Audio:

02-05hhs-lankford

Video:

Transcript:

HH: Joined by Senator Jim Lankford of Oklahoma. Good morning, Senator. Welcome back.

JL: Good morning, and it’s always James, never Jim.

HH: Well, James, let me say this. You’re the most conservative senator that Oklahoma’s ever had, and that included Tom Coburn. You’re a friend of the program. You’re a great Republican. Moreover, the Fetching Mrs. Hewitt told me last night you be nice to Senator Lankford, because Cindy Lankford is the nicest person I’ve met inside the Beltway in politics. So you got that going for you. Now I hate the bill. I hate especially this line. $650 million available for the next five years for building the border wall. That means to me we’re not building the border wall. Why am I wrong?

JL: Yeah, have you actually had a chance to be able to go through the actual text of the bill in the definitions that are there for that?

HH: I have only been sent a number of things from the Senate GOP, and that is the talking points…

JL: Yeah, let me actually, let me talk you through the language that’s actually there that’s behind that. It actually sets up that it has to be the 18-foot tall or 30-foot tall. It has to be built according to the Trump standards. It has to be built in the Trump locations that they set up in 2019 and 2020. It has to be built to those designs, and there’s only a fraction of that money that’s actually available under the next 10 months. The vast majority of that money is actually moved to the next year. It’s available to the next president to be able to do that construction, and it lines up with the 900-mile agenda that was actually laid out by the Trump administration. So the actual language that’s there around the wall is not only protecting the funding to be able to be there, which is the funding that was about to expire. We recapitalized to make sure it’s actually protected. It’s protected for the next administration. It’s blocked off to be actually real wall construction and to keep this administration from spending that money for environmental remediation as they have used the money for already. They’re spent a billion dollars on environmental remediation. This actually makes sure it’s actual wall construction or repair of existing wall.

HH: Why doesn’t it start now? Why doesn’t it build the whole thing? And why isn’t it done by November, Senator?

JL: Well, I would say a couple of things with that. One is Biden has been fighting against building the wall over and over again on this, so this does compel that that money can only be used for that, and has to be used for that. But it blocks off the funding to say let’s have the election on it. And if Trump wins the election in November, then he’ll have a pot of money sitting there ready to do that wall construction on it, and again, it’s defined out where it has to be. It’s the Trump locations that they actually identified in the Trump design that they actually identify.

HH: But Senator, since you are the lead negotiator along with Thom Tillis, did you ask for the wall to be built now in its complete form as President Trump attempted to get it done during his first term?

JL: So when you’re talking about completing the wall, I’m always struggling with what that means, because President Trump obviously did a lot of tearing down of old wall, putting up much better wall in that place. We’ve got 2,000 miles total of border. We’ve got about 750 miles actually of construction. So if you’re actually talking about completing the last 1,250 miles in the next 6 months, no we didn’t actually do that. We actually focused on what did we have, what do we want to make sure is actually done right. I’m either going to give it to the Biden administration, and they’re going to try to find ways around it and misuse those dollars, or I’m going to make sure that we actually protect it. That’s what we did, is protect those dollars to make sure they’re going to be actually used.

HH: But at any point the negotiations, the Republicans usually ask, I’ve always been asking since 2004, 900 miles of the 1,950 need to be secure. We need a big, tall, strong border wall, about, you can argue how many, less than half has been built. Some people say more, but it’s less than half. Did you and Thom ever sit down and say we’ve got to have the wall or we’re not doing this?

JL: Oh, yeah, that’s why it’s actually in there. The appropriators are actually the lead negotiators at the very end on this, because that’s in that appropriation section. But yes, we demanded that it had to be in there. It’s one of the last areas that actually got required. This does, I’m confused, because this does line up with the Trump plan that was out there. Actually, the plan was more than a thousand miles on it in the locations, in the design construction. So I think that’s my confusion on the wall issue. We are lined up with that Trump proposal in that design with those miles adding the next section. As you know, you don’t allocate $5 billion dollars all at once. You do it section by section to be able to continue to be able to move through it. That’s the same way Trump did it. That’s the same way every president’s done it. We’re not going to turn over $10 billion dollars at a time and know it’s going to take 10 years to be able to finish out that construction.

HH: But you could have written a law that said within 6 months, you will build this wall. And the United States is capable of doing that, and you didn’t. I’m just wondering did you ever ask for that. You know, genuinely, hey Democrats, if you want to get this stuff through, we need the wall finished by November. We’ve got to show the American people that the wall is going to be built, the 900 miles. Did you ever ask for that?

JL: No, Hugh, I never did, because that’s actually not physically possible to be able to actually do in construction to be able to get that up. That’s the same thing we had when, because this is new wall construction area. That’s harder to be able to do. What President Trump was doing and making very fast progress was actually tearing down old wall and putting up much better, stronger new wall on it. When you’re expanding into new areas, you’ve got all your permitting issues. You’ve got everything else that’s got to get done, plus all of the work that has to be laid out, just the survey work to do that. It’s not the same as tearing down the old and putting up new when you’ve already got all the authorizations there. So we set aside the plan, how it needs to be done, the timing to make sure the money couldn’t be wasted for things other than the steel bollards, the specific design with the anti-climb pieces that are on it. So the design is very specific. How the dollars can be used is very specific. But we actually made sure that we’re going to get this done.

HH: Okay, Senator, we’re going to disagree on whether it does that, but we’re going to go to the other point I want to ask you about. $1.3, this is again what was sent to me by the conference. $1.3 billion for ankle bracelets and other related monitoring costs for illegal aliens during the 90-day waiting period for their asylum hearing. Do you know how easy it is to take off an ankle bracelet, Senator?

JL: I do, actually. Do you know how hard it is to be able to detain 100,000 people all at once? The focus that we have is to have, we have 50,000 beds that are set up. That is an epic number of detention beds. So we increased detention beds. We increased detention flights. We increased the speed of actually, of making decisions. But right now, we have a situation where people are released without any kind of monitoring, and they’re released for ten years into the country. We changed that to where it’s three months is what you’re dealing with or less that they’re going through the process on it. Most of these are going to be families that are actually coming across. There will be a rapid turnaround for those folks to be able to actually deport them. And all of them will go through a higher asylum standard, which will be very difficult to be able to get through on it, and a much faster process on it. So we changed this from 10 years release to 90 days in that process. And for the vast majority of folks, they’re actually going to be in detention. That’s different as well. So it is a very different law.

HH: Do you think it’s going to…I know that. But $1.3 billion for ankle bracelets is not a selling point. It’s almost, well, it is ridiculous, because they’re easily taken off, and you know that. So, although you changed the asylum hearing period to 90 days, they’re going to just cut the bracelet off and walk away. I mean, this isn’t serious.

JL: It actually is serious on it in the sense that that person, if they do that, then they face consequences. They can never get through the legal system ever again. And if they’re to be picked up by any point and actually be deported at that point, they’ve lost all their rights and abilities to make any other claim. So it actually exposes to them to any time they connect to law enforcement. I’m very aware they could hide in one of our sanctuary cities on that. The vast majority of people actually will abide by the monitoring, because these individuals are often in family units, and they’re going to expose their whole family to the process at this point. So I can only say I understand it’s easy to be able to cut that off if you’re a criminal and you’re coming through. Our target is to be able to identify as many people as possible, get them into, after they’re arrested, get them into detention and to be able to hold them. And when we exceed that capacity, to have some kind of monitoring system so we can actually turn people around quickly. Again, the alternative is the status that we have right now.

HH: To quote General Petraeus, hope is not a strategy, and an ankle bracelet is not a restrint.

JL: It’s not.

HH: Senator, I want to give you a free shot, all right? It’s a free throw. Sell the bill to my audience, because I’m going to be banging on it for as long as I’m on, because it doesn’t build the wall. And unless and until you go back and build the wall, I’m not going to be for it. But you get a free shot, Senator. Take it.

JL: So I would actually say you supported H.R. 2 when it came through the House, because it built the wall. This is the same amount of dollars as H.R. 2. It follows the same exact plan as H.R. 2. I’d encourage you to be able to read through it and to be able to see the full part of it and not just the exact line on it. But I would tell you what’s actually in the bill is it changes and closes the loophole in asylum. We had people under the Trump administration, or days in the Trump administration, we had more than 4,000 people that were illegally crossing the border, and they were struggling without a date, asylum laws that are there. This closes those loopholes. That’s not something that can be done by executive action. I know it’s vogue right now to say just do executive action to be able to solve it. Bu this was a problem under the Trump administration. It’s a problem now. Obviously, this president is not enforcing everything he could enforcing it, cut this actually closes that loophole and makes the asylum process much, much, much more difficult. It increases our turnaround, takes us from 10 years in actually turning around people and deporting, which means never, to 90 days to turning around and deporting people, which means it’ll actually occur. It does use alternative for some of those folks on it, but it also makes sure that we’re actually monitoring tracking. If they cut it off, then they lose all ability to be on any other asylum or any other immigration claim. It increases detention beds. It increases deportation flights. It does DNA testing to make sure that we’re identifying fake families that are coming through so that we can actually pick up human trafficking. It does sanctions on cartels to be able to fight off for fentanyl. This is a very strong bill that deals with things even like parole issues, because today, the Biden administration will parole in 1,500 people at our ports of entry and hand them work permits on day one. This ends that practice so we’re not just handing out free work permits at the border. So I encourage people to actually read it and not just to be able to follow through what they may see in media on it to be able to find out what’s in it, and to be able to go through and ask a simple question. Are we going to allow the chaos to continue every day and the national security issues to continue every day? Or are we going to actually do something about it. There’s a difference between press conferences and actually taking action. Are we getting we possibly wanted as Republicans in this? No, we are not, because we have a Democrat Senate and a Democrat White House. But we have a shot to compel a Democrat Senate and a Democrat White House to do something that every single Democrat refused to do when Trump was president. We couldn’t move anything on border security. This does change law on border security that will affect not just the next five years, the next 50 years.

