mr. kasey, aye. mr. graham, aye.

>> mr. moran, aye.

>> mr. durbin, aye. >> ms. smith, aye.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 69, the nays are 30, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture, 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 nomination of executive calendar number 764, january contreras of arizona, to be assistant

secretary for family support, department of health and human services, signed by 16 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 nomination of january contreras of arizona to be assistant secretary for family support, department of health and human services, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 54, the nays are 45, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of health and human services, january contreras of arizona to be assistant secretary for family support.

it's integral to the rule of fun for the most part since the democratic party court-packing the 1930s both parties have respected it. lately washington democrats have gone off the rails. in 2019 democratic senators tried to open -- openly bully the supreme court into a certain outcome. they wrote a threatening amicus brief saying the court had better quote heal itself. in 2020 the democratic leader himself on the steps said -- threatened multiple sitting justices by name if they didn't reach the policy outcome that they wanted in 2021 president biden assisted delegitimizing campaign by constructing a pseudo-academic commission to ponder ideas like partisan

court-packing and unconstitutional term limits. activist groups mounted the public reshard campaign to push justice breyer. just last week the number two senate democrat and they are calling from alumni against quarters -- partisan court-packing. this was a very revealing comment considering senator durbin and the vast majority of democrats have tried to destroy that very threshold. a couple of months back and now in the last few days the latest chapter the left? delegitimize the supreme court. this time it's a coordinated effort to nullify the president president -- the presence of justice clarence thomas on the corporate the far left wants another at what they tried and failed to do way back in 1991.

washington democrats are now trying to bully this exemplary judge of 30 plus years out of an entire legal subject or op the court altogether. the far left house members are talking about dusting off their party's impeachment eviction for third consecutive year. they are posting about how they successfully elude their senior leadership into impeachment in the past. make no mistake this performative outrage is not in earnest. this is a little hit, part of the liberals a years long? to deed -- delegitimize the court. t? the presiding officer: that is correct. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. earlier this week i gave some examples of how the media is covering for judge jackson's lackluster performance in her supreme court confirmation hearing. i'm not sure who they think

they'll persuade with these unhinged attacks, but what i do know is that the subtext has come through loud and clear for tennesseans. it is sit down, shut up, stop questioning authority. and if you don't, we're going to come and get you. that's what these headlines are basically saying. last night i hosted a teletown hall with more than 30,000 people across middle and east tennessee, and they have rejected the message that they're seeing in these headlines. it's really pretty simple for them. the harder the media pushes and tries to shut them up, the more they are pushing for accountability, especially when it comes to protecting the future for their children and their grandchildren.

now, as i am sure many people will recall, during a line of questioning in judge jackson's confirmation hearing, i asked her a very simple question. all i wanted her to do was define the word woman. she told me she couldn't answer the question because she wasn't a biologist. if we had been in the middle of a committee hearing or if we had not been in the middle of a committee hearing, i would have thought that this was a joke. but we were in the middle of this committee hearing, and it wasn't. it was a very deliberate signal to a very specific group of individuals. of course our friends in the media sensed this was going to backfire, as it did.

so they flew into damage control mode. but i think it's safe to say they overplayed their hand on this one. according to this particular outlet, science says there's no simple answer to what a woman is. don't question the science. that sounds familiar, doesn't it? we've heard that a lot lately. they went to great lengths to fruit a simple fact that -- to refute a simple fact that every single american learned in their grade school science class. judge jackson's answer and the media's panicked defense of it were both completely divorced from reality. i have spoken at length about how judge jackson's total lack of a judicial philosophy causes these kinds of problems, but my democratic colleagues and their

activist friends still seem to be under the impression it's unreasonable to ask a supreme court nominee about her approach to interpreting the law. this makes no sense. without that philosophy, without that basic standard, you cannot achieve stability or predict ability, which are two things judge jackson repeatedly told us are important for a functioning judicial system. i have serious questions about the nominee's refusal to engage us on this question. but what worries me even more is her refusal to acknowledge that when it comes to law, not everything can or should be up for debate because political activists demand it. our legal system is built on a

foundation of definitions and rules which are to -- two equally important components. in this case, if we concede that the definition of woman is too controversial to nail down, how can we demand equal justice under the law for victims of sex discrimination? furthermore, how could the supreme court determine standing for any case regarding a gender-based rule? to take it even further, if words no longer matter, are the definitions of other protected classes up for debate? if so, which ones? and if not, then why not? whose standard are we using here? think about that. i hear from tennesseans every

single day who feel like they're fighting a losing battle against the erosion of our basic values. their government is drowning in debt. the crime rate has gone from bad to absolutely terrifying. and classrooms have become battlegrounds in the culture war between woke bureaucrats and parents who just want to rear their children as they see fit. slowly but surely activists are forcing themselves between parents and their children, stripping words and institutions of their meaning and using their power to eliminate dissent. it's no way to run a classroom and it's no way to run a country either. but right now these parents i'm

