John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Friday, I traveled to the Rio Grande Valley, right along the U.S.-Mexico border, expecting the front-page news to be about separation of families when our immigration laws were being enforced. Imagine my surprise when the front page of the newspapers in the Rio Grande Valley were talking about the flooding in South Texas. We heard that late last week, more than 200 water rescues were performed on the border city of Mission alone, and some areas were pounded by more than 15 inches of rain over a 4-day period. Cities in South Texas, such as Harlingen, Mercedes, Weslaco, Brownsville, and others, were affected. I saw it myself when I was in the Valley last week. A feeder road and entire soccer fields were underwater, and county officials were out surveying flood damage around the airport. This has been especially tough news because some of the coastal areas in my State that were impacted by this flood were also hit by Hurricane Harvey less than a year ago and are still recovering from that catastrophe. Just as life started to get back to normal--whatever normal is--the rains came. As hurricane season is now underway, we will continue to monitor the weather and the conditions there that may arise throughout the remainder of the summer months and to work with all of my constituents and leaders at the local, State, and Federal level to make sure we are as prepared as we can humanly be for the next adverse weather event. Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act As I said, Mr. President, I went to the border to talk about immigration and family separation policies. I traveled there to tour two facilities in Brownsville, along with Senator Cruz, that housed young children--some very young and some up to 18, just under 18 years of age--who are being sheltered after their parents crossed illegally into the United States. It is important to note that in so many respects, life is pretty good in the Rio Grande Valley. Business is booming. Men and women are working hard, going to school, paying their bills, just like the rest of us. It is not all the Wild Wild West, as the press sometimes makes it out to be. When it comes to immigrant shelters, I think it is very important that we learn what the facts are rather than continue a narrative that has very little basis in fact. The truth is, the surge of humanity coming across our southern border is nothing new. This year so far--since October 1--there have been roughly 32,000 unaccompanied children who have come across the border, more than 50,000 families, but all told, the Border Patrol has detained roughly 250,000 people coming across our southwestern border. I know that here in Washington, you could be forgiven for thinking ``Well, the border is not a problem. Illegal immigration is not a problem,'' but I am here to say it is a problem, and it is a national security threat. The humanitarian crisis we have seen at the border because countries like those in Central America continue to send their young children up across the border into the United States--it creates a huge challenge for us, just as it did in 2014 when President Obama called it a humanitarian crisis, because, frankly, our communities along the border and the Federal Government are not prepared to deal with such an influx of humanity, particularly those who need to be taken care of in a compassionate and humane way, especially the children who come across the border. Why are children coming across the border unaccompanied and in some instances with family units? Because the cartels--the criminal organizations that profit from a business model that allows them to exploit vulnerabilities in American law, particularly when it comes to border security--are making millions of dollars trafficking in humanity. They don't just traffic in illegal immigration; they traffic in those who would ply these immigrants for sex trafficking, those who would distribute drugs illegally in the United States, particularly heroin, an opioid, along with fentanyl, coming across the border, perhaps even from China, which is part of the opioid crisis in the United States. As one gentleman who has a lot of experience in the area phrased it-- he said that when it comes to what the cartels and the criminal organizations will transport into the United States, they are commodity agnostic. What he meant by that, I gathered, is that what it is all about is the money. It is the money these large criminal organizations earn trafficking in people, trafficking in drugs, trafficking in contraband across our southwestern border that represents such a challenge to our government officials at the local level, at the State level, and, of course, at the national level. I know there has been a lot of misinformation about what happens at the border when somebody comes to the border and claims asylum. There are accepted procedures and legal standards that should be applied when somebody comes from another country and claims a credible fear of persecution because of who they are--their race, their religion, and the like. As Secretary Nielsen, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pointed out, it is not a crime to come to a port of entry--that is, one of the bridges--and ask for asylum. It is a crime for an adult to try to cross the border between those ports of entry into the United States, and that is why we end up with this huge challenge of what to do when they come across with a minor child with them. After touring these facilities in Brownsville and meeting with various Federal agency officials, nongovernmental organizations, and local elected officials at the Weslaco Border Patrol Station, what we learned is that this situation is far more complex than meets the eye and that many of the narratives that have been spun about what is happening at the border are simply false or may be based in part on fact but in part on nonfactual information. What we did was we had the Federal officials at the Weslaco Border Patrol Station go through the step-by-step process of what happens to immigrant families when they are apprehended at the border, what happens when they are detained, and what happens when their cases are heard in a court. This is very useful information, and I want to particularly credit Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Chief Manny Padilla, Custom and Border Patrol's David Higgerson, and all the men and women on the frontlines who are doing a great job under very difficult circumstances across the border. I am glad to know that the processes are changing based on the Executive order President Trump issued last week. That order stated that immigrant families should be detained together when appropriate and consistent with law and available resources. The problem is that I am not sure anybody could be prepared for this influx of humanity coming across the border, but they are doing the very best they can. We know that Executive orders are always subject to legal challenges. We in Congress have introduced legislation to make sure that if, in fact, the President's Executive order ordering families to be kept together is somehow challenged or found deficient in court, that we have legislation to back it up. It is important that we in Congress make clear in statute that the status quo along the border cannot continue. That status quo has resulted in family members being separated from one another--in some cases, young children from their parents, which is something I know we all want to avoid. We know that in many cases, these children have remained in close touch with their parents throughout the course of their detention. But we still need to make sure these families are kept together where possible. I, along with a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, led by the junior Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Tillis, introduced a piece of legislation last week to address this situation. It is called the Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act. As the title of the bill suggests, there are two parts. Treating families with compassion by allowing them to remain together and enforcing our immigration laws don't have to be mutually exclusive, and our bill will ensure that they aren't. It will allow children to stay with their parents in a safe facility while they await their court proceedings to see if they perhaps are eligible for some sort of immigration benefit, like asylum. Our bill will also set mandatory standards for care in family residential centers where immigrant families are placed and keep children safe by requiring they be removed from the care of any individual who presents a danger to them. Just as importantly, it provides additional resources. It will require more than 200 new immigration judges and require the Department of