[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 144 (Tuesday, September 17, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6086-S6090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Requests
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in the Biden-Harris America, children
disappear every day. You won't see their faces on any milk cartons.
Search parties aren't sent for them, and the AMBER alert almost never
sounds.
According to the Justice Department's filings, some of these children
reappear years later in emergency departments with injuries from
physical or sexual abuse. Others resurface as underaged laborers
working jobs that most adults won't even take, and many are never heard
from again.
These forgotten children are overlooked because they are
unaccompanied migrant children. These are the children who crossed into
the United States without their families--without their moms or dads.
By February 2023, the New York Times reported the Biden-Harris
administration could not reach 85,000 of the unaccompanied migrant
children that had entered the United States since 2021.
Then, in August of 2024, the Department of Homeland Security Office
of Inspector General found the government failed to enroll 291,000 of
these children in immigration proceedings over the last 5 years. Of
those that were enrolled, 32,000 never showed up to the court. Many of
them are missing.
Government employees working directly with these kids began to sound
the alarm. The Biden-Harris administration responded by quietly, very
quietly, suppressing attempts to save these missing children in order
to avoid a politically inconvenient narrative. And the very same
Democrats and members of the media who had actually decried Trump-era
immigration policies stayed silent. The media didn't do their job of
properly pointing out wrongs, except when you have a Republican
President.
At least one whistleblower was actually walked offsite at a shelter
for
[[Page S6087]]
these children for reporting that children were in danger to law
enforcement. Other whistleblowers told my office they were denied
access to records that might have raised concerns about children being
trafficked.
The most consistent whistleblower complaint that I received was that
law enforcement was not given the information needed to save missing
children.
Desperate to find these kids, at least one Homeland Security agent
asked a whistleblower to establish information-sharing channels on
imperiled children because there was no formal channel in place for
this information to be shared.
Now, we all know that denying law enforcement access to this
lifesaving information was part of the Biden-Harris immigration plan.
Three months into their term, the Biden-Harris administration tore up
information sharing, an agreement between Homeland Security
Investigations and the officials responsible for running the
Unaccompanied Children Program.
They replaced that agreement with a watered-down agreement that
deleted provisions requiring sponsors to be vetted and run through
certain law enforcement checks before receiving custody of a child.
Today, law enforcement has significantly less involvement in vetting
sponsors, even if the sponsor is a complete stranger to the child. Now,
this is not family reunification, as the Biden administration wants the
entire country to believe.
According to government statistics, between October 2021 and
September 2022, over 18,000 children were given to distant relatives or
unrelated adults.
Now, turning over custody of a child is one of the most consequential
actions a caseworker can ever take. From there on out, every decision
made for the child belongs to the sponsor--financial, housing, medical,
you name it, the sponsor is in control of their decisions.
I can't imagine having every decision critical to my survival turned
over to a complete stranger who the government hasn't even fully
vetted, but child safety wasn't this administration's priority.
Now, thanks to whistleblowers, we have been provided records and
disclosures that were so bad I had to refer the information to law
enforcement way back in January to try and rescue kids. But given the
poor vetting, it is much harder to find those same kids.
As illegal border crossings surged, pressure mounted from the top of
the bureaucracy to process kids faster, to avoid accusations of ``kids
in cages.'' During a conference call, Secretary Becerra of HHS
admonished his employees that they weren't moving kids out to sponsors
fast enough.
That is the environment that I am talking about--getting things done
quickly so you can't be politically criticized like Trump was
criticized.
Secretary Becerra said:
This is not the way you do an assembly line.
Program operators knew this politically motivated rush could have
dangerous consequences, but they proceeded anyway. One official said
the quiet part out loud to a whistleblower trying to intervene to
protect endangered kids. She was told:
We only get sued if we keep kids in care [of the
government] too long. We don't get sued by traffickers.
Now, can you believe that approach to protecting kids? The Biden
administration has published wave after wave of field guidance meant to
push kids to sponsors faster and cover up the consequences of this
haste.