talking to are looking at washington and seeing the left use these same tactics to convince whoever gives credence to these unhinged headlines that reality is somehow up for debate. mr. president, they're not going to tolerate it anymore, not from congress, not from the white house and certainly not from the supreme court. i think it bears repeating that the purpose of the supreme court is to interpret the law, not to take up arms in a culture war. i cannot in good conscientious, give my endorsement to a supreme court nominee whose first instinct was to dhip away at the -- chip away at the foundation of the law rather than challenge -- rather than

challenge, radical political activists. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: we're at a critical point in our battle against covid-19. while we're still losing americans to the virus, we have reached a stage where most of us are table to resume many of the daily activities we used to regard as normal, but our

sustained effort to improve health outcomes and keep our economy on track is running out of funding. now is the time to act. over last two years our communities have taken necessary mitigation measures. health care, frontline workers have given everything they have to care for our loved ones. with the biden administration and funding provided through the american rescue has ensured that we have the resources necessary to adapt to our response to covid-19. after the peak of the covid-19 variant, it is now safer to reconnect with friends and family and resume some of the activities we have all missed during the past two years. due to the tireless work of the biden administration, testing capacity and therapeutics is more available than at any time during the pandemic. over 81% of americans who are 5

years or older have had at least one covid-19 vaccination. and nearly 50% of americans who are eligible are fully vaccinated and had a booster. in maryland, 91% of marylanders, 5 or older had at least one covid-19 vaccination shot. we have made strides in fighting the covid pandemic, but the fight is not over. many parents have children too young to be vaccinated and are immune compromised. while positivity rates and hospitalizations are decreasing, almost 700 americans still are dying on an average each day. additionally, new vairnts are continuing -- variants are continuing to emerge. countries in europe have seen spikes of variants of covid.

there are rising cases in europe and this latest sub variant already makes up 35% of the cases here in the united states. fortunately at this stage, ba-2 appears no more severe than the original omicron variant. children 2 to 11 years had the highest rate of of infections. we must keep financing pandemic prevention and response needs. the white house and the department of health and human services have made it clear that at least $22.5 billion of additional funding is not to replenish pandemic-prevention programs it that are nearly -- nearing depletion or have already been depleted.

without these funds we will have to cut back on critical aspects of the pandemic response. here are some examples. our national testing capacity will decline, leaving us vulnerable and less able to detect emerging variants. it will be harder to diagnose infections. individuals may no longer be able to access vaccines. and -- in addition to testing and acute care, vital covid-19 research will suffer if we do not provide sufficient funding. continued development of medication and vaccines is critical. but without additional funding, research will stop leaving us vulnerable to a variant resistant to our current

arsenal. the national institutes of health may shut down some of its covid-19 research. the food and drug administration has a new antibody treatment that is effective against omicron variant. without the additional money they will not be able to order the treatments for those patients. additional funding is critically important if we want to see the united states continue its leadership role in distributing vaccinations across the world to prevent more and worse variants from taking off and arriving on our shores. i will continue to fight to ensure that get additional covid-19 funding. the national rescue plan gave us money to effectively mitigate

the negative economic impact of the pandemic. this legislation has been critical in helping individuals and communities to respond to the challenges brought on by the pandemic. local governments have had to provide additional services and they have risen to the occasion without falling into financial ruin. now is not the time to take the foot off the gas. restaurants need help. the american rescue plan created the restaurant rescue fund but it was not enough to meet demand. i remain gravely fiscal that the omnibus spending package that congress passed did not include additional assistance for restaurants and other hard-hit small businesses. for the past two years of the pandemic, nearly all restaurants have been under great strain as

they have struggled to keep staff and adopt to the new variants while increased pricing. and those have been the restaurants fortunate enough to survive the pandemic. thousands have closed their doors for good. more than 100,000 restaurants received grants from the restaurant revitalization fund that has helped them keep their doors open. but more than 180,000 restaurants that submitted their applications on time to receive funds, they are applications were there, have received no funds at all. that's not fair and they desperately need our help if congress had not acted quickly to replenish the paycheck protection program when it ran out of money weeks after it opened in april of 2020, we did that, by the way, by strong, almost unanimous support, the

program would have been half measure necessary to be sufficient. instead we extended the emergency aid needed to meet the crisis we faced and that's exactly what we need to do again with the restaurant revitalization fund. for the past two years, i have secured vital resources to fight the covid-19 pandemic and make sure those who were affected had the necessary support going forward. i will continue that fight. the new virus continues to affect the nation. i urge the senate to pass additional funding for covid-19 relief so americans can face this head on and prevail. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: is the senate in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. moran moran i ask unanimous consent that the -- mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: i want to recognize

steve scott. his long tenure at p.s.u. has shepherded the university through challenges and a period of growth. he has led through a recession and a global pandemic. early on, during the pandemic, as our world was shutting down, i hosted a crawford county virtual check in with federal leaders, steve scott was on that phone call, but during that conversation, president scott said there were three things to do in leading during difficult times. one, tell the truth, two, give people hope, and, three, tell people how they can help. that advice stuck with me and helped guide my work and my conversations with kansans ever since and it is good advice that we can follow yet today

