thank you, mr. president. mr. president, president biden has opened our homeland to the worst criminals. under his leadership, over 9 million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border. 9 million people. that's more people than the

population of 75% of the state. months after months and year after year, the biden administration is shattering all their own records. for example, cbp has reported 1.6 million known got a ways in the last three years. a stark increase from the 1.4 million we saw in a ten year span from 2010 to 2020 and that's just the known got a ways. who really knows how many people have gotten past cbp undetected and these are not just plain old members, folks. they are people that too often include violent criminals who harm americans.

a day goes by without hearing of another american has fallen victim to crime perpetuated by the illegal immigrants the biden administration has let into the country. we all read the stories of the illegals arrested on serious criminal charges and post bail never to be heard from again. everyone knows the story of riley the 22-year-old nursing student beaten to death by an illegal immigrant who was in police custody in new york city before being let go but the crisis only continued just last friday, news broke that raul santana a mexican national in

the united states illegally had his bail dropped from $1 million to 100,000. what did he do? he struck and killed washington state trooper christopher gadd while driving drunk and high at 112 miles per hour. for more than eight years i have warned against the dangers of letting illegal immigrants who've already broken our laws rome the country and continue their lawlessness. i've continuously called on this body to step up and protect innocent americans from criminals who are in our country illegally and pass my bill, sarah's law. eight years ago, islands

michelle and scott woke up to every parent's worst nightmare. their daughter, sarah, was killed by a drunk driver. sarah, a 21-year-old from council bluffs had just graduated from bellevue university in nebraska with a 4.0 gpa. she had a bachelor's degree in criminal investigation. she was headed home after celebrating her important milestone with her friends and family. she had her entire life ahead of her. about like the trooper, she was struck and killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driving. before the family could even lay sarah tost rest, her murderer

posted a 5,000-dollar bond and was released the disappeared and has never been seen again. mr. president, these tragedies don't have to continue happening. today we can act to ensure that no family will be subject to the pain and anguish sarah's parents have experienced every day for the past eight years. my bill, which is namedsa for sarah, would close the appalling loophole that led to sarah's killer going free. it would merely require ice to detain otherwise deportable illegal immigrants charged with killing or seriously injuring another person. it also requires them to inform

victims and family members of necessary information pertaining to the investigation. had the sarah's law been on the books when sarah and plakon and trooper gadd were murdered, law enforcement that have to detain their killers instead of opening the door for them to simply flee. they would have been kept on federal immigration authorities efforts to remove their loved ones murders from the country. this should be easy. sarah and the troopers deaths are tragic, and unfortunately, doomed to be repeated thanks to the administration's broken and ill-informed policies, and my democratic colleagues refusal to

take up this very simple legislation. of those who come here illegally and harm our citizens should, without question, be a priority for removal. it's just common sense, folks. otherwise, deportable illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes in the u.s. should face justice. we can no longer prioritize illegal immigrants over public safety. we must pass sarah's law to send this message loud and clear for sarah's family and for the countless american families that sarah's law would protect. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s160 and the

senate proceeded to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered red a third time had passed into the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. >> is there objection? >> the senator from connecticut. >> reserving the right to object, i don't think we are in disagreement on the senate floor on this matter. i think we all agree that noncitizens who are convicted of serious violent crimes who've committed serious violent crimes should be detained, and they should be subject to removal proceedings. the good news is that is the current law. that is the current law. this bill is a reiteration of current law. let me tell you what the current law requires. it requires the detention of any

individual with serious criminal convictions including those who've committed crimes of violence or theft offenses including murder, rape and assault. that is the current law. furthermore, this administration has given specific direction to the department of justice to prioritize the attention and removal of individuals who've committed violent offenses. and so, as with earlier unanimous consentes requests, ts unanimous consent request is essentially a reiteration of current law. i have a great deal of respect for my colleagues. we've worked together on a number of important matters, but i find myself asking the question why are we being asked to simply restate current law when it comes to the detainment

or removal of immigrants who've committed violent crimes, who right now are subject to removal for those crimes. and i've come to two conclusions. the first is that it's a means of distracting the conversation from the vote that's going to happen in an hour and a half. we went through a painstaking process to negotiate a bipartisan compromise. that process was begun at the request of the senate republicans in the room with their appointed negotiator and representatives of their chosen leader of the conference. it couldn't be more official than that. ..

