[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 122 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5097-S5098]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



           Keeping Families Together and Enforce the Law Act

  Mr. President, now I would like to talk about another issue that I 
would like Members of Congress to come together on, and it is called 
the Keeping Families Together and Enforce the Law Act.
  You have heard a lot of reports recently about children being 
separated from their families at the border, and the administration has 
taken a position, in part prompted by lawsuits, and we can debate 
whether the administration should fix this problem through an Executive 
order, but how about this.
  Why doesn't Congress act to provide long-term certainty through an 
act of Congress to make absolutely certain that children who cross the 
border with their families can be kept with their families while we are 
trying to determine in a court whether that family has a legitimate 
claim to asylum?
  It sounds fairly simple. In fact, it is pretty simple. I met with 
Senators Feinstein, Senator Durbin, and Senator Cruz. We sat down, and 
we discussed a way to actually get this into law. We all agreed it 
needs to be very narrowly focused.
  The problem with immigration around here and the immigration subject 
is it gets really big and really complex really quickly. What happens 
with

[[Page S5098]]

big and complex on Capitol Hill is nothing gets done.
  So the bill we propose is very simple. Fix the issues in the law, 
clarify the process so we can actually make absolutely certain that 
minor children can stay with their parents while their asylum claims 
are being considered.
  We have had agreement on virtually everything. We have agreed that 
families should be kept together. We have agreed that we need more 
judges so we can reduce the background. We agreed we need more 
attorneys to participate in the process--basically a 2-to-1 ratio 
between a new judge and new attorneys to support the legal process. We 
agreed on minimum standards for housing so we make sure we are keeping 
these families in a place that we think are appropriate.
  Some people may come to the floor and say we are going to stand up 
tent cities and subject people to harsh conditions. We don't want to do 
that. As a matter of fact, we feel so strongly about it that we are 
putting forth specific requirements for housing. So we are addressing 
the judge constraint, we are addressing the lawyer constraint, we are 
addressing specific standards for keeping families together.
  We can actually pass this in a heartbeat. We can do it on the Senate 
floor, and we can do it through what is called unanimous consent. Allow 
somebody to come down here, put a bill forward, and get it passed. Give 
those children and parents certainty.
  The fact is, some of them are going to apply for asylum and will not 
have a legitimate case. Others will, but we have proposed a bill that 
will prevent any sort of lengthy detention. As a matter of fact, if 
this bill gets passed, the average case with a family would be 
prioritized. If you have an asylum request and you are with children, 
we want to keep you together and get it at the front of the docket so 
you can get certainty fairly quickly--over 40 to 60 days, but we have a 
constraint we have to get past. It has to do with a court ruling called 
the Flores case, where if we don't narrowly tailor the language to say, 
if a child--if a minor comes across the border with their parents, then 
they will be allowed to be kept with their parents in appropriate 
housing until such time as their asylum request has been heard before a 
court of law. It is not getting rid of Flores. You have some people 
here saying we want to completely eliminate the case. That is not the 
case.
  We don't want children coming across the border who don't have 
parents with them to be retained in perpetuity or indefinite detention, 
as it is referred to down there. That is what Flores does. So if a 
child comes across the border, and they don't have a parent with them, 
then after 20 days, they have to be placed somewhere other than 
detention. That is a good policy.
  If you have a situation where Flores stands the way that it is, then 
the law specifically requires the child to be separated from the 
parents. This gives the parents the choice. If they want the children 
with them while they are going through the legal process, then they can 
have that. If they choose to have the child placed with a family member 
or a guardian, then they can have that too.
  One of the things that I think we have to talk more about is the 
danger of just randomly placing children with a parent or guardian who 
comes across the border. We have several cases where in our system 
there is no way we would place the child with some of the people they 
are coming across the border with. They have been convicted for a 
variety of things: child neglect, child abuse, drug trafficking. All 
sorts of things that would have an American citizen's child removed 
from their family are the same sort of standards we want for a child 
coming across the border. Of course, we want to make sure the parent 
who says they are their parent or guardian really is.
  So in this body, there are few opportunities where you can narrowly 
tailor a policy to a point to where only the most partisan or 
unreasonable person wouldn't support it. This is one of them. We can 
get this bill passed, sent to the President's desk, and provide 
certainty--a compassionate, appropriate method for dealing with what 
are now hundreds of thousands of people who have come across the 
border--to children with their parents. Treat them fairly, treat them 
justly, and have them processed in what I believe is the greatest 
judicial system that has ever existed.
  It is on us to solve this problem. Anybody who comes down here and 
says, well, no, I have to talk about DACA, which is something I 
support, a path to citizenship or I want to talk about border security, 
which I also support--yes, let's talk about that, but let's not hold 
these children and these families hostage for other immigration 
matters. This body should have the backbone to deal with the political 
challenges that may come from their own party and do the right thing--
the next time.
  This time, let's solve the separation of children from their parents. 
Let's stop playing the political games that make for great fodder, but 
they are not compassionate, they are not a part of the solution. I hope 
we have enough Members to become a part of the solution. Next week, we 
will be talking more about this and possibly through unanimous consent.
  I want somebody to come down to this floor and explain to me why it 
is a bad idea. I want them to explain it to the American people, but, 
out of respect for the Senate, we will not offer a unanimous consent 
request today, but you can be pretty sure we will next week.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the Bounds nomination be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. For the information of all Senators, the nomination 
will be withdrawn.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.