Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 55 (Wednesday, March 24, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 24, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1734-S1741]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Opioid Epidemic

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as we all know, over the last year,
COVID-19 has taken center stage as the No. 1 public health crisis
facing our Nation. No community has been spared from the devastation
caused by this virus, which has claimed more than 540,000 American
lives.
But beneath the surface, the problems we were facing before the
pandemic still exist, and, in many cases, they are getting worse. A
year of stress, isolation, and loss has taken a serious toll on
America's mental health and has led to increasing rates of anxiety and
depression.
These same factors have led to an increase in domestic violence as
families have spent more time at home, often while battling the stress
of job losses, financial difficulties, and virtual learning.
And, of course, there is the opioid epidemic, which continues to
destroy communities across our country.
In 2019, there were more than 70,000 overdose deaths in America--
70,000. We are still waiting on the complete figures for 2020, but
preliminary data shows that things are trending in the wrong direction.
From June 2019 to May of 2020, more than 81,000 Americans have died
from overdoses.
We know a significant portion of those deaths involve heroin--roughly
20 percent of those who overdosed in 2019. According to the Drug
Enforcement Agency's ``National Drug Threat Assessment,'' the vast
majority of that heroin comes from Mexico, a staggering 92 percent.
As we have discussed the crisis at the border, I have talked about
ways the surge of unaccompanied children affects Customs and Border
Protection's ability to carry out its other missions, including
stopping the flow of these illegal drugs. Time spent processing and
caring for children means less time on the frontlines catching or
deterring the cartels from moving their poison across the border into
the United States.
A Bloomberg report last year brought another aspect of this epidemic
to light: the fact that chemicals made in the United States by U.S.
companies were key ingredients in the manufacturing of heroin in
Mexico. One of those companies is Avantor, a Fortune 500 company that
supplies chemicals and lab materials and services across a number of
industries. Avantor produces millions of products, including everything
from medical masks to high-quality chemicals for pharmaceuticals, to
kits for science labs in schools. But the focus here is on one
particular chemical--acetic anhydride.
This is an 18-liter jug of acetic anhydride, and you can see
Avantor's name on the label. Avantor sells this through a subsidiary
known as J.T. Baker into Mexico. Now, there are legitimate uses for
acetic anhydride. It is used to make cigarette filters and chemicals
used for photographic films, but this wasn't a photo taken in a
chemical lab or a manufacturing plant here in the United States. This
was taken by a Bloomberg reporter in Mexico who was able to purchase
this chemical online, no questions asked. This should have never
happened. Why? Because acetic anhydride is a highly regulated chemical,
at least in the United States and, actually, around the world. Some
companies even bar the importation of acetic anhydride because of its
use in manufacturing illegal drugs.
But the reason it is regulated is it is a precursor in the production
of heroin. That is why many countries ban the importation outright.
Without this chemical, it is virtually impossible to transform opium
from a poppy seed into the more lethal drug of heroin.
Acetic anhydride, as I said, is one of the most tightly controlled
chemicals worldwide and has been for some time. The International
Narcotics Control Board has been sounding the alarm on this dangerous
chemical since the

[[Page S1735]]

2000s. In fact, its annual report has described horrific examples of
the dangerous precursor chemical being diverted from legitimate uses to
illegitimate uses, like making heroin.
But the fact is, Mexico did not sign on to the International
Narcotics Board protocol for this dangerous chemical until 2018, and
even then, the enforcement, oversight, and control of this precursor
was lax, at best. Even now, given the controls the cartels exert over
large swaths of Mexico, I have no confidence that any controls on this
chemical are effective in stopping illicit uses in that country.
The Bloomberg investigation brought to light how easy it was for the
cartels to get hold of this chemical. The reporters were able to
purchase this 18-liter jug online or at a medical supply store. It
didn't take any special requirements. You can imagine how easy it was
for the cartels to get their hands on this chemical.
While the controls, oversight, and enforcement of this chemical are
much tighter in the United States and have been for years, it presents
a constant challenge when Mexico does not have the same standards and
enforcement.
It presents an additional hurdle for the safety of our communities
when U.S. companies, like Avantor, avail themselves of foreign
subsidiaries to create and manufacture the precursor chemical in a
cartel's own backyard, thereby facilitating the manufacture and sale of
the deadly drug known as heroin.
Of course, the winners in all of this are the cartels, in addition to
their criminal network of smugglers, who move the drug across our
border. The losers are our communities here in the United States and
our loved ones who have been tragically affected by the opioid
epidemic.
This is an open-air drug lab in Sinaloa State, the home of El Chapo's
drug empire. Cartels can use this single jug of 18 liters of chemical
to make heroin in this drug lab that is concealed in a rural part of
Mexico. They can make out of that one jug about 80 pounds, or 90,000
hits, of heroin out of one jug. Of course, one hit is enough to destroy
a life, but think of the pain that one 18-liter jug can inflict on an
entire community, and Avantor knows that these jugs in this size can be
easily concealed in something like the trunk of a car.
One container of this chemical costs $324. The street value of the
heroin that it will yield is at least $3.6 million. One jug at $324 can
produce $3.6 million worth of street value in heroin. If this doesn't
make your blood boil, you are not paying attention. After all, it is
simply impossible to believe that Avantor, which is a Fortune 500
company that is publicly traded here in America, was selling large
quantities of this chemical--banned in many countries of the world
because of its use in illegal drug manufacturing--and had no idea that
it was being used for illicit purposes in Mexico. I don't think anybody
would believe they didn't know.
Bloomberg reports that this has been going on for at least the last
10 years, when photos like this surfaced of the J.T. Baker line of
product showing up in drug busts by the Mexican authorities.
Unfortunately, the bad news doesn't stop there. The nominee for the
third highest ranking position at the Department of Justice has
profited to the tune of millions of dollars from Avantor stock. Vanita
Gupta has been nominated to serve as the Associate Attorney General,
and she is a very large shareholder in this publicly traded company.
She owns millions of dollars of Avantor stock, parked in her own
accounts and in the various trusts she has identified in her financial
disclosures. This isn't just a blind investment in a mutual fund; this
is the family business. Ms. Gupta's father is Avantor's chairman of the
board.
Following Ms. Gupta's confirmation hearing in the Judiciary
Committee, Senators submitted questions for the record. One question
was submitted by Senator Grassley, the ranking member. He asked Ms.
Gupta if she were aware that Avantor was producing and selling chemical
precursors used in the illegal heroin trade in Mexico.
She said:

I am aware of the allegations.

The next question from Senator Grassley was about her financial
holdings. Since she owns upwards of $55 million in Avantor stock, he
asked if she had profited financially from this chemical trade of
acetic anhydride by Avantor in Mexico.
Ms. Gupta said:

As a shareholder with no role in Avantor, I am not able to
say whether and how much I have profited from the various
parts of Avantor's business.

I generally believe witnesses who testify under oath at Judiciary
Committee hearings if there is no reason not to believe them, but it
pains me to say that Ms. Gupta had already established a clear pattern
of deception or of flat-out lying during her confirmation process.
Ms. Gupta wrote an op-ed piece in the HuffPost on November 4, 2012.
At that time, she said that States should decriminalize the possession
of all drugs--not just marijuana but all drugs--for personal use.
In the article, she said:

States should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs,
particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.

That is a quotation. You can see that here. That would include
decriminalizing fentanyl, methamphetamine, and other highly addictive,
deadly drugs, including, of course, heroin.
Well, that wasn't her answer at her confirmation hearing. When asked
whether she advocates for the decriminalization of all drugs, she
didn't mince words.
She said:

No, Senator. I do not.

Now, I understand that it is natural for people to change their
minds, especially in light of new information or new experiences. In
Ms. Gupta's case, she noted that her experience at the Department of
Justice and with addiction in her own family had led her to evolve her
position on these issues.
Yet, in responding to Senator Grassley's written questions, she
wrote:

I have never advocated for the decriminalization of all
drugs, and I do not support the decriminalization of all
drugs.

That is demonstrably false. It is not true. She obviously held the
view and felt so strongly about it at the time that she penned an op-ed
piece in a national publication to advocate for the decriminalization
of all drugs.
When a person has been nominated for a leadership position at the
Department of Justice, that person has a duty to be honest and
forthright. If you have learned any new information and have changed
your mind, that is fine, but you can't flat-out mislead about not
having held beliefs that you clearly held in the past, especially when
those beliefs could interfere with your ability to do the very job for
which you have been nominated.
It is not just with decriminalization that Ms. Gupta has misled the
Judiciary Committee. As to qualified immunity, defunding the police,
and the death penalty, Ms. Gupta has offered misleading statements on
each of these issues. Policy differences, I can accept, but a lack of
candor is disqualifying, especially for th Office of the Associate
Attorney General.

So when Ms. Gupta said she was unaware that Avantor was profiting or
that she was profiting from the illicit manufacturing of heroin in
Mexico, I do not find that credible. It is just another example of
saying whatever you need to say to get confirmed by the Senate.
The Department of Justice is the highest law enforcement Agency in
the country, and Ms. Gupta has been nominated to serve as third in
command. If confirmed, she will oversee the Civil Division, which will
make major decisions about who will be investigated, who will be
charged, and who will face punishment. Some of those potential targets
include opioid companies, drug manufacturers, or perhaps even companies
that are diverting precursor chemicals to the cartels. If you look at
the work at the moment of the Civil Division of the Department of
Justice, you will see a number of civil actions already related to the
diversion of opioids and companies involved in illegal schemes. What
does this say about her ability to supervise those kinds of cases?
The Department requires professional detachment from even the
appearance of impropriety, and this conflict of interest of Ms. Gupta's
goes far beyond simple appearance. Ms. Gupta has financially benefited
from the sale of this chemical to cartels in Mexico.

[[Page S1736]]

She has financially benefited whether she knew it at the time or not,
but she won't even admit it. As a result, any case that has a nexus to
drugs brought by the Department of Justice while she is at the helm
will have a giant cloud cast over it.
Finally, what I find most troubling, in addition to her lack of
candor, is that Ms. Gupta has shown absolutely no remorse for the harm
done by Avantor in facilitating the manufacture and sale of heroin here
in the United States. I estimate that, in the last 10 years, more than
100,000 Americans have died of drug overdoses associated with heroin.
So I cannot support the nomination of Ms. Gupta to serve as Associate
Attorney General, and I urge all of my colleagues to oppose her
nomination as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 903