that question of whether you have a violent history and whether you should enter the united states happens at the border as part of your screening. bthat would be important bipartisan reform to make sure to make sure that anybody with a violent history never enters the united states. the current law isn't good enough, the bipartisan bill would have made that law better and made this country safer, but republicans are going to vote against that today. but what we are left with is consent agreements but also serves a second purpose. it also has a secondary impact. i wish my republican colleagues didn't care only about crimes committed by immigrants u.i know

that they care about crimes committed by others, gives the impression to the american public that there's a specific problem related to immigrant communities that they commit crimes at rates that are higher than natural-born americans when, in fact, the opposite is true. i worry that there's an effort to try to turn us against each other and make us fear immigrants when, fact, immigrants commit crimes much lower than natural-born americans. u.s. citizens are over two times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes than immigrants are. immigrants are 60% less likely to be incarcerated in this country than natural-born americans are. the mass shooting in las vegas

wasn't an immigrant. the pulse nightclub wasn't an immigrant. the mass shooter of uvalde wasn't an immigrant. the mass shoot near el paso wasn't an immigrant, the mass shooter in louis and maine and the mass shooter in parkland wasn't an immigrant and yet there wasn't a rush to the floor by my republican colleagues to try to fix the problem. i grieve for every single victim of crime in this country and i think we should be all working on ways to better protect our citizens. but i worry that these requests are an effort one to try to paper over the fact that republicans are about to vote against a bipartisan border bill that would make this country safer and being in facilitation of an effort whether intentional or unintentional to try to make us specifically afraid of

immigrants when, in fact, the truth is that the people that are coming into this country are fleeing economic destitution and trying to save their children's lives and when they get to the united states are less of a threat to our public safety than those that were born in the united states and for that reason i would object. >> objection is heard. >> mr. president. >> senator fromer iowa. >> fithank you, mr. president. i will just respond briefly to a number of points made by my colleague in opposition to this bill and one, i just want to say, no, this uc, this bill i am not trying to detract or distract from the vote that will happen this afternoon, this is an effort i've engaged on for eight years. i have brought this bill to the floor many times in an effort to

see it passed for sarah, for her family and for others that are in a similar situation. so, i would hoped that he would be able to passe it today. i know that i will again in the future be bringing this bill to the floor as my colleague pointed out, we do, we do appreciate the fact that there is crime all across the united states and for those impacted by that crime, we do wish that they had not had to go through that crime. but the fact of the matter is there is a difference between american citizens that are committing crimes and illegal immigrants who are committing crimes against american citizens. the difference is d that many times those illegal immigrants who in my bill i'm asking ice to detain so that they can go to

their hearings, i'm asking ice to detain them, not voluntarily, not maybe have someone release them early but they will be detained to face justice. many times those illegal immigrants are operating under assumed names, under assumed social security numbers. we don't know their true identities. many times they don't have roots in communities. so what has happened and we know this to be true because it happened in the case of sarah root and her killer is that edwin mejía, that's at least one of the names that this gentleman used while he was in the united states, when he was released on bond, w he was able to slip into

the shadows and the authorities were not able to trace him, they were not able to find him. why? because he was and illegal immigrant operating many assumed names operating out of many different communities with who knows what family or what contacts. when american citizens are committing crimes oftentimes we can trace them, we know who their family members are, we know where they worked, it is very different with those that enter the country illegally. we can't trace them, we can't find them. the families like sarah roots family, michelle roots, scott root, they will never see justice for their daughter because the man that killed her

was released and slipped right back into r the shadows where he came from. this family in iowa will never see justice for their daughter. many of these other families will never see justice for their lovedve ones because our law dos not require ice to detain and hold those murderers, those killers t until they have been seen by a court of law. that's what my bill does. it requires the detention. it allows ice to voluntarily keeps them, it requires them to keep them. justice for our family and i yield the floor.

