Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on behalf of myself and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Reed, I object. We are in a process where we are trying to clear amendments, and we are making good progress on this bill. I understand Senator Paul has raised an issue that is issue, but it does not belong on this bill and indeed would result in this bill not progressing.

We are trying to get back to regular order on the appropriations process. With cooperation, I am confident we could finish this important appropriations bill today. We could show the American people that we can govern and fund essential transportation and housing programs that are included in this bill. By and large, we have had excellent bipartisan cooperation. I was hoping we could move to the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas--a member of the Republican leadership--and cosponsored by the Senate Democratic leader. It is an amendment that I believe we could dispense with quickly, and we would then be able to continue to work through the amendments on this bill.

Since the amendment from the Senator from Kentucky would grind this bill to a halt and does not belong on this bill--and there will be other opportunities to deal with this issue because the House is going to be passing legislation this week dealing with the issues raised by the Senator from Kentucky--I will object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

The majority whip.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I agree with the senior Senator from Maine and the bill manager that the concerns Senator Paul has raised, which are shared by many of us as far as the adequacy of the screening process for the refugees coming to our country, is a serious matter. It is a matter, as the Senator from Maine has said, that will be voted on today, and my prediction is that there will be broad bipartisan support for the additional security measures contained in that bill.

This is a transportation bill, and it is very important for us to get our work done, and unfortunately that is appearing more and more difficult.

If I could say a word about my amendment because this is an important matter to me and to my State, as well as to other States. My amendment would direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct cost-benefit determinations for new airports which are seeking entry into the federal tower program but have been unnecessarily prohibited by the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA's current moratorium on accepting new airports negatively impacts airport sponsors that have already submitted their applications to the FAA, including the North Texas Regional Airport in Grayson County, TX. I know there are airports like that around the country, which is why this amendment has such broad bipartisan support.

This amendment would simply require the Secretary of Transportation to process applications that have already been submitted--in some cases years ago--but have been punished by this arbitrary administrative delay. It would not have any negative impact on any current contract tower airports and would only allow new airports to be admitted to the program if funds are available.

I am grateful to Senator Collins and Senator Reed for their favorable consideration of this amendment, and I hope we can work through the objection raised by the Senator from Kentucky so we can process this legislation and pass it in the near future.

NATIONAL ADOPTION MONTH

Madam President, on another note, I wanted to say a few words about National Adoption Month.

Yesterday, Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, convened a very important hearing on the subject of international adoptions; specifically, ensuring that the process--which at times can be bogged down in bureaucratic redtape and take an excruciatingly long time to complete--remains a priority for this administration.

Last year, if my recollection serves me correctly, there were about 22,000 intercountry adoptions. In other words, there were families here in the United States who wanted to adopt these children who, in many circumstances, have very poor prospects in the countries where they were born.

As I said, this is National Adoption Month. I am glad Senator Grassley enabled us to highlight the challenges of people who are trying to adopt children from, for example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There are about 400 adopted children the government of the Congo will not release. Yesterday, many of us, on a bipartisan basis, met with the ambassador and asked: What is the way forward for these families and these children, many of whom are in pretty poor circumstances back in their home country.

Americans, of course, adopt not only children from their local communities or their State, but from literally around the world. It is something we ought to encourage. Devoted parents who make the decision to adopt ought to be commended for providing an opportunity for a better life for a child in need and for providing support and the love that all children need and deserve.

One of the things that struck me yesterday during the hearing, as we heard from the State Department, are the numerous protections that are embedded within the adoption process to ensure that these internationally adopted children are placed in safe homes and how important they are for protection of these children. These measures include commonsense safeguards such as thorough background checks, intensive interviews with potential parents, multiple visits to the child's future home, and, of course, proper vetting of other people who will be living under the same roof. This is important for the protection of this adopted child.

This is a process that puts safety and the interests of the child first, and I think we would all agree that is exactly where that priority should stand: the best interests of the child first.

So while it was reassuring to me to hear about these rigorous requirements that our government has put in place to protect these adopted children, I was reminded that protecting children during the placement process should not be just limited to when we are talking about adoptions. Over the last two fiscal years, more than 95,000 unaccompanied children have crossed our southern border without legal permit, the large majority of them making a perilous and deadly journey across thousands of miles from Central America. We can only imagine the horrible circumstances that parents must see and the poor prospects for their own children's future for them to turn them over to essentially criminal organizations that will then ferry them, if they are lucky, from their country of origin through Mexico and into the United States. But the surge of which we are all familiar--again, 95,000 unaccompanied children in just the last 2 years--has exposed the vulnerability of our southern border to human smugglers and transnational criminal networks. As a matter of fact, I asked one of the witnesses at the hearing yesterday: Are the same criminal organizations that engage in human trafficking and illegal immigration and illegal importation of drugs--are they all the same people?

