Discussion · Senate
Eric Schmitt Republican
“I oppose this bill. It shuts down an immigration detention center instead of fixing its problems. Closing it will only crowd other centers, move detainees farther away, or release people who should be held. We should give the center more doctors, nurses, and money to make it safe, not shut it down.”
“Madam President, reserving the right to object. I have been advised to address this so-called Delaney Hall Closure Act. My colleague’s bill, though, really doesn’t do anything to address the issues that he has raised. He doesn’t hire a single doctor. He doesn’t ask a single nurse. It doesn’t require a single inspection. It simply orders the Department of Homeland Security to close Delaney Hall, cancel its contract, and permanently prevent ICE from using the facility again. Two pages, three commands: Close it, cancel it, never open it again. That is abolition with a short title. The diagnosis is ideological, and the prescription was written before the patient entered the room. If something goes wrong at a hospital, you investigate what happened. You identify the failure. You discipline the people responsible. You repair the facility, improve the procedures, and make the hospital better. You don’t unlock every door, abandon the building, and announce that healthcare itself was the crime. If the bridge needs repair, you fix the bridge. You don’t blow it up and congratulate yourself for preventing future traffic accidents. Yet that is the theory behind this bill. A tragedy did occur; therefore, Democrats say law enforcement must disappear. But closing Delaney Hall doesn’t eliminate the need for detention. It leaves three choices: transfer detainees somewhere else, possibly further from their families, lawyers and doctors; crowd them into another facility and further strain medical staff; or release people the law says should remain in custody, while this ceases the removals, and so they are not completed. The bill provides no replacement capacity, no transfer plan, no continuity of care requirement, no additional medical funding. It removes a thousand-bed facility from the system and calls the resulting chaos compassion. And let us be clear about why immigration detention exists. It is used to ensure appearances at immigration proceedings, facilitate lawful removals, and to protect the public from criminals. My colleague and my friend from New Jersey says many detainees have not been convicted of crimes. That is beside the point. A person doesn’t need a criminal conviction to lack a lawful right to be in the United States of America. That is our immigration laws. That is how we have operated for decades. And anyone detained can leave detention whenever they want. They must simply agree to return to their home country. What Democrats demand is for illegal aliens to remain in America and be above the law. Now, I am willing to take my colleague’s concerns seriously. If Delaney Hall needs more doctors, let us fund more doctors. If it needs more nurses, better medication tracking, stronger inspections, faster emergency response, or better communication with families, let us write those regulations into law and pay for them. I would gladly work with my friend the Senator from New Jersey on additional resources for safe and secure ICE detention facilities. But there is one problem. My colleague and others on his side have vowed to not give ICE one more penny. We have just lived through this with a shutdown. We heard these words on the floor from many Members of the other side. They also voted against a bill that allocated 45 billion to further fund and sustain the capabilities of ICE in their detention facilities. So the position apparently is this: Vote against the beds. Vote against the facilities. Vow to deny the agency another dollar. Then point to a stray condition and demand that the facility close. You can’t pull the batteries out of a smoke alarm and then pose behind the ashes demanding to know who failed. You can’t starve a system, condemn the strain, and call abolition the only human solution. That is not good-faith oversight. That is not serious governance. That is not a viable solution. Democrats oppose the funding needed to enforce the law. They oppose the facilities needed to hold people safely. They oppose the removals that detention makes possible. Then, when the system shows any pressure, they point to that pressure as proof that enforcement itself must end. The sequence never changes: defund, obstruct, investigate, abolish. The goal for many Democrats is very clear. It is not better detention facilities; it is no detention at all. The bill does not make one detention facility safer; it shuts down a facility and pushes the problem somewhere else. A serious Senate would let the current investigation run its course, correct failures, and strengthen the system. An unserious Senate shuts down the building and pretends the law no longer needs enforcement. I object to using a pending investigation as a ploy to dismantle law enforcement. I object to defunding ICE and then blaming ICE for lacking resources. Fix what is broken. Hold wrongdoers accountable. Protect every person in Federal custody, of course, but we must enforce the law. For those reasons, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). Objection is heard. The Senator from New Jersey.”
Madam President, reserving the right to object. I have been advised to address this so-called Delaney Hall Closure Act. My colleague’s bill, though, really doesn’t do anything to address the issues that he has raised. He doesn’t hire a single doctor. He doesn’t ask a single nurse. It doesn’t require a single inspection. It simply orders the Department of Homeland Security to close Delaney Hall, cancel its contract, and permanently prevent ICE from using the facility again. Two pages, three commands: Close it, cancel it, never open it again. That is abolition with a short title. The diagnosis is ideological, and the prescription was written before the patient entered the room. If something goes wrong at a hospital, you investigate what happened. You identify the failure. You discipline the people responsible. You repair the facility, improve the procedures, and make the hospital better. You don’t unlock every door, abandon the building, and announce that healthcare itself was the crime. If the bridge needs repair, you fix the bridge. You don’t blow it up and congratulate yourself for preventing future traffic accidents. Yet that is the theory behind this bill. A tragedy did occur; therefore, Democrats say law enforcement must disappear. But closing Delaney Hall doesn’t eliminate the need for detention. It leaves three choices: transfer detainees somewhere else, possibly further from their families, lawyers and doctors; crowd them into another facility and further strain medical staff; or release people the law says should remain in custody, while this ceases the removals, and so they are not completed. The bill provides no replacement capacity, no transfer plan, no continuity of care requirement, no additional medical funding. It removes a thousand-bed facility from the system and calls the resulting chaos compassion. And let us be clear about why immigration detention exists. It is used to ensure appearances at immigration proceedings, facilitate lawful removals, and to protect the public from criminals. My colleague and my friend from New Jersey says many detainees have not been convicted of crimes. That is beside the point. A person doesn’t need a criminal conviction to lack a lawful right to be in the United States of America. That is our immigration laws. That is how we have operated for decades. And anyone detained can leave detention whenever they want. They must simply agree to return to their home country. What Democrats demand is for illegal aliens to remain in America and be above the law. Now, I am willing to take my colleague’s concerns seriously. If Delaney Hall needs more doctors, let us fund more doctors. If it needs more nurses, better medication tracking, stronger inspections, faster emergency response, or better communication with families, let us write those regulations into law and pay for them. I would gladly work with my friend the Senator from New Jersey on additional resources for safe and secure ICE detention facilities. But there is one problem. My colleague and others on his side have vowed to not give ICE one more penny. We have just lived through this with a shutdown. We heard these words on the floor from many Members of the other side. They also voted against a bill that allocated 45 billion to further fund and sustain the capabilities of ICE in their detention facilities. So the position apparently is this: Vote against the beds. Vote against the facilities. Vow to deny the agency another dollar. Then point to a stray condition and demand that the facility close. You can’t pull the batteries out of a smoke alarm and then pose behind the ashes demanding to know who failed. You can’t starve a system, condemn the strain, and call abolition the only human solution. That is not good-faith oversight. That is not serious governance. That is not a viable solution. Democrats oppose the funding needed to enforce the law. They oppose the facilities needed to hold people safely. They oppose the removals that detention makes possible. Then, when the system shows any pressure, they point to that pressure as proof that enforcement itself must end. The sequence never changes: defund, obstruct, investigate, abolish. The goal for many Democrats is very clear. It is not better detention facilities; it is no detention at all. The bill does not make one detention facility safer; it shuts down a facility and pushes the problem somewhere else. A serious Senate would let the current investigation run its course, correct failures, and strengthen the system. An unserious Senate shuts down the building and pretends the law no longer needs enforcement. I object to using a pending investigation as a ploy to dismantle law enforcement. I object to defunding ICE and then blaming ICE for lacking resources. Fix what is broken. Hold wrongdoers accountable. Protect every person in Federal custody, of course, but we must enforce the law. For those reasons, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). Objection is heard. The Senator from New Jersey.