>> senator from south carolina. >> thank you very r much. senator before ranch imp telephone telephone will be joining me in that endeavor. we will have a vote at 2:00 o'clock about a bipartisan bill which i applaud the effort to change immigration laws, unfortunately doesn't matter what laws are on the books if the administration is not going to enforce the ones that already exist. we had a vote in february on

this bill and one of the problems i've had the entire time is that a parole was being since february until now, april, 77,800 people have been paroled in the united states and i believe that's abuse of the statute that's on the books. 1.3 million in fy23. over 1.2 million were paroled by cbp alone and let's talk about the parole statute if we have that. if we don't, let me tell you what the law says. it basically says you can be paroled for two reasons. unique humanitarian need are a special benefit to the country. the statute that they're using to parole all of these people has limitations as to how it can be used and on average, the

statute in question during the obama-trump years was used about 6,000 people on average were paroled in the united states using the statute that biden administration's has been abusing. 725,000. fy15 during the obama years, 4,598. fy19 again 7500. fy22 the biden administration paroled 795,561 and fy23, 1.2 million plus. why are they doing parole differently than obama and trump? they're abusing the statute.

why are they just waving so many people in the country? that's for voters to decide. i think they are just basically abusing the statute because they don't want to turn anybody around and send them back so they just let people come into country in violation of the law.ntry in violation of the again, the parole statute in question is limited to two circumstance, unique benefit to othe country's special benefit o the country, unique humanitarian situation your mother's dying, special need to the country you're a witness in the trial and we need to get you in on a limited situation parole is not a permanent status. lakeland riley which we will ask unanimous consent to vote on the bill authored by senator brit, the man accused of murdering

her, ibarra in september 2022 he was apprehended by the border patrol. he was released through parole and it took me forever to find this out. the reason for parole subject due oh to detention capacity at the central processing center in el paso, texas, paroled due to detention capacityty at the central processing center in el paso, texas, they had no room for the guy and he's now being charged withit murdering this young woman in georgia. she's trying to find a way to make sure that never happens again. the two crimes should result in modem pulse from the country, that's what her bill does but i want the country to know that

the man accused of killing this young lady in georgia was released into our country by dhs illegally in my view. they violated the statute, they gave him parole for a reason that doesn't exist in the statute and you wonder why we don't want to pass another bill. the reason we don't want to pass another bill is we don't trust you, the biden administration. from the time we had this debate until the end of april, did things get better no, 77,800 people paroled from the original date to now. the average for obama-trump was around 6,000 for the entire year using the parole statute in question. 77,800 since february. so why are we skeptical?

because the way they do business at the biden administration. mayorkas secretary mayorkas has all the power he needs to stop this. you'll never convince me that 77,800 people were individually screened to have a program waiving people through based on country, not individual status, they promised me that an individual analysis was done on each parolee. he said, yes. we found one parolee accused of murdering a young lady in georgia who was not individually analyzed and released based on lythe criteria of the statute, e was released but had no place to put him. so what we want to do today is try to find a way to deal with the situation that led to this murder of this young lady.

the law has a loophole in it, i guess, for lack of a better word. i'm going recognize senator brit to tell us what her bill does because what do we knowut about the georgia case? we know the man charged with the murder of ms. riley was released in the united states under parole, not based on statutory enrequirements but just becausee were full. ifif i were the riley family i would be pretty upset and they might want to think about suing, but right now i'd like to yield to senator brit from alabama who is trying to find a solution to this problem. >> mr. president, first -- >> senator from alabama. >> first i'd like to say thank you to my colleague from south carolina for his leadership on this critical issue. the lakeland riley act is the tbipartisan border bill that should be on the senate floor today. i am proud to be the lead senate sponsor ofso this critical

legislation along with my colleague from north carolina. the lakeland riley act passed the house of representatives in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. the gentleman from georgia congressional district ten secured 37 democratic votes for this bill on the house floor and here in the senate this bill is bipartisan and has a cosponsor list of 47 senators. i am confident that a bipartisan majority of senators support the lakeland rylan act and it's well past time. we should send this bipartisan bill to the president's desk immediately. if this bill had been the law of the land, lakeland riley would still be alive today. now this bod has an opportunity and a responsibility in my