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, last month alone, more than 100,000
migrants crossed our southern border. Our ports of entry are overrun;
holding facilities are packed; and, yes, our Border Patrol agents are
absolutely exhausted. They are exhausted. This isn't just a logistical
challenge; it is a tragedy made worse by the Biden administration's
disastrous open borders policies.
The crisis is escalating, especially for the tens of thousands of
children who have arrived in this country very much alone.
Unaccompanied minors accounted for nearly 10 percent of all migrants
who crossed our border last month. That is roughly 10,000 children a
month walking into chaos.
Anyone paying a bit of attention knows what is going on here. Customs
and Border Protection has been sounding the alarm on the connection
between children and human trafficking for years. The coyotes, the
cartels, and the gangs use children as drug mules. They use them as sex
slaves. If you don't believe me, ask anyone with the CBP why they
administer pregnancy tests to little girls as young as 13 as soon as
they arrive at the border.
This is a heartbreaking situation. These children are living in hell,
and it is getting worse. False claims of family ties have fueled a rise
in fraudulent asylum claims and in human trafficking. Adult migrants
are making arrangements with cartels and smugglers to borrow children.
They claim kinship and use that relationship to bolster a fraudulent
asylum claim. And what do they do when they have gotten what they want?
They send the child back across the border to start the entire
nightmarish process with another stranger. That is correct. This is
called child recycling, but I think ``recycling'' is an odd choice of
words to describe one human being treating another human being like a
piece of garbage. Again, this is heartbreaking.
If you want to get an idea of how big a problem we have, consider
that the Department of Homeland Security says that, over the past
decade, they have seen a 1,675-percent increase in asylum cases.
In 2019, Immigration and Customs Enforcement implemented a pilot DNA
testing program to try to stop this rampant exploitation. They found
that 20 percent of all kinship claims they were able to screen were
lies--20 percent.
This is a humanitarian crisis, an environmental crisis, and a health
and safety crisis. The Biden administration has lost control of this
situation, but there are things we can do right now to protect these
children and put the smugglers in check.
This week, I introduced the End Child Trafficking Now Act, which
would require our border agents to administer DNA tests to adult
migrants claiming kinship with a minor without migrants' having the
legal documentation to prove it.
If the adult refuses, they will be immediately deported. Furthermore,
the bill mandates a 10-year penalty for all alien adults who lie about
their relationship with a minor.
The test is simple. It takes about 90 minutes. Ninety minutes could
mean the difference between that child finding safety in the United
States and that child being dragged back to a cartel.
We are on pace to see 17,000 more unaccompanied minors arrive this
month. ICE proved this testing strategy can help protect them. There is
no valid, fact-based reason not to do it.
Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further
consideration of S. 903 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I share
my colleague's desire to prevent child trafficking. Trust me, as a
parent, I know it is a laudable goal. But as drafted--as drafted--this
bill would create enormous and instant chaos at airports around the
country and every other port of entry.
As written, it would require every foreign family who seeks admission
to the United States, even just for a family vacation, to have a third
party witness a test to their affiliation or else submit to a DNA test.
I can't imagine any of our airports have the resources to implement
this. It would simply lead to the same chaos we saw after the
implementation of President Trump's Muslim ban, or worse, it would
overwhelm our law enforcement officials and create bottlenecks at
customs for citizens and noncitizens alike, not to mention the many
legal and ethical questions as it pertains to genetic privacy and the
storage of that information.
I would be more than happy to sit down with my colleague from
Tennessee in the context of a larger discussion about immigration
reform to see how we can ensure that we include provisions to prevent
child trafficking, but I don't think this bill as drafted will actually
accomplish that goal, and so I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I think my colleague understands
that this bill would apply to individuals, to adults who cannot show
kinship and do not have legal documentation.
We know that human trafficking, sex trafficking, and child
trafficking have become a major industry. We know that child recycling
is a practice that is used by the cartels. We know that they are using
this to move adults into the country; thereby, this is something that
would put the cartels in check and show that we are not going to stand
for them recycling children, claiming kinship to children who are not
theirs, and trying to move drug smugglers and cartel members into this
country.
Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 890

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to bring attention to the
serious humanitarian crisis at our southern border. Right now, as we
speak, thousands of children have entered the United States illegally
and sit in crowded detention centers wrapped up in emergency blankets,
hundreds, even thousands, of miles away from home. They are without
their families and without their parents. Many of them have been
trafficked and have been physically and sexually abused along the way.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that just last month
alone, 29,792 unaccompanied children came across our border, including
2,942 children under the age of 12. All of these children came here
without their parents, and they have come here in large numbers because
they know that President Biden is promising them amnesty.
The illegal immigrants coming across our southern border right now
are not just children. President Biden's Secretary of Homeland
Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, has said: ``We are on pace to encounter
more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20
years.''
In February, more than 100,000 illegal immigrants came across our
southern

[[Page S1737]]

border, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is 3
times the number of illegal immigrants who came through the southern
border in February of 2019, and it is almost 6 times the number of
illegal immigrants who came through our southern border in February of
2018.
The Biden administration refuses to call this a crisis, but that is
what it is. We have a humanitarian crisis, and we also have a security
crisis.
Of the over 100,000 illegal immigrants who came here in February, 71
percent of them are single adults, according to the Pew Research
Center.
The Biden administration's policy has been to welcome these illegal
immigrants and to halt or slow deportations as much as possible. When
Joe Biden became President, he immediately halted construction of the
border wall. He ended the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, an incredible
foreign policy victory President Trump negotiated with Mexico, which
stipulated that illegal immigrants from Central America crossing
illegally through Mexico to seek asylum in the United States would stay
in Mexico during the pendency of their proceedings. President Biden
ended that, ripping apart that international agreement, and, instead,
he reinstated the failed policy of catch-and-release.
So now when we apprehend illegal immigrants, we let them go,
including illegal immigrants who are criminals and who are convicted
criminals guilty of violent crimes. President Biden's political
decisions have produced a crisis and a crisis that is growing.
What the Biden administration has made clear in the last 2 months is
that their priority is illegal immigrants and not American citizens.
That is why, in just a moment, I am going to propound a unanimous
consent request that the Senate pass Kate's Law. Kate's Law is named
for Kate Steinle, who was 32 years old when she was tragically killed
on a San Francisco peer by an illegal immigrant who had several felony
convictions and had been deported from the United States not once, not
twice, not three times, not even four times. He had been deported five
times. By the revolving door of our border, this violent criminal kept
being deported, and he kept coming back, and he kept coming back, and
he kept coming back. And beautiful Kate Steinle was shot and killed
because of our broken immigration system.
Kate's Law is commonsense legislation. It would amend Federal law to
impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for any illegal reentry
offense. Kate's Law is critical to ensuring that illegal immigrants who
have been deported, especially those with violent criminal records, are
deterred from repeatedly entering the country illegally over and over
and over again. If the illegal immigrant, violent criminal wh killed
Kate Steinle had been in prison for illegally entering the United
States the fifth time, Kate would still be here today.