They removed fingerprint requirements for sponsors claiming to be
parents or legal guardians, even without sufficient verification;
simply this, just ``I am who I say I am.''
They released kids to sponsors before background checks had been
completed. They denied law enforcement access to photographs of
children.
Now, during a Senate Finance hearing, Senator Cornyn asked Secretary
Becerra who the Biden-Harris administration believes is responsible for
making sure that these children aren't being trafficked. Secretary
Becerra said it is ``the communities where they enter,'' so just some
community, anyplace in the United States, to be responsible, to make
sure that these children are treated and not being trafficked.
I am not sure if the Biden-Harris administration ever stopped to
wonder how local law enforcement looks after a child when this
administration won't even give them a photograph of an endangered
child.
I am told that law enforcement can't.
What resulted from this administration's disastrous policies almost
inevitably was the systematic abuse and disappearance of migrant
children. Whistleblowers fought in vain to prevent children from going
to men who sexualized them, MS-13 gang-affiliated sponsors, and also
sponsors who were mass applying for kids. We had an example where one
address someplace, some city in this country, was used to get massive
numbers of kids under that address. Just hearing that ought to scare
anyone.
One whistleblower told my office they called a sponsor, only to hear
a child's agonizing screams before the line then was quickly
disconnected. Whistleblowers testified on all this in heartbreaking
detail at an oversight roundtable that I led on this topic just this
year in July.
I have lost count of the number of reports and letters sent by
Congress to the unaccompanied migrant children's program actually
sounding alarms that have gone unheeded, even ignored. Each highlighted
program vulnerabilities, and there are plenty of those vulnerabilities.
Each made recommendations that could have saved lives.
Now, I have been involved in this in a bipartisan way for a long
period of time. My decade of bipartisan oversight has revealed an
unaccompanied migrant children program in which abuse and misconduct
have become routine and tolerated.
For example, in 2021, Oregon Democratic Senator Wyden and I warned of
the rampant sexual abuse of unaccompanied migrant children in the care
of contractors, especially Southwest Key. Now, remember that
contractor's name is Southwest Key--not a very good place to put kids.
The Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General also
identified issues with Southwest Key's self-dealing and compensation.
Now, as part of my ongoing investigation, for months I have requested
from Southwest Key and other contractors and grantees basic information
on their care of unaccompanied children, including whether these
contractors performed background checks of their employees before they
had access to these kids. Southwest Key has failed to fully respond to
this inquiry, actually thumbing their nose at the U.S. Congress. Still
the government kept giving Southwest Key contracts to care for these
unaccompanied minor kids.
What followed all these contracts? Do we know that the kids are safe
or not safe? Well, a recent Justice Department lawsuit alleges ``a
pattern or practice of severe or pervasive sexual harassment of
children in Southwest Key's care.'' So just think, this Justice
Department has said that with this contractor, there is pervasive
sexual harassment of children in their care. So we have to ask
ourselves, if we are humanitarians, how many more children have to
endure abuse before Congress finally says enough is enough? I say it
shouldn't be even one more.
I am offering a bill, then--that is why I am here--that denies future
contracts to bad actors who have been identified by the Justice
Department as abusing unaccompanied migrant children. After applying
due process, those government contracts would cease until the Justice
Department certifies that the conditions leading to the abuse--that
those conditions are taken care of, they are over.
I think this is a very commonsense solution that no politician, no
Member of the Senate, Republican or Democrat, should stand against.
So I now make a request, Mr. President. As if in legislative session,
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of S. 5073, which is at the desk; further, that the bill
be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). Is there objection?
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I will
share a few of my thoughts on this, but first I wanted to note that my
colleague from Iowa is celebrating his birthday today. So a very happy
birthday to you.
[[Page S6088]]
Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you.
Mr. MERKLEY. And I understand it is his 91st; is that correct?
We should all want to be able to engage in public policy and public
debate and dialogue when we have reached the start of our 10th decade,
so congratulations to you.
Mr. GRASSLEY. It is kind of you to say that. Thank you.
Mr. MERKLEY. This topic that you have brought up today is one that I
have had deep engagement in because I share your concerns about these
congregate care facilities.