Homeland Security to expedite the court proceedings of families and children. We don't want those family units to remain in detention any longer than necessary to present their case to an immigration judge. Some have rightfully asked questions about the families who have already been separated. What happens now that the kids have been placed apart from their parents? Our bill requires the administration to take steps to reunify as many families as possible who remain in ICE's, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or HHS's, Health and Human Services, custody. Believe it or not, as part of this disinformation or misinformation that seems to pervade this topic, some have falsely claimed that our bill promotes the indefinite detention of families, but that is certainly not the intention. Our bill does not mandate the Department of Homeland Security detain parents and their kids together indefinitely. It, simply, removes an arbitrary, court-imposed rule that says families can be held together for no more than 20 days. This is from the so-called Flores case. In many instances, allowing families to remain together in custody for more than 20 days will allow immigration courts to process their claims faster so that they will literally have better access to justice. Generally, immigrants are detained only until their proceedings in front of immigration judges are completed. So those who claim that the bill would somehow promote the indefinite detention of these families, simply, aren't telling you the truth. These families will remain in residential shelters only until their court proceedings are completed, but we need to prioritize these cases, in particular--to move them to the head of the line--so that these families will not have to wait any longer than necessary. Other proposals have been put forward in addition to the Tillis proposal. One of the most prominent is the one being offered by our friend, the senior Senator from California. I have worked together on many issues with Senator Feinstein, but on this issue, I think her bill has a number of problems. In fact, there is a huge question of what sort of enforcement, if any, would be permitted under her bill. In effect, this bill would make it impossible to criminally prosecute parents for crossing the border illegally unless their children were able to go into Department of Justice's custody with the parents. This bill doesn't even specify where the families should be held. That is a big problem because children shouldn't go to jails and prisons, run by the Department of Justice, that have hardened, potentially violent criminals. I don't know anybody who thinks that that is a good idea. That is why, essentially, the bill advocates for catch and release. Nowhere does the bill say where these families should be held since they can't go into the Department of Justice's facilities. Basically, the only alternative left up to immigration enforcement officials is to let them go and issue them notices to appear at future court dates. The bill specifically forces the Department of Homeland Security to release family units without exception, which prevents potential criminals from being prosecuted. Again, it is the adults we are talking about, not the children. Chief Padilla, the Chief of the Rio Grande Valley sector of the Border Patrol, which is the most active part of the southwestern border, said: If you look at the surges in illegal immigration over recent history, the highest surges in illegal immigration are when the U.S. Government has had a policy of catching and then releasing people who have violated the immigration laws and has ordered them to appear in the future. Of course, most of the people don't show up in the future. They know they will rarely be followed up on and rarely be caught unless, of course, they commit some other crime or offense and are picked up by local police, at which time U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's and local law enforcement's records are matched in order to identify those people. To suggest that we should not enforce our immigration laws or to suggest that we should catch people who violate those laws and release them and have them appear on future dates, which is far from certain, is itself a huge encouragement and inducement to surges in illegal immigration. One of the main reasons is that the cartels--again, the criminal organizations that control much of the human trafficking, the illegal drug trafficking, and the movement of immigrants across the border--are very smart, and they know when there are gaps in the U.S. Government's policy that can be exploited, like catch and release. I am not sure everyone who supports the bill that Senator Feinstein has proposed understands what the consequences are of the legislation. Where are the provisions that allow us to enforce our immigration laws? Both of our bills allow for families to be kept together while they are waiting for court proceedings, but only one of them, the Tillis bill, also permits the enforcement of our laws. That seems to be the choice that our Democratic colleagues have made. With all due respect to our Democratic colleagues, their legislation, simply, doesn't cut it. I don't think the American people will tolerate a situation in which our borders remain open, essentially, to the poison shipped over here from the drug traffickers, to the human trafficking by which people are, simply, sold into modern-day slavery, or whether open borders is used as a way to transport people illegally from one country to another. We want to make it clear that families should be kept together but, also, that we will enforce the law even when that requires families be held in government custody for a short period of time pending their court hearings. We also want to be clear that where they should be held is in safe residential family housing and away from hardened, potentially violent criminals. Again, the legislation, which has been proffered by our friend from California, doesn't mandate that. Basically, it just prevents us from enforcing our laws. It promotes catch and release, and it doesn't specify where families should be held together, which could jeopardize the safety of these children. With these and other shortcomings, I think the much better option is the bill that our Republican colleagues and I, along with Senator Tillis, have introduced. I hope the discussions which, I know, have been planned between Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein, Senator Tillis, and Senator Cruz--perhaps as early as today--are very productive. It would be important to achieve both important goals at once--the continued enforcement of our immigration laws and the unification of families. I have become disturbed by what I have seen on social media. There is a hashtag in social media called ``abolish ICE,'' abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I have read where one Democratic House Member has actually introduced legislation that would abolish our immigration enforcement agency, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Basically, what that would do is to create an open invitation to the criminal organizations that facilitate illegal immigration, drugs, and other contraband. There will be no limit to the number of people who will be able to enter the country illegally. We will just wave them on through. In addition to the open borders, which is no solution, there are colleagues who are advocating this sort of notion, who have no plan of how to deal with the influx of humanity, whether it is from a health and safety or a safe and secure facilities perspective. I think it is a half-baked idea and one we should reject. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue talking and to support the legislation that Senator Tillis and I and others have introduced. I would like to see the Senate take swift action. I wish we could have done it last week because we all agree that families should be kept together, and we all agree that this is an emergency situation. We must act quickly. If we come together, we can resolve this situation swiftly and ensure these children will be kept with their families, which is our No. 1 priority. It is also a priority of all of us to enforce the laws that are on the books and not to, basically, benefit the business model of the drug cartels in the process and see them continue to prey on young, susceptible, vulnerable people who are willing to risk it all just to make their way to the United States, to our borders. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc.