opinion to prevent this kind of unimaginable tragedy to happening to more families across america. it says that ice would be fired to detain and deport illegal aliens who commit theft offenses. it would also allow states to seek an injunction against any action taken against homeland security or attorney general that violate immigration law to the detriment of the state or its citizens. my colleague from f south carola has been at the forefront of exposing the biden administration unprecedented abuse of immigration parole which is directlywh relevant to the lakeland riley case. under the trump administration and the obama administration parole was granted at our southern border on average less than to 6,000 people a year,

however, under president biden grants of parole have skyrocketed and now we know, however, 1.3 million people have been paroled in the past year. one of t those grants of parole went to lakeland riley alleged killer after he crossed the southern border illegally in 2022. this abuse of parole continues to have devastating consequences for families and communities in every corner of our nation. president biden could stop this abuse of parole today if he wanted to but he doesn't and he won't. the president refuses to reverse course. it is past time to force his hand on that and past the lakeland riley act. it will secure the homeland and safeguard our streets, it will help defend our families, i yield the floor. >> senator from south carolina.

>> uc request, senator blackburn -- who are these people, what do we know about them, were there any affiliation with terrorist groups, what were they up to, i think we need to know as a nation what went on because i find it very odd that fighting age illegal immigrants joined to try to falsely get into a marine face and that sends shivers up my spine and i want to introduce this letter if

i may. >> is there objection? >> reserving the right to object. >> senator from illinois. >> mr. president, we all agree that noncitizens that are convicted o of violent crime should be detained and removed from the united states, period. sadly the lakeland riley act does nothing to address violent crime. under law, current existing law, noncitizens who entered the country illegally violate the terms of their status. >> visas revoked by officials by immigration and customen enforcement that are known as

ice. current law also requires, requires the detention of individuals with serious criminal convictions, those who committed murder, rape or any crime of violence theft offense with term of imprisonment of at least one year. the law also gives ice discretion beyond that to detain a noncitizen in which a noncitizen has been charged with a crime. to make this decision, ice assist in individual circumstances of the case ensuring the agency's limited resources are used effectively to protect national security and public safety. the reality is that congress is never appropriated nearly enough money for ice to detain every -- every undocumented immigrant who is charged with a crime and remember, the vast majority of our senators on the other side of the aisle including the sponsors of this major blocked a bipartisan national security supplemental in february that would haveld given ice more

funding to detain more undocumented immigrants who might pose a threat to our country. they voted against it. they'll have another chance to provide additional funding in just a short time today. i hope they'll finally take this opportunity vote for more ice agents if you want more ice enforcement of existing laws that are on the books. here is the reality. it would eliminate ice's discretion to prioritize dangerous individuals. certainly people who are being convicted of a violent crime or charged with violent crime or more serious offenders than perhaps those guilty of theft. we don'tth know the circumstancs in each case. instead require ice to i treat those arrested fori nonviolent crimes this proposal would to treat those for nonviolent crimes the same as individuals who actually convicted violent crimes and with limited ice agents, you

have to make a choice. what's the priority, what's the most dangerous individual. this proposal before us would overwhelm ice facilities and make us less not more safe. for example, this law would require ice to detain every immigrant who is simply arrested for shoplifting, arrested even if it quickly becomes clear the person is innocent because this bill does not require charge or conviction. tell me, o does it make sense to treat a noncitizen arrested for shoplifting the same as someone convicted of murder? i think we all know the answer. this bill would also grant state attorneys general the standing to sue federal immigration authorities if a state disagrees withon immigration enforcement decisions made by the federal government. for example, this bill would give state attorney general the standing to challenge thege usef the parole authority like uniting for ukraine which allows ukrainians fleeing putin's war

to temporarily come to the united states if the state can show harm of one hundred dollars. let me tell you, they talk a lot about parole and how many 70,000 or so in the last six months or so, among those were the ukrainian refugees, they were brought to the united states from the war-torn sworn because of vladimir putin's invasion. 36,000 of them came to chicago. the conditions of them coming to chicago, background check, second sponsoring family so they have somebodyte that would help them assimilate in the united states and third, right to work. we had little or no publicity, negative publicity about ukrainians. we are proud ukrainian american community and they're observing the individuals victims to have war in ukraine. these are part of the parole numbers that have been alluded eto. inee contrast, we received 46,00 migrants sent by the governor of texas on over 880 buses to