Back in 2018, I was the first Member of the House or Senate to go
down to the border and to witness the separation of children from their
parents and then to go up the road to knock on the door of Casa de
Padre, which was run by Southwest Key, where I had heard a rumor that
perhaps a thousand boys were being warehoused. When I knocked on the
door, they didn't want to let me in to see what was going on, so we did
a live stream feed of the conversation. I was trying to get the manager
to come out and brief me, and the manager said, yes, he would be out,
but actually what he did was he called the police to have me arrested.
The police didn't arrest me, but they did tell me that Casa de Padre,
run by this organization, Southwest Key, had no interest in letting a
Member of Congress come inside, a Member of the Senate come inside;
move on. But because this was live-streamed, it became national news.
As a result of that, the press got in the following weekend, and I was
able to go back with a group of legislators 2 weeks later.
So I very much understand the challenge in the congregate care system
and undertook a deep dive with experts across the country on, how do we
address this problem? The long and short of it is, those experts all
came together, and they helped draft a bill called the Children's Safe
Welcome Act, because the issues that exist at Southwest Key are not
unique to Southwest Key. In fact, we have had really deep challenges in
one congregate care facility after another. Putting children into
large, mass settings just does not at all provide a foundation for them
to thrive.
I will just note that this policy brief--and I ask unanimous consent
that the policy brief by the Women's Refugee Commission be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[Women's Refugee Commission, Aug. 2023]
Decreasing ORR's Dependence on Congregate Care: Four Recommendations
for Progress
POLICY BRIEF
Since its inception, the Unaccompanied Children Program
under the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has relied on
congregate care for its custody of unaccompanied children.
Congregate care is a catch-all term for group homes and
larger institutions that care for many children away from
families (see below for more details). Over the past decade,
while the domestic child-welfare system has drastically
reduced the use of mass congregate settings and emphasized
kinship settings and family-like placements that are better
for children's well-being, ORR has increased its reliance on
large settings. For example, as of 2019 more than 90 percent
of unaccompanied migrant children have been held in
facilities with more than 50 beds, despite evidence that
congregate care risks harming children's long-term mental
health. Experts concur that ``any amount of time that a young
person spends in an institutional placement is too long.''
Children averaged 30 days in ORR care in fiscal year 2022,
while the length of stay was considerably longer for children
placed in more restrictive settings.
It is critical that ORR engage in a long-term effort to
move away from congregate care and toward more appropriate
practices of community-based programs or family-like foster
care placements. Until this happens, a critical step to
limiting congregate care includes safe reductions of length
of stay. Any guiding vision should include community-based
programs that offer a high quality of care, minimal time away
from family, and reunifications to safe, stable homes.
Based upon ongoing research that the Women's Refugee
Commission conducted with current and former staff at
congregate care facilities, post-release service providers,
attorneys, and child advocates across the United States, this
policy brief details concrete steps toward minimizing the use
of congregate care for unaccompanied children. The brief also
identifies four ways to enlist culturally sensitive,
evidence-based, and trauma-informed approaches in working
with young people within and beyond current ORR facilities.
They are: (1) adopting geolocation in children's initial
placements (i.e., placing children in a facility close to
their family or sponsor); (2) building a pipeline of
community-based care providers; (3) improving language access
for non-Spanish-speaking children in custody; and (4)
enhancing post-release services. Taken together, these
efforts are critical to reducing ORR's reliance on congregate
care, limiting children's length of stay in federal custody,
and ensuring their safety following release.
What is congregate care?
Although congregate care is defined by the Department of
Health and Human Services to include group homes with custody
of as few as 7-12 children, in the ORR context, congregate
care typically refers to ``a licensed or approved child care
facility operated by a public or private agency and providing
24-hour care and/or treatment typically for 12 or more
children who require separation from their own homes or a
group living experience.''
