[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 111 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4517-S4519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Border Crisis

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past several weeks, I have spoken 
about the ongoing crisis on our southern border--the President has 
acknowledged as a humanitarian crisis--with tens of thousands of 
unaccompanied minors making a perilous journey from Central America and 
ending on our doorstep, most often in my State, the State of Texas.
  In this year, the numbers are skyrocketing again. Starting in 2011 we 
saw the numbers, roughly, about 6,000 unaccompanied minors. They 
doubled from 2011 to 2012, they doubled again from 2012 to 2013, and 
they look as though they are going to double again from 2013 to 2014. 
We can only wonder at what might happen thereafter unless we come up 
with a solution to the problem.
  A majority of these children, as I indicated, come from Central 
America--El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Under current law when 
these children are detained by the Border Patrol, they are processed by 
the Border Patrol and

[[Page S4518]]

then given a notice to appear at a future court hearing and turned over 
to the Department of Health and Human Services for safekeeping.
  Health and Human Services tries to identify a guardian to pick up the 
child and, not surprisingly, most of them are never heard from again. 
Certainly they don't show up for this court hearing in response to the 
notice to appear. Thus, the transnational criminal organizations, the 
cartels--the people who make money from transporting these children and 
other migrants across Mexico and the United States--have discovered an 
effective business model. In other words, they are able to deliver 
these children to their families--at least the ones who survive--from 
Central America through Mexico and into Texas.
  The majority of them will make it, because they will be placed with a 
family member or some other relative, and never appear at the court 
hearing for which they have been notified to appear.
  For children detained from bordering nations such as Mexico or 
Canada, the process is different than it is from noncontiguous 
countries such as Central America. Border Patrol, under the current 
law, can determine whether the children are eligible to stay in the 
United States or give these children the choice to be safely 
transferred to officials from their home countries.
  Our country simply does not have the current capacity to deal with 
50,000, much less 90,000 or 100,000, unaccompanied minors appearing on 
our Nation's doorstep.
  As a result, these children are being kept at Border Patrol 
facilities, such as I witnessed in McAllen, TX, that have capacity for 
a few hundred people, but they are currently holding well over double, 
many times triple and beyond, their current capacity.
  I and other Members of Congress, unlike the President, have seen 
these facilities firsthand and talked to some of the children. The 
conditions they are kept in are unacceptable by any standard: babies in 
diapers sleeping on cement floors and dozens of children crammed into 
one cell with a single toilet.
  In addition to these overcrowded detention facilities, there is an 
overburdened judicial system. Minors in custody of the Department of 
Health and Human Services are released to family members or guardians 
or sponsors in the United States, but they are given a notice to appear 
before an immigration judge if they wish to make a claim for relief 
under our immigration laws.
  Those who show up will not see a judge, on average, for more than 1 
year--leaving, as I said, plenty of incentive to simply disappear and 
never return for a court date. As the law is currently written, in 
2008, there are few other options available.
  For that reason I have, along with my friend and colleague from 
Texas, Henry Cuellar from the House of Representatives, introduced a 
clear, commonsense change to the 2008 law to address the immediate 
crisis.
  This is, I hasten to add, not a complete fix to our broken 
immigration system, but it does target this particular crisis and 
offers a commonsense solution.
  We call this the Helping Unaccompanied Minors and Alleviating 
National Emergency Act, or the HUMANE Act. It would amend the William 
Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. 
That law had good intentions, because it was focused on the victims of 
human trafficking, and we preserve those protections for the victims of 
human trafficking, but it needs to be improved so that thousands of 
children who now make this perilous journey in the hands of these 
criminal organizations up these smuggling corridors from Central 
America to the United States--we must make sure they are deterred from 
making this life-threatening journey.
  Our changes to the law maintain all of the safeguards built into the 
2008 law, and so there should be no objection on that basis. But what 
we would go further to do is the HUMANE Act would treat all 
unaccompanied minors the same and ensure an orderly legal process.
  A majority of these children would be reunited with their parents in 
their home countries. Those who choose to appear in front of an 
immigration judge will have every opportunity to do so on an expedited 
basis. In those cases where they qualify for removal under our current 
laws, they would be placed in safekeeping with federally screened 
sponsors while additional hearings are scheduled.
  This expedited process would alleviate overburdened Border Patrol and 
HHS facilities, as well as the local officials who have been 
disproportionately affected--although I would add that I read newspaper 
stories about officials in places such as Massachusetts, Arizona, 
California, and others expressing concern about these large numbers of 
unaccompanied children who are being warehoused in their States.
  Most importantly, this legislation would send a message to people in 
Central America that the dangerous journey to the United States in the 
hands of ruthless smugglers and cartel operatives is simply not worth 
it.
  Central American families would hear loudly and clearly that not only 
will the journey place their children at risk of sexual assault and 
even death, they will by and large not be permitted to stay in the 
United States once they arrive under current law.
  Some will. If you are a victim of human trafficking, you may be 
eligible for a T-visa. If you have a colorable claim to asylum, you can 
make that claim to an immigration judge under our legislation. But if 
you don't have a claim to relief under our current immigration laws, 
you will be returned safely to your home country.
  Tackling this crisis is a significant challenge that requires 
Presidential leadership. But, in the meantime, these children are 
sleeping in overcrowded cells, Texas communities are reeling from the 
impact, and we need action. With this legislation we try to target a 
commonsense solution that will take immediate steps to help stem the 
tide of the growing crisis.
  I hope my colleagues will join us in cosponsoring this legislation. 
It sounds as if the House of Representatives is probably going to be 
moving next week. I know there is a lot of controversy anytime we talk 
about circumstances such as this. Some people think it should be 
tougher, others think it is too tough to enforce current law. But the 
fact is, the drug cartels, the transnational criminal organizations, 
have created a business model based on a loophole they found in the 
2008 law.
  Our bipartisan, bicameral legislation seeks to fix that and to give 
these children the benefit of the law if they qualify under the law as 
currently written. But to continue to leave the law as it exists now 
with this loophole in it, and continue to see it exploited by the Zetas 
and other cartels that traffic in human beings, is simply an invitation 
to continue to see these numbers double year after year and our 
capacity to deal with these children on a humane basis further 
diminished.
  We need to have immigration laws that protect these children and all 
of us, and it does not mean that anybody and everybody under every 
circumstance can qualify to come to the United States and stay. That is 
simply an invitation to chaos.
  We can treat these children humanely, we can give them the benefit 
that the law allows as written, but if they don't qualify, we need to 
return them home.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, it is not often the Senate has a 
chance to go back and fix a grievous error that occurred in our 
history, and that error occurred in 1999 when a good and qualified man 
was defeated in the Senate for a position on the eastern district court 
of the Federal bench in Missouri.
  At that time there was an attack on Ronnie White for being soft on 
crime. The record, as it stands today, flies in the face of that 
assertion.