I have had the opportunity to meet Kate Steinle's family. They don't
understand why our system is broken. They don't understand why we keep
letting in violent, criminal, illegal aliens over and over and over
again. And I will tell you, the American people--roughly 80 percent of
Americans--agree with Kate's Law. This is commonsense legislation.
We are about to see a Democrat object to it because today's
Democratic Party doesn't care what the American people say. But if this
were in the realm of sanity, Kate's Law would pass 100 to nothing.
Look, we can have disagreements about legal immigration, about what the
rules are, but when it comes to violent, criminal, illegal aliens who
enter the country illegally over and over and over again, it ought to
be real simple. We ought to be able to come together as Democrats and
Republicans and say: All right, let's draw the line there. We don't
need more murderers in America.
I have spent a lot of time down in the valley and at the Texas
border. I have spent a lot of time with agents from the Border Patrol.
Tomorrow, I am going back to the border to see for myself what the
conditions are like right now. I am leading a delegation of 17 other
Senators, and we are going to go talk to Customs and Border Patrol
agents. We are going to meet with CBP leadership. We are going to meet
with law enforcement and community leaders. We are going to tour the
detention facilities directly.
Now, you may not see that on TV because the Biden administration is
refusing to allow the press to see the facilities. For 4 years,
Democrats went on and on and on about kids in cages. Now, those cages
were built by Barack Obama, and they are bigger and fuller under Joe
Biden. And the Biden administration doesn't want you to see the Biden
cages. So they have declared a media blackout, that reporters are not
allowed.
The Trump administration allowed the media to go to the border. The
Obama administration allowed the media to go to the border. The Bill
Clinton administration allowed the media to go to the border. The
George W. Bush administration allowed the media to go to the border.
But Joe Biden wants to cover up the crisis that his administration has
created, and it is a crisis that, sadly, Senate Democrats are complicit
in creating as well.
We have yet to have a single Senate Democrat willing to break with
the Biden administration on the unfolding humanitarian crisis on the
border. The worse it gets, the more kids who are abused, the more kids
who are assaulted, the more Americans who are put at risk of COVID, and
the more Americans who are put at risk of violent crime. At some point,
I hope and pray we will see Senate Democrats willing to say: Enough is
enough. It is time to stop being angry partisans, and it is time to
come together with common sense and protect the American citizens.
For that reason, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further
consideration of S. 890, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LUJAN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. LUJAN. Madam President, there is not a single Democratic Senator
in this body who believes that someone who commits a violent crime
should not feel the full weight of the U.S. judicial system for their
crimes. I hope my friend from Texas would agree with that. I don't
think there is a Member in this body--Democratic, Republican,
Independent, the staff--not a one. I think the same holds true for our
colleagues who work just down the corridor from us in the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Now, we must do everything in our power to make certain that those
engaged in violent crimes face prosecution and feel the full weight of
the law. That is not just bipartisan; that is the right thing to do.
Where I disagree with my colleague is the assertion that immigrants
are inherently criminal. They are not. They are people whom our kids go
to school with, whom we work with, who grow our food in America, who
work to prepare that food or even stock the shelves, teach in
classrooms, serve in the U.S. military defending our freedoms in the
United States of America.
So to my friend from Texas, this seems to be a continuance of the
harmful proposals from the Trump administration. I certainly think that
many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle in the U.S.
Senate also disagree with the hateful pronouncements from Steve Miller.
This feels like a continuance of that, to strike fear in Americans and
to breed distrust in immigrants.
Now, I agree with my colleague that we have to work together to stop
that false narrative. This false narrative must stop because it is not
contributing to fixing the broken immigration system we have in the
United States.
I agree with my colleague that we should come together and work in a
bipartisan way to learn from one another. I am new to this Chamber, but
I am not new to these challenges.
I certainly hope that my colleagues who are traveling to the border--
and I commend them for doing so because this is an important
conversation we should be having. I hope they travel to Matamoros. I
don't know if my colleague from Texas has done that. I did.

[[Page S1738]]