HH: So Senator Lankford, that was your free shot. Now my free question. Do you doubt that the United States could build 900 miles of border wall, the real deal on the 900 miles where it’s necessary, in 10 months if it put its mind to it and was ordered to do so notwithstanding any other law and the money was appropriated by the Congress? Do you doubt we could get that done?

JL: Yeah. Notwithstanding any other law, if you were going to waive every other law.

HH: Yes.

JL: If we’re going to actually go into tribal areas and ignore the tribal issues…

HH: Yes.

JL: If we’re going to waive every other issue, sure, we could do that. We’re Americans. We can do anything we want. We built the Pentagon building in three years, or two years. So it can be done in that sense.

HH: So why didn’t you ask for it? Why did you not ask for it? Demand it. Say we must have this wall.

JL: I did get that wall, Hugh, and that’s the amazing thing is this, is I’d encourage you to be able to read it and go, if you’re saying I didn’t demand that we have construction vehicles there tomorrow on it, and in addition to that, if we have 900 miles of wall, we still have a problem in the asylum system, because when you get to the wall, you can still claim asylum, because when you’re in Texas, you’re already in the country at that point. If we don’t fix the asylum laws, nothing matters.

HH: Senator, stand by for a second. Let me go down to a break. I want to give you a chance to finish your thought. Stay tuned.

— – — –

HH: I am back with Senator Lankford. We’ll put this on the podcast and we’ll make sure we play it in the balance of the show tomorrow. Senator, I want to go back. You and I agree we could get this done. We could build the wall in 10 months if we decided to. We are the United States of America. It’s not in the bill. It’s authorized. It’s not required. The construction, I will read it, I will look at it, but it’s not going to get done this year. It could have been done this year. You guys didn’t ask for it, or maybe you did and they said no.

JL: I would say, yeah, I would say under the Trump administration, even they could not build 150 miles of wall in 10 months. That’s just not going to happen in 10 months with all the other restrictions and all the other aspects of law of acquiring the land, getting the rights for it. Now if you want to just waive everyone’s rights to their land and to have a government takeover in all those areas, I assume that’s true, but I think a lot of landowners and other folks would pitch a fit about that. And I remind everybody in Texas, most of the wall is a quarter mile to a half mile from the actual border itself. So once you get to the wall, you’re already in the country. So the wall doesn’t stop you from entering the country. You’ve got to fix the asylum laws at that point. They could literally stand on the south side of the wall and yell at people and say I want to get asylum on it. Literally, our officers by law would have to go around, pick them up, take them into the process, release them for 10 years into some backlogged process that they’ll never actually show up for a hearing. If we don’t fix our asylum laws, no amount of wall is going to actually help. So we need to have the wall, but we also need to have the change in asylum laws.

HH: Well, I agree with that. I just don’t think it gives us the wall. Senator, let me close with this. Do you think you’ll get more than a majority of the 49 Republicans in the conference to vote for this?

JL: Yeah, that has always been my target, and we’ll see where people are. A lot of people are spun up on this 5,000 number, saying this lets 5,000 people in a day, which is ridiculous. That’s not at all. It changes the paradigm from releasing them into the country to deporting them from the country.

HH: I did not bring that up. Yeah, that’s not my…

JL: Yeah, and so we’ll see as people are going through it.

HH: If it doesn’t have a majority of the Senate conference, will it be brought to the floor for a vote?

JL: That, I can’t make the call, but I would say that’s always been my decision, is that. Obviously, McConnell and others have got to be able to make a decision, and Chuck Schumer is actually driving the floor on it. But members are going to look at it, and they’re going to make their own determination.

HH: I appreciate you coming on, Senator. I really do. It’s going to be a rough week for you, because you’re going to take a lot of incoming. I do not think the Oklahoma Republican Party was fair to you at all. You got tasked with this job. You know, I used to be a land use lawyer, and I had clients who said I want 12 units an acre, and I’d bring them back 6, which is a huge win. And they’d yell at me. But that’s just the way it is.

JL: Yeah.

HH: Your clients wanted more, right? That’s what you’re hearing?

JL: They always want more on it. We are a very angry nation right now on the out of control border issues. I get that. But I would also tell you we don’t make our best decisions when we’re angry.

HH: Well said. Always great to see you, Senator. Thank you for joining me. I do genuinely appreciate it. Put on that Kevlar. You’re going to need it this week when you talk to the conservatives. I appreciate you being back here. Thank you, Senator James Lankford.

JL: Thanks.

End of interview.