chicago without any warning, without any preparation. that's been a difficult situation and put strain to the governments in the area but to argue that parole for ukrainian refugees is wrong, i disagree with that. that was a humanitarian gesture and part of the united states and it'sre worked well at leastn our community. the situation with the governor. of texas is a contrast in this circumstance. it does nothing tohe help the situation and circumstances than affected her. the reality that most immigrants the united states are law abiding individuals that are

seeking a better in our nation. many studies have shown immigrants with life, less likely to commit crimes than natural-born u.s. citizens. when a bipartisan border supplemental comes to a vote, the vast majority of republicans oppose at the request of donald trump and you know what he said publicly? clearly it on me if the bill fails, i am blaming it on him. the former president has made it clear he does not want a solution to our challenges at the border, he wants a campaign issue for november. i urge my colleagues to reject donald trump's advice, support the actual solutions which will be before us in the next hour half and i object. >> objection is heard.

>> thank you to my colleague from illinois, senator durbin, a lot of things together and i enjoyed working together and here we have a fundamental disagreement, you're entitled to your opinion and not your facts, 77,800 people paroled since february aim from haiti, nicaragua and venezuela. that doesn't count the people of ukraine. they all showed up at the border. they paroled in. wthere's no way that statutory requirement were applied to 77,800 people. now why did they just waive them through? parole has been abused. average was 6,000 -- for a year for trump and biden during their presidency from april to now 77,800, nothing to do with ukraine as to the people from ukraine i want to help them but we have a refugee law where you

can apply for refugee status if you're in a war zone or things are bad where you live. they are taking the parole statute and just granting anybody and everybody, so it has nothing to do with ice funding. we are not talking about funding ice here. this is a decision by the executive branch to abuse the law on the books. the tools available apparently are not being used by anybody. we have a real-world example where the system failed let's make it stronger. why date this bill pass overwhelmingly in the house because it makes sense. nsif you learned nothing from te riley case, learn the following, she's a victim, her family is a victim of a broken immigration

system. her family is a victim of willful disregard of the law by the biden administration. the man accused of murdering this young lady was allowed to come into the country on parole based on where no place to put you, not the statutory requirements to get paroled. so this is a big issue. we should learn from the death of this young lady, we should change our parole system, we are not. that's why we are not going to add a new law that won't be enforced. until you prove to me you're serious about following the law as written, you're going to have a problem with us on this side of the aisle and hopefully a few democrats senator britt encourages us to do, which is to change the law, to address the situation, so we have no other laken riley cases. apparently, the death of this young lady has taught us nothing as a body.

we've learned nothing from this case. we're doing nothing different, and it breaks my heart. it looks like the murder of this young lady should be a wake-up call to a parole system broken, and to fix this never-ending catch-and-release, you're caught for crimes and you're released before the sun goes down to commit more crimes. it needs to come to an end. we will have a chance as a democratic people to vote in november. if you think the system is working the way it's intended to work, then you need -- and you're okay with what's going on, vote for biden, you're going to get more of the same. if you think this is broken, needs to change, you ought to think about voting for somebody else. i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i know there's another unanimous consent consent to be made, so i'll be very brief. i've always taken senator

graham's concerns about parole at face value. in fact, the last 30 days of the negotiations over the bipartisan border bill were dedicated to this question of reforming parole. in fact, the bill we're going to vote on in a matter of minutes involves the most significant, most serious reform of parole likely in the history of the country. we entered that conversation at the urging of senator graham. he was intimately involved in the negotiations over the reform of parole, and the reforms are signi significant. an elimination of 236-a parole, parole used between the borders. a substitution for that process, with a new ripping russ examination of every individual who's arriving's credentials for asylum. major reforms to the humanitarian parole program to make sure it is drool used --