I traveled down there with a group of colleagues. We had a chance to
visit with the Border Patrol in El Paso. We had a chance to visit with
Border Patrol in Antelope Wells in New Mexico and Lordsburg in New
Mexico. We have had the honor of traveling down into the Rio Grande
Valley, down to Brownsville. We had a chance to visit with folks on the
frontlines, not just wearing the green uniform of our Border Patrol and
those working with the Department of Homeland Security but those who
are also providing humanitarian relief.
Those camps in Matamoros that I went to, they still exist. And one of
the questions that needs to be asked is, What are these kids going
through? What are they thinking about to travel thousands of miles
because of the concerns that they have for their own health and well-
being? I hope we can have that conversation and solve this problem. So
let's find a way to work together.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: We need to go after
criminals and felons, not children and families. In truth, I think we
can get there.
So as I close, I just say: Let's be a beacon of hope to the most
vulnerable. Let's make sure we go after these criminals and felons,
wherever they may be, and they feel the full weight of the law. But
when it comes to the broken immigration system in America, let's work
together to fix it.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I appreciate the warm sentiments of the
Senator from New Mexico, but the American people can distinguish the
difference between talk and action.
The Senator from New Mexico suggested that all Democrats support
holding criminals to account. I would suggest the facts are precisely
to the contrary.
Just 2 weeks ago, on the floor of this body, we introduced an
amendment to provide that $1,400 government stimulus checks should not
go to criminals currently in prison. Every single Senate Democrat voted
against that. That amendment failed by one vote. If even one Democrat
had said ``OK, that is reasonable,'' it would have passed.
Yesterday, I introduced multiple unanimous consent requests to stop
money from going to convicted criminals in prison and to send the money
instead to the Crime Victims Fund. A Democrat objected.
I then said: All right, if you don't want to do all criminals, how
about murderers? Can we agree, if you were convicted of homicide, if
you killed somebody, let's not send you a government check; let's send
it to the Crime Victims Fund? The Democrats objected.
I said: All right, how about rapists? The Democrats objected.
I said: How about child molesters? Surely, we can all agree child
molesters are not worthy of a $1,400 taxpayer government bonus given by
the Democrats. The Democrats objected.
So with all due respect to my friend from New Mexico, it is not the
case that Democrats support holding prisoners to account.
Today, in the Rules Committee, the Democrats are pushing forward an
election bill, the Corrupt Politicians Act, which would allow every
felon in America who has been released from prison to vote. It would
allow murderers to vote, rapists to vote, child molesters to vote. So
it is not the case that Democrats are willing to stand up to violent
crime.
Now, there are a couple of things that the Senator from New Mexico
said that I wrote down. He said the only thing he disagreed with was
``the assertion that immigrants are inherently criminal.'' Well, I
challenge anyone watching this exchange to read the transcript.
I am glad he disagrees with that assertion. That assertion never came
from my mouth. I am the son of an immigrant who came from Cuba. We are
a nation of immigrants. I am not remotely asserting that immigrants are
inherently criminal. There is a right way to come, and that is to come
legally.
But case law isn't about immigrants generally; it only applies to
criminals. It is immigrants that have a criminal conviction, that have
an aggravated felony conviction. So when my friend from New Mexico says
that we need to focus on felons--and he closed his remarks with the
following: ``We need to go after criminals and felons, not children and
families''--the case law does exactly that.
If the Senator from New Mexico believes the words he said, the next
words out of his mouth would not have been ``I object.'' By virtue of
objecting, he prevented us from, in a bipartisan way, going after
criminals and felons. Case law is targeted at those criminals and
felons. It is not targeted at kids; it is targeted at criminals and
felons.
I would ask the Senator from New Mexico and every Senate Democrat:
What would you say to Kate Steinle's family? I have heard them testify
in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have visited with them personally.
If you were looking them in the eyes, what would you say to a system
where Kate Steinle's murderer was deported five times--multiple
criminal convictions?
I am the original author of Kate's Law. We have voted on this on the
Senate floo multiple times. Every time we have voted, every single
Democratic Senator has voted against Kate's Law. You don't get to vote
against Kate's Law, you don't get to vote against stopping violent
criminals from repeatedly entering the country illegally, and then
claim you are against violent criminals repeatedly entering the country
illegally.

Actions mean more than words, and, unfortunately, the actions of
today's Democratic Party are extreme and out of touch with the American
people we were elected to represent.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Florida.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 948

Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I rise today to discuss
another issue in the Democrats' massive COVID spending bill that we
need to fix.
My Democratic colleagues want to keep spending into oblivion, taking
our national debt to $30 trillion. This would be bad enough on its own,
but tucked into the bloated spending package were new tax hikes on
self-employed individuals.
President Biden and the Democrats didn't talk about it, and they
certainly aren't talking about it as they travel the Nation to brag
about their bad bill.
Democrats are quietly raising taxes, hoping the American people don't
notice. The $1.9 trillion so-called American Rescue Plan Act, of which
less than 10 percent went to actually help fight COVID and 1 percent to
vaccines, had several tax increases and burdensome reporting
requirements, including one that significantly impacts the gig
workers--those who have been severely impacted by the coronavirus
pandemic.
Starting in 2022, this bill requires many contractors with gig
economy companies like Uber, DoorDash, Airbnb, and Lyft to file 1099
forms when they previously would not have. The new requirement
dramatically lowers the annual 1099 reporting threshold from $20,000
and 200 transactions to just $600 and eliminates the transaction
minimum.
In late February, before the Democrats rushed their spending bill
through Congress on a purely partisan basis, a coalition of groups
wrote to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer, asking that this onerous
new provision, which has nothing to do with addressing the coronavirus
crisis, be removed or at least reconsidered. The letter was signed by
groups such as the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, the
National Asian American Chamber of Commerce, National Association for
the Self-Employed, United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the
National Association of Women Business Owners.
After receiving such a letter, one would think that Democrats would
want to reconsider. Raising taxes and reporting requirements in the
midst of a pandemic? This is never good policy, but I can't think of
any worse timing. Of course, Democrats kept the provision buried deep
within the bill, hoping the American public wouldn't notice.
The Democrats' new reporting requirements are effectively a tax hike
and will ultimately hurt low- and middle-income contractors, the self-
employed, and freelancers, many of whom have been devastated by the
pandemic,

