urban development. later in the day both are planned on instructions for senator negotiators at the house on a science and technology funding bill that would help u.s. semiconductor makers be more competitive with china. live on the floor of the u.s. senate on c-span2. chaplain, d, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, when we look to the heavens and see the works of your fingers in the moon and stars, we feel astonished that you care about us. you are the high and lofty one who inhabits eternity

but you have promised to never forsake us even when we go astray. today, help our lawmakers to remember your declaration in luke 14:11, which states, for those who make themselves great will be humbled and those who humble themselves will be made great. provide our senators with the things they need to accomplish your purposes on earth even as they are done in heaven. and lord, we continue to ask you to bless ukraine. we pray in your strong name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. and under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session, resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of the treasury,

joshua frost, of new york, to be an assistant secretary. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. warnock: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, this is a dark -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. the presiding officer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. mr. schumer: this is a dark and disturbing morning for america. last night, a report disclosed that a conservative majority of the supreme court is ready to overturn roe v. wade and overturning decades of precedent affirming a woman's right for an abortion. if this happens, the supreme court is going to restrict the rights on women over the past 50 years. under this decision, our children will have less rights than their parents. the republican-pointed justices -- appointed justices to over roe v. wade will go down

as an abomination. one of the worst decisions in modern history. several of had these conservative justices who are in no way accountable to the american people have lied to the u.s. senate, ripped up the constitution, and defiled both precedent and the supreme court's reputation. all at the expense of tens of millions of women who could soon be stripped of their bodily autonomy and the constitutional rights they've relied on for over half a century. the party of lincoln and eisenhower has completely devolved into the party of trump. every republican senator who supported senator mcconnell and voted for trump justices pretending this day would never come will now have to explain themselves to the american people.

i'll have more to say later this morning, but i want to make three things clear. first, now that the court is poised to strike down roe, it is my intention for the senate to hold a vote op legislation -- on legislation to codify the right to an abortion in law. second, a vote on this legislation is not an abstract exercise. this is as urgent and real as it gets. we will vote to protect a woman's right to choose, and every american is going to see which side every senator stands. every american is going to see on which side every senator stands. third, to the american people, i say this -- the elections this november will have consequences, because the rights of 100 million women are now on the

ballot. to help fight this court's awful decision, i urge every american to make their voices heard, this week and this year. i urge americans to call their members, to write their members, to e-mail their members, to text their members. and most of all, to cast their ballots. make no mistake, the blame for this decision falls squarely on republican senators and the senate republicans as a whole, who spent years pushing extremist judges, spent years confirming three far-right justices to the supreme court, but who claimed somehow this day would never come. but this day has come, and we will fight it all the way. i yield the floor. note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. chairman. >> we are on the cusp of a final comprehensive bill that is going to ignite to be able to compete with china. the investment made by that legislation would empower the department of commerce to

provide a jolt to the microelectronics industry in our country. critical national injury technology we've seen in person last few days, things have slowed down considerably in our country on just solar energy for one because reliance on china and those countries they control. how important are the resources, nondefense research? obviously we all agree on the importance of defense research but in nondefense research development to ensure our nation's national security, cybersecurity and economic independence from foreign manufacturing? >> well, i think it's critical,

chairman, and before you answer in full we just again thank you for your many years of service to our nation on behalf of the department of defense. truly grateful for your leadership and your support of defense. so i believe your question was how important is the investment in nondefense related research to us. i would say it's very important. as you know over the years we have benefited from a number of developments that have taken place in the civil sector, and again it's putting together a number of capabilities and building capacity in ways that have been done, hasn't been done before that creates tremendous opportunity for us. so i think it's a very, very important. >> thank you, thank you for the kind personal comments, too.

general milley, i looked at your written remarks. you discussed the importance of working with our allies and our partners. today, and i use this because the example could be from many states, but the vermont air national guard is doing that in europe on deployment. a longtime supporter of the national state partnership program. our state recently added austria to its existing partnership with nigeria and north macedonia. in light of russia's aggression in ukraine, the success we've had been cementing our nato partnerships, can you speak to the relationships between state and national guard's, not just for vermont but national guard's in her international partners? >> thanks, senator. and i, too, want to echo the

secretary's comments and thank you for your passage of public service. deeply appreciate it and i know all of us in uniform appreciate your leadership. with respect to the state partnership program, to go from big to small, allies and partners are an asymmetric advantage for the united states. neither china nor russia's anything close to the allies and partner network that the united states has. just as an example of that, last week i was with the secretary of defense austen and he called a meeting, in six days, 42 countries, ministers ministers of defense, he and my counterparts all showed up to coordinate and synchronize support to the ongoing struggle in ukraine. russia has nothing comparable to that. they of belarus made a couple of nuts about it. china does have the network. i was a part of a critical, critical for national defense of the united states one of our asymmetric advantages. the national guard from all the different states play very important role in that. each one of our units as state

partnership programs. we will take ukraine for an example. in ukraine california is aligned with him along with others. those of an inviolable to maintain the connective tissue between our militaries. it's an important program at the micro tactical level i did also has great strategic effect. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your service, and thank you, secretary austin, for going to ukraine. i think that was extremely important. mr. secretary, for the second year in a row, the administration has submitted a budget request that would result in a real reduction in defense spending when you take inflation into account. the 2018 bipartisan national defense strategy commission recommended an increase in the annual defense budget at a rate

of three to 5% above inflation which we know is at 40 year highs today. given the aggressive rate at which china is modernizing its military and the fact that everywhere we look we see a new threat, including the largest land war in europe since world war ii, i am very concerned that this budget would result in real cuts in defense spending at exactly the wrong time. if you look at the services and the combatant commands unfunded priorities list that they submitted, the amount to more than $21 billion. what are the areas in the budget where the department is accepting the most risk? >> thanks, senator. we built this budget come first of all $773 billion is a very