but president scott's legacy is not only marked by challenges. pittsburg state has seen growth and opportunity over the last decade. the picknell sentence for the arts, the overman student center and plaster center, and many other positive developments. these encouraging things highlight his emphasis on being a good community partner, and his success in further integrating the university with the city of pittsburg, crawford county and the reasonable yoj. if you've ever -- the region. if you've ever been to pittsburg on game day to cheer on the gorilla team, it's clear the community pulls together. i've always enjoyed walking through gorilla village with president scott to visit with students, community members with "welcome to the jungle" playing in the background. it's during these events it's clear how well he relates to students, how much he cares for them, enjoys hearing their goals

and their dreams. or for graduates what they've accomplished since leaving campus. i'm of the view we change the world one soul, one student, one person at a time. education is one of the most impactful ways we can do that, and i appreciate president scott's dedication to serving students for the past 30 years. i also appreciate how closely he's worked with me and my staff to advocate for kansas higher education and identify ways the federal government can invest in campus to move both kansans and kansas forward of president steve scott will be celebrated this friday in pittsburg and step down from his position as president in june, but before he does so, i want him to know how grateful i am and kansans are for his service. he's a public servant through and through, and i look forward to seeing what he does next. whatever it may be, i wish him and kathy the very best. president scott, thank you for

your friendship, thank you for making a difference in so many lives. we're grateful for what you've done at pittsburg state university. best to you and your family. mr. president, i yield the floor, and notice the absent of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

let's start for the supply chain and how is impacted by covid. how does russia ukraine add to the mix as far as supply chain is concerned? >> covid changes within the united states. we saw a lot of changes happen. people were ordering more things online. they started to remodel. so a lot of issues within the supply chain for the other thing was the stimulus money that one and from the government. we saw a fantastic gdp growth 5.7% in 2021. but the coronavirus did change how we did business. until the first two orders of 2022 we sell we still had to

recover somewhat. and the thinking was probably by quarter three that things would get better and hopefully things with her back to normal versus always on the past. >> that's a covid section of a parade factory and what was said of russia and ukraine as far as what might happen to supply chains because the conflict there. >> the analogy i like to use this when you have someone who is sick. her sick with covid literally. that just because the more issue within the supply chain. with the geopolitical issue with the other problems. some of your viewers may know some may not but the ukraine and russia make up about 3% of gross domestic product. it's not huge, but they do make can really affect the supply chain. 30% of the global weight comes from ukraine. 20% of corn comes from russia and ukraine. 70% of neon gas from the

ukraine. a lot of base materials. unfortunately when the conflict started we started to see this change happened. and unfortunately the big impact is going to be the food. and the big concern we have is again food insecurity issues that may happen later on. the biggest issue is ukraine hasn't planted anything the harvest in the summer is the big concern. see food insecurity issues. more or less the breadbasket of europe. and also africa. summer harvest there could big issues in the future. >> quick social map from our viewers from the usda as far as we production for what degrees

united states impacted? isected too much is about price. the food prices will go up. i'm a bit concerned about is africa. africa is very reliant on getting food from ukraine and from russia. if they are unable to get that, you'll see some food insecurity issues which could lead to civil unrest which is a big concern. >> want to play a little bit from cecelia ross of the economic advisers. she talked about the supply chain issues related to russia, ukraine. i will tell you what she played and get your response to that part. >> this is an important moment for democracy. but what we do know is that putin's invasion of ukraine will have impact on both energy prices and food prices. as the president has said we can expect that while our sanctions are going to have their focus and it most of their impact on

the russian economy, we can expect we'll see a bit of impact to the united states as well. the first we are seeing is some impact on gas prices and oil prices. week expect effect on food. with that said the president's focus those increases are contained on their tomb at the kent east for the american people. to increase an additional 60 million barrels from the strategic reserve. has other options on the table he will be considering as they come out. as far as food prices the u.s. we don't expect a shortage here because we are net exporters. but we are acutely aware there are regions in the world that depend heavily on exports of wheat in particular and other grahams. to minimize the impact globally.

>> too that last part, here about the efforts of the administration. for what they were doing before what has been the result? and how much more can they do? >> they can only do so much. really it's kind of out of their hands to a certain degree. they could influence they cannot do too much for this is the dilemma we have it's really up to the professionals to figure out how do we work within these constraints that we currently have? that is a dilemma. the longer the ukraine russian workers on the worse our situations going to become what the supply chain issue. 202-74-8800 different democrats 20,278,001 for republicans i am sorry for doing regional lines apology for that for those of the eastern and central time zone spray field the mountain pacific time zone (202)748-8001.

