[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 67 (Monday, April 19, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1947-H1952]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    SECURITY ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2021, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss one of the most 
important problems facing our country, and that is security on our 
southern border.
  I don't think there is any question that most Americans agree that 
our immigration system is broken, but before we can fix it, we have to 
address the crisis at our southern border.
  And let's be clear, what is happening at the border is a crisis. In 
fact, the President admitted as much recently. His commander of Public 
Health Service at the convention center in Dallas, when I went to visit 
there, maintained that they were in crisis management. You don't manage 
a crisis unless you are in a crisis, so it is a crisis. It is a 
humanitarian crisis.
  The policies being put forward by this administration, basically 
absolutely opening the border are, in fact, inhumane. Smugglers, 
traffickers, foreign banks are profiting and enticing a hopeless people 
into sending their children or themselves to make this dangerous 
journey to unlawfully cross our southern border. These bad actors know 
how to manipulate our laws to their advantage. Putting forward policies 
that make it easier for them to do so is, in fact, wrong.
  During the month of March record numbers of unaccompanied alien 
children were referred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the 
Department of Health and Human Services. The total number of people 
coming in without authorization is the highest it has been in 15 years. 
Customs and Border Protection encountered over 170,000 individuals 
along our southern border attempting to cross without authorization. 
Many of them were single adults.
  Over the last month, Members from both sides of the aisle, both sides 
of the Capitol flocked to our southern border to see and assess the 
situation for

[[Page H1948]]

themselves. They held press conferences. They did television interviews 
and press releases. Yet the reaction from the White House was one of 
denial.
  A little less than 30 days ago President Biden named Vice President 
Harris to be the point person for the administration to bring a 
resolution to the problems on our southern border. But the Vice 
President has not ventured to the southern border. She has not had a 
press conference about what is happening, and certainly we have seen no 
plan.
  It was announced last week that she would be traveling to the 
Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. 
This would be a great first step. But to fully understand what is 
happening, Madam Vice President, you need to visit our southern border.
  Right now, hundreds of thousands of people come across our southern 
border from Mexico and from Central American countries through Mexico. 
And among these thousands are unaccompanied children, who are used as 
pawns to take advantage of the administration not enforcing our 
immigration laws. Now smugglers have no issue with using these children 
as pawns.
  From the numbers, we know that America is one of the most generous 
countries in the world when it comes to accepting migrants. Through our 
Nation's legal immigration process, we welcome over a million 
immigrants into America each year. To be clear, these are immigrants 
who are going through the normal and correct process, waiting in line 
and following our laws. But how discouraging must it be for them to 
watch as others take full advantage of our laws not being enforced 
because of Washington putting forward poor policy. Despite the 
generosity of the American people, others remain intent on entering our 
country without the full benefit of the law behind them.
  To better understand this problem, it is perhaps important to examine 
its roots. In 2018 it was important for me to visit Northern Triangle 
countries for myself to see the situation on the ground, to assess the 
situation, and determine how the United States can better help and 
better address the root causes of irregular migration.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee, which I am a member of, does not 
oversee foreign policy, but it does have jurisdiction over the 
Department of Health and Human Services and subsequently the Office of 
Refugee Resettlement, which does take care of children who end up in 
the United States from one of those Northern Triangle countries.
  I learned that there are different drivers for people to migrate from 
each of those countries. There is, unfortunately, corruption at the 
highest levels of government in that region. One common theme, however, 
is campaign rhetoric that places an ``open for business'' sign on our 
border.
  The vast majority of people in the Northern Triangle countries do 
live below the poverty level and lack the job opportunities to escape 
these conditions.
  In El Salvador there are problems with gangs, and the gangs are 
violent, medieval levels of violence and brutality. Many of the 
individuals serving in their government are holdovers from 
revolutionaries in the civil war which ended over 20 years ago.
  Honduras is a country that is a through point for narcotics 
trafficking and, as a consequence, has many of the problems that you 
would imagine would be attendant with that type of activity. The 
current President ran for a second term. Although the law limited him 
to a single term the Supreme Court gave him a favorable decision. 
Unfortunately, he won with a very bare majority that only was 
determined many days after, some significant time after the election. 
Stop me if you have ever heard this before. But the Honduran President 
is now subject to extensive protests throughout his country that 
question the legitimacy of his Presidency.
  I will say that the First Lady of Honduras, who has headed a task 
force aimed at addressing irregular migration, is performing a valuable 
service. The desire to make change is present, but some of the 
resources and capacity are lacking.
  In Guatemala corruption is rampant at every level of government. 
There are only a couple of ministers who can be trusted. The corruption 
is, in this case, exacerbated by term limits because the President can 
only serve one term, and apparently there is a notion in the country 
that it is important for the President to prepare for the life after 
the Presidency while they are in office, so they do not have their 
focus on performing in the public good.
  There is also a significant prejudice against some of the indigenous 
people in the western highlands of Guatemala. These individuals do make 
up the majority of migrants who are leaving Guatemala. Guatemala, 
unfortunately, has one of the highest rates of malnutrition in the 
world, and there is very little effort to combat this because of the 
lack of resolve of their central government.
  In my travels to the Northern Triangle, I learned that there are 
people in those countries who do desire their children stay home. They 
understand the difficulty, the danger in exporting all of your young 
people. They do not want irregular migration. They do not want mass 
migration to happen. However, unfortunately, their governments have yet 
to eradicate the corruption from within.
  For example, they do not prohibit financial institutions from 
contributing to the problem of these desperate populations. The 
financing of human trafficking from these countries is extremely 
profitable. Beyond the danger to the migrant, the journey from the 
Northern Triangle to our southern border is not cheap. It varies what 
the estimates are, but families take out loans from $1,000 to $10,000 
in order to smuggle someone to the United States.
  Children that enter the United States will sometimes go to work to 
send remittances back to their homes so that their family is able to 
pay off the loan. In fact, it is estimated that as much as 20 percent 
of the GDP of Honduras comes in the form of remittances, so it is 
disturbing to learn that legitimate banks in Northern Triangle 
countries may be in this way aiding the human smuggling trade. It does 
seem like it is being fueled by cash from sources from which it should 
not come.