truly used only for humanitarian purposes. so the irony of the complaints being made, about the overuse of parole, is that the bipartisan border bill, negotiated with senator graham involves the most significant reforms to parole, the most significant restrictions to the president's patrol authority that anyone here in this senate likely ever negotiated. that's why it's regrettable that we are debating unanimous consent agreements instead of coming together to vote on a proposal that addresses many of the concerns raised by my colleague. mr. durbin: does the senator yield for a question? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: does the senator from connecticut yield for a question? mr. murphy: i would. mr. durbin: in what intervening event prohibited or stopped this bipartisan measure from passing on the floor of the senate? murphy thank you for the -- mr. murphy: thank you for the question.

we groeshd in good -- negotiated in good faith, with the appointed representatives by the republican conference. snaerm graham was among -- senator graham was amongst those. i thought we had a product with the broad support of the republican conference. they ticked off to us their priorities, and they were legitimate. they said we want reform of the asylum system, we want to raise the standard for credible fear, we want more detention beds, we wants tore reform parole, we want to give the president a new authority to shut down the border at times of emergency. obviously, democrats came to that conversation with priorities as well. we wanted to expand the number of family visas and work visas. we wanted to make sure that immigrants can exercise their legal rights. we achieved an old-fashioned compromise. the night we released that bill, senator durbin, i thought we were on a path to passage. but it was president trump who intervened and said, plain and clear, as senator mcconnell

admitted, i want nothing to pass before the election. i want nothing to pass before the election, because, president trump's treatment decided it would be better off for the border to be a mess, to help his political prospects, instead of solving the problem. i hear senator graham when he says, well, we don't trust the biden administration. well, we didn't trust the trump administration. that's a road to nowhere. if we don't pass reform legislation when the other party's president is in power, we will never do the business of the people. we had a chance to do that, until the intervention of president trump. i wish, i wish that instead of choosing his political prospects this november, we were choosing to secure the border in a bipartisan way. mr. durbin: at 2:00 this afternoon we're going to have a vote on that bipartisan measure, and this had been an -- it will be an opportunity for those with amendments to come forward with those amendments after we pass it. mr. murphy: that is correct.

this is a motion to just proceed to debate. this isn't final passage. if members think there are imperfections in this bill, they want additional restrictions on parole authority, they can vote to proceed, then we get into a process to solve any remaining differences that have arisen since the announcement of the bipartisan bill with republican leadership, with their designated negotiator. i wish we could just get on to this bill so we could try to sort this out, instead of allowing this to be a perpetual political football, as seems to be the interest of many of my republican colleagues. mr. durbin: i yield. mrs. blackburn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. thank you, mr. president. . i have found this conversation so interesting. i will remind my colleagues that h.r. 2, a border security bill, actually did come to the senate, had and it has been here since may 15, 2023, an actual border

security bill. and the fact that the provisions in front of us are not border security provisions are things that are of concern. i have come to the floor to talk about the biden administration ending a policy that we had during the trump years, and it was familial dna testing at the southern border. now, they chose to end this. nobody has benefitted more from this reckless decision of the biden administration than these cartels that are abusing and recycling minors to help illegal aliens. yes, indeed, they are recycling children. they're recycling children who have no relationship to the

adults that are bringing them in because these illegal aliens being pushed by the car tells are -- by the cartels are attaching children to the adults so they appear as a family unit at the border and that will help them to get aasylum. -- to get asylum. while more than 400,000 migrant children have crossed our border under this administration, reports show us that as many as 30% of those children that are dna tested by border agents are not related to the illegal aliens that are posing as their family members. so i come to the floor to call for a motion to proceed to s. 1483, the end child trafficking now act, to restore

familial dna testing at the border. the bill would criminalize child recycling. it would require dhs to deport illegal aliens who refuse a dna test. it would mandate a maximum 10-year sentence for illegals who fabricate family ties to a minor and require hhs to process such children as unaccompanied minors. protecting migrant children should not be controversial, but if my democrat colleagues object, they are making their position clear on this issue. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session. further, that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 1843 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: is there

objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object, mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i understand this bill is intended to, quote, require a dna test to determine the relationship between asylum-seeking adults at the border and, quote, any accompanying children. however, it fails to accomplish this goal, and our current laws already include provisions to allow for dna testing. under current law, as written, dhs and the state department already have the necessary authority to collect dna where there is any question about the familial relationship between a noncitizen and a minor child travelling with them. at the southwest border, the department of homeland security currently conducts dna testing when there is any question about the validity of the child-parent relationship. additional scrutiny is placed to ensure that a child is not being traffic add. due to what issume is a drafting

error in this bill before us i would have to assume that this would not apply to families seeking asylum at the border. as it is currently written, this bill only applies to someone who is, quote, currently admitted to the united states. asylum seekers at the border, quote, enter, close quote, at the united states but are not admit. there is a big distinction here. that means this bill would apply to any noncitizen family coming to the united states through our legal immigration system but not families crossing the border to climb asylum, exactly the opposite of what the senator says she wanted to achieve. the family relationship of those who are coming to our country through the legal immigration system are usually validated by multiple agencies before applicants are issued a visa. for example, assume a family from mexico wanted to come to disneyland in florida and apply for a visitors' visa for that purpose for themselves and that

earn their children. they would need to prove at the airport under this bill that they are the relatives or guardian of the children or submit to a dna test. is that what we're going to expend our energy on? if a family refuses, the adults may be arrested, the children will be placed as unaccompanied children an placed in custody. is that what we want to achieve? this bill would prove every such family to prove their relationship with the children at the airport or other ports of entry. this would bring our system for processing lawful travellers to a halt and deter legitimate trade and tourism in the united states. as the senator from tennessee knows, protecting kids has been one of our top priorities in the judiciary committee. last year we held two hearings on safety and well-being of children seeking refuge in the united states. we heard from child trafficking experts and government witnesses. following up on these hearings, the committee is in the midst of an ongoing investigation of the issue. we all agree that no child should be abused or trafficked,

whether the senator is a republican or democrat. i oppose the inhuman family separation policy. it's easy to criticize the executive branch, but let's take a look at the reality of the situation. we need to look in the mirror. it has been decades, over 30 years, since congress passed meaningful immigration legislation. in less than an hour, at 2:00, every senator will have a chance to make history, to start us on a conversation, a bipartisan conversation, for a better immigration system. instead of lobbying part -- lobbing partisan attacks, let's come together to fix the broken immigration system. we should provide money, funding for enforcement against child labor violations and ensure child migrants have the services they deserve. i've introduced legislation to improve children navigate our legal system and better protect

them. i welcome my colleagues to join movement i'd be more than happy to sit down with any of my colleagues to discuss solutions that would prevent child trafficking. sadly, this bill does not accomplish that goal at all. i object. mrs. blackburn: mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. i think that the esteemed chairman of the judiciary committee is misreading the bill because this would apply to people that are entering the united states. it would apply to those who are coming to the southern border, and this is a process that had been in place. the biden administration chose to stop this process. mr. president, what we need is they chose to stop this because the test takes 45 seconds, 45 minutes -- excuse me, 45 minutes to determine if that child is or is not related. 45 minutes to determine if that

child should be left with those adults. and 30% of the children that are dna tested at that southern border are found to not be related to the adult who is holding them by the hand, who is bringing them in the country. so i would ask my colleagues, is 45 minutes too much time to take to be sure that a child is secure? we've had 10 million people come to that border. we have had 400,000 of those, children. don't we want to provide the best for these children and separate them from traffickers? and, by the way, hhs has lost track of 85,000 of these children. they can't tell your committee, mr. president, where those children are. they can't tell judiciary committee where those children

are. 85,000 children. we do not know if they are dead or alive. we do not know if they are being labor trafficked, sex trafficked. we do not know what is happening. dna testing is a way to help save some of these children. we should return to this policy. and, by the way, again i will mention, h.r. 2 that be in here. homeland security committee has had 374 days to have a mark-up on a border security bill. they chose not to. the judiciary committee could have had a mark-up on a border security bill. they did not do it. but they're bringing a political stunt bill to the floor today to try to push it through to give cover to vulnerable members of your party.officer:he