24. Section 234
The Department opposes subsection (a) as an excessively burdensome and unnecessary creation of a new layer of bureaucracy within our agency. The Department does not believe that there is currently any lack of coordination, and a new position could lead to duplication of efforts. Furthermore, subsection (a}(2)(A} incorrectly lists the Civil Division and not the Civil Rights Division.
255 Section 236
In subsection (a), DOJ questions the reliability of the congressional findings, especially with respect to the estimated number of victims and the inference that the lack of child victims is directly related to a lack of education individuals who may come into contact with human trafficking victims. Such findings, without a full body of evidence, are counter-productive.
The Department also opposes subsection (b). The Attorney General should be involved in any program that focuses on combating child trafficking at the border. We propose that section (b}(1} is amended fo read “The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, Attorney Genera], and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.” Further, most of the children interdicted at the border are used for smuggling and are not trafficking victims. In subsection (b)(5)(D), DOJ believes that the proceedings for removal to non- contiguous countries are problematic because DHS needs more flexibility to handle gang members, terrorists, repeat offenders, and state offenders. Furthermore, the terrorism exception provided is too narrow to protect the national security interests of the country.
We oppose subsection (c)(1) to the extent that it limits the Administration's ability to determine the best arrangement for custody or various classes of UACs. The administration will work with DHS, DOJ, and HHS to refine and modify current detention practices where necessary. The interagency process is the best forum to consider the various interests of unaccompanied minors and law enforcement and to develop and adapt policies thai, among other things, provide for the safety of all concerned. We look forward to discussing these developments with Congress in the future.
The Department opposes subsection (d)(2) as too narrowly construed. There are numerous reasons, outside of the child proving to be a danger to himself or others, that require children to be kept in a secure facility, including the safety of the child from danger that is not self-imposed. In addition, the standard for placing minors in “secure” care is too strict. It requires the “least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.” HHS only places 1.4 percent of minors in its care into a “secure” custody arrangement. This could mean that minors who need this arrangement would instead be housed with children who have no history of violence or criminal behavior. HHS needs more flexibility and there should not, therefore, be required to make an “independent finding” of the child’s danger to self or others.
DOJ opposes the language of subsection (d)(3)(c) that would afford HHS access to law enforcement sensitive databases.
1]
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012382