                              {time}  2015

  One clear solution to the corruption of these countries is to give 
more aid to the Bureau of International Narcotics Control and Law 
Enforcement, a United Nations organization; nongovernmental 
organizations and nonprofits; the United States Agency for 
International Development, USAID; the International Organization for 
Migration; and other nongovernmental entities.
  In addition, the United States Development Finance Corporation, 
previously known as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, is 
facilitating needed investment in the region, and numerous nonprofits 
and NGOs have set up programs to help poverty-stricken and recent 
returnees.
  One of my fears is what you hear discussed. Increasing the amount of 
aid to Central American countries will help with this problem. I would 
simply argue that the money not necessarily go to the governments that 
are not doing their jobs but to these nongovernmental agencies, USAID, 
and the U.S. Development Finance Corporation, which will provide the 
economic benefit needed by the people who find it necessary to undergo 
that irregular migration because their economic circumstances are so 
dire.
  In other words, the governments are not the ones that need the aid. 
The aid needs to be placed in the hands of those who can and will help 
the people. The answer to this humanitarian crisis is to not give more 
aid to the governments of the countries that are failing but to keep 
supporting the community-building organizations that are on the ground 
and working to serve their people.
  In line with this solution, in September 2018, I introduced H. Res. 
1092, expressing the sense of the House that the President should 
redirect foreign assistance given to El Salvador, Guatemala, and 
Honduras away from their central governments and toward the driving 
causes of illegal immigration into the United States and to those 
nongovernmental organizations. I have reintroduced this as H. Res. 17 
in this Congress.
  The inability of the central governments of those countries to deal 
with