[[Page S4519]]

  At the time of his defeat, he had voted to uphold the death penalty 
almost 70 percent of the time. In fact, in his career on the Missouri 
Supreme Court, being the first African American appointed to the 
Supreme Court, he voted with the majority on death penalty cases 90 
percent of the time.
  This is a mainstream jurist. This is not someone who is outside of 
the mainstream. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police has endorsed 
his nomination. That is why he is considered in the State of Missouri 
as an iconic leader in the legal community. He went back to Missouri, 
was the chief justice in the Supreme Court after he was defeated on the 
floor of the Senate, retired from the Supreme Court, and has gone on to 
be an established and respected lawyer in the St. Louis community--
frankly, part of many big cases, especially the appellate work, because 
he served on both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
  I think Ronnie White handled what happened to him with as much 
character as could possibly be required of any individual. I look 
forward to finally righting the wrong and allowing Ronnie White his 
well-deserved place on the Federal bench.
  I ask all my colleagues to support the confirmation of Ronnie White.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Ronnie L. White, of Missouri, to be United States District 
     Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Claire McCaskill, Tim 
           Kaine, Angus S. King, Jr., Thomas R. Carper, Bill 
           Nelson, Jon Tester, Patty Murray, Christopher Murphy, 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Mark Begich, Sheldon Whitehouse, 
           Elizabeth Warren, Debbie Stabenow, Tom Harkin, Tom 
           Udall.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the 
Senate that debate on the nomination of Ronnie L. White, of Missouri, 
to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of 
Missouri, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from 
Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 226 Ex.]

                                YEAS--54

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Mikulski
     Rockefeller
     Schatz
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yes are 54, the nays are 43. 
The motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the time until 12:20 p.m. will be divided 
between the two leaders or their designees.
  Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.