substantial budget. we built the budget as you know based on our strategy which we just released about the same time that we released the budget. we believe that it gives us the ability to go after those capabilities that support our war fighting concepts. in that strategy, senator, china is listed as our pacing challenge. and russia is cited as an acute threat. and again we believe that we're going after the right things to ensure that we maintain a competitive edge going forward. when we built the budget, obviously you're to snap the chocolate at some point while your building the budget, and at that point we factored in what was the appropriate inflation rate. of course, again, if we are unable to buy the things that we

think are essential, we'll come back to the president and ask for more assistance, but we believe there significant capability in this budget. >> general milley, speaking of china, in your written testimony you noted that china intends to develop the military capabilities to seize taiwan by the year 2027. during that critical window, the navy's fleet would actually continue to shrink the 280 ships by 2027 under the administration's budget request. that compares to a chinese fleet that the pentagon assesses would be as large s-400 20 ships by 2025, and 460 ships by 2030. now, i appreciate the point that you made that many of our ships are more capable than china's, but as you and virtually

everyone i've ever talked to in the navy has told me, quantity has quality all of its own. we need to be urgently investing in our shipbuilding capacity and fleet, not going in the opposite direction. there's real risk in relying on capabilities that won't be ready to the the 21st to deter ort a chinese threat that may materialize in the next five years. from my perspective our current shipbuilding trajectory is inconsistent with the navy's fleet architecture studies done by both the prior administrations and this administration. are you concerned that the strategy at this budget is inconsistent with the multiple assessments saying that we need a larger fleet?

>> thanks, senator. the united states is fundamentally a time nation, has been from the berth of our nation. we rely significant undersea lodge communication, international trade et cetera and we have made as a matter policy a commitment for over two and half century freedom of the seas, freedom of navigation and the right for open investment around the world. that's fundamental, part of our dna. part and parcel of c that is tht significant capable fleet, not just in the pacific, western pacific but throughout the globe. so sure it would always be nice to have more ships but the fact of the matter is the most important thing is to the ships that we do have have them in writing this study, as in with the manning, training and equipping and have been in a ready status. that's important as well. and i wouldn't i personally don't want to get hung up on the number of ships china versus united states. we have allies and partners, china doesn't. the japanese navy, a chilean navy of allies and partners that would probably work with the

united states, that would make a significant difference. the other last thing i would make an relative to taiwan, it is true taiwan or the chinese, president xi has set an objective to have his military prepared capability wise, the sought the same say he's going to invade, but to have the capability to seize the island of taiwan. that is a a very tall order ad remains to be seen whether the chinese will be able to actually execute that, whether they will have the capability or not but that is the target on the wall 2027. we have to keep that into mind as we go into the future. >> thank you. >> senator feinstein. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary austin and general milley, last year i asked about military weapons being lost and stolen and want to thank you for your prompt response on that issue. but but i have one more i woue to raise your awareness of food insecurity in the military to

include active guard and reserve troops here the "washington post" has reported on this problem, and jamie lutz at the center for strategic and international studies has also documented that service members face hunger at rates succeeding the general population. the adjutant general in california has likewise indicated that we have this problem in california. it is most pronounced among junior enlisted personnel, especially those with children, so here's the question. do you agree that we have this problem of food insecurity? what is its impact on our readiness? and what you believe the military will do about it? >> thank you, senator. i'll start. yes, i do agree that we have an issue as you pointed out with

our lower ranking enlisted force. and it is important to me, the health and welfare of our force, our troops and our families, very, very important to me. you probably effort to talk about this before, and you heard me mention it in my opening statement that, that we want to make sure that people can put food, good food and healthy food on the table. that's why i've asked you to support me in providing a 4.6% pay raise to the force. each of the services are making sure that they are doing things to not only help their lower ranking enlisted force, but also making sure that they are teaching them how to come helping them learn how to manage finances and other thinks. so this is a thing where focused on at the department level, and i would say all of our services are focused on as well. again, it's very, very important

to us. >> senator, i would add, take caring for people is critical born for entire chicken and i know it's of great interest to the congress. that pay raise will go a long way to help. we do acknowledge that is a real issue. the size and scale and scope, the second has some folks out there trying to determine exact with the rumors of that are but it's real. and no soldier sailor airmen marine should struggle to feed their family. having good medicare, good education safe and secure environment, putting food on the table is fundamental, such as% of our forces made. on average two children come relatively young, and we owe it to them if equipped with a light on the life of this country we don't get into make make sure they are being taken care of and we intend to do that. >> thank you for that. thank you. secretary austin, it was reported last month you spoke with your chinese counterpart for the first time since

becoming secretary of defense. i would like to thank you and commend you for that, and i think it's very important in order to build trust and to solve problems. could you share with us what you learn from speaking with your chinese colleague, and what you believe this could go? >> this is, senator, this is the first of what hope will be many conversations. but again, we both recognize the importance of dialogue and maintaining open channels. and we both want to make sure that we work together to promote security and stability in the region. and so i look forward to again engaging in the future, the not-too-distant future. i'm sure i will see at the

shangri-la dialogue come up in june. >> let me just thank you for that. i am obviously a californian and we believe we're in the center of the pacific, and so these things become very important to the safety and security of the entire west coast of this country. one last one. it's imperative that russia not be allowed to get away with aggression and land grabs. and it seems that ukraine, with the support of the united states, is really showing considerable strength on the battlefield. so i wanted to ask a quick question, if you can share with us with the end game is and what you hope to achieve? >> well, the end game will be defined by the ukrainian government as it engages with