[[Page H1949]]

and solve these issues has left over half of their populations living 
in poverty. In fact, millions of El Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and 
Hondurans face hunger at points each year.
  This is why foreign assistance must be targeted toward the municipal 
and regional governments in these countries, as well as community-
building organizations that have a direct impact on the lives of the 
people. Simply giving more aid to the central governments when it is 
not getting to where it is needed is unlikely to solve the problem.
  The amount of foreign assistance could be determined by multiplying 
the number of unaccompanied alien children from El Salvador, Guatemala, 
and Honduras and redirecting that amount for each country to these 
noncentral government entities.
  Focusing on where aid is directed is an essential part of the 
solution. That is why, in December 2018, I offered an amendment to the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act to redirect foreign aid to 
nongovernmental organizations in Northern Triangle countries and Mexico 
from being given to the central governments.
  Instead, this funding would only be given to regional or municipal 
governments or educational institutions in these countries, private 
entities, or other nongovernmental organizations, or faith-based 
organizations operating in these countries.
  To keep individuals, particularly unaccompanied alien children, from 
arriving at our southern border, the help necessary to make their homes 
safer and more prosperous is not through their central governments but 
for institution-building and other areas that can provide them the help 
they need to show that we are serious and to demonstrate to the central 
governments of the Northern Triangle countries that the United States 
cannot be constant caretakers for their children.
  To that end, I have introduced several times the Unaccompanied Alien 
Children Assistance Control Act to withhold aid from El Salvador, 
Guatemala, and Honduras by the number of children in Federal custody 
due to their immigration status, multiplied by a multiplier, which is 
the estimated cost of caring for one unaccompanied alien child.
  We should not be surprised that the reversal of the previous 
administration's immigration policies led to an influx of unlawful 
crossings at our southern borders. I would take issue with the fact 
that this is said to be a cyclical uptick. Yes, there are cyclical 
variations to the number of people who do cross our southern border, 
but this one is not a cyclical uptick. This influx is a direct result 
of a policy choice made by the Biden administration.
  We faced a similar crisis in 2014, when President Biden was Vice 
President, and President Obama's administration instituted the 
dangerous catch and release policy that led to a flood of unauthorized 
migrants and unaccompanied minors coming across our southern border. 
Instead of keeping those who made unauthorized crossings in custody, 
our immigration and enforcement agencies were required to release those 
individuals into our country.
  People were given a court date, but few, if any, would actually 
appear. Beyond missing a court date, unauthorized migrants took 
advantage of our system. Unfortunately, the diversion of so many people 
coming across the border, the diversion of the attention of our law 
enforcement officials on the border, has allowed for the free 
importation of drugs like fentanyl and heroin across our border.
  Due to those failures, it is understandable why the previous 
administration instituted a policy that required the enforcement of our 
laws. For 4 years, we listened to Members of Congress have these 
discussions on the border and in the Halls of Congress about the 
misfortune of those who crossed into our country without the benefit of 
citizenship.
  But what exactly does it mean to put forward a zero-tolerance policy? 
It means enforcing the laws and giving needed support to our frontline 
border officials.