ORR continues to rely predominantly on a network of very
large facilities--50 beds or more--despite a precipitous
shift away from institutional-based care for children
nationally. ORR has a greater percentage of congregate care
facilities in its provider network than states generally
permit for domestic child-welfare placements. Similarly,
ORR's congregate care facilities are larger than their
counterparts in the domestic child-welfare systems. In 2021
and 2022, tens of thousands of unaccompanied children were
held in emergency intake sites (EISs) and influx care
facilities (ICFs) in converted convention centers, stadiums,
and military bases. Ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 beds, EISs
and ICFs are unlicensed by state child welfare authorities
and not bound by conditions stipulated by the Flores
Settlement Agreement.
Interviews with ORR stakeholders, including child
psychologists, social workers, and family reunification
specialists in ORR facilities, underscore the potential and
actual harm that congregate care facilities can cause for
children. Interviewees reported limited outdoor activity,
restricted contact with parents and caregivers, and
discriminatory treatment of LGBTQI+, Indigenous, and West
African youth. Stakeholders described children simultaneously
struggling to cope with the uncertainty of family
reunification, procedural opacity, ongoing legal proceedings,
and the possibility of deportation. Taken together, our
research concludes that children should be reunified with
family or sponsors as quickly as possible, while ensuring
their safety and adequate support following release.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIMITING CONGREGATE CARE AND BOLSTERING POST-
RELEASE SERVICES
1. In initial placement decisions, geolocation is a best
practice.
Stakeholders agreed unanimously that geolocation is a best
practice and should be adopted as ORR policy. That is, when a
child is transferred from U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to ORR custody, efforts should be made to place them in
an ORR facility in the geographical area where the child's
family (specifically, a Category 1 or Category 2 sponsor) is
located. For children who may not know where family members
live, the potential sponsor's area code can serve as a proxy,
given that most children arrive with a family member's phone
number.
Interviewees contended that geolocation is advantageous for
several reasons. First, placement close to family facilitates
communication with and support of the sponsor in completing
the requisite paperwork, which can be cumbersome.
Interviewees working with children in ORR custody believed
that, in general, children are released sooner when placed
near their parent or family member. Second, visitation with
potential sponsors can reduce the stress of children who
spend protracted time in ORR custody. This is especially
applicable for children who are reunifying with parents or
family members after prolonged separations. Third, family
reunification specialists reported that observing the child
with the potential sponsor can identify or alleviate safety
concerns; if needed, specialists can more quickly turn to a
more appropriate sponsor or placement. Fourth, geolocation
allows legal service providers who have already prescreened
children while in ORR custody to continue to provide legal
representation following release. This additionally
alleviates the considerable financial and logistical burden
on children to find legal representation in a new location.
Fifth, geolocation can aid with warm handoffs to area social
service providers who provide key resources, such as
information about state laws for securing health insurance
and assistance with school enrollment. Lastly, geolocating
children close to family members relieves travel costs for
ORR and logistical burdens of transportation arrangements for
facility staff.
2. ORR must build a pipeline of community-based care
providers.
The ultimate goal of ending congregate care, including
large-scale facilities, for unaccompanied children will not
happen overnight. Despite repeated directives from Congress,
ORR has failed to take adequate meaningful steps necessary to
limit its reliance on congregate care. ORR must proactively
invest in long-term, community-based programs for
unaccompanied children. This includes launching a series of
pilot programs that are culturally sensitive, evidence
[[Page S6089]]
based, and trauma informed. Over the long run, these
community-based placements will prove cost-affective when
compared to the daily cost of $775 per bed in influx
facilities and $290 per bed in shelters and the nearly
$4.79 billion spent on emergency influx and intake
facilities.
Networks of community-based care exist in the domestic
child welfare system. including community-based placements,
small group homes, and foster care. These programs provide
trauma-focused, intensive care for children and youth in
home-like environments that facilitate their healthy
development. Children attend local schools and are integrated
into the community. To establish a pipeline of providers, the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and ORR
should:
provide technical training assistance to community-based
organizations to navigate federal funding applications,
operational requirements, and reporting;
engage outside child welfare experts, subject matter
experts, and impacted community members to conduct site
visits and provide consultation and recommendations to
community-based organizations;
create a public plan to transition to 100 percent small-
scale facilities with attention to the known challenges
across contracting and grant-making, staffing limitations,
availability, outreach, recruitment of potential providers,
program officer oversight, and organizational reporting;
improve handoffs to community service providers in areas
where unaccompanied children reunite with family; and
prescreen sites and secure contracts of a variety of models
of care in advance, rather than identifying out-of-network
placements on a case- by-case basis.