you could also send us a text if you wish at (202)748-8003. talk to patrick of syracuse university. let's talk about specifics. we talk about agriculture. oil and gas, everyone is always concern for several weeks and still about gas prices. as far as supply and where the chain is concerned or are we? >> russia is the second largest exporter of oil. so unfortunately you saw partners have taken steps to stop by from russia. unfortunate that just means there's less supply because were not buying from russia anymore. so unfortunately prices will go up even more. i expect gallon of gas up to $6 probably in the summer, if again the war and the conflict continues. how long could they say that

high? >> you know, is a pretty big issue. until the russian invasion of ukraine ends that is only start to see the pressures go down. the time to do it would take years at such dilemma we are in right now. it's a term, a lot of pain. long term if can move over too renewable energy that we wouldn't have these types of issues. see what those other pieces impacted by chains, electronics, microprocessors and the like. we heard concerns about this for several months. where are we now? speech is worse for is a bad situation. ukraine produces about 70% of the neon gas that is used in the

semi conductor process. unfortunately there's not another capacity so ukraine was almost situation with our producers in china, some producers in the united states. unfortunately there's no one right now that can fill that gap that ukraine wasod supplying. : : mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i'm here on the floor today to talk about border security, an issue that is intertwined with our national security and certainly with the drug epidemic we see in our communities around the country. we are in the middle right now of the worst border crisis in the history of our country. this chart tells the story. the monthly border crossings are at an unprecedented level. customs and border protection reports there were 1,6973 reports there were 1,6973 >> 64073, encounters at the

border in february and that is equal to the population of is a greater population. this kind of illegal migration going on in our country, this many people being apprehended. they told us last week they are seeing over 7,000 migrants per day in this month, in march. and this is while something called title 42 is in effect. what's title 42? well, despite these really big numbers you see here in terms of the number of people being apprehended at the border, under what's called title 42, which is a public health authority -- nothing to do with immigration really. it's about public health, and it's in place because of covid-19. it allows the customs and border protection folks you can't come

in the united states because of public health reasons. they can be turned away. that order is in place right now. here's how that has worked. if you look at this chart, you'll see the people who have been turned away because of title 42 in orange. the numbers are in orange. those who have been allowed to come into the country in blue. you'll see here at the end of the last administration, in the trump years, when we had for the most part a secure border, we had very few illegal entries, we had about 75% of the people who were coming in were turned away by title 42. in this administration, it's closer to about 50%. about 50% of people are being turned away by title 42. why is this important? well, obviously we're making progress on covid. covid-19, we all hope, is not going to be here forever.

there may be another variant out there, but as we are relaxing mask mandates and telling people that they don't have a vaccination mandate anymore to be able to come to work or travel across our borders, we're hearing reports that the biden administration may rescind title 42. so get rid of this authority within the next several weeks. and you know what? unless we have a new variant, god forbid that comes in, and causes a big new health crisis, they're probably right. title 42 probably shouldn't be used in this way because it is a public health authority, not an immigration law. the problem is that if that happens, remember, we already have an unprecedent number of people coming into the country. look at this chart. if that happens, then all these folks who are being turned away, the orange bars here,

are going to be coming across the border also without title 42 in place without having them being turned away. this is why the border patrol tells me -- i know the presiding officer hears the same thing all the time -- they are already overwhelmed. but they say it will be out of control. some would argue it's already out of control, but it's going to get a whole lot worse. so, they're worried on the border, and rightly so, that the current crisis is going to become far worse. my two colleagues from arizona, both democrats, have to my understanding asked president biden to keep title 42 in place. i think that makes sense, keep it in place for now because we're just not ready for a huge increase in migrants coming across the border. we can't handle the current wave. the information we've received from the department of homeland security is that they are planning for a massive increase in migrants when this happens. i'm the ranking republican, the

top republican on the department of homeland security oversight committee, homeland security governmental affairs committee. we're talkerring to the homeland security and they are preparing for a huge increase. their plans seems to be about more buses and planes to help the flow of these migrants into the country rather than figuring out a way that our immigration system should work better to be able to say to people come legally, come legally. please don't come illegally, which is what these numbers represent. by the way, i'm for legal immigration. i think it has enriched our country. i think it's an important part of the fabric of our nation. it makes us special. we brought people in from all over the world, including pretty much all of our parents and grandparents, certainly great-grandparents. anybody who is in this chamber, unless you're native american, you came here. your family came here as immigrants. but legal immigration, while it

should be encouraged, is not the same thing as what we're talking about here. we're talking about illegal entries, people who don't qualify under the legal system. in all these countries where people are coming from, others are waiting this line patiently under the legal immigration system. so america typically is the most generous country in the world year after year in accepting legal immigrants. sometimes that changes based on the refugee flow. we're seeing the refugee flows today in poland, for example. poland is going to be the most generous country in the world thanks to the brutal and murderous and cowardly attacks by vladimir putin on that country. but america is a generous country in terms of immigrants, and we should be. but with regard to legal immigration, we're not just a country of immigrants that has enriched us. we're also a country of laws, right? so we have to have some laws in place to deal with this illegal immigration. of course it's not just about people coming illegally.