  No one wants to see a child separated from their parents. This is a 
problem that Congress needs to fix. It is a problem that Congress can 
fix.
  To understand why this has happened, we look back to the court case 
of Reno v. Flores in 1997, and we look at the asylum laws that were 
passed in late 2008.
  The Flores settlement prohibited the detention of children from a 
noncontiguous country for more than 20 days. After those 20 days, they 
are placed in the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement if they 
cannot be reunited with family.
  Previously, when adults attempted to cross into the United States 
without authorization, they were placed in immigration detention to 
await an immigration hearing. But due to the backlog of immigration 
cases, these adults were being held longer than 20 days. If they 
entered with a child, the Flores settlement required that the child be 
released. Therefore, the adults were also being released with them, and 
very few ever showed up for their immigration proceedings.
  It changed during the Trump administration. They held unauthorized 
adults rather than releasing them. And if they entered with children, 
those children were placed in the care of the Office of Refugee 
Resettlement.
  People claimed this was inhumane. If enforcing our laws is inhumane, 
then we need to change the law. But it seems like what is inhumane is 
incentivizing an already desperate people to make the dangerous journey 
to our southern border. To do that in the first place seems inhumane.
  We must realize that far too many children are being smuggled into 
our country by adults who want to prey on the generosity of Americans. 
A significant number of adults with children are not even biological 
relatives to the child with whom they enter. Traffickers, cartels, and 
smugglers know how to take advantage of a humanitarian crisis.
  Being a father and a grandfather, I truly mean it when I say that no 
one wants to separate a child from their parents. That is why, on 
September 25, during the Rules Committee hearing, I offered an 
amendment requiring a plan to promptly reunify children in the custody 
of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
  It is not inhumane to enforce laws. Putting forth policies that allow 
children to be used as pawns is itself inhumane. Trekking a child 
across multiple countries just to smuggle them illegally into another 
country, that is inhumane.
  Stated another way, our laws are not inhumane; nonenforcement is 
leading to inhumane actions by desperate people. We need to help them 
at home, not here where the taxpayer is on the hook.
  For anyone who turns on the news, you can see the terrible and 
disheartening situation at the border. So, today, the question is 
asked: Why would anyone object to enforcement of our laws?
  There is significant proof that a zero-tolerance policy for violating 
our laws is a deterrent for people subjecting themselves to harm by 
taking a perilous trip to the American southern border.
  For example, in early 2017, Department of Homeland Security Secretary 
John Kelly visited the southern border. It was virtually deserted. In 
June 2017, a Reuters journalist, Julia Edwards Ainsley, reported on the 
decreased number of border crossings. She wrote: ``Last fall, during 
the waning months of the Obama administration, hundreds of immigrants 
crossed the river on rafts at this point each day, many willingly 
handing themselves over to immigration authorities in hopes of being 
released into the United States to await court proceedings that would 
decide their fate.
  ``Now, the agents look out on an empty landscape. Footpaths up from 
the water have started to disappear under growing brush, with only the 
stray baby shoe or toothbrush serving as reminders of that migrant 
flood.
  ``The reason for the change, the agents say, is a perception in 
Mexico and Central America that President Trump has ended the practice 
known as catch and release, in which immigrants caught in the United 
States without proper documents were released to live free, often for 
years, as their cases ran through the court system.
  ``Now, would-be violators know `they will be detained and turned 
right back around,' said one of the two agents, Marlene Castro. `It is 
not worth it anymore.' ''

[[Page H1950]]

  So said Julia Edwards Ainsley in June 2017.
  What happened between the Obama years and the first years of the 
Trump administration? When people believe that they will encounter a 
border wall, or that they will be turned away at the border, they 
simply do not come.
  Our laws are only effective if they are enforced. If Congress truly 
wants to repair our immigration system, we, the Members of Congress, 
are obligated to act.
  We know this is not the first time in American history that an 
administration has used a zero-tolerance policy. Over 40 years ago, 
during the Carter administration, between April 15 and October 31, 
1980, there was a mass emigration of Cubans. They left from Cuba's 
Mariel Harbor to travel to the United States. We remember this as the 
Mariel boatlift. Because of this emigration, Fidel Castro decided to 
open his prisons and mental health facilities, sending those Cubans 
through the Straits of Florida to the United States. President Carter's 
administration was left grappling with a Cuban refugee crisis.

  In a 1997 interview, former Deputy Secretary of State John Bushnell 
recalled a meeting with President Carter in which he and other key 
advisers discussed solutions to the Cuban refugee problem:

       I remember sitting in that windowless conference room of 
     the National Security Council with the Secretary of State, 
     the Chief of Naval Operations, the Director of the CIA, the 
     head of the Coast Guard, the head of INS, and several other 
     senior officials, debating how to stop this flow of Cubans. 
     National Security Advisor Brzezinski chaired until Carter 
     came in toward the end of the meeting.
       There was a long discussion on how the Coast Guard and Navy 
     ships might physically stop the Cuban boats either from 
     leaving the United States or returning back with the Cubans 
     in the Mariel Boatlift. The Navy and Coast Guard, represented 
     at this meeting by admirals, were concerned.
       ``How can we do this?'' they said, and it was suggested 
     that the boats simply could be stopped, physically prevented 
     from entering the United States, without any major loss of 
     life of the passengers. But they did suggest ways of 
     maneuvering the boats to block their passage, which struck me 
     as sort of wild. It sounded to me like they had in mind a 
     picket line of Coast Guard and Navy boats going across the 
     Straits of Florida to stop the movement of these small boats 
     with refugees. This naval discussion went on for a long time 
     but eventually was inconclusive.