3. Rectify problems of children's language access in care.
ORR and its subcontractors are required by law ``to take
reasonable steps to provide meaningful access'' to
interpretation. According to interviewees, however,
children's rights to use their primary language and their
access to interpreters are regularly sidestepped within ORR
facilities. The primarily affected children are Indigenous
children from Central America who are presumed to speak
Spanish, but whose primary languages are often Indigenous
languages. When asked why language lines are not used,
facility staff described the inconvenience of scheduling
telephonic interpreters when they can ``get by'' in Spanish,
that interpretation prolongs meetings with children amid high
caseloads, and a lack of awareness of children's language
rights due to high staff turnover within facilities. Further,
several respondents reported that children are dissuaded from
using their native language with other children, and are even
separated to different pods or during activities to ensure
that staff can understand the conversations. According to
researchers, the deliberate separation of children from the
same linguistic communities is a form of linguistic racism.
Legal advocates said that children are misidentified as
potentially trafficked and, conversely, not flagged as
trafficked or vulnerable to trafficking because of mistakes
in the intake and family reunification processes when an
interpreter is not used.
Language-proficiency problems negatively impact the quality
of children's care in ORR custody and likely lengthen the
time that children spend apart from their families. ORR
should expressly prohibit practices that prevent children
from using their chosen language; incorporate training
guidance for facility staff; provide translated signage in
all facilities of many of the dominant languages of children
in their custody; and provide regular monitoring that
facilities are complying with children's consistent and
meaningful access to interpretation. In addition, at time of
intake, ORR should direct facility staff to ask children
their first language and to use language access lines when
completing all required intakes. For children, the use of
their own language relieves stress, provides cultural
familiarity, and enhances communication. While more time and
cost intensive, the use of interpretation ensures greater
accuracy of information and safety of the child's eventual
placement.
4. Provide localized, wrap-around services for unaccompanied
children released to a non-relative sponsor.
Post-release services (PRS) are contracted, social-service
support provided to children following their release from ORR
custody. PRS currently operate via bridging and referral
programming in which a PRS worker connects the child and
sponsor to critical mental health, medical, legal, and
educational resources in their local community via a series
of phone calls, mailings. or emails. Depending on the need,
in-person visits are conducted. Stakeholders interviewed for
this study, including PRS providers, affirmed the importance
of localized services for children following release from ORR
custody and called for expanded, in-person services for all
children.
One stakeholder explained how teenagers are commonly
prohibited from enrolling in public schools despite their
legal right to attend school: ``They need someone
knowledgeable about the US to accompany and advocate for them
when school administrators are unlawfully turning them
away.'' Others emphasized that PRS should be provided by
local service providers who are knowledgeable of the nuances
of state law and educational practices that may obstruct
school enrollment, and who have up-to-date information
regarding service availability. One stakeholder explained,
``The flyers provided are out of date or organizations on the
forms are maxed out; kids really need people who have
relationships with a community of providers.'' As one PRS
provider stated, ``They need accompaniment, not more
flyers.''
One challenge is that current PRS schemes are insufficient
to meet the diverse needs of unaccompanied children. An ideal
approach is to align PRS to a localized, wrap-around service
model. Interviewees emphasized, however, that PRS should
never be used to delay the reunification of a child and
sponsor and that families should continue to be allowed to
decline the services.
Given renewed concerns about the labor exploitation of
unaccompanied children, ORR should:
offer PRS to all children released to a non-relative
sponsor (``category 3'' sponsors);
offer PRS if requested by the child, family, or sponsor;
include an immediate, individualized needs assessment for
child, sponsor, and family (as relevant) following release in
all levels of PRS;
ensure that PRS needs assessments result in local. in-
person social-service brokerage rather than remote referrals;
and
eliminate the PRS backlog--which, at the time of writing,
stands at well over 10,000 cases--with a goal that PRS
appointments be in place when reunification occurs.