it's about all the other contraband that comes across the border, particularly the illegal drugs. so i believe we have to keep title 42 in place for now, but i also agree this is not a long-term solution to the crisis we have at the southern border. to use a health care authority to effectively take care of about half of the illegal immigration coming across the border doesn't make sense. by the way, when you see the difference here in the use of title 42, it's because during the trump years, they used title 42 for families and for single adults coming over. whereas here, the biden administration chose not to apply to families for the most part. the vast majority of families do not get stopped because of title 42. it's just single adults, which is the vast majority of people coming across the border illegally. so that's the difference in terms of the amount of, the percentage of use of title 42.

so, we've got a real problem on our hands. it's already overwhelming and it's about to get a lot worse. what's the solution? he will -- the solution is to fix our immigration laws. the foundation underneath all this and the problem that has resulted in these numbers is because our immigration law doesn't work. it's broken. and everybody acknowledges that. i don't know a member in this chamber who wouldn't acknowledge, at least privately, that our immigration system is broken. how can you look at these numbers and not realize that? and yet, we haven't been able to find a bipartisan way forward. it's very frustrating. we have to do, we have to look at the underlying laws and why they don't work. well, there is one reason, and it's by far the biggest reason. it may not be the only one. you could argue we should put more border patrol. i think we should do that.

we should have more fencing, i think we should do that. but the biggest problem is our asylum policy in this country. the administration has implemented the asylum policy in a way that makes getting control of the border impossible. what is asylum? well, it's something to help people who really need relief, and it should be used for that. people who have a credible fear of persecution, so back in their home country they're being persecuted. they come to america, they apply for asylum. we have a tradition here in america of accepting those people as we accept refugees. it's basically the same standard. but the problem is that people are coming in to our country claiming asylum, going through a long system we'll talk about in a minute, not qualifying for asylum and yet staying in our country. and this has caused a huge pull factor where people from all over the world are coming to america because they're told,

gosh, all you have to do is apply for asylum, they'll let you in. and it's unlikely that you'll ever have to leave. that's how the system works now. i mean, that's just the honest truth. and i think if you talk to anybody who is objective about this, they will admit it. some people think we should not have the asylum policy act as our immigration policy. these people should just be allowed to come in. and there are some people who believe that. my belief is we ought to stick with the legal immigration system, again the most generous in the world in most years, and say for asylum, let's limit it to people who actually qualify for asylum. let's not let people misuse the system to gain entry into the united states. and, by the way, the people who are misusing it are the smugglers, because it's the smugglers who go to the family, let's say a country like ecuador or guatamala, and they say, give me a bumple of mope, like

ten thousand bucks, which is a lot of money for a poor family in one of these countries, and i'll get your kids, or you and your kids into the united states and get them in school, get you a job, because america has this crazy asylum policy where you can just do that. and we'll talk about how that works in a second. but that's a pull factor. i recently went to latin america, met with the presidents of mexico, guatamala, ecuador and colombia. they all said the same thing which is please change your policies because it is a pull factor. you're taking some of our best and brightest people, and they all want to come to the american border and go across because they know this is how they can get into your country. you have a legal immigration system where people stay here and apply and go through the process. that's fine. but change your asylum policy. that might surprise some people. some people might think the presidents in those countries might like when people leave and send money back to their family.

but, no, they don't want to lose all these people, and that's what's happening. look at these numbers. that's what's happening. by the way, it's not just people who are from central america and mexico. so here's an interesting chart that i asked my team to put together. these are encounters at the southwest border. somebody is stopped, apprehended by the border patrol , from people who are not from either -- i'm sorry. here we go. people who are not from either mexico or the northern triangle. so look how this has increased. back in 2018 very few people were coming across the border illegally who weren't from mexico or central america, the so-called northern triangle countries. look what happens here. you have a huge increase in people coming over the border who are from other countries. i was told today that there are people coming over the border this year from 150 countries.

you probably heard the stories of people from ukraine, a country that is under siege by russia, and you can't blame people for leaving that country. and i've been to poland on the border recently, i've seen the refugees there. but some of these refugees are actually coming to mexico and then finding their way to the southern border and then coming across the southern border from ukraine, also from russia. and the border patrol has confirmed that for me. so this is ticked up as this conflict continues. why? because they know the easiest way to get into america is to walk across the southern border. and you claim asylum, and you get in. now we just decided to bring 100,000 refugees in from ukraine because of this crisis, so maybe that will be a way that more people can come. they don't have to come through the southern border. but now they know this is the easy way to come in. and look at these numbers. so it's not just people,

again, from mexico and central america. now it's people from all over the world. and for some of these people, the border patrol is nervous because they come from countries where there are a lot of people who want to do us harm. so people are coming in from countries in the middle east, as an example. they're concerned, and for good reason. so what happens when you come to the border and you claim asylum? so after you tell the border patrol that you would like to claim asylum, you then are permitted to come in to the country, assuming you meet a basic standard, where you say the right things about having a credible fear of persecution, and you get in line for an asylum determination. so you come to washington,d.c., or my

hometown of cincinnati, or tucson, arizona, wherever it is, and your wait is between four and six years. others say it's four to eight years because of the appeals process, so let's say four to six years, so an average of five years that you're in the united states waiting for your asylum request to be adjudicated. what happens during that time period? well, you're able to work, your kids are able to go to school, you get embedded into the community, as you might imagine. some people show up for the court case, some people don't and they're in the community and i probably feel like it's unlikely they'll be deported, so it's not a system that works well to have that kind of lagtime. by the way, there are 1.5 million people in this category, in this backlog. does this make any sense?

