[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 185 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7140-S7143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Border Security

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier this week, one of President 
Biden's nominees for a very important office testified before the 
Finance Committee. Actually, I was a little surprised. It is the 
nominee for Customs and Border Protection, but, apparently, according 
to the arcane rules of the Senate, rather than the Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs Committee or the Judiciary Committee, it was 
the Finance Committee that conducted that hearing. Perhaps there will 
be sequential referrals, but that surprised me a little bit.
  But I met, at least over the phone, Chris Magnus, who is currently 
the police chief in Tucson, AZ, who had been nominated to lead--who has 
been nominated to lead U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Agency 
responsible for managing security and trade and commerce at the border, 
among other places.
  Suffice it to say the Customs and Border Protection are overwhelmed, 
given the current numbers of migrants making their way to the 
southwestern border. In the last year, CBP has encountered more than 
1.7 million migrants along the southern border, the highest number on 
record.
  To be clear, this is not the fault of the dedicated law enforcement 
officials who are putting their lives on the line to protect our 
children and our country from the influx of illegal drugs but to also 
enforce our immigration laws. By the way, these are not policies that 
they make, these are policies that Congress makes.
  These men and women make incredible sacrifices to secure our border 
and try to keep our communities safe, and we owe them our gratitude. 
But we also owe them responsible policies and other support to give 
them a fighting chance to succeed at the difficult job we have asked 
them to do.
  Unfortunately, the current crisis is a direct result of Biden 
administration words and actions and outright refusal to fix the 
policies that are being manipulated by the transnational criminal 
organizations that smuggle people and drugs into our country.
  We have seen a steady parade of messages and policies and inactions 
and some actions in some cases, all of which crystalize into a clear 
message to migrants that if you come to the southwestern border and 
enter the country illegally, you will be likely able to stay.
  I am reminded of the widespread shoplifting issues that we have seen 
in San Francisco. Under State law, which has recently changed, if 
someone is caught stealing merchandise for $950 or less, it is only a 
misdemeanor, and rarely are those cases prosecuted.
  But--surprise--people paid attention, and there is no shortage of 
videos online showing individuals committing criminal offenses, filling 
garbage bags full of items and walking right out the front door. This 
is what happens if you send the message that you can violate the law 
with impunity.
  This problem in San Francisco became so expensive that a number of 
businesses, including Walgreens, for example, started closing stores in 
the city because they just couldn't afford the loss due to these 
thefts.
  The message is that if leaders send a message that says the law won't 
be enforced, more people will break the law because there are no 
repercussions, and that is exactly what is happening today at the 
southern border.
  The administration has essentially given the playbook to the migrants 
and the cartels--the transnational criminal organizations that smuggle 
people and drugs into the United States. It boils down to this: Cross 
the border, surrender to Border Patrol, repeat these specific lines, 
and you will be released to the interior of the country with virtually 
no supervision.
  And it doesn't surprise anybody that a huge percentage of those 
individuals never show up for their future court hearing.
  Earlier this week, I asked Mr. Magnus if he agreed that the 
administration's stated policy of nonenforcement is a pull factor, 
encouraging more illegal immigration.
  We talked about the push factors: violence, crime, a desire for a 
better life, maybe the smugglers whispering in your ear, ``For a few 
bucks you can go stay with your family in the interior of the United 
States.'' But he agreed that the nonenforcement policy of the 
Department of Homeland Security was a pull factor that actually 
encouraged more illegal immigration.
  I was surprised but honestly grateful to hear the President's nominee 
admit the truth. It is obvious. But it is still somehow a taboo 
statement--taboo statement for the Biden administration officials to 
make.
  It is undeniable that the administration's actions have encouraged 
the surge of illegal immigration and the humanitarian crisis that 
exists on our border.
  One example is the process by which migrants undergo--the process 
they undergo before they are returned or released. Before the Biden 
administration existed, there was a clear process for migrants who 
crossed the border to claim asylum.
  The individual would be processed by Border Patrol and undergo a 
credible fear assessment. That is to see if they qualify for the 
statutory definition of asylum, which essentially determines, at least 
in a preliminary fashion, whether they qualify.
  If the asylum officer determines the applicant had a credible fear of 
persecution, that person would then be issued a notice to appear for a 
future court hearing. That is a critical document that formally 
commences immigration court proceedings because if they don't show up, 
a default order of deportation will issue.
  Well, I have heard concerns from a number of folks in my State about 
the fact that huge numbers of migrants are now being released without a 
notice to appear. Thousands of migrants have been released with what is 
called a notice to report. This is a document that says when you get 
where you are going, turn yourself in to the local Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement office to start your removal proceedings.