In contrast to traditional PRS services, which are service
driven and problem based, wrap-around services enlist a
strengths-based, needs-driven approach that builds on
individual and family strengths. Wrap-around services are
evidence-based, culturally responsive accompaniment practices
that promote child and family involvement in setting goals to
ensure children's well-being. These services are also more
effective in ensuring children are safe given the close and
trusting relationship children have with their care team.
Engaging in local, community-based partnerships to provide
wrap-around services simultaneously will strengthen ORR's
network for placing children in the least restrictive
environment and move the US toward ending congregate care for
all children.
This policy brief was written by Lauren Heidbrink, PhD,
associate professor of human development at California State
University, Long Beach, and consultant for the Women's
Refugee Commission. It was reviewed and edited by Katharina
Obser, Mario Bruzzone, Dale Buscher, Joanna Kuebler, and
Diana Quick of the Women's Refugee Commission.
For more information. contact Mario Bruzzone.
Women's Refugee Commission
The Women's Refugee Commission (WRC) improves the lives and
protects the rights of women, children, and youth who have
been displaced by conflict and crisis. We research their
needs, identify solutions, and advocate for programs and
policies to strengthen their resilience and drive change in
humanitarian practice. Since our founding in 1989, we have
been a leading expert on the needs of refugee women,
children, and youth and the policies that can protect and
empower them. womensrefugeecommission.org.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it is called ``Decreasing OOR's
Dependence on Congregate Care: Four Recommendations of Progress,''
written by the Women's Refugee Commission. But I assure you, this
document is not alone. There is commission after commission, expert
after expert who has weighed in to say that we have to eliminate these
congregate care facilities, which is exactly what the Children's Safe
Welcome Act does.
You know, these are children who are going through the process of
claiming refugee status, and they are going to go through an
adjudication of that status, and they are either going to be able to
stay in the United States--and that is eventually adjudicated--or they
are going to be sent back home.
If they are going to stay in the United States, we want a strong
foundation for them to thrive as residents of our Nation. If they go
back home, we want a strong foundation for them to thrive back home in
the country they left.
In either case, we have a moral responsibility to these children.
That moral responsibility compels us to eliminate these congregate care
facilities that are not the right setting. Children should be quickly
sent to small settings, to homes. They should be in school. They should
be with host families. When there isn't a host family that is related,
they should be with a host family that is providing a foundation for
them. They shouldn't be in a mass congregate care facility--the name
sounds much nicer than the reality.
So I am not going to take the time tonight to go through all of these
various reports on how bad congregate care is for the children because
I think
[[Page S6090]]
you have already touched on how bad it is with one provider. But
shutting down one provider and sending them to other congregate care
facilities now means the system is maxed out, which means the children
coming in not only go to the remaining beds in a system that is maxed
out, it also means that now we have to create temporary influx
facilities, which are far worse than congregate care.
So this plan I know is so well-intentioned, and I certainly share the
criticisms of the particular company you are addressing, but this is
not the right answer. The right answer isn't to max out congregate care
and create temporary influx facilities that are even worse; the answer
is to get rid of these congregate care facilities and do what report
after report, recommendation after recommendation has said will provide
a foundation for these children to do well.
The National Center for Youth Law said that these influx facilities
that would have to be created ``placed children's safety and welfare at
risk.''
The Customs and Border Patrol facilities, which are the other option
if we don't create the influx facilities, are described as so dangerous
that children have died.
It goes on and on and on.
So given your deep interest in this topic and, really, desire for the
children to be well-treated, I wanted to invite you to join me in this
structure, this bill, the Children's Safe Welcome Act. Experts have
said this is the right thing to do for the children.
For that reason, I will do the formal request, but the informal is, I
know your heart is in the right place. I know you are pointing out
flaws that are very, very real and that I have been personally
witnessing since 2018. But the answer isn't more congregate care for
these kids or influx facilities or Customs and Border Protection; it is
eliminating these congregate facilities and doing what expert after
expert, panel after panel has suggested.