[[Page S1739]]

while Federal and State Governments will collect billions more in
income tax revenue.
My Democratic colleagues want the American public to believe this is
about catching tax cheats. And, to be clear, any attempt to evade taxes
and defraud the public by not following the law should be condemned,
and Congress should appropriately address it. However, a massive new
reporting requirement of gig workers, many just trying to make ends
meet in the midst of this pandemic, is not about catching tax fraud. It
is about punishing the self-employed and raising revenues for the
Democrats' massive spending plans.
It wasn't that long ago that President Biden promised that he
wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Obviously, that
was not true. But this isn't the first time Democrats have tried to
quietly increase taxes and saddle the self-employed with new
requirements like this. They did it with ObamaCare when they required
businesses to send 1099 forms for all purchases of goods and services
over $600 annually. They quickly learned how unpopular and harmful this
provision was, and they quickly repealed it. The Obama administration
even praised the repeal as a ``big win'' for the self-employed. I guess
some never learn.
What I am proposing is very simple. It is what the Democrats
supported in 2011 when they repealed this bad tax increase in
ObamaCare.
Today, I want to remove this new reporting requirement and simply
reinstate the previous law back into U.S. code.
Increasing reporting requirements on our gig workers will create new
and unexpected challenges for independent, self-employed workers and
entrepreneurs, who are already facing an incredible burden created by
the coronavirus.
Increasing costs and regulations on already struggling Americans is
wrong, and I hope all of my colleagues will join me today and repeal
this bad policy.
Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S.
948, introduced earlier today. I further ask that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senator from Florida claims to be
looking out for gig workers and freelancers. The reality is very
different.
What is in the bill, which the Senator from Florida apparently
opposes, is a way to make sure that these workers can get the
information they need to help meet their existing tax obligations.
Without this information, for example, workers may lose out on benefits
that would help them pay rent and buy groceries. They could
inadvertently lose out on important tax benefits, like the earned
income tax credit. The rescue plan, of course, expands the earned tax
credit. We want to make sure that every eligible worker can get that
financial help.
Finally, without reporting, workers might jeopardize the size of
their future Social Security benefits, putting their retirement
security at risk.
So what the Senator from Florida is up to here would deprive American
entrepreneurs of the information they need to keep business records,
comply with tax requirements, and claim important Federal benefits. For
these reasons, I strongly object to this request for unanimous consent.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The junior Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, that sounded good, but this is
clearly a tax increase. It is a massive tax increase, and it is a
massive new reporting requirement on already struggling Americans. Our
focus ought to be on helping support American workers, especially these
gig economy workers who have been hurt so badly.
I am disappointed my colleague wants to increase costs and
regulations on American families. What is strange is that my colleague
from Oregon voted to repeal this bad provision when Democrats added it
to ObamaCare. So what is crazy is, why is he OK today with raising
taxes on the American people now? This is all part of the Democrats'
tax-and-spend agenda, and it is just the beginning.
Let's remember, with the last spending bill the Democrats passed, we
will have $30 trillion of debt. As Governor of Florida, I worked so
that we cut taxes 100 times, and we paid off a third of our State debt.
We have to think that way here. How can we grow this economy and
reduce the costs for Americans, not increase the costs to Americans?
These bad types of policies will ruin our economy and a shot at the
American dream, which we all believe in.
I am going to fight every day to get the government out of the way
and make sure that doesn't happen.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of my remarks, I be allowed to present an excerpt of my
speech in Spanish. I will provide transcripts both in English and in
Spanish of those paragraphs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 884

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I have read the accounts and so have many
of you. A young mother from Honduras, two young sisters from Guatemala,
a 6-year-old child from El Salvador--they were all told by a local
cartel that, for a price, a better life awaits them in America.
They are told, as evidenced by those chanting ``Biden, Biden'' at the
border, that this new President has opened the borders and that amnesty
is imminent, so get in while you can.
These vulnerable people are flocking to smugglers and violent
criminals and paying them all that they have for their chance to get in
while they can. In the last month, traffickers have allegedly made as
much as $14 million a week smuggling men, women, and children across
the border.
Once indebted to cartels and coyotes, the price these vulnerable
people pay is far more costly than money. According to media reports,
men are used as slaves; women are raped endlessly. In fact, one-third
of the women making their way to the border are reportedly sexually
assaulted, and 68 percent of the people coming across the border are
physically assaulted.
Children are rented, trafficked, and ``recycled,'' as they put it,
forced to pose as the child of one illegal immigrant after another to
activate the so-called Flores get-out-of-jail-free card. One former
Border Patrol agent told me that the smugglers prefer to use babies
because they are unable to tell Border Patrol agents that these are
not, in fact, their parents.
What of those who escape the clutches of the cartels? Well, estimates
of how many children are currently in Customs and Border Patrol custody
vary from more than 4,000 children to well over 15,000. Thousands of
these children are being held, packed into housing facilities, for well
over the 72-hour limit required by Flores--and with no end in sight.
The Biden administration is doing all it can to hide the humanitarian
crisis created by its own immigration policies--a disaster that
Secretary Mayorkas refuses to acknowledge as a crisis. It denied media
access and appears to be enforcing an unofficial gag order on Border
Patrol agents. Journalists have not been permitted inside the detention
facilities since President Biden took office.
Now, it shouldn't be a surprise to any of us that the Biden
administration's open border policies have resulted in this
overwhelming crisis--and a crisis it is. This is what then-Candidate
Biden promised us in the very first

[[Page S1740]]