  Perhaps wisely so.
  But from this interview, we understand that President Carter's 
administration was contemplating how to physically stop Cuban boats 
from coming to the United States.
  Then, moving forward to the early 1990s, rafts of immigrants from 
Haiti bound for the United States were intercepted at sea, as 
authorized by policy enacted by President Bush's administration.

                              {time}  2030

  A young governor from Arkansas used divisive campaign rhetoric as he 
ran against George H.W. Bush for President. Then-Governor Clinton time 
and again spoke of his disagreement with President Bush's zero-
tolerance immigration policy.
  During his campaign, Governor Clinton often maligned President Bush 
for being cruel in the treatment of Haitian refugees traveling to 
America via boat. Some feared that he was creating an unrealistic 
expectation for the Haitian people, who were suffering from significant 
unrest in their country.
  In the New York Times, an article entitled, ``Clinton Inspires Hope 
and Fear in Haiti,'' a writer, Douglas Farah, wrote: ``It was Mr. 
Clinton who helped create the expectation of an exodus from Haiti when 
he condemned the Bush administration for a `cruel policy of returning 
Haitian refugees to a brutal dictatorship without an asylum hearing.'''
  We all know from our history in November of 1992, Governor Clinton 
won the Presidential election. Because of President-elect Clinton's 
promises, the people of Haiti anticipated being welcomed into the 
United States with open arms. The problem is, after securing the White 
House, President Clinton changed his mind after learning that perhaps 
the true toll such an exodus would take as people took to the waters in 
unseaworthy boats.
  In a Voice of America address on January 14, 1993--a mere week before 
he took the oath of office--President-elect Clinton walked back his 
promise. Let me just read some of President-elect Clinton's remarks 
that he spoke directly to the people of Haiti over the Voice of 
America.
  ``For Haitians who do seek to leave Haiti, boat departure is a 
terrible and dangerous choice. I've been deeply concerned by reports 
that many of you are preparing to travel by boat to the United States. 
And, I fear that boat departures in the near future would result in 
further tragic losses of life.
  ``For this reason, the practice of returning those who flee Haiti by 
boat will continue for the time being after I become President. Those 
who do leave Haiti for the United States by boat will be stopped and 
directly returned by the United States Coast Guard.
  ``To avoid the human tragedy of a boat exodus, I wanted to convey 
this message directly to the Haitian people: Leaving by boat is not the 
route to freedom.''
  Well, as you can imagine, this dramatic change did not go without 
notice. January 17, 1993, the Chicago Tribune columnist Stephen Chapman 
wrote: ``The President-elect has a terrible time making up his mind and 
keeping it made up. A lot of Haitians are disappointed to find he's 
something less than a man of his word. They're not the only ones.''
  So just from these historical moments, we can understand that border 
security is not a new debate; it is not an easy debate. President 
Carter, President Clinton, President Obama, all learned the same 
lesson. It is, in fact, inhumane to encourage anyone to attempt a 
treacherous journey in order to reach America's borders without the 
proper authorization to enter.
  There are things we must prioritize to move forward. First, having 
the understanding that enforcing our laws is, in fact, a humanitarian 
response.
  The next step would be security along the southern border. To put it 
plain and simple: We can finish the wall, which includes having not 
just the wall, but additional technologies to solve the problem.
  In order to solve problems within our broken immigration system, the 
bleeding needs to stop. You can't put a Band-Aid on an arterial wound. 
You need to stop the bleeding. Congress first needs to address the 
humanitarian crisis at our southern border.
  So it was encouraging to hear Secretary Mayorkas announce a 
reconsideration of filling the gaps in the construction on the southern 
border wall. I recently took a trip down to McAllen. Between McAllen 
and Laredo, you can see areas where the wall was being built. The 
construction had stopped. The construction equipment was literally 
abandoned at the side, but I was grateful that Secretary Mayorkas did 
say that he was reconsidering filling in the gaps in the construction 
in the southern border wall. The problem is the smugglers know where 
those gaps are. They know how to use them to their advantage.
  Again, let me say, when it comes to immigration, America is the most 
generous country in the world. But is it okay for us to allow over 
100,000 people a month to enter our country without authorization? Is 
it all right for us to subject innocent children to a dangerous 
journey?
  Sovereign countries must define and defend their borders. I believe 
that America is a country worth defending. It is heartbreaking that 
after achieving operational control of the border after many years, it 
was abandoned. It was abandoned through a series of executive orders 
that was signed early in this President's administration. And what has 
happened in its place, operational control of the border is no longer 
determined by the United States of America. Operational control of the 
border is now determined and dictated by cartels.
  This week, we are considering two immigration bills: the NO BAN Act 
and the Access to Counsel Act. The first will prevent the President 
from banning anyone from entering the United States. The second 
essentially provides a lawyer to anyone entering our country 
unlawfully, thus prolonging the wait times for those who are trying to 
enter our country through the normal legal process. And that all will 
be done at the taxpayer's expense.
  Clearly, these are the wrong solutions at this time. Our priority 
should be to ensure that every President has the necessary tools to put 
forward lawful priorities and not prevent them