  These migrants haven't undergone a credible fear screening. We have 
no information on the validity of their asylum claims, and it is 
unclear whether the administration has given any teeth to the warning 
that failure to contact the local ICE office may result in your arrest.

[[Page S7141]]

  So the Biden administration has made it easier for migrants to 
disappear and melt into the great American landscape.
  Last month, Secretary Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security, made things worse. He issued a directive, new 
guidance, at the end of September that strongly discourages Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement removal proceedings officers from carrying out 
their duties unless a migrant meets specific criteria.
  You can read it yourself. It talks about mitigating factors and 
aggravating factors, and somehow an ICE officer, a Border Patrol agent, 
is supposed to make an individualized determination whether this 
individual migrant qualifies or does not qualify to be admitted into 
the United States.
  According to Secretary Mayorkas, recent border crossers should be a 
priority, but it is only if they have been apprehended for some other 
reason. He has basically said if your only crime is illegally entering 
into the United States, we are not going to detain you. We are not 
going to deport you.
  The Secretary's guidance says that individuals convicted of serious 
criminal conduct should be a priority for removal, but it is unclear 
what crimes meet the criteria.
  For example, is distributing or receiving child pornography 
considered a serious criminal conduct? What about crimes like wire 
fraud, racketeering, embezzlement, a whole host of other crimes that 
you or I might think of?
  It defies common sense to ask these law enforcement officers, charged 
with enforcing our laws, to turn a blind eye when they encounter 
individuals who have come here illegally and committed other crimes 
because those crimes just aren't serious enough in the opinion of the 
bureaucracy at the Department of Homeland Security or in the Biden 
administration.
  I am reminded of the controversial directive issued by another one of 
President Biden's nominees to enforce our Nation's laws.
  Rachael Rollins has been nominated to serve as the U.S. attorney for 
Massachusetts and is currently the district attorney for Suffolk 
County, Boston.
  Shortly after taking her job as DA in Suffolk County, she released a 
memo outlining a dozen crimes that should be ignored by law 
enforcement. According to Ms. Rollins--this is a district attorney--
according to Ms. Rollins, individuals who commit offenses like 
trespassing, shoplifting, larceny--which is essentially stealing--
wanton or malicious destruction of property or even possession with 
intent to distribute drugs should not be prosecuted in Suffolk County.
  Now, I have no issue with law enforcement using limited resources to 
prioritize the threats to the community. But they can't exempt 
wholesale classes of crimes from enforcement, and they certainly should 
not tip their hat to the criminals as to what crimes can be committed 
free of any consequence.
  But under the Biden administration, unfortunately, we are seeing 
similar action.
  We are also seeing a record low number of deportations. In April, as 
border crossings hit the highest level in 2 years--excuse me--two 
decades, ICE removed the lowest number of illegal immigrants on record. 
So not only are more people coming at historic numbers, but historic 
numbers of people are--low numbers of people are being deported.
  This, again, is part of an overall message that sends an unequivocal 
message to the world that if you come to the United States illegally, 
you are likely to be able to get away with it. There is a good chance 
migrants will be released with a flimsy notice to report, and once that 
happens, they won't be removed unless they are caught committing 
another crime.
  The Department of Homeland Security is charged with safeguarding the 
American people and enforcing our laws. But its employees are largely 
handcuffed because of the Department's own leadership and the guidance 
they have handed down.
  Again, there is no problem in my book with prioritizing the removal 
of dangerous criminals who are in the United States illegally. But it 
is another thing to send a message that if you break some of our laws, 
we are going to enforce them; if you break other laws, we won't enforce 
them--and thus encourage more and more people to come to the United 
States illegally.
  It isn't clear that enforcement and removal operations officers will 
truly retain the discretion they need to remove illegal immigrants who 
don't fall under some of the categories laid out by the Secretary and 
his guidance that he issued in late September.
  Considering everything we have heard from our friends across the 
aisle when it comes to immigration enforcement, this radical action by 
the administration is not completely surprising.
  Vice President Harris, who was appointed by the President to deal 
with the crisis at the border, once compared ICE to the Ku Klux Klan. 
And a number of our colleagues have sided with radical activists who 
want to defund the police.
  With violent crime and murder rates on the rise across the country, 
it is no surprise that the American people overwhelmingly disagree with 
this idea of defunding the police.
  I was gratified to see after this defund movement hit--had its 
heyday, that a year later, most of the jurisdictions around the country 
had restored the funding because of the disastrous consequences of 
defunding the police. But it is harder to resurrect a police department 
to recruit new people and train them than it is to defund them and 
shrink the size of the department.