Democratic Presidential primary debate. He promised us that when he
became President, there would be immediate surges along the border.
Unfortunately, in this case, he has delivered exactly what he promised.
How exactly did he deliver? Well, first, he made it known that once he
was elected, the border would be open for business. Then he reversed
course on a number of Trump-era commonsense immigration policies. This
incentivized vulnerable people to entrust their lives and the lives of
their children to dangerous coyotes and cartels.
What are these policies? The safe third country policy, implemented
by the Trump administration, requires asylum seekers to apply for
asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive. President Biden
has moved to repeal that rule.
The expansion of the Flores Settlement agreement also creates
perverse incentives in our immigration law. Flores is about protecting
children, and yet, in the application of the expansion, we have put
children in even greater danger of becoming victims of trafficking and
cartel manipulation.
The Biden policy of keeping all unaccompanied alien minors in the
United States, as my fellow Senator from Utah has pointed out, actually
incentivizes parents to separate themselves from their children by
entrusting their children to a cartel or coyote to bring them to the
United States for their chance at amnesty.
By moving to loosen the requirements of asylum and expand its
application, President Biden has invited immigrants, who could find
safety in other regions of their own country or an adjacent country, to
make the dangerous journey to the United States.
What we need are clear requirements to preserve the opportunities for
asylum for those who need it the most. America is the land to which
those seeking a better life look for relief, and we should provide
relief where we can. We also have a duty to protect our border, our
citizens, and our laws, our national interests. At the very least, we
have a duty to eliminate policies that empower cartels and coyotes to
exploit women and children. We must stop incentivizing vulnerable
people to make a journey that will very rarely lead to the outcome they
desire.
To this end, and together with Congressman Andy Biggs and several
of my fellow Senators, I have introduced the Stopping Border Surges Act
to address some of the more egregious loopholes in our immigration
laws.
This bill remedies the expansion of the Flores Settlement agreement
that puts so many children in danger by requiring the release of minors
with any adult claiming to be the child's parent. It provides expedited
processing for unaccompanied minors from all countries--processes
currently available only to children from Mexico and Canada. Immediate
processing will blunt the incentive for parents to send their children
on this dangerous journey alone. In an effort to end the trafficking of
children by cartels, it strengthens protections for children released
to adults within the United States. It tightens the asylum process so
that we can better serve those who genuinely need the protections we
can offer, and it incentivizes immigrants to enter our country through
official ports of entry.
This bill offers a new commonsense series of reforms that will help
stem the flood of immigrants at our border and free vulnerable women
and children from the clutches of the cartels and of the coyotes. For
that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to support it, to join it, and
to vote for it.
Now, having previously received consent, I would like to conclude
these remarks in Spanish, remarks directed specifically to those who
might be considering making the dangerous, perilous journey to the
southern border of the United States before sending their families.
(The English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as
follows:)

Please do not send your wives and daughters on this journey
only to be sexually assaulted by the coyotes and cartels. We
hear story after story of smugglers kidnapping women and
children and holding them hostage even after they cross our
border. In the year 2019, the New York Times documented
dozens of cases of these women. This is just one of those
stories involving Melvin, a 36-year old mother of three from
Guatemala:
For weeks in that locked room, the men she had paid to get
her safely to the United States drugged her with pills and
cocaine, refusing to let her out even to bathe. ``I think
that since they put me in that room, they killed me,'' she
said. ``They raped us so many times they didn't see us as
human beings anymore.''
Please, listen to Melvin's story. Do not make that the
story of your family.

Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further
consideration of S. 884; that the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we face a challenge at the border; there
is no question about it.
It really strikes me as strange--maybe unusual--for Members of the
Senate from the other side of the aisle to come and yearn for those
wonderful days of the Trump administration when it came to the issue of
immigration and border policy.
Remember when we had the longest government shutdown in history,
paralyzing immigration courts and other Agencies? It was, of course, a
shutdown that was sanctioned by the President of the United States over
his immigration demands.
Under President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security,
incidentally, experienced unprecedented leadership problems. The
Department of Homeland Security lurched from one Secretary or Acting
Secretary to the next. Listen to this: There were six different
Secretaries in that Agency in 4 years, only two Senate-confirmed--more
Agency heads in the last 4 years under President Trump than in the 13-
year history of the Department of Homeland Security prior to President
Trump. They couldn't keep anybody on the job. They quit. They were
fired. Nobody could agree with this President's bizarre ideas on what
to do with immigration. Are we longing for a return to those days?
President Trump unlawfully diverted billions of dollars in Department
of Defense funds to build a wasteful, ineffective border wall, which
was supposed to be paid for by the Mexicans, if I remember, and then he
created a humanitarian crisis at the border with a policy known as zero
tolerance--zero tolerance.
I remember when Attorney General Sessions came before the American
people and actually quoted the Bible to justify the forcible removal of
infants, toddlers, and children from their parents' arms. Over 2,200
children were physically separated from their parents as part of the
zero tolerance policy.
It wasn't until a Federal court judge in Southern California finally
said to the Trump administration, ``I demand that you account for these
children, and I demand that you reunite them with their parents'' that
they set out to do it. Today, years later, years after zero tolerance,
there are still hundreds of children separated at that time who have
never been reunited with their parents.
Do we want to return to those wonderful days of the Trump
administration immigration policy? I don't think so. Children in cages,
children lost, adrift on the bureaucratic sea, doesn't speak well of
America's values.
President Trump tried to end asylum protections for children and
other vulnerable migrants. He cut aid to Central America, directly
harming efforts to fight poverty and violence in the region. More
refugees were driven to our border because the President shut down
legal avenues for immigration and blocked all assistance to stabilize
the Northern Triangle countries, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
Now comes the Senator from Utah--and he and I have worked on
legislation together in the past. I know that we can find bipartisan
solutions. I don't think this approach is one of them, but perhaps it
is the beginning of a conversation.
The President's former Republican allies in Congress claim that the
real cause, the real problem behind immigration policy is humanitarian
protection for children. They claim that we