here's what's most unusual about this process, i'll say. at the end of the process when the asylum adjudication is made, do you know what happens? most people are told, i'm sorry, you don't qualify. in fact, the latest information we have from the department of homeland security is that asylum was granted to 2,400 migrants in f.y.2021. they had a credible fear claim. 2,400, that is just 14% of such cases completed. so that would mean in terms of these cases, these numbers that we have here that roughly 85%, 86% of the people who apply who went through the process were

not granted asylum. now i've heard different numbers here, but i never heard somebody tell me a number that's close to 50%. so the majority of people who go through this whole process, wait four to six years, finally have their court case heard, the majority of people, again in f.y.2021, it would appear with 2,400 in removal, that would be just 14% of such cases completed. the vast majority don't meet our standard. so who are these people? they're economic refugees, who can blame them for coming to the united states of america? if i lived in one of these countries and i wanted to look out for my kids and my family, as we all do, i might do the same thing. so i don't agree with people who say all these folks are coming over here to use our welfare and

to commit crimes. some of them do, we know that. both of those things. but i think the vast majority of them come here, and i've talked to a lot of them, as has the presiding officer. if you go to the border, you meet these people. these are families who are poor and who are looking for a better life, a higher salary, better health care, a future for their kids. but they're not coming legally, and that's the issue. and economic refugees don't qualify as asylumees, they have to come through the -- we have a process here in our country now where if you show up to the border, you claim asylum and you get in and there's a very good chance that although you will not have your claim adjudicated

favorably, that you will end up being able to stay in the united states. there is discussion about how many people are actually deported once they are put into removal, in other words if they are told they don't meet the standards put into removal, are they deported? well, the priority from homeland security, and, again, we're the oversight committee for this, is people who have a criminal record and people who have -- are terrorists, who have come threat -- pose some threat to the country. and that means for the vast majority of people, they're not going to be prioritized in terms of removal. there's also an opportunity to repeal and that's why some people say it's not four to six years, it's four to eight years, but let's say even four years, that's a long time to wait, 1.5 million people. now, i'm told that the administration is coming up with

a new rule to help deal with this issue, and i was initially very encouraged when i heard about this because what i've been asking for some time is a system where we adjudicate these cases at the border when people come across the border, yes or no. if it's no, go back home an apply legally. if it's yes, come on into the united states. you are then a legal immigrant, eventually you apply for a green card and zen citizenship. it says the people should be detained until they are adjudicated, but it's not what we do. so i have been pushing for congress to actually fund this effort. it's going to be expensive, places where people can be humanly detained during a short period of time while they actually get before an

immigration official who can determine, yes, you're in, or, no, you don't qualify rather than waiting years and years, as we do now and, again, 1.5 million people in limbo who are in the united states. so i -- i was sort of excited when i heard that the administration was coming up with a new rule for quicker decisions. i think that makes sense. however i'm learning more about this proposed rule. it appears to be another asylum appeal on sop of an -- on top of an already backlogged asylum system. that's why i say that. it adds an officer to the process who is on the border and when the person comes forward and says, i have a credible fear of persecution, i want to claim asylum, this individual, who's not a judge but is an asylum officer and trained, is able to either approve or deny the case.

the problem is if you approve the person, the person comes in, again eventually gets a green card, becomes a legal immigrant, but if the person is denied, apparently the individual then goes into the regular process, can immediately appeal to an immigration judge. so it just adds another layer that can be appealed. so i'm concerned about that. now, i'm told that there will be an effort to speed up the immigration judge decision in this process. if there is an officer at the border who makes the initial determination and the determination is no, then the judge would have to act quickly than the four to six years currently in place. so that would be an improvement. that would be an improvement if it could be faster, but i'm not sure how that's going to happen is because the reason it's four to six years is there's a

1.5 million backlog. i believe if people should be adjudicated quickly, if it's yes, come in, if no, you go back. that would go back to the smugglers, pay us your money and your kids can go to school and you can go to work. i fear unless we fix this system, it will give human smugglers even more tiewbts to encourage un -- opportunities to encourage unlawful migrations. there is a report that several million migrants in the western hemisphere is going to make their way to the united states. why? because title 32 is going to disappear. so it's a time when apparently more people are thinking about coming and we've seen the kara advance and so on -- karavans and so on, it's not something

that we want to go through again. it's a pull factor. it pulling people the opportunity to come to the border and giving the coyotes the opportunity to make money. by the way, the journey is a dangerous one. you saw there was a trailer tractor full of migrants that crashed and dozens of people were killed. we know about the sexual assaults, women, girls, boys, we know about the human trafficking it that occurs in connection with this. we know about the cartels involved with the smuggling and how much they charge people. by the way, just last year there were 10,000 requests for border patrol help for people in distress because they were left in the desert to their own devices. and needed water or they needed food or they needed to be