russia. and so i won't try to define that for them. i would just say that we are going to do everything, continue to do everything within our power to make sure that we support ukraine in its efforts to defend its sovereign territory. we hope that at the end of this, that ukraine will be a sovereign state with a functioning government that can protect its territory. and so that's what we're focused on from now and going forward. >> my time is up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator schatz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here. secretary austin, what to thank you for clarity and to leadership on the question on the future of the redhill fuel storage facility i want to thank deputy secretary dr. hicks and the admirals. i know up-and-down the department of department of the navy and the rest of the federal government was deeply engaged and this was a tough decision but it was the right decision

and i think you know that not just from the standpoint of safe drinking water for the state of hawaii and the residents of hawaii and your service members, but that it was right for national security. in your own words essentially a trip center located like limit since the 1943 but doesn't make sense probably operate in the indo-pacific today. can you talk about why this is a better decision from a national security perspective? >> senator, let me thank you and the entire state delegation from what you did in exercising leadership on this important issue. we really appreciate it. you hit the nail on had when you quoted me regarding the fact that this was conceived in the 1940s which served to specific purpose at that point in time. doesn't necessarily support the way that we operate today.

we are muchid further forward g t objection. mr. mcconnell: for years the radical left has attacked the institution of the supreme co court. last night it appears their campaign hit a new low. historically the justices, clerks, and staff have prized and protected the court's confidentiality. the justices must be able to discuss and deliberate in an environment of total trust and privacy. americans cannot receive a fair trial if politicians, pundit, bullies, and mobs get a say in court. judicial independence is vital. but the far left has spent years shamelessly attacking it.

democrats in congress have endorsed plans for partisan court-packing. they've sent the justices threatening legal briefs. they've scheduled sham hearings to smear judges. in 2020 the senate democratic leader marched across the street to the court and shouted threats, threats at multiple justices by name if they didn't rule how he wanted. in 2018 activists literally chased senators around the capitol. and now last night, a shocking, shocking new breach. somebody, likely somebody inside the court itself, leaked a confidential internal draft to the press. almost certainly in an effort to stir up an inappropriate

pressure campaign to sway an outcome. the radical left immediately rallied around the toxic stunt. the cheerleaders for partisan court-packing applauded what they suggested was the work of, quote, a brave clerk making a last ditch hail mary attempt to cause a political firestorm and cause the court to reconsider. liberals want to rip the blindfold of lady justice. they want to override impartiality with intimidation. they want to elevate mob rule over the rule of law. the same political movement that used a leak to move up the timeline of justice breyer's retirement process is trying to

use yet another leak to make the court less secure and less impartial. never before, never before in modern history has an internal draft been leaked to the public while the justices were still deciding a case. never before. whoever committed this lawless act knew exactly what it could bring about. the justices already require security. less than two weeks ago an unbalanced person lit himself on fire on the court steps. less than three years ago, a liberal mob tried to storm the court shoving past law enforcement and pounding on the doors. look, everybody knows what kind of climate the far left is

trying to fuel, one that is antithetical to the rule of law. right on cue, top democrats began publishing wild statements about what the court might decide packed with using unhinged rhetoric that could easily incite light a match. so what else happened? activists flocked to the court. an angry crowd surrounded the court chanting justices' names. their renewed calls to smash the institutions of both the senate and the court at the same time.

one of the court's most essential and sacred features was smashed just by the outrage industrial complex a few extra days to scream nonsense about what the court might rule. this lawless action should be investigated and punished to the fullest extent possible, the fullest extent possible. i'm certain the chief justices will seek to -- chief justice will seek to get to the bottom of this. if a crime was committed, the department of justice must pursue it completely. so listen, i want all nine justices to know there are still

principled senators who have their backs no matter what. there are still some people in this capitol and a majority in the senate who sup -- whose support for the rule of law is not conditional, not conditional. the court should tune out the bad-faith noise and feel completely free to do their jobs. they should follow the facts and the law wherever that leads. as i've warned in the past, courts bowing to activist pressure would never enhance judicial legitimacy. it could only erode it. and the hostage takers would never settle for half a loaf.

now, mr. president, on another matter. an unfortunate routine keeps playing itself out with the biden administration. first, they implement bad policies that create problems then they propose solutions that are really just more bad ideas. case in point is inflation. democrats spent last spring unleashing a deluge of reckless spending on our recovering economy. they spent the rest of the year trying to pull off another taxing and spending spree and now they want to pass a massive tax hike while families are already hurting. unfortunately for the american people, the same thing is playing itself out in the world of energy policy. since day one, the biden administration has done its best to wage holy war on american

domestic energy production. the predictable result, thanks to these policies and the broader inflation that democrats have fueled, is that american families are hurting badly. across the board energy costs have risen nearly 32% in a year. but now comes the third part of the unfortunate routine. a slew of bad far-left policy choices that would make the pain for the american people actually even worse. some democrats are pushing for a massive new tax on companies that have developing and exporting american energy. the last time this wrongheaded idea was given legs, president carter ended up reducing domestic production, increasing our foreign dependence and raising americans' prices at the

pump. and over the last few weeks, the biden administration took two more steps in the wrong direction. after ignoring federal law by failing to award a single development gas lease for the last five quarters, the government has jacked up its royalty rate by 50%. that's right. democrats' response to supply shortages and sky-high prices at the pump is to make american energy even less available and even more expensive. meanwhile, it's begun to tear up the regulatory reforms put in place under the last administration to streamline infrastructure project permitting. biden and his team struck the

match on an historic surge in energy prices and are now making it even more -- more expensive for american producers to boost supply. they endorsed a bipartisan infrastructure bill and are now making it harder for american builders to get the work. and, of course, democrats are still itching to resurrect their green new deal in the mist of historic inflation, they want to jack costs up even further for consumers while making america more dependent on china and other regimes. the same democrats who don't want us responsibly exploring for oil and natural gas, also don't want us responsibly exploring for critical minerals