[[Page S1741]]

can protect children by overturning these humanitarian protections,
either that have been entered into in a consent decree in court or by
law, and subjecting children at the border to indefinite detention and
deportation without adequate due process. But there is no evidence that
this will deter desperate families from fleeing to our border.
There is one thing the Senator from Utah and I certainly agree on.
Many of these children and families are being horribly, horribly
exploited by coyotes and kidnappers and very bad people. Many of these
people and their children are suffering in unimaginable ways because of
this.
I renew the plea that has been given across Central America by this
administration: Don't send your people to our border. Don't send your
children to our border.
It is not something we should encourage under the circumstances. It
has to be orderly, and this is not in many respects.
There is no evidence that ending this humanitarian protection for
children will deter desperate families fleeing to our border.
The bill before us today includes no assurances that children will be
humanely treated or that they will be safe from violence once they are
deported. This notion that once these children come across the border
or are taken into custody by the U.S. Government, that sometime--2
weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks--later they are turned loose again does not
dispense our moral obligation. We want these children to be safe, and
that is what the laws are, the Flores decision and others.
This bill does nothing to address root causes that are causing
migrants to flee the Northern Triangle in record numbers. If people
were migrating because of so-called legal loopholes, they would be
coming to our southern border from all over the region.
Instead, the vast majority come from three countries: Honduras, El
Salvador, and Guatemala. Those countries have the highest homicide
rates, some of them, in the world, and girls face a constant threat of
sexual violence with little prosecution from local authorities. We are
doing desperate things because of the desperate situations in these
countries.
We are told by the Senator that we have to overturn the bipartisan
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which passed by
unanimous consent in the Senate and was signed into law by Republican
President George W. Bush. But the TVPRA ensures that the United States
meets its international obligations to protect unaccompanied children
seeking safe haven in our country. It was a response to bipartisan
concern that children apprehended by the Border Patrol were being
returned to countries where they might be exploited even more.
Under TVPRA, unaccompanied children from the Northern Triangle are
transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services and placed
in deportation proceedings, which gives them a chance to finally make
their case to a judge.
Consider Samuel and Amelie, siblings ages 3 and 6, from Honduras.
They arrived in the United States traumatized, ages 3 and 6. They said
nothing--silent. After being transferred to HHS, Amelie revealed that
both children had been raped by drug cartel members. Without TVPRA
protection, Samuel and Amelie would have been returned to Honduras and
almost certain further exploitation.
Democrats are trying to work on a bipartisan repair of this
immigration system. It is long overdue.
In 2019, after President Trump finally agreed to end the longest
government shutdown in history, Congress passed an omnibus
appropriations bill that included $414 million for humanitarian
assistance at the border and then passed an emergency supplemental for
$4.6 billion of additional funding to alleviate overcrowding in
detention facilities.
In 2018, Senate Democrats supported a bipartisan agreement, including
robust border security funding and dozens of provisions to strengthen
border security, but President Trump threatened to veto it and,
instead, pushed for his hardline plan with the largest cut in legal
immigration in almost a century.
When it comes to refugees, after World War II, when the United States
sadly turned away hundreds and thousands of ultimate victims of the
Holocaust and would not accept their refugee status, we set out to
prove to the world that we had learned a valuable lesson, and we led
the world in offering refugee status until President Trump, who brought
the numbers down to record low levels. That does not speak well for the
United States, or it shouldn't be a source of pride for anyone
reflecting this administration.
We need comprehensive immigration reform. I support it. Eight years
ago, in 2013, I was part of the Gang of 8, a bipartisan group of four
Republican and four Democratic Senators. We produced comprehensive
immigration reform legislation that passed the Senate 68 to 32. The
Senator from Utah voted against it. Unfortunately, Republicans who
controlled the House of Representatives refused to consider it.
So here is my invitation to the Senator from Utah and to everyone
else interested. Let us sit down again and write that bill. Let's do it
in a fashion that really does bring reform to our system.
I just talked at a bipartisan meeting on the subject earlier. One of
the Senators from a border State said: People in my State don't expect
the Federal Government to do anything because it has been so many years
since they have done anything.
It is time for us to prove them wrong. We have the authority. We have
the opportunity. We have the challenge.
Making this sort of request on the floor, I know, is symbolic, but I
have to say that it is not the symbolism we should follow, and I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The senior Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate the sentiment expressed by my
friend, my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois,
particularly when he expressed the desire no longer to have people send
their children on the long, perilous journey from Central America to
the United States. On that, he and I certainly agree, just as we have
agreed on a number of other issues over the years.
I do think it is regrettable that we are not able to reach this
agreement today. This is something we ought to be able to solve right
here, right now. This is a very dire set of circumstances.
We have to remember what we are talking about is dealing with the
Flores agreement. We are in a position where so many of the children
coming up through these caravans are in danger because we have in place
policies that require the release of minors to any adult claiming to be
the child's parent. We ought to have expedited processing requirements
for unaccompanied minors, just as we have in place already for
unaccompanied minors coming from Mexico and coming from Canada.
It makes me wonder: What is it about children from Central American
countries--from any country other than Canada and Mexico--that makes
them undeserving of that same expedited processing requirement? This is
something we need to do.
Yes, I understand that our immigration system is a mess and needs
reform, but I don't understand why it is that anyone would want to
accept the default assumption that we can't fix anything with
immigration; we can't even fix this problem subjecting these
unaccompanied minors from Central American countries, including
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Why can't we give them any relief
here until such time as we can come up with a comprehensive immigration
reform proposal?
It is disappointing to me that we can't do that today. We will keep
trying, keep moving on this effort. This is important.
Look, regardless of where one stands politically, what party one
belongs to, I don't think it is too much to ask to suggest that we
shouldn't give kids over to anyone claiming to be their parent without
proof, without processes to make sure that is a safe person. We
wouldn't want our own children treated that way. We shouldn't treat
them that way.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The Senator from Illinois.