So I am following up here. I ask that you, Senator Grassley, modify
your request and that the Merkley amendment at the desk be considered
and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would
like to speak to this issue a little bit and point out some of the
shortcomings of what Senator Merkley is trying to accomplish by
amending my motion.
I see this amendment merely cementing into place the Biden-Harris
policy that lost more than 85,000 migrant children. Can you believe
that? If there was any question whether Democrats prioritize speed over
safety when it comes to pushing migrant kids out the door, this
partisan amendment lays that question to rest.
I think I made very clear, in giving reasons for my legislation, how
this is really a big problem. Now, the text of what Senator Merkley is
asking me to do mandates that the government make a placement
determination for a child not later than 7 days after the government
receives a sponsored application. Fingerprint-based background checks
aren't required. And even the criminal record of a sponsor isn't
necessarily disqualified.
Now, a question: What if a sponsor has no preexisting relationship to
the child? Think of that. Well, that is not a problem for this
proposal. The fact that a sponsor has no preexisting relationship to a
child cannot be the sole basis for denying sponsorship under this
Democrat-led solution.
This amendment just willy-nilly turns over children to sponsors who
foot-drag on providing the documents needed to verify sponsor identity
and safety. I can't imagine a loving parent or guardian slow rolling
the paperwork needed to reunite with their child.
To most folks, that would be a very clear red flag, but not to
Democrats. For them, it is just an administrative inconvenience.
So just understand, this Democratic solution allows the government to
release children to sponsors even if there is a risk of harm to that
child. According to this text, that is fine, so long as post-release
services are in place. In fact, those are the only conditions under
which post-release services are required according to this modification
presented to me.
After directing the government to make what could be life-or-death
decisions for a child on virtually no information, the bill restricts
the ability to share lifesaving information with law enforcement.
Let's go back to what I laid down. I came to the floor tonight to
offer a commonsense solution to deny bad actors access to kids. My bill
would put contractors on notice that they can't willfully blind
themselves to child abuse in order to get rich off taxpayers' dollars.
Democrats couldn't even take that blindness seriously.
I encourage my colleagues to read the Justice Department's recent
complaint against Southwest Key. I referred to the same Justice
Department action in my opening remarks. This is what Justice found
out, among other horrors: That complaint describes the repeated sexual
abuse of a 5-year-old girl, the prostitution of a 15-year-old boy, and
acts of a contractor desperate to even cover up all those wrongdoings.
So thanks to this Democrat-led effort, Congress won't prevent
contractors like them from getting access to more kids and more
taxpayers' dollars.
So, Senator Merkley, I am sorry to say that your modification doesn't
do what I am trying to accomplish and leaves in place too much the
status quo; so I have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Is there an objection to the original request?
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would
just like to note that this bill, put together by the best child
welfare experts across the country, has in it a requirement under
section 223 requiring background checks to be conducted for each
resident of a foster care placement for a noncitizen child. It
prohibits children from being placed in a home if a resident has a
conviction for child abuse or trafficking or convicted of any offense
that has a direct and immediate impact on the safety of a child.
I know that these sorts of dialogues--our staff worked quickly to try
to prepare responses. But your actual criticisms are inaccurate. And,
indeed, what these experts say is that a child should be put in the
least restrictive setting that approximates a family in which the
child's needs can best be met consistent with the best interests and
special needs of that child.
The experts know congregate care is not the place to do that. The
problems that exist in one mass setting are bad, but they exist in the
other mass settings. So I do invite you--because I know you want to do
the best for the children--to meet with the same experts who live this,
night and day, seeking to have a system that creates a safe welcome for
children and allows them to thrive so that when they get to that point
of that asylum hearing, whether they head back to their home country or
whether they become residents of the United States, they will be in a
great place, not the sort of terrible place that congregate facilities
put them. And, unfortunately, your approach continues to rely upon
those very congregate facilities experts say need to be eliminated.
So for that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.