rescued. over 10,000 cases where the border patrol rescued migrants left by smugglers in the middle of the desert. this is not a system we should hold up as a good system. this is a system that is broken and corrupt and the people making money, again, are the cartels. the drug cartels, by the way, are very involved in this. so it's about people, but it's also about drugs, and we all know this. they know when the border patrol agents are taken offline to process people coming into the country, which leaves wide open gaps for them to transport drugs into america. i saw it when i was down there last year and i was down more recently also, but what i saw was and we were out at night and a group of migrants was coming and the border patrol was going to that location to stop them and question them, and meanwhile

the drug smugglers came across. we heard it on the radio and we could see it, but what could they do? they were distracted. fentanyl is the deadliest of the drugs, this is killing -- about two-thirdses -- two-thirds of the people are dying in fentanyl. it used to come through china through the mail for the most part. we did a pretty good job of stopping that, through legislation called the stop act, i was pretty proud of that. but it's like whacka mole and now it is coming in. a lot of the precursors are coming from china into mexico. it is being made to a pill or some other substance that comes into the united states. i work in the area of prevention and treatment and the longer-term recovery and i think that is the most important part

to stop the demand, but i've got to tell you it's really hard for people who are really interested in helping on the treatment side or law enforcement back home because this stuff is flooding across the border and it means that the supply has gone up and it means it's so cheap. law enforcement in ohio tells me it's cheaper than marijuana on the street. fentanyl. and it's being pressed into pill that's say xanak or perkoset and some are dying immediately. in america, the same was true, 100,000 people died from overdose from the drugs, again, 60%, two nirdz ohio were dying of fentanyl. last year we had a 40% increase in fentanyl coming over the southern border patrol. border patrol will tell you that they're not stopping a lot of them because they don't have the

ability, they don't have the resources. but it is a true crisis, four times as much as in 2019. according to the c.d.c., fentanyl and these other synthetic opioids, again, are the biggest danger. a few months ago i was south of tucson and i was able to ride with the border patrol and go to the border entry and meet with the border patrol officials, they are doing an awesome job, 24-7 job to protect our nation from narcotics and bad actors who come from around the world now and try to enter through the vulnerable southern border and to deal with the migrants that we talked about. they need better equipment, more help, more resources, they need better technology to be able to scan cars and trucks coming in, particularly for the drugs we

talked about. fentanyl, a relatively small package, can kill thousands of people so you can hide this stuff in a car or a truck much more easily. some of the ports of entry have more technology than others, but here's the average. less than 2% of the passenger vehicles and less than 20% of the commercial vehicles coming into the united states are scanned for illegal drugs like fentanyl. those are the numbers. it's unacceptable. a smuggler with multiple pounds of fentanyl in a hidden compartment will make hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on that, has a very good chance of getting across the border without a search. it's not a gap in our security, it's a gaping hole and it leads to dangerous drugs. last year customs and border protection had a 40% increase in deadly drugs from 2020.

in one area i was shown huge dwaps in the -- gaps in the fencing and saw a record-breaking number of migrants coming into the united states and the urgent need as he told me for more agents, more trucks, more technology, including cameras and sensors, thes -- these gaps are inexcusable. we should fix it. the smugglers know where these gaps are. the human smugglers know well. the gaps i saw, there were bottles, old backpacks and stuff where people discarded thing as they come across the border. you could see the trails. you could see the tracks where people had come across, because they know where the breaks are in the fencing. so, this is a system that is broken, and the difference between what was happening here at the end of the last administration and this system is there were changes in policy that were put in place right

away. one widely reported one was the one to stop the installation of the fencing on day one, via executive order. by the way, fencing alone is not enough. you have to have technology that goes with it. unfortunately, they stopped the tech knoll too. -- technology too. i was in el paso probably a year and a half ago, and they showed me the gaps in the wall, and maybe 80% of the fencing was done. 20% was openings. where unfortunately, 24/7 the border patrol had to be there, or else people just come across. so it wasn't slowing anybody down. but i focused on the technology, because you want the sensors and cameras. the fence itself is not as fekive -- as effective. in fact, not very effective at all without the technology. they said 90% of the technology had yet to be installed because of that decision on day one, the executive order, because it stopped all the technology too. i know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and i talk about this a lot, they're for the technology, because they

understand this is an issue. somehow, i don't know, this issue is one where there's a disconnect between the clearly broken system and what we're able to do on a bipartisan basis. since the president's inauguration, the southern border has faced the worst unlawful migration crisis we've had. the men and women of the border patrol, customs and border protection, i've met over the years are doing the best they can. we need to help them more. they've got really difficult jobs right now. for the border patrol, i'm working on bipartisan legislation to increase the number of asians, increase retention, they're losing people, and let them respond faster to humanitarian crises, including a border patrol reserve to call on, of people who are qualified and ready to help. the ongoing crisis at our southern border is clear, and it's persistent. it's not seasonal anymore. you look at these numbers.