either and want to tie up american manufacturing in red tape. so the administration's war on american energy has left destruction in its wake. the only idea they have left to try is the one that would have worked from the beginning, unleash -- unleash the abundant, affordable and reliable supply we've got right here at home. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

what's it all about. it's all about the rules-based international order that is been grossly violated by russia, illegal russian aggression. we've had institutions in place with 78 consecutive years to prevent that from happening and that's what's at stake. it's beyond ukraine. our intent is to maintain and uphold rules-based international order by achieving the specific objectives the president has given us. >> thank you. so secretary austin, on this topic some analysts believe that the more we assist ukraine integrating putin's military, more likely he will be to

escalate to new levels, possibly with chemical biological or even tactical nuclear weapons. can you clarify how this might change the calculus that general milley was just outlining in terms of use of force from the u.s. military? >> there are a number of things that mr. putin could do. you can make the case, by the way, senator, he's already escalated in terms of the types of things we see him doing in attacking civilians, destroying cities, towns and villages, indiscriminate targeting. certainly, he has a number thanks he could escalate by conducting a cyber event or there's been a lot of talk about the possible employment of chem

bio. of course if you boys a chemical, biological weapon, i think you will see a reaction from the international community, because that's a pretty serious step and, of course, president biden has been clear about his views on this. it's possible that he could do that. i certainly hope that he chooses to not do that. again, i think the international response will be significant. but you know, senator, he could end this war today. this is a war of choice. he could choose to stop fighting and withdraw his forces from ukraine. and again, this is the decision of one man. so i would hope that mr. putin would decide to do something different going forward. >> yes. and i just want to close with, should putin continue to

escalate, is that your expectation the administration would come to congress would cresting and authorization for use of military force? >> that's a policy decision, and my boss will make and so i won't get in front of my boss. >> senator blunt. >> thank you, chairman. and thanks to both of you for your current and her long service to the country. i'm deeply appreciative as i'm sure we all are. secretary austin, i think mackenzie had a report out as you indicated that from 2000-2021 the defense cost index, the inflation index, ran about 20 points ahead of the other, the cbi during that period of time. do you think this budget will reflect the world where in now in terms of replenishing our stock in getting ready for the

future? is about 5% increase in an inflationary economy. it seems to me we may not be holding our own, let alone moving forward here. >> thanks, senator. before you answer the let me thank you for your service, and you know, tremendous service to our country and to the senate, and thanks for your support of our military. on behalf of the entire department of defense. as i said earlier, when we crafted this budget we basted upon our strategy and at that point you have to make assumptions about levels of inflation, and so we use the appropriate number, what we believe to be the appropriate number at that time. and things have changed now, so there is a difference. >> that's helpful. and i'm sure we're going to be discussing that more with the

secretaries as they come in, so it's helpful. i missed your observation about that and it's helpful to know that's where you are now. a number of things have changed, and one is we have an intent to provide our ukrainian friends with a lot more things to fight with. does this budget at this point anticipate replacing the javelins or the stinger missiles that we have given or will give to them? >> it is a a substantial budg, in my view, senator, and it allows us to go after the things that we need to have to support a war fighting concepts that are outlined in our strategy here. again, china is listed as our basic challenge. russia is listed as any to threat. the supplementals that you provide us at this point a been

very helpful in going after the kinds of things that you mentioned, and again, this next supplemental that the president has asked for your support on will enable us to do what you just described, replenish stocks and also continue to support ukraine. but the supplemental funds are really focus on that. >> well, to pursue that just little bit more, i think we have roughly provided roughly 5000 javelins and 1400 stingers. the javelins, that's about a third of our stockpile already provided, and the stingers about 25% of our stockpile. is it possible to replace a third of our stockpile, let's say 50% 50% before we're doe within a year? >> it certainly is, it's not only possible but we will do that. we will never go below our minimum requirement for our

stockpiles. we will always maintain the capability to defend this country and support our interests. but this will help us to not only replenish our stockpiles but also replace some of the capability that we've asked our partners and allies to provide, some of the eastern flank countries early on provided stingers, and other countries provided javelins upon our request, so they will help us do that. >> i know we want to work with you that. general milley, but naked and one more question here. i know you're a a great student of warfare, and my guess is we've all learned a lot in the last three months of assumptions prior to its happen in ukraine and what we seen happen in terms of effectiveness of force are the weapons that most effective we are seeing in that theater of war, does this budget yet reflect what you think the next

budget should probably reflect in terms of our transition to be sure we're keeping up with the lessons we're learning from modern warfare? >> it does. moses in the right direction for sure. this has got the most research and development of any budget in ndaa history actually. it's significant movement. as a look at what's happening in ukraine, or for example, in mosul or syria, what we're seeing is some fundamental change in the character of war. it is going to leak into the future. one of those changes is highly dense urban air combat. you are saying the use of precision munitions figure seeing the use of drones, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles. you're saying and consistent to deny the russians of the airspace, and the most effective weapon they have you so far has been antitank weapons and, of

course, javelin is what we have. many of the country are providing all kinds of equipment, wide friday of antitank weapons. so the combination of all of that together has led the russians to not achieve the success is that they thought they would have. those have direct application and i think this budget takes that into account. but beyond that this budget also is investing in our intelligence, robotics, those which were not releasing and the current battlefield we do expect those be very, very significant players in a future battle, , 2, 30 years ago come something like that. those were the dominant technologies at that time. and this budget takes us on that path. ..