  But now we have gone from defunding law enforcement to defanging law 
enforcement. Slowly, we have seen the tools law enforcement needs to 
keep our communities safe being taken away from them, and our law 
enforcement officers are being told: You cannot do your job.
  Liberal activists can throw out their ``Abolish ICE'' posters because 
the administration is effectively nullifying the policy from the 
inside.
  The reality of the situation, however inconvenient it may seem, is 
that by entering the United States illegally, migrants are violating 
U.S. law. Again, it is not something that is dictated by the Department 
of Homeland Security or by Border Patrol; these are laws that Congress 
has passed and previous Presidents have signed into law.
  As I said at the beginning, we are fortunate to have the hard-working 
men and women of ICE and CBP who are committed to enforcing our laws 
and safeguarding the American people, but this policy of nonenforcement 
and of providing additional pull factors to encourage people to 
illegally enter the United States has to be demoralizing to the very 
people we are depending upon to keep our country safe.
  Make no mistake, the President bears full responsibility for this 
crisis. He is the one who could make the difference. He could change it 
with the stroke of a pen.
  January was the only full month this year that President Biden was 
not President of the United States. It is also no coincidence that it 
was the only month in which fewer than 100,000 migrants crossed our 
southern border. The Biden administration has made nonenforcement the 
de facto response to the border crisis, and as a result, annual 
apprehensions have hit an alltime high. Until the Biden administration 
changes the playbook, migrants will continue to flood the zone using 
the very plays that the administration has laid out for them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. Res. 134

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I would like to call up S. Res. 134, as 
amended, my resolution urging the President to bring negotiations on a 
free-trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom 
to a mutually advantageous conclusion.
  I have been working on the Senate floor and behind the scenes for 
several years now trying to get this measure adopted and a trade deal 
signed. Things are finally moving. The message to the President, if 
approved with unanimous consent of the Senate, could not be any more 
timely.

[[Page S7142]]