[[Page H1951]]

from doing so. We should be focused on policies that will encourage 
legal immigration rather than just reacting to illegal immigration.
  It is important that we reinstate the ``Remain in Mexico Policy,'' 
also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols. We know this program 
helped limit fraudulent asylum claims from those who thought they would 
be able to just walk into the United States, and instead had to wait 
their turn for a hearing while remaining in Mexico. It is not a good 
idea to allow lawbreakers to jump in front of those who are here 
lawfully.

  We are still in the middle of a pandemic. Now, thankfully, the Biden 
administration has kept the Trump administration's CDC Title 42 
authority in place--oh, except for people younger than 17 years of age. 
We are on the verge of ending the pandemic, but we must ensure that we 
are doing everything we can to prevent additional spread of this 
coronavirus. Something that would aid in doing that is requiring a 
negative coronavirus test before someone is released into this country.
  What happened when, under an executive order, the Title 42 
restrictions were lifted for those under 17? A lot more people under 
age 17 started coming through, started coming across. The problem is, 
each of those individuals will eventually be placed with a family, and 
by not testing for coronavirus, we are risking placing individuals who 
are infected with the virus with families throughout the country.
  So during consideration of the reconciliation bill, the one that was 
supposed to crush the coronavirus, I offered a motion to instruct at 
the Budget Committee and an amendment at the Committee on Rules to 
provide for COVID testing for all arriving at our southern border. This 
was rejected in the Budget Committee, and the Committee on Rules would 
not make it in order to have a floor vote on that amendment.
  And once migrants are in our Federal custody, we do have 
responsibility that they receive appropriate and compassionate care. 
Under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
Subcommittee on Health, we have conducted oversight on the Department 
of Health and Human Services and the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
  Since 2014, I have made multiple trips to the border and multiple 
trips to ORR facilities. In the last few weeks, I visited Office of 
Refugee Resettlement shelters in Carrizo Springs, in McAllen and the 
convention center in downtown Dallas. Since my visit to the Carrizo 
Springs facility, it has been doubled in size. There are so few beds at 
ORR shelters along the border, there has been a need to expand further, 
which is why I visited the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in 
Dallas.
  It was startling to see those 2,400 cots lined up each to allow a 13- 
to 17-year-old boy to sleep at night. They were so close together, any 
restaurant that tried to open right now with tables placed that close 
together would be shut down by the public health authorities. And yet, 
here we were, in fact not just condoning it, we were facilitating it.
  Look, the bottom line is, this is not a capacity problem, it is a 
commitment problem. And we are, unfortunately, on a path to repeat 
history. Many of us here know the work done by the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce Subcommittee on Health in 2014. That work led to the 
unaccompanied minors receiving better health screenings, and better 
healthcare.
  When I visited shelters in 2014, the children did not have access to 
a doctor. They were not receiving any type of health screening. Today, 
they have access to a full range of medical and mental health resources 
and children are being screened for communicable diseases, children are 
being given vaccinations for the usual childhood diseases prior to 
their release to sponsors in this country. It makes sense to do that. 
This protects American communities; this protects American schools, 
where these children will eventually be enrolled.
  Today, when a child is released from an ORR facility, they have a 
phone number to contact the Department of Health and Human Services 
after they leave their shelter. And they will also receive a wellness 
check 30 days after their release to a sponsor.
  In 2014, it wasn't that way, children were not given any means of 
contact after they left Federal custody, and no follow up was 
conducted. And unfortunately, you know what is going to happen in that 
situation. Some children will not be placed with a competent caregiver, 
and they can fall victim to trafficking or abuse.
  Now, because of Members of the subcommittee and Members of the full 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, if children need help once they leave 
the shelter, they do have a lifeline. These are helpful resources for 
those who are entrusted to Federal care. My primary goal is to secure 
the border and to prevent unaccompanied minors from crossing the United 
States without benefit of citizenship in the first place. But while it 
is happening, we must do our best to ensure that they are safe after 
they arrive.
  I understand the care of children is a huge balancing act. Once they 
are in our care, it becomes our responsibility, and we must ensure that 
those traveling with them are not using them to game our immigration 
system. It is simply wrong and potentially harmful to the child, not to 
check that the adult with which they are traveling is, in fact, related 
or their legal guardian.
  Ultimately, we will have to put an end to this crisis. From our 
experiences, both recent and throughout history, we know that our 
rhetoric matters. The message must be clear: Do not cross the border 
unlawfully. For years, Presidents, Senators, Representatives, have 
promised to end ``catch-and-release'' and restore order on the southern 
border.
  The human traffickers, the coyotes in Central America, use our words 
spoken in Washington, D.C. They use our words to prey on the 
disadvantaged in Central American countries to entice families into 
putting their children on the top of a freight train to travel through 
the Mexican desert. And they do that by putting a price on the head of 
each child. They use our words to subject children to the violence of 
cartels, or worse, children who may not arrive in the United States 
after beginning that journey.