everything they need. now i've heard repeatedly from people on the frontlines of those involved in the logistics system in ukraine about equipment we deliver not reaching frontline units that most need the weapons and ammunition and body armor . there seem to be a number of logistical issues including some divergent and according so i wanted to ask what's your assessment of these issues and how are you working with ukraine in the distribution of international assistance more transparent and effective units on the frontline can get the equipment theyneed ? >> thank you senator. this is something that's very important to us at the department. to me and general milley

specifically and without fail this is a question that i asked about. we don't have people on the ground to be able to provide accurate feedback or how this equipment is moving or whether or not it's getting where it's needed most of the report we get back from the senior leadership routinely is that it's getting to where it needs to go. but i will stop, i'll continue to engage and make sure we emphasize that it's important that all the stuff we are giving them gets to the right place so they can be successful and in addition to that when i engaged the senior leadership in kyiv last week i emphasized the importance of accountability. and they acknowledged this is something that's important and that they are focused on. without people on the ground to confirm or deny it's difficult to do at this point

. >> i appreciate that point. secretary austin in january i and many of my colleagues sent you a letter regarding dod oversight for communities who pled guilty to defrauding the government. the department's response provided few meaningful answers on how oversight is actually going to improve and that needs to change and on top of that as you know just a few days ago the senate permanent subcommittee. >>

court, and we should at every turn be defending the independence of our supreme court. mr. president, the biden border crisis is still getting worse. in march u.s. customs and border protection encountered 221,303 individuals attempting to cross our southern border illegally. 221,303. that's an average of more than

7,100 individuals per day. as of april, that number had gotten even worse. in april -- an april 26 memo from the secretary of homeland security reported, and i quote, in the past three weeks c.b.p., or customs and border patrol, has encountered an average of over 7,800 migrants per day across the southwest border. this is compared to a historical average of 1600 per day in the prepandemic years of 2014 to 2019. end quote. let me repeat that, mr. president. in the past three weeks, c.b.p. has encountered an average of over 7800 migrants per day across the southwest border, compared to historical average of 1,600 per day in the prepandemic years. the situation in our southern border, mr. president, is out of control. and it's on track to get much, much worse. on april 1, the biden

administration announced that title 42 covid-19 restrictions, which provided for the immediate deportation of individuals who've crossed the border illegally, will end on may 23. it's ironic that even as the president has effectively declared that the covid emergency to be over at our southern border, his administration continues to advocate and press congress for more covid funding. once title 42 restrictions are officially lifted, the flood of illegal immigration across our southern border is expected to become a tsunami. the department of homeland security expects as many as 18,000 migrants per day to attempt to cris our southern border -- to cross our sworn policy after this is lifted. 18,000 per day. that's more than double the number we're currently experiencing, which is already strange the border -- straining the border patrol to limit. secretary mayorkas testified

last week that morale in the border patrol is low. not surprising. what will it be like for these men and women when their workload more than doubles? mr. president, title 42 restrictions were never intended to be a permanent border solution, and lifting them would not be a problem if it were clear that the president is ready to deal with the resulting immigration surge. but the president hasn't even been able to, or hasn't bothered to, come up with a plan to address our existing immigration crisis. and the plan he's offered to deal with the unexpected surge when title 42 restrictions are lifted is inadequate to, to put it mildly. the administration plans to increase customs and border protection capacity to 18,000. the problem with that, as i said, we could be facing an influx of 18,000 illegal immigrants per day, per day,

when title 42 is ended. given that individuals usually stay in customs and border protection custody for two too three days, it's clear that the detention capacity of 18,000 is likely to be woefully insufficient. even some democrats criticized the administration's plan, with one noting, and i quote, that the administration's plan for the end of title 42 is unrealistic by may 23. another democrat said, and i quote, there hasn't been enough preparation. we don't have the basics of how are you going to ham 18,000 individuals a day safely in accordance with our ethics and principles? that plan i haven't seen yet, end quote. a number of senate democrats have criticized the president's decision to end title 42 right now. while i appreciate their speaking up, i wish that they had decided to join republicans in supporting an amendment to preserve title 42 border policies when we voted on it last august.

or the amendment republicans supported in february of last year to boost funding for security at our nation's borders then perhaps we wouldn't currently be in a situation where we expect to see half a million individuals a month attempting to illegally cross our southern border. mr. president, out of -- out-of-control illegal immigration represents a serious security threat. criminals, including human traffickers, drug smugglers and gaining members regularly attempt to cross our southern border. the worse the situation at our border gets, the easier it is for these individuals to make their way into our country. our border patrol officers do heroic work, but they are stretched incredibly thin, and have been for more than a year now. it is simply common sense to acknowledge that the greater the flood of illegal immigration they have to contend with, the easier it's going to be for bad actors to get across the border.

just last week secretary mayorkas testified that there were more than 38 ,000 what he calls got-aways, which are individuals the border patrol saw. 389,000. but was unable to apprehend at our southern border diewsk fiscal year 20 -- during fiscal year 2021. 389,000 got away. how many more are there likely to be if the influx at our southern border more than doubles? mr. president, securing our border, and by that i mean having actual operational control of who enters our country, is a national security imperative. it's unfortunate that president biden doesn't seem to realize that. he began his administration by rescinding the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border, halting construction of the border wall, and revoking a trump administration order that called for the government to faithfully execute our immigration laws. in other words, president biden immediately gave the green light to those who exploit our broken

immigration system. and he has continued to implement measures that have served to convey the message that the united states borders are effectively open. while his title 42 decision forced him to offer a so-called plan to deal with border security, the measures he proposed proas -- proposes to take are unlikely to deter the expected surge of immigration once 42 is lifted. by the end of this month, our nation may be facing a security, enforcement and humanitarian crisis at our southern border that makes your to current crisis look like child's play. mr. president, the administration must do more to develop its response plan before the president lifts title 42 restrictions on may 23. but the truth of the matter is it is almost unquestionably too late. for the administration to be adequately prepared for the coming crisis by the end of this month. i hope the president will

recognize that and delay the man adequate plan for dealing with our current border crisis, as well as any additional influx from lifting title had 2 border pre-- title 42 border restrictions. if he does not move the may 23 deadline, then congress should step in and do it for him. and stop our nation's current border crisis from becoming a true catastrophe. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from particulars. mr. cornyn: mr. president, over recent decades, global ?raition, by that i mean -- globalization, by that i mean depending on the cheapest producer of a