  President Biden recently announced that after a delay of more than a 
year, we are finally going to resume trade negotiations with the United 
Kingdom. It is not often these days that I am really excited about all 
the news coming from the White House, but this one is absolutely 
thrilling to hear. I am very pleased with it.
  For more than 100 years, throughout times of great change, tumult, 
and uncertainty, our partnership between the United States and the 
United Kingdom--sometimes referred to as the ``special relationship''--
has been constant. Through two world wars and the Cold War, through 
centuries of economic partnership that have forged the world's single-
largest bilateral trade and investment relationship, the UK has been 
our staunchest and our most loyal ally.
  Now, with the UK's newfound ability to negotiate independent free-
trade deals and the President's commitment to resume negotiations on 
that front, the stars are aligned, and we have the opportunity to grow 
that relationship even further. This Senate resolution is the next 
step, calling on the President to bring those negotiations to the 
finish line. What could be better for American jobs, American 
prosperity, and American security than securing such a deal? This is 
what our country needs. This is what my home State of Utah needs.
  Let me tell you a little bit about what that relationship means for 
the people back in my State, back in Utah. Almost 11,000 Utahns are 
employed directly by UK companies and their subsidiaries, and nearly 
40,000 jobs are supported by exports from Utah to the United Kingdom. 
The United Kingdom is our largest export market, and we sent over $9 
billion worth of exports just in 2019 alone.
  Our credit and financial services industries also thrive from our 
trade relationships with the UK. Imagine what it would do for Utah and 
for the rest of the country if we made that trade even easier.
  In this age of great power competition with China, we need to work 
closely with our allies renewing old friendships and crafting new ones.
  As we have seen, our supply chains are in a precarious position, and 
they need to be redoubled and reinforced before we face the next 
calamity. Whatever you might have heard, trade is one of the best ways 
to reinforce our supply chains, and so what we need is a proliferation 
of free-trade agreements with countries around the globe. The United 
Kingdom would certainly be on that list, and, in fact, it should be 
chief among them.
  So now I ask my colleagues to join me, using the full voice and the 
authority of the U.S. Senate, to urge the President to proceed full 
steam ahead on a deal. Throughout history, the partnership between our 
countries has steadied the world through some of its greatest perils, 
and it can continue to do so today if only we let it. The American and 
British peoples have the opportunity to once again join forces and 
emerge from the challenges we face today and to do so stronger than 
ever for the benefit of our countries and nations across the globe.
  To that end, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further 
consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 134. I further ask 
that the Lee substitute amendment to the resolution be considered and 
agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the Lee amendment 
to the preamble be considered and agreed to; the preamble, as amended, 
be agreed to; that the Lee amendment to the title be considered and 
agreed to; the title, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator Lee 
is right--the relationship between the United States and Britain is 
unique, and it is special. They are often the first to come to our aid 
when we are in need, when we need partners around the globe. So it 
brings me no pleasure to come to the floor to object to this resolution 
being passed at this time, partly because I think there will be a right 
time for the Senate to come together unanimously and express our 
support for a U.S.-Britain free-trade agreement. But I want to spend 
1\1/2\ minutes telling you why this is not the time.
  We are having this debate because Britain has chosen to leave the 
European Union. Previous to Britain's departure, we were pushing for a 
U.S.-EU trade agreement that would have brought benefits to Britain but 
also to the rest of the continent.
  Today, we are talking about a bilateral agreement because Britain is 
leaving the European Union, but they have not yet fully left in the 
sense that there is an agreement connected to their exit that Britain 
has not yet fulfilled. One of the most important aspects of that 
agreement relates to the Good Friday Agreement, the Good Friday 
Agreement being a seminal achievement of American diplomacy that 
brought to an end decades of troubles and violence in and around 
Northern Ireland.
  The UK and EU negotiated what is called the Northern Ireland Protocol 
as part of the EU withdrawal agreement. That arrangement was intended 
to preserve the Good Friday Agreement and to ensure that you would 
never have a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern 
Ireland. Under the protocol, it was agreed that Northern Ireland would 
continue to follow EU rules on food safety and other products standards 
to prevent those customs checks across the border. The checks, instead, 
would take place on goods entering Northern Ireland from England, 
Scotland, or Wales.
  The problem is that the British Government right now wants to change 
the deal and to get rid of most of the checks, to reduce customs 
procedures in order to allow goods to move more freely. But this has 
created a political crisis because it threatens to reerect that hard 
border that could unfortunately stimulate a reemergence of conflict. It 
has already been incredibly destabilizing in Northern Ireland. The 
leader of the largest unionist party has threatened to quit the 
government if the current protocol is not replaced.
  This is not an insignificant risk, and our priority should be, before 
cheerleading and championing a free-trade agreement, to make sure that 
Britain's commitment to protect the Good Friday Agreement as part of 
their departure from the European Union is fulfilled.
  So I look forward to the time when we can come together, Republicans 
and Democrats, and support the entering into of discussions for a free-
trade agreement between the United States and Britain, but I would 
submit that this is not the right time. Right now, we need to be firm 
in our commitment to make sure that the conditions of withdrawal from 
the European Union specifically with respect the Good Friday Agreement 
are fulfilled, and only once those conditions are fulfilled should we 
as a body make that full commitment to this free-trade agreement.
  Let's make sure that we not do anything to jeopardize what has been 
decades of productive peace and peace discussions in and around 
Northern Ireland.
  For that reason, I would object.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. I appreciate the insights shared by my friend and 
distinguished colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, with whom I 
enjoy working on countless issues, but I want to offer a little bit of 
additional context here.
  Senator Menendez and I have worked together for some time now to 
address how any such trade agreement with the United Kingdom might take 
into account the obligations we have to Ireland under the Good Friday 
Agreement.
  Just to be very clear, our resolution does not make any statement on 
elements of the transatlantic relationship outside the jurisdiction of 
U.S. sovereignty. So this shouldn't affect that. Those two things 
shouldn't be tied together.
  Brexit and the debate surrounding the Northern Ireland Protocol are 
issues exclusively between the UK and the EU. This resolution is 
interested only, exclusively, in making a statement on working closely 
with a longstanding and stalwart ally and trade

[[Page S7143]]

partner. So we certainly would welcome a similar resolution on U.S.-EU 
trade, and I would be happy to work collaboratively with my friend from 
Connecticut or with any other colleague on either side of the aisle on 
that project.
  If there are additional concerns here, I would love to know what 
those are immediately so that we can resolve this expeditiously. As I 
said earlier, I have been working on this resolution for at least 2 
years now, and I would hate to see it blocked because of a quibble that 
we have already worked with the Foreign Relations Committee, the staff 
across the aisle on that committee, to address. I mentioned that this 
is important to my State of Utah. It is also important to Connecticut.

  In Connecticut, the United Kingdom is directly responsible for over 
22,000 jobs, and it supports another 12,000 through Connecticut goods 
and services that cross between those two countries.
  So I think this would be good for Connecticut. It would be good for 
Utah. It would be good for the entire country, and I hope we can get it 
done. I am disappointed we weren't able get it done today. I am going 
to keep moving ahead on this because it needs to happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.