Mr. CORNYN. In order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings en bloc.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to first address the vote we held yesterday--one that unfortunately failed but I believe was important nonetheless. It would have set in motion a series of spending reductions--not on bills where we had appropriated money for programs and we knew where it was going to be used, but these were essentially surplus funds which were not being used for the intended purpose and which I believe should have been used to reduce our annual deficits and ultimately our national debt. I want to express my gratitude to Senator Lee, the Senator from Utah, who spearheaded the effort to take up a bill that the House had already passed. What we were attempting to do was rescind nearly $15 billion in previously appropriated money that has gone unspent, as I said a moment ago. This was just one small way to show the American people that we are serious--as the majority leader put it yesterday--about tightening our belts financially and taking small steps that hopefully would add up to big steps to live within our collective means. I voted for the rescissions package because I believe strongly that the government should prioritize keeping its fiscal house in order, one that constantly works to improve and implement fiscal discipline. I am concerned now that as interest rates are starting to rise, we are going to see more and more Federal spending go to pay debt service or interest payments on bonds that have been issued to secure our national debt. So I hope we can come back to the table soon with new ideas, and I am disappointed in the outcome of that particular vote. Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act Madam President, I have also been speaking this week about the ongoing situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. Of course, this is my backyard. I come from Texas, and Texas has a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico. We know, because we have all seen in the news and been moved by these scenes of people illegally crossing the border with children or individuals they claim to be their children and being separated as they have been processed, consistent with current law, including laws Congress had passed, signed by the President--not necessarily this President, in fact--consent decrees, and other court judgments that necessitated that children be treated differently than people who illegally enter the country as adults. I will be traveling to the Rio Grande Valley tomorrow. Senator Cruz and I both will be in Brownsville and McAllen so we can learn from the people who are working on behalf of all of us to make sure everybody is treated with dignity and compassion. But we also enforce our laws against illegal immigration. President Trump yesterday issued an Executive order, which I viewed as an emergency measure, that does not substitute for congressional action. In fact, I am confident that the Executive order will be the target of lawsuits. I think the only thing that could really settle the matter once and for all is legislation, which I know the Presiding Officer and I and others have cosponsored, to keep families together and to maintain enforcement of our laws. Executive orders, of course, as I said, are always subject to legal challenge, and I think we ought to view this as more of a belt-and- suspenders. The President decided he wanted to do what he could on a temporary basis, but it is just a temporary basis, and we need to make sure, as I said, that this is finally settled so that no parent will be separated from their child even if they enter the country illegally. They will be treated both humanely and with compassion while they are presented to a judge who will make a decision on whether they qualify for a legal immigration benefit like asylum, for example. The legislation I am referring to is led by the junior Senator from North Carolina and is called the Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act. As the title of the bill suggests, there are two parts: treating families with compassion while allowing them to remain together and enforcing the laws on the books. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, and our bill would ensure that they are not. It will allow children to stay with their families in a safe facility while they await their court proceedings. It will also set mandatory standards of care for family residential centers where immigrant families are placed and keep children safe by requiring that they are removed from the care of any individual who poses a danger to them. Just as importantly, it will require more than 200 new immigration judges and require the Department of Homeland Security to expedite the court proceedings for these children and families. Some have rightfully asked questions about the families who have already been separated: What happens now to the children who have already been separated from their parents? I can tell you our bill requires the administration to take steps to reunify as many families as possible who remain in the custody of Immigration Customs Enforcement or Health and Human Services. I have to tell you, this is an old movie in many respects. We have seen this movie before, particularly in 2014, when we saw a flood of unaccompanied children coming across the southwestern border. President Obama, at the time, called it a humanitarian crisis, and I agree. We simply weren't prepared for this flood of children from Central America coming to our border and seeking refuge or asylum. We worked hard to try to make sure they were treated compassionately and humanely, but the law, similar to the law in effect now before the President's Executive order and the law that would be modified by the new bill I mentioned a moment ago--the current law requires those children to be processed by the Border Patrol, to then be handed over to Health and Human Services, and ultimately placed with a sponsor in the United States pending their hearing on their immigration case. Because of the huge backlog of cases, it could be literally months or years before those cases are heard. It shouldn't surprise anybody that the overwhelming majority of individuals don't show up for their court hearing. That is why it is important for us to move these cases to the head of the line, to maintain a humane detention while they are awaiting their court hearing--hopefully, in a matter of days or weeks, at most. This is a huge problem that frankly was exposed, in part, by the New York Times. It recently reported that based on the tens of thousands of children who came across the border as unaccompanied minors who had been placed with sponsors, in a check of where those children are now, at least 1,500 of them are unaccounted for. That should surprise no one because the sponsors were not required to be citizens. They weren't required to be relatives. They weren't even required to have a criminal background check. When the U.S. Government places these children with sponsors in the United States with such inadequate supervision and review, it should not surprise anyone that, unfortunately, some of them will be unaccounted for; hopefully not recruited into gangs, hopefully not trafficked for sex, hopefully still alive. This is a huge humanitarian crisis, and the latest episode having to do with separation of families is just the latest version of that story. Who benefits from status quo when we fail to correct our laws to make sure that both individuals coming across the border are treated humanely and that we enforce our immigration laws? Who benefits the most? It is the transnational criminal organizations, the cartels, which make money off the status quo. As one person called it the other day, when they were referring to the situation, these organizations are commodity agnostic. As long as they can make money, they will traffic in people, drugs, weapons, and other contraband. They don't really care as long as they make money. Until Congress acts, as we must, these cartels, these criminal organizations, will continue to exploit these gaps in American law, and the people who will be hurt the most are these children and immigrants who do have a case to make before the immigration courts. I hope we will act. Frankly, our track record is not good when it comes to fixing our broken immigration system, but I know Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from California, and Senator Tillis have been talking, and a lot of us have been putting our heads together to figure out how we can come up with a narrow bill that will keep families together and allow us to enforce the laws of the land. I hope we keep trying until we get it done and get it done right. Other proposals have been made, including one by our friend the senior Senator from California. She and I have worked together on many issues, but on this one, I think her bill has a lot of problems. In fact, there is a huge question about what sort of enforcement, if any, would ever be permitted under her bill. In effect, her bill would make it impossible to enforce the law against an adult illegally crossing the border unless the child is able to go to jail with that adult. I don't want a child to have to go to jail and be exposed to hard and potentially violent criminals. This is a big problem with our friend's bill, Senator Feinstein. By the way, every single Democrat on that side of the aisle has signed on to that bill. Did they intend this result? No, I don't think they intended it, but it is a big problem with their bill. Children should not go to a jail run by the Bureau of Prisons. No one, I would think, would think that is a good idea. So that is essentially what the bill results in. Again, I am not saying this was their intention, but the result is to reinstate this catch-and-release program, which has been a failure of our immigration system for a long time. When there is nowhere for the families to be detained and when they can't go to Department of Justice facilities, basically, the authorities simply have to let them go and say: Come on back in a few months, maybe a couple of years, when your case comes up on the immigration court docket. That is the result. As I said earlier, in the vast majority of cases, people do not reappear because they understand, if they made it that far, they are basically off scot-free. The cartels and the transnational criminal organizations that traffic in people and facilitate this sort of illegal immigration are the ones cashing in on these vulnerabilities and on these gaps in American law. We need to fix it. Let me correct one other misconception from all of the emotional news we have seen recently. Sometimes the facts get lost. If an immigrant family crosses the border outside of a designated port of entry, they have broken the law, unless they are authorized. If you release these individuals without any consequences, you send a clear message that it is acceptable to cross our borders illegally. Once you have sent the message to the criminal organizations--to people in Central America and elsewhere--that it is OK to break the law and you will be released without any consequence, it should come as no surprise that a huge percentage of illegal immigrants fail to show up at immigration court hearings and that it is a magnet attracting more illegal immigration if there are no consequences associated with it. With all due respect to my friend, the senior Senator from California, her bill has these unintended effects, and I think simply will not do. I want to be clear, we want to work together to try to address what she wants to accomplish and what we want to accomplish. Let's keep families together, but let's not inadvertently or unintentionally reinstate the broken catch-and-release policies, which simply serve as a magnet for more illegal immigration. Some commentators have pointed out the problem I have identified. It is not just me. They have said Senator Feinstein's bill would present law enforcement with a terrible choice of either keeping children with parents or criminals in the middle of being prosecuted or not prosecuting those violations of the law at all. That is not really a choice. We know what the decision would be. Those cases would not be prosecuted. There would not be enforcement. Then, again, the transnational criminal organizations, the people who try to take advantage of our laws, will have won. With these and other shortcomings, I think the much better option would be the bill introduced by Senator Tillis, which I, the Presiding Officer, and others have cosponsored. It would achieve two important goals: continued enforcement of our immigration laws and the unification of families. Some of our friends on the left seem to want one but not the other. They want to unify families, but they don't want to enforce our immigration laws. They say they want to see zero tolerance ended--zero tolerance for violating immigration laws, and, of course, they cast a lot of aspersions on the President and the Attorney General for implementing this policy, along with the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Let's think about their criticism for a second. What does that really mean? If you aren't happy with zero tolerance of violating our immigration laws, that means you are happy with tolerating exemptions for lawbreakers. You tolerate not enforcing immigration laws under some, perhaps many, circumstances. We can all see where that leads us. It encourages illegal immigration by sending a message by saying we will not enforce our laws. We should not stand for that and neither should the American people. It would be a big mistake. Tomorrow Senator Cruz, my colleague from Texas, and I will be traveling to Brownsville and Weslaco, once again, so we can get eyes on the situation there and learn from the people who are charged with making sure our policies are carried out. As I mentioned, Texas has 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, and we are ground zero when it comes to the border security challenge. I look forward to talking with our Federal and local officials about the situation, along with faith-based organizations and other groups who are trying to help out. We need their help and welcome their help. Ultimately, I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue talking urgently and to support the bill Senator Tillis and others have introduced. We can come together, we can fix this problem swiftly, and ensure these children are kept together with their families. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 2 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2018, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Gordon D. Sondland, of Washington, to be Representative of the United States of America to the European Union, with the rank and status of Ambassador, Ronald Gidwitz, of Illinois, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium, Cherith Norman Chalet, of New Jersey, to be Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, with the rank of Ambassador, and to be an Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, during her tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, and Brian A. Nichols, of Rhode Island, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Zimbabwe, all of the Department of State. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting and hearing on the following nominations: Britt Cagle Grant, of Georgia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, David James Porter, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, Holly A. Brady, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana, Andrew Lynn Brasher, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, James Patrick Hanlon, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana, David Steven Morales, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Lance E. Walker, to be United States District Judge for the District of Maine, Edward W. Felten, of New Jersey, and Jane Nitze, of the District of Columbia, both to be a Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and John D. Jordan, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Missouri, Department of Justice.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have been focused on the U.S.-Mexico border, where the prospect of children being separated from their family has shocked and horrified many of us. We have been working to come up with a solution to this problem. That includes President Trump, who yesterday called on Congress to preserve family unity, while calling for a zero tolerance policy when it comes to violating our immigration laws. I would like to provide a little bit of context for how we got here and offer a proposed solution. Just like under the Obama administration in 2014, when we saw tens of thousands of unaccompanied children coming across the border into my State of Texas from Central America through Mexico--I remember at the time President Obama called that a humanitarian crisis, and, indeed, it was--trying to find a way to deal with this flood of humanity coming across our border in a safe and humane manner was a huge challenge for the Federal Government, for local communities, like McAllen, TX, and for various faith-based and other organizations. But come they did. Between August 1 of last year and May 31 of this year, the number of families apprehended at the southwest border rose 58 percent, compared with the same period a year earlier. Of course, just like the humanitarian crisis of 2014, most of these individuals came from Central America. I think it is important to point out that even though these are not unaccompanied minors in the same number that we saw in 2014, we are still seeing so far this year roughly 30,000 children coming across our southwestern border from across dangerous territory in Mexico and from Central America, transported by human traffickers and the cartels, for whom this is their business model. Let me explain for a minute. Recently, an expert on this topic made the point that these criminal organizations that run children, families, and other adults across the border are ``commodity agnostic.'' That is what he said. In other words, they don't care whether it is drugs, contraband, children, or adults. Whatever it is, they are in it for the money, and they have found an incredibly profitable business model in transporting all of those commodities, if you can call them that, from Central America and across the Mexican border. For those who are worried about the opioid crisis here in America, which we all are, it is not just about prescription drugs--that is a huge part of the problem--but it is also the heroin that is frequently substituted for the prescription drugs because it is cheap and it is more plentiful. So all of these are good reasons, in my mind, for us to be very focused on what happens at our border. My State happens to have 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, and we are at ground zero when it comes to the border security challenges and when it comes to the humanitarian crises and to the law enforcement challenges that go along with it. This Friday, Senator Cruz, my colleague from Texas, and I will be traveling to Brownsville and McAllen, TX, to once again get an idea of what the facts are on the ground. We have been there many times before, of course, and have worked hand in glove with our local and State officials, with our faith-based organizations and with everybody who is concerned about what is happening at the border, including the Border Patrol, the Texas National Guard, and the like. I want to make one point when it comes to those who enter our country in order to claim asylum, as many of these people do from Central America. They claim a fear of persecution as the basis for a claim for asylum, but those who present themselves lawfully at ports of entry-- those are the bridges that enter into the United States--can do so and claim asylum without violating any immigration laws. As Secretary Nielsen, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, said, it is only those who try to enter the country in those vast areas between the ports of entry, which is exceedingly dangerous, by the way, who violate our immigration laws when they enter the United States illegally. When they come with a child, whether it is their biological child or somebody they claim is their child--maybe the cartels have figured out that if they pair these people up, they have found another way to exploit vulnerabilities in the system--it presents the challenges that we have seen here in the last few days. I want to emphasize that we have seen the arrival of families and children before. So none of this is new, but we do need to put what is happening now in proper context. As the Secretary of Homeland Security, Ms. Nielsen, has said, if the situation in your home country is dangerous and if you have chosen to seek asylum for your family in the United States, there is no reason for you to enter the United States illegally. We saw this during the previous policy that was since eliminated by the Obama administration of Cuban refugees who, because of a unique policy called ``wet foot, dry foot,'' once they crossed over our ports of entry, they were entitled to seek refuge in the United States under the laws at the time. So none of this is new. As I said, people with a credible fear of persecution in their home countries may present their claims through a normal, well-defined process. There is no reason for somebody to expose themselves, much less their children, to the dangerous, remote regions--areas I call the wild, wild west--down along the border in order to try to sneak through by illicit means. But people do sometimes falsely claim a credible fear of persecution. In other words, they don't qualify for asylum. So that is why it is so important for us to give them an opportunity and to insist that they present those claims to an immigration judge on a timely basis so those claims can be properly evaluated. The Trump administration has made the very commonsensical decision to have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to illegal immigration. They have made the decision to fully enforce our laws by prosecuting adults in criminal courts when they are apprehended crossing our borders illegally. In my opinion, that is exactly the right decision--enforce the laws as written. The relevant laws--the ones that criminalize illegal crossings--have been on the books for a long time. They are a product of congressional action and Presidential approval, like all legislation. These are not something that President Trump created out of whole cloth, as some people would have you believe. But the truth is that often these laws were not enforced by previous administrations and, particularly, when families were involved. Now that they are being enforced, the adults are, unfortunately, under the status quo, separated from families as part of the legal process as it plays itself out. It is not because of any desire to separate families and children, but rather because of previous Federal court decisions, consent decrees, and statutes that Congress has passed that require children to be placed in a separate, safe setting. In other words, we don't want to place children in a jail cell with hardened, potentially violent criminals because the adult that brought them into the country has violated our criminal laws. So putting the children in a safe, separate setting was really motivated by the best of intentions. The relevant authorities are important to acknowledge because, as the New York Times has stated this last weekend, contrary to what you may have heard, ``technically, there is no Trump administration policy stating that illegal border crossers must be separated from their children.'' What there are, instead, are many variables that are hard to disentangle from one another, and, I think, unfortunately, those who would like to create a false narrative here have taken advantage of the complexity of these laws and the situation in order to claim some sort of sinister intent to tear children away from their parents unnecessarily. That is not the goal. In fact our goal is just the opposite: How do we keep these children with their families, pending the decision by an immigration judge of whether or not they have a viable claim to asylum or some other benefit. The so-called Flores agreement is one of those laws that are required to be observed which requires that children can be held no longer than 20 days. A Ninth Circuit opinion applies the Flores bill to family units, protracted timelines for asylum claims, limited detention facilities, and a division of responsibility among ICE, or Immigration and Custom Enforcement, Health and Human Services, and other agencies. All of this adds to the complexity of this situation. Most of these factors are pretty uncontroversial. I think every Member will agree with the Trump administration that we should never place children in prisons or jails with hardened, potentially violent criminals when their parents are being lawfully prosecuted for entering the country illegally. We need to see that this is how we got to where we are now. They are entirely reasonable decisions that seemed to make sense at the time-- that children should not be held for any longer than is strictly necessary, that they should never be detained with adults in a jail cell in potentially dangerous circumstances. A lot of that seemed to make sense at the time. By the same token, I and many others certainly don't want family members to be separated from one another as a consequence of officials doing their duty and enforcing the laws they are sworn to uphold. I know Customs and Border Protection leaders like Manny Padilla, chief of the Rio Grande Valley sector, and David Higgerson, and all of the other men and women who work under them in the Rio Grande Valley, are trying to do their job. They are trying to enforce the law. That is what we have asked them to do. That is their duty. It is a good thing, and I think we should all appreciate their attempt to do so in a very complex environment. This is where I have some questions for the minority leader Senator Schumer and others. Senator Feinstein, my friend from California whom I have worked with on a number of pieces of legislation, secured the support of all Members of the Democratic side of the aisle on a piece of legislation which does nothing to ensure that the law will be enforced. Sure, it purports to deal with family separation but basically provides a get-out-of-jail-free card to any adult who illegally crosses the border. In fact, they go from a zero tolerance program by President Trump's administration to a zero enforcement program, thus creating an incentive for people to illegally immigrate across the border and making it almost impossible for law enforcement to enforce our immigration laws. That will continue to be a draw on people from different parts of the world who would love to move to the United States. We can be sympathetic. We can be concerned. We should do everything within our power to help them so they can live in their own country safely, but we know we simply can't have an open border policy so anybody and everybody who wants to move to the United States can do so. That is why we have exceptions like asylum claims that have to be decided by an immigration judge. Yesterday, Senator Schumer said President Trump alone could fix this situation by signing a Presidential order, but even though the President has stated his decision to do so, I think that is likely not going to be decided finally by the President but rather by the courts when that Executive order is challenged based on the other legal considerations I mentioned a moment ago: the Ninth Circuit decision, a consent decree in the Flores case, and other statutes. I don't think our friend, the Democratic leader, actually believes President Trump can do this by a flick of a pen, as he said; otherwise, he wouldn't have cosponsored the bill by the Senator from California to address this situation. Why in the world would he propose legislation if he actually sincerely believes the President alone can fix this problem? The truth is, we in Congress and the President have a shared responsibility and a role to play in addressing this crisis at the border, but the result of the proposal by the Senator from California, embraced and cosponsored by the Democratic leader, is that it makes it impossible to enforce the laws Congress has written when it comes to adults illegally entering the United States when they are accompanied by a child. We should not be under any illusion that the criminal organizations that facilitate the movement of people from other countries into the United States--they understand these gaps in our laws. That is why they sent tens of thousands of unaccompanied children into the United States in 2014, creating that humanitarian crisis. They know well that because of the gaps in our law that allow adults with children to be treated differently, they are exploiting that for financial gain. The result of the proposal by the minority leader and our Democratic colleagues means it is impossible to enforce laws that Congress has written. Ending zero tolerance means ignoring the law, and that amounts to ignoring the will of the people who put Members of Congress in office and ending our respect for the rule of law. Ending zero tolerance, as they would seek to do, means tolerating criminal activity. As I mentioned, these are organized criminal organizations-- they are sometimes called transnational criminal organizations--and they will trade in anything that makes them money: People, guns, drugs, any sort of contraband we can imagine. Not applying the law to illegal entry does nothing but fuel them and feed their money machine, which is why they continue to do what they do. The other concern I have with the legislation proposed by our Democratic colleagues, even though they have said only the President can fix it, is that while legislation from the Senator from California does seek to keep families together--a goal we share--it doesn't specify where those families should be held. That is a big problem because when it comes to the safety of these children, we don't want to leave that open to interpretation or misunderstanding. We want to be sure and clear that these families are kept in separate residential housing facilities, away from hardened and potentially violent criminals, but our Democratic colleagues' bill that every single one of the Democrats in the Senate has signed on to doesn't even address that. As I said, in fact, their bill would likely result in many adults entering the United States illegally getting off scot-free because of the no enforcement zone, basically extending within up to 120 miles from the border. Basically, Federal law enforcement authorities, not just the Border Patrol but the FBI, the U.S. attorneys, and others, would be essentially prohibited from prosecuting anybody for violation of our laws. Now, all of us sat up and paid close attention when former First Lady Laura Bush and the current First Lady Melania Trump expressed their concerns about family separation and called on us to find a better way to answer the current crisis, and I agree with them. In fact, we have gotten off to a pretty good start. Led by our colleague from North Carolina, some of our colleagues and I, just a few minutes ago, introduced a bill called the Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act. The goals of this legislation are pretty straightforward: keep families together in safe, secure facilities while their cases are waiting to be decided by a court. We set mandatory standards of care for family residential centers to make sure they are hygienic and safe and the sort of place where we can treat people compassionately. We also authorize 225 new immigration judges because of the huge backlog that makes it hard to handle all the cases that come across the border. We give these families a chance to move to the head of the line to get their cases decided on an expedited basis so that while they are being detained in these safe, secure, family facilities, their cases can be decided quickly. Also, if they are entitled to an immigration benefit like asylum, they could be afforded that on a reasonable timetable and not left in limbo for any longer than absolutely necessary. Now, I believe, talking to my friend the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, that these are elements of a bill we might be able to agree to, Democrats and Republicans, in order to address the common concerns we have about family separation. Throughout the course of our discussions, though, it has become clear this is something we all believe; that families crossing the border should be kept together. Where we may differ is whether that should also go along with a joint commitment to enforce our immigration laws, but, as I said earlier, this is not an either-or situation. We can keep parents and children together while, at the same time, remaining resolute in enforcing our immigration laws--something I believe we should do. The Trump administration has said it will not tolerate any violation of those laws and that all offenders will remain on the table for prosecution, but there is no reason for our Democratic colleagues to oppose what I have laid out. Either we are or we are not a nation of laws, with a government that enforces those laws, or we are a nation with no law and open borders; simply waving through anybody who wants to come into the country at their discretion. So I would urge all of our colleagues to work together to continue talking about and supporting a bill that represents these shared values. If we come together, we can resolve the situation swiftly and ensure that these children are kept together with their families and, as I said, that they can be expeditiously presented before an immigration judge so they can present any legitimate claim they may have to any immigration benefit. I think that is a commonsense solution to this problem, and I look forward to our colleagues working together to try to solve it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator Tennessee (Mr. Corker) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker). and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke briefly about the ongoing situation at the U.S.-Mexican border. It continues to be on my mind and on the minds of many others, including the Presiding Officer, who has offered some very constructive suggestions for how to address this situation. Just as under the Obama administration in 2014, we have seen a surge of unaccompanied children and families coming across our southern border during the spring and summer months. At the time, President Obama called it a humanitarian crisis, and it truly was and is. Between October 1 of last year and May 31 of this year, the number of families apprehended at the southwest border rose by 58 percent, compared to the same period a year earlier. Many of these individuals hail from Central America. Some have presented themselves lawfully at ports of entry, but others have tried to enter illegally in more remote, unpopulated areas. Let me explain. I think Secretary Nielsen tried to make this distinction, but I am not sure it quite penetrated. If someone shows up at a port of entry and asks for asylum, they have not violated our immigration laws, and their claim for asylum needs to be considered by the Border Patrol and by the immigration judge to whom their case is assigned. If someone tries to enter the country between the ports of entry, they have violated a Federal law. Secretary Nielsen made the point that there is no reason for people legitimately claiming asylum to enter the country illegally when they can come through the ports of entry, much as Cubans have in times past during the existence of the so-called wet foot, dry foot policy that was later abrogated by President Obama. People with a credible fear of persecution in their home countries may present their claims through normal, well-defined processes. There is no reason for somebody to go to the far reaches of the frontier, the border region--the Wild Wild West, as I like to call it--and try to come in by illicit means. There is simply no reason to do that if you have a legitimate claim for asylum. Nonetheless, many people opt to go that route anyway. For them, the Trump administration has made a decision to enforce our laws on the books by prosecuting adults in criminal court when they are apprehended crossing our borders illegally. Those are laws passed by Congress, signed by the President of the United States, and the Trump administration has made the logical decision that it is their responsibility to enforce laws that are on the books. The relevant laws--the ones that make it illegal to cross the border in the first place, a misdemeanor, and it often makes subsequent crossings much more serious--have been on the books for many decades, but they were not always enforced by previous administrations when families were involved. Now, because of a number of Federal court decisions, consent decrees, and statutes, an adult must be separated from a child as the legal process plays its way out. The reason I say that is we don't want children going to jail with an adult who is being processed for illegally entering the United States. Children are, under current practice, placed in a separate, safe setting. They are not left unattended and fending for themselves against violent criminals who are being detained by regular ICE or Bureau of Prisons facilities. The relevant legal decisions, settlements, and statutes are important to acknowledge because, as the New York Times stated this past weekend, ``Technically, there is no Trump administration policy stating that illegal border crossers must be separated from their children.'' Instead, there are many variables that are hard to disentangle from one another: the current administration's stepped-up enforcement directives, the so-called Flores agreement, which requires that children be held for no longer than 20 days, a Ninth Circuit opinion that applies Flores to family units, protracted timelines for asylum claims, limited detention facilities, and a division of responsibility among ICE, Health and Human Services, and other agencies. You can see how this quickly becomes enormously complex because of the overlay of Federal law, consent decrees, court judgments, and other divided responsibilities among Federal agencies. Underlying this complex array of factors is something pretty uncontroversial, though. I think every Member of this Chamber will agree with the Trump administration that we should never be placing children in prisons or jails with hardened criminals when their parents are being prosecuted. By the same token, I and many others certainly don't want family members to be separated from one another as a consequence of Department of Homeland Security and administration officials enforcing the laws they are sworn to uphold. What we are literally being told is that there is a false choice here. You can either enforce the law or unify family members. We are hearing from many of our Democratic colleagues that the administration ought to simply quit enforcing the law, but we all have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States. Whether you are a legislator, the President of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, we have all taken that same oath. I know U.S. Customs and Border Protection folks, like Manny Padilla and David Higgerson and all the men and women who work under them in the Rio Grande Valley, are trying to do what is required of them by their job; that is, to enforce the law. That is a good thing. We appreciate all they do. The answer to this current situation is a solution that allows us to both enforce the law and keep families together. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. We have to keep family members together and prevent unnecessary hardship, stress, and outrage. It is not our purpose to cause these children, in particular, the children who have been brought across our border illegally by their parents--we are not trying take it out on them or punish them. We have heard about the consequences when family members are separated. Mental health problems may, for example, follow children all the way to adulthood. We need to be mindful of that risk and work to ensure the children's well-being. None other than former First Lady Laura Bush wrote this last weekend that she believes we can find a better answer to this current crisis, and I agree with her. In fact, we are off to a pretty good start. Some of my colleagues and I, including the Presiding Officer's staff, are working together to try to come up with a way to keep families unified when they are detained at the border. I think our goals should be pretty clear and simple: Ensure that families stay together at ICE facilities while their criminal or civil proceedings are ongoing; clarify that the so-called Flores settlement does not apply to children who have crossed the border illegally with their parents; and promote the expedited consideration of detained families by immigration judges so that they are not left in limbo for any longer than is absolutely necessary. I believe these are the building blocks for a consensus approach, one that every Member--Republican and Democrat alike--could rally behind. Throughout the course of our discussions, though, one point has become increasingly clear. All of us believe that families crossing the border should be kept together. Where we differ is whether we believe we should also enforce our immigration laws. As I said, it need not be an either-or proposition. We can keep families unified and at the same time remain resolute in enforcing our immigration laws. In fact, Congress wrote them, and it is within our prerogative to change them if we wish, but as long as they are on the books, I believe everyone from the President of the United States on down has a responsibility to enforce laws on the books. The Trump administration has said that it will not tolerate any violations of those laws or any others and that all offenders will remain on the table for prosecution. There is no reason for anybody to oppose what I have laid out. Either we are a nation of laws, with a government that enforces them, or we are a nation with no laws and open borders. I urge all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to keep talking and keep an open mind. I believe that on a very contentious subject, like immigration, we could literally come together and resolve this situation swiftly and ensure that these children are kept with their families and the law is enforced, according to what the laws are on the books.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, in a few minutes--maybe in about an hour and a half--we will be voting on the National Defense Authorization Act, which Congress has passed faithfully for 57 consecutive years. That indicates the sense of importance we all have toward funding and providing the authorities and equipment and training that are necessary for our military to do the job we have asked it to do. I particularly commend Senators Inhofe and Reed for their leadership in guiding us through the passage of this bill. There are 1.8 million people in the world who are on Active Duty in the U.S. military--1.8 million people. The United States has 737 military installations, and the Department of Defense is the world's largest employer. Supporting all of these people in these facilities is no easy task, and the Defense authorization bill is one very significant way in which we do exactly that. It is how we make sure that all of the men and women in uniform are paid, that our alliances are strengthened, and that military facilities are properly modernized and maintained. The bill we are voting on will support an appropriation of up to $716 billion for those tasks. I might add that that is a huge number, but this is the Federal Government's No. 1 responsibility. In my opinion, everything else the Federal Government does comes after providing for the common defense because nobody else--no local government, no State government, no private sector--could possibly provide for the common defense. America's leadership role in the world remains essential because we know that while there are other countries that will work with us--for example, our NATO allies--they require and the world really demands American leadership, and that is what provides for the safety and security and the peace all across the planet. In Texas, there are roughly 200,000 men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S. military in places like Fort Hood, Joint Base San Antonio, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, and Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene. Those are the people I think of each year as we take up the Defense authorization bill. We rely on them to provide our security, and they rely on us to deliver what they need in order to be successful. One thing this year's bill will do is to give our troops a 2.6- percent pay raise, which will be the largest in 10 years. It doesn't sound like a lot, but I am sure they will appreciate it nonetheless. Given the state of today's world, maintaining our military readiness has never been more important or more difficult. The array of security threats that face the United States is more complex and diverse than it has been at any time since World War II. Our military leaders say that the strategic environment has not been this competitive since the Cold War. Our adversaries are investing in their capabilities and, in some areas, are surpassing us. Simply put, America no longer enjoys the comparative advantage it once had over our competitors and adversaries. As I said earlier, the Defense authorization bill is important for reasons that hit much closer to home. I am thinking about Texas military families and military facilities. This year's Defense authorization bill will authorize $158 million for military construction projects in Texas, including a new basic military training dormitory at Joint Base San Antonio and a new warehouse at the Red River Army Depot in East Texas. It will prioritize access to high-quality education for military children, establish a Federal grant program for infrastructure near military communities, as well as to protect our airports and airfields from radar interference, which builds on previous efforts at Sheppard Air Force Base and Naval Air Station Corpus Christi. One additional part of the Defense authorization bill I will highlight promotes justice for victims of sexual assault on military bases. This stems from a piece of legislation that I cosponsored with the Senator from Maine, Mr. King, which has been included in the final bill that we are voting on, called the Children of Military Protection Act. It is based on actual case studies at Fort Hood and Fort Bliss that were brought to my attention by military lawyers. Finally, the Defense authorization bill will invest in a medical program at Fort Bliss, cyber institutes at places like Texas A&M, and our workhorse legacy fighter aircraft, like the F-16s at Joint Base Fort Worth. Texas priorities are far from the only ones addressed in the NDAA, but they are important, and I am glad we are taking care of servicemembers in my State and keeping our commitment to them. So let's get the NDAA across the finish line this evening. Family Separation Policy Madam President, the other issue I want to talk about is the ongoing situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. This is the border from my State to Mexico--1,200 miles of common border. Just like under the Obama administration in 2014, we have seen a surge of unaccompanied children and families coming across our southern border during the spring and summer months. Overwhelmingly, these families and these children are coming from Central America--in other words, from countries that are not adjacent to or contiguous to the United States. Some have presented themselves lawfully at ports of entry, but others have tried to enter illegally. For example, if you are attempting to claim asylum, you can show up at one of our bridges or ports of entry and claim asylum without breaking the law. Yet, if you enter the country between the ports of entry--through the wild, wild west, I will call it, of the Texas frontier and border region--you will be entering the country illegally. You can then claim asylum, but you will still have entered the country illegally, so your asylum claim will have to be considered in that context. The Trump administration has made the decision to enforce all of our laws by prosecuting adults in criminal court when they are apprehended after having crossed our borders illegally. I support that approach--a zero tolerance approach--for adults who violate our immigration laws. This law has been on the books for many decades but has not always been adequately enforced. Because of numerous Federal court decisions, settlements, and statutes, an adult can be separated from a child as part of the legal process as it plays out. That way, children are placed in separate, safer settings. I doubt many of us would want a child to go to a jail cell in which somebody is being held for having illegally entered the country. That is why children are put in separate, safer settings. They aren't left unattended to fend for themselves amongst potentially violent criminals who are being detained in regular ICE or Bureau of Prison facilities. Those legal decisions, settlements, and statutes are important to acknowledge because, as the New York Times stated this week, ``There is no [express] Trump administration policy stating that illegal border crossers must be separated from their children.'' So the New York Times--hardly a big Trump cheerleader--has said, ``There is no [express] Trump administration policy stating that illegal border crossers must be separated from their children.'' In other words, this is as a result of other consent decrees and laws which are within the power of Congress to change. In fact, I think every Member of this Chamber will agree that we should never be placing children in prison cells or jails with hardened criminals when their parents are being prosecuted. By the same token, I don't want family members to be separated from one another as a result of DHS and administration officials enforcing the laws they are sworn to uphold. We have to keep family members together and prevent unnecessary hardship, stress, and outrage. The good news is, we have it within our power to find a better way because parents who are awaiting court proceedings shouldn't have to do so separated from their children and children shouldn't be taken from their parents and left frightened and confused about where they are and what is transpiring around them. In 2014, I introduced a bipartisan bill called the HUMANE Act with my colleague Representative Henry Cuellar of Laredo, TX. I plan to soon reintroduce an updated version of that legislation. It will include provisions that mitigate the problem of family separation while improving the immigration court process for unaccompanied children and families apprehended at the border. To the greatest extent possible, families presenting at ports of entry or apprehended crossing the border illegally will be kept together while waiting for their court hearings, which will be expedited. Additionally, this legislation will help eliminate the incentive for unaccompanied minors and family units with children to come to the U.S. illegally by expediting their court hearings. We found that catch and release is merely an inducement for further illegal immigration. By detaining these families together to make sure they appear before an immigration judge and receive any immigration benefits they are entitled to under Federal law, this will serve as a further deterrent for others who do not qualify for those immigration benefits. These minors should be afforded all required due process and have access to representation in court when making their claims. Through this expedited immigration court process, we would help ensure that children and family units with claims for immigration relief in the United States are able to receive their day in court rather than waiting in a multiyear backlog. This legislation is not a solution for all of our problems at the border--far be it--but it would make real improvements to deter illegal immigration while ensuring the humane treatment of children and family members who entered the country in violation of our laws. I ask colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a hard look at this bill and work together to find a reasonable solution for this component of the crisis at our border. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, June 18, 2018, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing entitled ``Examining the Inspector General's First Report on Justice Department and FBI actions in Advance of the 2016 Presidential Election.''