particular good, and disregarding the vulnerability of supply chains, has characterized our global commerce. by and large, that's been a good thing, particularly for consumers, if you're talking about toys for your children or an appliance, let's say. everything fromming a product -- from ag products to innovative technologies can find a place in global markets, and that can benefit consumers. but this interdependence creates serious risks as well. and over the last couple of years we've seen how supply chain vulnerabilities can bring an entire industry or perhaps open an entire -- or perhaps even an entire country to its knees. some of the clearest examples that surfaced during the pandemic. the u.s. leans heavily on chinese manufacturing for masks, gloves, gowns, and ventilators, otherwise known as p.p.e. not the ventilators, but the

masks and gloves. for a long time, that didn't seem to be a problem. then covid-19 showed up on our front doorstep. china held most of the supply for its own healthcare workers, leaving the rest of the world to scramble and compete for what little product was available here at home. suddenly, we were unable to protect our healthcare workers with p.p.e. and the equipment they needed in order to deal with people sick with the virus. as the american people now know all too well, the pandemic taught us supply chain lessons that extend far beyond personal protective equipment and medical equipment. one of the biggest vulnerabilities that came to light was the semiconductor supply chain. now, chips, or semiconductors, or microcircuits, are critical components in the most-used

products here in america, whether it's your smartphone, your computer, your tv, your car, airplanes that you may fly in, cell towers, just about anything with an off and on switch. that's what semiconductors power. it also includes critical defense articles, everything from fighter jets like the f-35 joint strike fighter, our fifth generation jet to the javelin missiles now being used to take out russian tanks in ukraine. as much as we depend on a strong supply of these microcircuits or chips currently, we also depend on other countries to make them. 90% of the most advanced semiconductors in the world are made in asia with the lion's share being made in taiwan. i recently visited taipei and

the taiwan semiconductor company where they manufacture chips designed by other companies all around the world. it's a great business model for tsmc, and it's good for the designers of the chips because tsmc being located in taiwan can make it for about 30% less than a fab or manufacturing facility here in the united states. but the problem is we make zero percent of the advanced semiconductors in the world right here at home. and that's a huge risk. in the summer of 2020, i introduced the bipartisan chips for america act with my friend and colleague mark warner, the senior senator from virginia, to incentivize companies to reshore the manufacturing of semiconductors here in america. it's really chilling to think about how vulnerable we are to

the semiconductor supply chain. think if there was another pandemic or natural disaster or, heaven forbid, the people's republic of china decides to, quote, unify with taiwan, that would jeopardize our access to these advanced semiconductors. it would have an immediate negative impact on our economy. the department of commerce said we'd go into a recess immediately, and depending on how long it lasted, it would have a catastrophic consequence. but the bill that senator warner and i introduced became law at the start of last year as part of the national defense authorization bill. and for the la 16 months -- last 16 months, we've been working on a way to fund this chips program. in the coming days the house and the senate will begin to resolve the differences between the house and senate versions of recently-passed bills.

and i'm proud to be serving as a member of that conference committee. and i'm eager to dive into negotiations with our colleagues and there certainly is a lot of urgency. like so many supply chain vulnerabilities, once we realize that vulnerability exists, we can't necessarily turn it on a dime. it's going to take a lot of investment and perhaps a year or more to develop the capacity to manufacture these chips here in america. and what's more the global demand for semiconductors is expected to increase by 56% over the next decade. think about 5g. think about artificial intelligence, quantum computing. we rely more and more on technology and thus more and more on semiconductors every day, and we will continue to do so into the future. so it's absolutely critical that

we start investing in domestic chip manufacturing and do it now to ensure we have the capacity to meet our economic and national security needs. but, mr. president, as we all have learned recent events haven't just taught us about the importance of a strong semiconductor supply chain. it's also taught us the lesson about energy security, about having reliable sources of energy. i don't remember that energy security was much a part of the conversation before the russians invaded ukraine and europe realized they were solely dependent on russian oil and gas. so the war in ukraine opened the world's eyes to the dangers of that dependency on a single supplier, particularly one like the russian federation. and then putin is using the profits from the price of oil

which has gone through the roof because of this uncertainty, he's using that money to fund his unprovoked war against ukraine as well as threatened nato and our other allies who don't want to prop up russia's war machine. here in the united states we don't rely on russia to keep the lights on. russia accounts for about 2% of our crude oil and petroleum imports allowing us to ban russian imports without risk of a major disruption. but our allies in europe are not so lucky. they don't just rely on russian oil. they also need russian gas. and we've learned that putin's not afraid to use oil and gas as a weapon to tear up, threaten, and intimidate his adversaries. that was underscored in january of 2009 when russia effectively

turned off the gas to ukraine for almost three weeks. this had an impact on at least ten countries in europe whose natural gas traveled through ukraine. and today we're seeing that movie replayed again. russia recently cut off the supply of natural gas to bol glare ya and poland -- bolgaria and poland as retailation for the support and sanctions we imposed against russia because of the ukraine invasion. in many ways the risks that we are seeing with the global energy supply today are similar to the supply chain vulnerabilities we have with semiconductors. when you rely upon a single country for critical products, the decisions made by that country's leader could cause the supply to be cut off at a moment's notice. this obviously has been a

wake-up call for all of us, all countries are taking a hard look at where their energy supply comes if and trying to find ways to diversify their sources of energy and to insulate themselves from geo political disruptions. and the united states is no exception. in recent years our conversation about energy policy seems to have been consumed by debates about what's the impact on the environment of fossil fuels. and i think the debate has largely ignored questions about how policies that were being proposed would impact energy security. many of our democratic colleagues have proposed everything from fracking bans to unfees aibl zero net -- unfeasible zero net deadlines to pie in the sky proposals that frankly are unable to --