again, we welcome legal immigrants. we always should. they enrich our country. but we are both a nation of laws and immigrants. i urge the biden administration to change course, to fix this broken system, to fix and reform this asylum process that acts as a pull factor to america, to stop these policies that send the green light to the human smugglers and drug traffickers, that leads to so much human suffering and a border that is not secure. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, the senate will soon vote on an important nomination to the department of health and human services. january contreras is president biden's choice to serve as

assistant secretary for children and families. now, the senate finance committee is taking a special interest in kids, families, and fresh approaches to strengthen opportunities for them and for america's future. now, people have been a little bit surprised that the finance committee is taking this big interest, because normally they think that the finance committee deals primarily with big-money issues -- taxes and trade would be two examples. those, mr. president, are certainly very, very important. we spend plenty of time working on those. but the committee also feels very strongly that we can't afford to write off the hopes and dreams of our future, which

are our kids and our families. we can't afford, as a country, to lose these young minds and these young families, to take away the kinds of opportunities they could have with just a few well-targeted, sensible investments in their future. and when january contreras is confirmed, that's exactly the kind of work that she's going to be doing -- caring for some of the most vulnerable young people in our nation, those young people that are in the child welfare system. now, one of the big challenges in the last few years for the administration, for children, and for families has been the implementation of our bipartisan

family first prevention services act. this was an extraordinarily important law, mr. president, particularly for kids who are in foster care. we had, until this law came along, essentially two choices for these kids -- we could send them off to a foster home. some of them might be good, some of them we know aren't so good. or we could leave them in a family situation at home that wasn't too desirable. you might have a parent who had been caught up in drugs or alcohol or something else. what the finance committee did in enacting the family first prevention services act is it said we've got these two choices over here. neither of them are ideal. what we'll do is create a third path, which is the family first

prevention services act. so, for example, for a family in arizona, the president's home state, that family would be in a position to stay together but also to receive some of the services, the antidrug services, the efforts to get people off alcohol and addiction, and keep the family together. very often a grandparent would help out, and family first is, in my view, the future of much of our domestic policy in this country, because it means we aren't going to write off our kids and families caught up in the child welfare system. the bill was bipartisan. chairman hatch was then the

chairman. i was the ranking member. and i think this bill is a once-in-a-generation overhaul of how child welfare works in america. now, as i described to the president of of of the senate, before families first, families in effect, in arizona and elsewhere, were broken apart by default. in other words, you had those two choices, neither of them very good. families first put together on a bipartisan basis in the finance committee recognized that young people grow better at home and families have an incredible capacity to deal with the proper support. so we signed families first to help families stay together, whenever it's safe and possible. as i mentioned, maybe the parent needs a little help with substance abuse or mental health

treatment, getting clean will make the home safe and the community often safer. and as i mentioned, i was particularly thrilled that we could look to grandparents once again to step in as a caretaker for their grandkids, because when i was a young member of the other body i wrote the kin ship care bill -- the kinship care bill, which was something that really came out of america's churches, where grandparents could step in and provide a compassionate role model and caretaker for the grandkids. the new approach builds that smart flexibility into the system so that kids and families get the support they need. in my view, it's especially important right now to help address mental health. the finance committee had a hearing today on that.

senator crapo and i have vowed to have a bipartisan bill on that. and it's particularly important to have families first right now, because it allows you to -- us to address mental health, substance abuse, and strengthen families at the same time. this, mr. president, is what families are all about. now, implementing the law takes a lot of close collaboration between the federal government and the states. it has not been easy. the previous administration made it pretty chal being -- challenging. but because this is a bipartisan priority for the finance committee we had just pushed ahead, and i'm especially looking forward to working with ms. contreras on that task. now, ms. contreras and i have some work experience that might be of interest to the president of the senate.

ms. contreras led arizona legal women and youth services, a legal aid organization for children and young adults who have experienced abuse, neglect, family separation, homelessness, and human trafficking. before my time in the congress i ran the oregon legal services for the elderly program, the legal aid program especially for seniors, and then the rest of the time i was codirector of the oregon gray panthers, helping again families and seniors and others. back then seniors were constantly getting clobbered by insurance scams and bill collectors. somebody needed to be there for them. so, ms. contreras is very, very qualified for this job, qualified to steer families first into a period of

exceptional progress, because states are really hungry, mr. president, for this option, the option that makes a big difference because it ensures that we're not writing off our families, we're not giving up on them. and that's something that i think is particularly important to hear from our finance committee members, because everybody thinks that the committee does focus on all these things with big money. but we're especially interested in seeing nominees like ms. contreras come forward. i think she'll do a terrific job as the head of the administration for children and families. she's going to do a terrific job of moving families first ahead. she had bipartisan support in the senate finance committee. i urge all members of the senate to vote for january contreras

when she comes up later this evening. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: i ask that we come out of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johnson: i know of no further debate on the nomination. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the

question is on the contreras nomination. mr. johnson: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: