[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 101 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4036-S4038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Border Security

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I come to the floor today to give an 
update on what is happening on our southwest border. It seems a lot of 
the national media has stopped focusing on that area.
  I talked to the people in Oklahoma and asked: What is going on on the 
southwest border? What has changed?
  Interestingly enough, just 2 days ago, President Biden and his team 
released what is the current status of what they call the ``border 
challenge.'' They talked about it, and here is the update. This comes 
from the White House itself, their update. They stated this: There is 
improved processing of unaccompanied children. The administration 
successfully reduced the number of unaccompanied children in Customs 
and Border Protection custody.
  The second thing they list is that the administration has reduced the 
average amount of time children are in Customs and Border Protection 
facilities.
  The third thing they list is that the administration has reduced the 
number of unaccompanied children in the care of Health and Human 
Services.
  Then they move on and say that they removed barriers to unifying 
children with parents and sponsors in the United States. And they go 
through and give the details of how much better they are at unifying 
parents and children here in the United States.
  Interestingly enough, when you read through this and just look at the 
language, you think, gosh, the numbers are going significantly down--
until you slow down and ask the question. What they are really saying 
in this report is: We are moving people across the border faster than 
we used to. They don't spend as much time at the border as they used 
to. They are now in the interior of the country.
  Why do I say that? Because the information came out, strikingly 
enough, the day after this was released, the update of what was 
happening on the border in May.
  In March of this year, with the highest number of interdictions that 
we have had in 20 years--in March of this year--173,000-plus; only to 
be beaten in April by the highest in 20 years with 178,000-plus; only 
to be beaten, now we know, in May with 180,000-plus. The surge 
continues to accelerate while the administration puts out their notice 
saying: We are getting so much more efficient at moving people from the 
border into the interior of the country.
  This is why President Giammattei of Guatemala spoke to the 
administration this week in a public setting, strikingly enough, 
saying: You are giving mixed signals to the people of Central America. 
For the Vice President to come to Guatemala and say ``Don't come; don't 
come'' but then for the administration to say ``But if you do come, we 
are a lot faster getting you into the country than we used to be,'' 
this is the mixed-signal problem. It is why coyotes continue to be able 
to move record numbers of people through Central America into the 
interior of the country
  It is not just from Central America. We have had this year a more 
than 400 percent increase in migration from nations outside of the 
Northern Triangle in Mexico because the coyotes are learning--we know 
how to move people, and the world is seeing that if you want to be able 
to come to America illegally, now is the time to do it.
  So if you go back to March, we had all these individuals who were 
coming from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Now there is a 400-
percent increase of people from outside of those areas who are coming 
into those same trafficking networks moving into the United States.
  We have now had this year 23,000, that we know of, individuals who, 
when they were brought across the border under the new Biden proposal 
to be more efficient at moving people across the border, that if the 
line was too long to be processed at the border, they would be released 
into the United States and told: Whatever city you go to, turn yourself 
in to ICE and start what is called a notice to appear process to be 
able to request asylum, literally. This has never happened under any 
administration. No administration has done this. If the line is too 
long at the border when you are crossing illegally and it backs up 
there to be able to check in with the Border Patrol or CBP, then they 
are released into the country. As we know of, by the end of March--we 
don't know the numbers yet for April and May, but by the end of March, 
23,242 people had been just released and told ``Turn yourself in, 
whatever city you get to.''
  Now, I have asked the question: How many people have actually turned 
themselves in? How many people have actually done that? The latest 
number that we have that have actually checked in is about 1,800 
people. Quite frankly, I was surprised it was that high. That is almost 
8 percent of the people who have actually turned themselves in when 
they arrived at the city, meaning 92 percent of the people who were 
released at the border, we have no idea where they are anywhere in the 
country--92 percent. This is not what Americans expected.
  Worse still, I have asked the basic question: What is happening with 
ICE? Why should I ask that question about interior enforcement in the 
United States? Because the first week President Biden was in office, he 
announced a moratorium on any deportations, even deportations that a 
Federal court has ordered removed. He was going to do no deportations 
at all. He was going to stop for 100 days.
  A Federal court actually interceded in that and responded: If a 
Federal court has ordered what is called a final order of removal, they 
have to be removed. The Biden administration responded with: OK, we 
will do that. We will remove people if there is a final order of 
removal.
  So I asked the simple question: What has happened since then? Here is 
what has happened since then. The Biden administration has changed the 
policy for ICE into a policy we have never done as a country. If an 
individual is going to be removed by ICE now, they have to contact 
regional leadership and ask permission to be able to remove that 
person. Regional leadership will go through a whole set of the criteria 
established by the Biden administration, and if they don't qualify, 
they cannot be removed regardless of their status.
  What has happened since then? Last month, there were only 3,000 
people in the country removed--3,000. That is the lowest number we have 
had on our records. To give you an example of this, we have 6,000 ICE 
agents in the country yet only 3,000 deportations in the country in a 
month. We are on record to be at a number we have never experienced 
before as a country for deportations of any President because we are 
not enforcing the law.
  Not only do we have record numbers coming across the border, we have 
a record low number of deportations that are happening. What do I mean 
by that? Well, we contacted the ICE Council, and we asked specifically: 
What does it mean when we learn that people are not being deported? Who 
is not being deported?
  When I talked to ICE leadership 2 weeks ago, I asked very direct, 
specific questions: Are all criminal aliens being deported? Their 
answer back to me was, no, we are making a case-by-case decision on 
criminal aliens.

[[Page S4037]]

  My next question: Are all sex offenders being deported? The answer 
was, no, we are making a case-by-case decision on sex offenders on 
whether they should be deported.
  Let me give a few examples. These are direct examples that come from 
the ICE Council of things that have happened in the last month under 
the new Biden policy to not deport individuals.
  First option. This person was in local custody pending charges for 
aggravated assault. The detainer was carried over from the previous 
administration, from the Trump administration. Once the Biden 
administration took leadership, the ICE detainer was removed. They 
ordered a reevaluation of the case and said that they have to be 
actually convicted of aggravated assault charges before you can put a 
detainer. Now, a detainer doesn't actually remove them. That is just a 
detainer to say: Don't release them if convicted. That detainer was 
removed.
  Case No. 2. This person had been deported four times before--four 
times before. They have had convictions for evading arrest, domestic 
violence, and multiple DUIs. They also have a pending DUI charge right 
now again. ICE officers requested permission to place a detainer on 
this person, and they were instructed that they could not put a 
detainer on this person. Even though they had been deported four 
times--domestic violence conviction in the past, evading arrest in the 
past, and multiple DUIs--they were told they could not put a detainer 
on him.
  Case No. 3. This is actually an ICE fugitive who has a court-ordered 
final order of removal. Remember, I mentioned earlier that a Federal 
court said you do have to deport these individuals? Well, guess what. 
That is actually not occurring. ICE officials made a request for 
someone who had an aggravated assault, and they were told that they 
could not do it unless they went through a lengthy, long process. They 
started through the process, and by the time all the paperwork was 
done, that person had already bonded out, and they are gone. They are 
at large.
  Case No. 4. This individual had illegally entered the country. They 
had local charges for rape of a child. ICE officers were prohibited 
from placing a detainer on them, saying that they hadn't been convicted 
yet, so they couldn't even put a detainer pending their conviction to 
remove them.
  Case No. 5. This person had already been deported before, had a 
conviction for a sex offense against a child and sexual battery. ICE 
officers requested permission to make an arrest on this individual, but 
ICE management denied the request based on the new Biden priorities. 
That person is on the street right now.
  Case No. 6. This person has been deported twice already. There are 
pending charges right now. Although they had been deported before, they 
have pending charges on them right now for distribution of heroin, 
aggravated assault, endangerment of a child, and failure to stop or to 
respond to a command of police.
  Here is what happened. A criminal informant advised police that this 
individual had arranged to sell him a quarter-pound of heroin. By the 
way, that is a lot. When the subject appeared at the designated 
location, the police attempted to arrest this individual, but instead 
the person, illegally present in the country, attempted to ram the 
police with his car. He almost hit a police officer who was standing 
outside of his vehicle. The person was arrested. The subject did have a 
quarter-pound of heroin in their possession. They admitted also to 
selling heroin just moments before, and they had a child and an adult 
in the back seat of the car during the heroin sale and when that person 
had rammed the police vehicle. ICE officers requested permission to 
place an ICE detainer on this individual, and ICE management denied 
that request--denied that request. Though they had been deported twice, 
though they had attempted to ram a police officer's vehicle, though 
they were currently in the act of selling a quarter pound of heroin, 
they said:

       Police work is inherently dangerous. Officers know the 
     risk. No detainer is warranted.