unlikely to pass and they were also -- there were fantasies being foisted on the american people, clearly not in the interest of our economy or national security. but we know the president has the power of the pen and he's repeatedly used it to undermine our domestic oil and gas industry here in the united states. only hours after he was sworn in, president biden canceled the permit for the keystone xl pipeline and halted all new energy leasing and permitting on public lands and waters. the biden administration recently announced that it will resume oil and gas leases on federal lands. that was good news. but then it undercut that announcement by saying it reduced the amount of land available and significantly increased the overhead costs or royalties that must be paid to the federal government. by these kind of policies, the biden administration has

effectively discouraged investments in new production here in america and the american people are paying the price, including at the pump. even when president biden eventually makes the right decision, it seems to always come after a lot of delay. it took weeks, for example, and the looming likelihood of congressional action before the president banned russian oil imports. the climate-only policy or approach to energy policy isn't going to cut it anymore. we can't just look through a soda straw at what our energy policy is. we have to look at both the intended and unintended consequence -- unintended consequences. i believe our top priorities should be that our friends and allies around the world have access to affordable energy. now, i want to be clear. i support efforts to diversify energy sources and reduce

emissions. and i think one of the best contributions to that has been the move from coal to natural gas when it comes to producing electricity, a significant reduction in emissions by that move alone. now, back home in texas, we embrace an all-of-the-above energy strategy that includes oil, gas, wind, solar, and nuclear. all of the above makes sense because you want a diversification of your supply, something we found out again or reminded of when we had a big freeze about -- i guess about -- about a year and a half ago now which not only shut down our renewable sources, the wind turbines and solar panels, but also froze the gas pumps that compress natural gas that pushed it through the pipelines. so having a number of options allows you to be nimble and more flexible in the case of an

emergency. and we produce more electricity from wind turbines than any other state in the nation, even our friends in california which may shock some people. on top of that, texas-based companies are taking -- making serious strides in energy innovation which i believe ultimately is the key to energy security and a cleaner environment and reduced emissions. texas-based companies are finding ways to make our most prevalent and affordable energy sources cleaner. i believe we could do more here in congress to encourage that kind of innovation and diversification of our energy sources, but those efforts must come second to energy security which should be job number one. the fact of the matter is renewables are not close to being capable of providing all of our electricity needs.

in my state it's about 20%. i think that's roughly the average around the country. but renewables account for less than 20%, i believe, across the board of our electricity generation. we know the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. so you need a base load when mother nature fails to deliver an adequate supply of energy. we need a reliable base load which means nuclear, oil and gas, and geothermal and hydrowhere you can get it. -- hy hydro where you can get i. if the president continues to wage war on american oil and gas companies, we will not have the capability to protect ourselves or our allies. energy security is national security. if that fact was ever in doubt, russia's actions have provided complete clarity. our top priority must be to

pursue our independence and we do that by diversification and more production here at home. if we're able to bolster renewables, invest in carbon capture technologies, and take other steps along the way to reduce emissions, that's great. but priority number one for the united states and our allies must be energy security. the sooner the biden administration views the oil and gas industry as friends rather than adversaries, the better off all of us will be. we are blessed to live in a resource rich country and there's no reason to put energy security -- the energy security of the u.s. and our allies at risk because president biden is trying to placate a part of his political base. the war in ukraine is already highlighting global energy security risks. we don't need to make that problem worse. we don't need to make it worse.

we need to make it better. now, i'm not suggesting either that we embrace isolationist energy policies like the 1970's oil export ban, but we do need to take decisive action to reduce the world's reliance on authoritarian regimes. just as the pandemic led us to reevaluate vulnerabilities in our supply chains for semiconductors and personal productive equipment, this war is also pushing us to reevaluate global energy security. so i hope this crisis if there's anything good that comes out of it will serve as a reset button for our energy security efforts and discourage those who want to increase our dependency as opposed to maintaining and developing our energy security by diversifying our energy sources and taking advantage of the natural resources that we have been blessed with in

america. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: i rise today to call for the rapid confirmation of kenneth wainstein to be under secretary for intelligence and analysis at the department of homeland security. the under secretary for intelligence and analysis sits at a critical juncture between the analytic work of the intelligence community and the information sharing role of the department of homeland security. the under secretary receives and analyzes intelligence and law enforcement information related to homeland security and ensures its prompt dissemination throughout the department as well as to federal, state, local, and tribal departments that need this information to protect our nation.

the nominee, who has been before our committee and passed out, comes with an incredible background for this position. he has served the united states throughout his career as a federal prosecutor, the highest level of the f.b.i., as u.s. attorney for d.c., and as the first-ever assistant attorney general of the justice department's national security division. and as homeland security advisor to preyed george w. bush. the truth is, after a remarkable career, he went into the private sector and the fact that he's willing to come back and serve this administration, although he was a career official on the other side, speaks to his character. the role of heading d.h.s. intelligence is not without challenges, which is why we need this confirmed under secretary. the i.n.a. mission continues to

evolve in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. some members, including myself, were very unhappy with the i.n.a.'s operations in portland in 2020, and then disappointed that the i.n.a. provided next to no warning about what was to come on january 6, 2021. these episodes clearly reveal that work needs to be done to improve d.h.s. and i.n.a. in particular. at the same time, we all know the first amendment protects americans' right to free speech and nonviolent peaceful protest, and our fundamental role of our government is to defend the constitution, including these first amendment rights. as the confirmed head of d.h.s.'s intelligence operation, mr. wainstein will be charged with ensuring that d.h.s.-i.n.a. keeps upholding those standards and protects civil rights while also ensuring that i.n.a.'s work