He said: Absolutely.

I don't know how we can turn a blind eye to some of the illegal immigration issues and to say we are completely outraged at the drug trafficking going on between our countries or the human trafficking going on between our countries when, in fact, that activity is being conducted by exactly the same criminal organizations that have one interest in mind, and it is not the best interest of the child. It is money. They view children as a commodity just as they view drugs as a commodity.

Yesterday's hearing showed us that the lack of border security can cause a humanitarian crisis that endangers the lives of children who were turned over by their parents and then smuggled into the United States. We know from numerous reports and testimony that children on this journey are preyed upon in the form of human trafficking, rape, and even murder. Many of them don't even make it here because they are killed along the way, held hostage, perhaps for ransom, or otherwise assaulted. To this day, we still have no idea how many children and parents have perished during this unprecedented surge across our border. Once these children arrive here in the United States, I think--I would hope--we would all agree that it is our joint and collective responsibility to do what we can to protect them and ensure that they are no longer preyed upon by criminals and human traffickers.

Current law requires that within 72 hours of being located by law enforcement officials, a child be placed in the protective custody of the Department of Health and Human Services so they can be protected from the danger of abuse and exposure to forms of violence. Unfortunately, current law also requires that these children be released, sometimes even to nonfamily members, sometimes even to noncitizens, without any assurance or systematic protections that they are being sent into a safe environment--certainly nothing even remotely approaching the sort of care and precautions that we use when it comes to international adoptions.

As I heard yesterday, the administration is capable of making these assurances in the context of international adoptions, so why would we not take steps to ensure that the same level of protection is there for these unaccompanied children?

During the surge of these children across our border in 2014, I stood right here and I posed two very important questions: Could anyone in the administration say with certainty that the children being released from U.S. custody were leaving with an actual family member? Believe it or not, there is no legal requirement that these children be turned over to an actual family member. Also, could the administration say with certainty that none of these children have been handed over to an adult with a criminal record?

The answer to both of these questions was and continues to be no, and that ought to shock our collective conscience. Sadly, we don't know how many of these children have fallen into the wrong hands.

Earlier this year, four individuals were indicted for their involvement in a trafficking ring that smuggled unaccompanied Guatemalan children into the United States and forced them into slave labor at egg farms in Ohio. These children faced horrific conditions, including long work hours, abuse, threats, and exploitation. But even more shockingly, many of these children could have been spared if the Federal Government and the Department of Health and Human Services had an adequate system for screening and vetting the nongovernmental sponsors for these unaccompanied children. None of the protections--none of the protections--that are available for international adoptions have been applied here to protect these children.

The human traffickers in this case that I mentioned were able to gain custody of these children by simply showing up at an HHS shelter, telling the U.S. Government that they were family friends, and submitting a fake family reunification application. This is unacceptable, and it is our duty to these children to make sure that we do a better job of protecting them, just as we do in cases of international adoption.

I know that our colleague from Ohio, Senator Portman, in his oversight role in the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is taking a hard look at this process through which we move unaccompanied children out of protective custody and into the hands of potential danger--not even family members, not even citizens, no criminal background check, and absolutely no way to know what the government is turning these children over to. I look forward to reviewing the findings of his forthcoming report, and I hope we can make efforts to implement his recommendations.

Last Congress, I was proud to be the author and sponsor of a piece of legislation that we called Helping Unaccompanied Alien Minors and Alleviating National Emergency Act--or the HUMANE Act--which would require all potential sponsors of unaccompanied children to undergo a rigorous biometric background and criminal history check. This is bipartisan legislation. Though there is certainly more we can do to ensure an acceptable screening process, I believe that the protections in my legislation are a good start and would make a difference.

So I urge my colleagues, or anybody else who may be listening, as we reflect on National Adoption Month and the appropriate protections we put in place for international adoptions, to think about these almost 100,000 other children who have crossed our borders over the last few years and who were afforded none of the protections that we afford adopted children.

I truly hope we will take a comprehensive look at the concerns I have raised here today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source