                              {time}  2045

  When we say, or even suggest, that children could receive amnesty at 
the border, we put innocent lives at risk. Our words turn these 
children into literal game pieces. We can be compassionate and we can 
provide a secure border at the same time. These two concepts are not 
mutually exclusive.
  In 1980, as former Deputy Secretary of State Bushnell recalled, 
Congress appropriated over $400 million to assist holding and settling 
Cuban refugees in the United States.
  And reflecting on that time, later, former Deputy Secretary Bushnell 
said, ``I used this appropriation as a key example of why foreign aid 
through the Caribbean Group was a good investment. It was much better 
to help our neighbors build a good economic future for themselves at 
home than to have a flood of desperate refugees, which would cost more 
money to settle.''
  I think, today, it would be wise to consider Secretary Bushnell's 
reasoning. Perhaps Congress could heed my recommendation to address how 
we send foreign aid to countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, and Mexico.
  Should it be tied to the care that their children receive?
  Here is the deal: Why should we reward countries whose children are 
fleeing for their safety to our country?
  Certainly, it is something worth consideration.
  It is simply irresponsible and it is inhumane for the American 
Government to incentivize anyone to subject themselves or their 
children to that perilous journey on our border. It was a lesson that 
President Clinton learned. It was a lesson that President Carter 
learned. It was a lesson that President Obama learned. And I do fear 
that it is a lesson that President Biden will learn.
  We know the solution. We do know what works. Simply put, enforcement 
of Title 42 protections for all age groups, not accepting those younger 
than 17. Accept enforcement of Title 42, the CDC requirement that, 
during a pandemic, we restrict travel across the border.
  Reinstitution of the Asylum Cooperative Agreements with Central 
American countries. At great negotiation

[[Page H1952]]

skill, these cooperative agreements were established, but, 
unfortunately, they have recently been abandoned. They could be 
reconsidered. They could be reestablished. We are going to have to have 
agreements with the countries of origin around asylum if we are going 
to be able to solve the problem.
  The Migrant Protection Protocol, ``Remain in Mexico,'' was 
successful. It did help in the assessment of the Asylum Cooperative 
Agreements. This could be reinstituted, and it is probably time that it 
was.
  In fact, it is past time to end a broken and inhumane pattern. It is 
past time to stop demonizing those who we ask to enforce our laws. It 
is past time to understand that nonenforcement of our laws does lead to 
inhumane actions.
  It is up to Congress. We are the legislative branch. We are the ones 
under the Constitution who are responsible for providing this security 
at our border. What is so critically important is that we must do it 
sooner rather than later.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________