  What are we doing? Three thousand people have been deported in our 
country in a month, and individuals literally selling heroin and 
attacking our police officers, ICE is not allowed to deport. 
Individuals in this country who are currently pending charges of sexual 
abuse of a child are not being deported, not even a detainer to be able 
to hold them.
  Is this what America wanted? It is certainly not what the people of 
Oklahoma want. It certainly does not strengthen the morale of our ICE 
agents who currently cannot make an arrest or our Border Patrol and our 
Customs and Border Protection individuals who function more like hotel 
check-in staff at our border than they are law enforcement.
  This is not creating a stable environment in America. It is unstable. 
This has got to stop.
  This is not a radical request of the administration; it is a simple 
statement: Follow the law.
  Article II of the Constitution, the President of the United States is 
the individual who is given the responsibility to enforce the law of 
the United States. The law is clear in all of these areas, and he can't 
just say: I have prosecutorial discretion. I am not going to deport sex 
offenders and people who try to ram their car into police officers and 
people with multiple DUIs. What in the world?
  These are not possible cases. These are recent cases that are real 
cases happening in the country right now. And it is why our ICE agents 
are so incredibly frustrated because they want to enforce the law and 
protect our country. They have kids as well, and they don't want 
someone with multiple DUIs driving on the street.
  This needs to be addressed by this administration--and stop just 
making brief statements in Guatemala, saying don't come but having 
doublespeak here at the border, saying but if you do, we will move you 
through quickly. And if you get into the country, we will not deport 
you, even for sexual battery.
  Now, in the ``haven't I seen this movie before'' category, I noticed 
a couple other things this week that came up. There is a new leaked 
document that came out that was released by the press of tax documents 
that had been leaked out of the IRS that somehow miraculously got to 
individuals in the press who ran an extensive story about tax 
documents.
  Now, we can all have our different perspectives on how people pay 
taxes and how much taxes they pay, but one thing should be clear for 
every person in this body; it is against the law to release tax 
documents. It is against the law to do that. But somehow, mysteriously, 
tax documents started getting released in the last couple of weeks.
  This reminds me so much of a few years ago, when the IRS was 
weaponized for political purposes and Lois Lerner was actively shutting 
down conservative nonprofits, getting access to nonprofit status, but 
left-leaning nonprofits were expedited through. And we all expressed 
our frustration that the IRS was being politicized. The IRS, of all 
places that have all documents, should not be politicized. And now, 
suddenly, at the beginning of this administration, just as we saw in 
the Obama-Biden administration, now we see in the Biden-Harris 
administration the politicization of the IRS again.
  Interestingly enough, in the President's budget that he released this 
week, he wants to give an additional authority to the IRS that has not 
been talked about much. He wants every bank transaction in America--
credit union or bank--of $600 or more to be sent to the IRS. So the IRS 
would have--every time you go to your bank or credit union, deposit or 
withdraw $600 or more, that transaction and all the details of it would 
have to be sent to the IRS not by you but by the bank or the credit 
union.
  When I asked the IRS Commissioner about that earlier this week in my 
conversation with him, he said they literally do not have the capacity 
to handle that much information. They don't have the technology to do 
it. They don't have the manpower to do it.
  But the Biden administration wants every bank transaction that you do 
of $600 or more of any type to be able to go to the IRS and to be kept 
there. Interestingly, that proposal comes out the same week that 
information comes out that the IRS is now suddenly leaking tax 
information to the press. I have seen that movie before.
  I have seen the movie before on the Keystone Pipeline. That was news 
again this week. We saw that during

[[Page S4038]]

the Obama-Biden administration as well, and now we are seeing it in the 
Biden-Harris administration; that suddenly pipelines are bad news.
  Well, when the Colonial Pipeline went down a couple of days, the 
whole East Coast panicked because they couldn't get fuel when one 
pipeline went down. We shouldn't be talking about how to not build 
pipelines; we should be talking about how to build pipeline redundancy 
to make sure that if a pipeline goes down, we are not trapped, as 
Americans, with no fuel in the situation that we are in right now.
  But in the middle of this, to be able to please the environmental 
left, the President of the United States shut down the Keystone 
Pipeline, and the company finally gave up and said: We are not going to 
invest any more money on something that we can't finish.
  Now, will that change America's use of oil by one drop? No, it won't. 
America will use the exact same amount of oil that it used before. But 
what it will do is make it more expensive to be able to move oil 
from the northern part of the United States to the southern part of the 
United States to raise prices on all consumers.

  We will still have a use of oil; it will just raise prices. And the 
oil that moves will now move on a train or on a truck, which uses more 
carbon, which is more dangerous than using a pipeline. I have seen this 
movie before.
  In the middle of canceling out the Keystone Pipeline, the President 
lifted sanctions on a Russian pipeline, the Nord Stream 2, which will 
cut off the United States from selling natural gas to Western Europe 
because that was Western Europe's alternative. They can either buy 
natural gas from us or buy gas from Russia.
  The Trump administration had put sanctions on that pipeline, and so 
the pipeline had stopped construction. President Biden lifted sanctions 
on that so now we won't sell American natural gas; now Western Europe 
will be dependent on Russian natural gas.
  How does that help the stability of Europe? How does that help 
American jobs? How does that help our future? I have no idea.
  In the ``I have seen this movie before,'' I was fascinated this week 
to be able to see President Zelensky of Ukraine, when he found out 
about this pipeline shift, which, by the way, dramatically affects 
Ukraine, when he read about it in the press because the State 
Department and the administration didn't notify him that the pipeline 
that skips Ukraine and cuts them off, our administration--the Biden 
administration--approved.
  President Zelensky stated to the press he has reached out over and 
over to President Biden to get a meeting with him and can't get a 
meeting with him.
  When I read that, I had to laugh. I sat in this seat during an 
impeachment proceeding on President Trump because he wouldn't give a 
meeting to President Zelensky. President Zelensky is screaming in the 
media: I am trying to get ahold of President Biden, and he won't meet 
with me, and he is benefiting Russia and cutting off Ukraine--and 
everybody just yawns.
  It is quite remarkable to see the difference in how our media and how 
individuals treat everyone.
  And in the category of ``I have never seen this movie before,'' let 
me give you one. Today, I had the opportunity to be able to meet with 
our Secretary of HHS, Xavier Becerra. We were talking about the budget 
that he has presented for HHS, which is enormous. In fact, the 
President's budget is larger than any budget any President has ever 
given--not even close--in the overspending. The deficit total in it is 
epic, almost $2 trillion in deficit just from the budget, not including 
everything else this year.
  But in my conversation with Xavier Becerra, I asked him a simple 
question: I noticed in your budget proposal you have changed the term 
that I am not familiar with. You have added a term, and the term that 
you put in your budget is you refer to some people as a ``birthing 
person.'' I said: I have to tell you, I don't know that term ``birthing 
person.'' What does that mean?
  And he said: Well, I think it describes itself, is what he said.
  I said: What is that? Is that a mom?
  And he said: Well, yes, that describes itself. It describes the 
function.
  I thought, the function? That is a woman. That is a mom. That is not 
a birthing person.
  My simple question was: It sounds like you are trying to be 
politically correct here to be able to appease someone, but do you 
think it might possibly be offensive to some women and some moms to not 
be referred to as a woman or as a mom but to be referred to as a 
``birthing person'' instead?
  And he just said: I will look into it.
  Just when I think it can't get weirder around this town and the terms 
can't get stranger, that is a new one on me.
  I look forward to next May, when I walk down the aisle at a Hallmark 
store to look for the ``Happy Birthing Person Day'' card that I can 
send to my mom. What an odd statement to make.
  What a demeaning statement to make to moms, to refer to them as a 
``birthing person.'' What is wrong with just calling a mom a mom? It is 
a pretty great term that Americans are most certainly used to. And if 
it is the intent of Xavier Becerra to retrain Americans to stop calling 
their mom a mom, to call them a birthing person, I hope that he loses 
that one big time.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.