is completely apolitical. to summarize, the role of the under secretary is critical for the department of homeland security and the country. consequently, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the senate consider the following nomination -- calendar number 792, kenneth l. wainstein of virginia to be under secretary of intelligence at the department of homeland security. the senate vote on the nomination without any intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? excuse me, is there an objection? mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. pause pause reserve -- mr. paul: reserving the right to object, the details are

scarce of the effort, but one would assume that the d.h.s. intelligence and analysis would be part of that effort. the nominee being considered today was one of the architects of george w. bush's administration bulk metadata collection at the n.s.a. what a great recommendation for him, sarcasm included, which gathered the private electronic communications of millions of americans without warrant. is this someone we would want to be involved in the the biden administration's new ministry of truth? i will not provide my consent to expanding the surveillance state and the suppression of first and fourth amendment rights of americans. i oppose this nominee and object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. warner: mr. president, i think we have an incredible nominee in mr. wainstein. he has served our government in the justice department, at the f.b.i., at virtually every

level. i think if my colleague, the senator from kentucky, is concerned about this, we ought to have somebody who is confirmed in this role, and i would acknowledge that there are members who share his concerns about first amendment rights, including one of the members of our committee who has worked through mr. wainstein and was part of the group that unanimously moved -- voted to move his forward. i'm disappointed by the objection, and, unfortunately, both the security of our country and candidly the protection of those first amendment rights is undermined by not having this nominee in place. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: best for this country and

that's for the people who serve under you and i want to thank you for that . talking about the area of decommissioning. divesting. it's always a challenge. you've always got people in the senate that don't want to see certain things the way. i want to talk about a proposal to get rid of ships that quite frankly we've just

put in service. in fact some of them are service yet. how much confidence do you have any analysis that these things are just aren't fit for the fight? >> i'm very competent chairman. again i think you and healone ahead . we're looking to acquire abilities that are relevant in the future fight and survival . the only variance you mentioned not live up to expectations. it's very expensive to maintain, so we made the decision that it would be better to decommission those ships and invest those resources in acquiring capabilities that are more agile and morerelevant to the future fight . >> those ships have been on

the books for like i said, i think there are still some in process. but they were designed what, 20 years ago, 15 yearsago ? >> i think it was 20 years ago. >> and it's already changed in 20 years and pretty dramatically, i might add. i want to talk about something that's already been mentioned and that's accountability . $3.7 billion and in the supplemental so far, and another 15.4 projected to go out. you had said with earlier questions that you're reasonably confident that the weaponry is getting to the ukrainians and i get. you don't have people on the ground there to monitor everything . but the question is are we making sure that number one,

none of these weapons have fallen into the wrong hands. is there any way to even do that and number two are we making sure that the taxpayer dollars that are being spent are actually making a difference. and i'm talking a significant difference. >> first of all i think they are making a difference chairman just look at the battlefield today versus what we're looking at a couple of weeks ago. we see that the russians, the ukrainians have defeated the russians around kyiv and they moved back. we expect that to be a different flavor of the fight that employs more long-range bombers, a bit more maneuver and the ukrainians have asked for what they believe is relevant in that fight. and the department and the joint staff on the chairman's

leadership there have hustled to get the capabilities to them as quickly as possible. and we've engaged other countries to do the same to provide additional capability but in terms ofaccountability , we have to depend on the ukrainians at this point to do the right thing and make sure that they are prudent, careful about how they issue these weapons out and account for these weapons. again i engaged the senior leadership in the country on this issue and they assured me this is something that's important that they will continue to focus on . >>for resupplying . there's a lot of stories about production lines and about the fact that we have supply chain issues when it comes to replacing everything that we're shipping into ukraineand our allies are shipping to ukraine to . you said you thought and

don't let me put words in your mouth that the weaponry could be replaced within the next yearwith this project . >> all of it won't be replaced within a year. we will see production lines operate at different speeds just based upon what they are. we're optimistic about the javelin being, industry being able to increase the production rate in a very meaningful way. and their decisions to be made about that on the stinger going forward but in every case, the industry has leaned into this and is willing to work with us to increase production as much as possible. >> and the dollars in this budget accomplish getting those production lines up and it accomplishes getting what we need to replace what's being utilized. >> and the supplemental we've asked you for, right senator. >> in the opening statements

and this is for you general. i believe asking for 130 billion in r&d spending, that's 10 billion over 2022. procurement conversely isflat at about 144 billion . for years r.m.d. has been used in prototype technologies like ai, like hypersonic's. which are important. if we're going to compete particularly with china. so when will they become real programs and my concern is that we are prototyping everything today and it never gets to the field. is this a concern you have number one general and number two can you give me any sort of expectations on when we

might see some of this stuff come to help . >> i think the time window and again i agree with your comments about predicting 10, 15 years out but we know the broad outlines or at least we think we know the broad outlines of the future operating environment and this changing character of war. these will need to be online in the hands of the force and in the hands of the joint force inside of 10 years if we are going to have an opportunity to be superior for our adversaries, specifically china. theprograms are artificial intelligence . >>

yorkers. she recognizes that program's continuity relies on continuity at the top and meeting staffing needs. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the nomination of

ms. bhargava to h.u.d. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 54, the nays are 42, 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 motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, with no intervening action or debate, elizabeth de leon bhargava of new york to be an assistant secretary of housing and urban development, 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 nomination of elizabeth de leon bhargava of new york to be an assistant secretary of housing and urban development 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 61, the nays are 35. the motion is agreed to o -- agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: elizabeth bhargava

of new york to be assistant secretary. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

a quorum call. the presiding officer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed >> this is a dark and disturbing morningstar america. last night a report disclosed that a conservative majority of the united states supreme court is ready to overturn roe versus wade add updecades of precedent affirming a woman's right to an abortion . if this report is accurate this is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years. not just on women but on all americans. for this dis