mr. padilla: mr. president, when

i was a kid growing up, the last thing i thought i'd do when i grew up was to be involved with government and politics. but when i returned home from college, i came home to california to find hateful tv ads warning of an invasion at our border. these were in support of a measure demonizing immigrant families like mine. a jen of la teen -- a generation of latinos in california grew up knowing that officials who were to represent us were more than happy to scapegoat our families as the root cause of the state's challenges. but instead of just putting our head down and waiting for the political tides to turn, my

generation decided to get involved, and we started a movement that put more people from our communities into positions of power. now, three decades later, the state of california is not just home to more immigrants than any other state in the nation, we also represent the largest economy of any state in the nation. that's not a coincidence. but, sadly, today we're also seeing some of the same hateful rhetoric once again. and when i hear it, i feel it. and i think about my children and a whole new generation of latinos across the country that leaders -- see leaders of the republican party demonizing immigrants and people who look like us.

yes, the republican presidential nominee warns that immigrants are, quote, poisoning the blood of our nation, echoing rhetoric from nazi germany. that's happening. i haven't had to come down to this chamber earlier this year, just couple of months ago, to object to one of our colleagues seeking to declare a, quote, invasion at our southern border. that's the moment that we're in, and it's an undeniable part of the context in which the bill that we're going to be voting on soon was written. i proposal before us was initially supposed to be a concession, a ransom to be paid to republicans to pass urgent and critical aid to ukraine. not my words.

theirs. the proposal was three months ago. but guess what, mr. president? we passed the foreign aid. it was the right thing to do. and so i can't help but ask what's this concession for now? because it surely cannot be the new starting point for negotiating immigration reform. mr. president, i'm disappointed because this bill contains some of the same tried and failed policies that would actually make the situation worse at the southern border. it includes arbitrary border closures and practically eliminate the right to seek asylum for people fleeing for their safety or for their very lives. many of us have acknowledged, both sides of the aisle in both formal conversations and

informal conversations, that one of the biggest reasons that so many people come to the southern border is because it's so hard to come to the united states legally. so i look at this bill, and guess what? it fails to address the root causes of migration or to establish more lawful pathways. and it's not just what's in the bill that troubles me. it's what's not in the bill. if enacted, this bill would fail to provide relief for a single dreamer, for a single farm worker, or a single essential worker or long-term resident of the united states who has been here for years, in some cases decades working, paying taxes, contributing to the strength of our communities and our country and the success of our economy.

so the senate is voting on this package now for a second time, but still no votes on the dream act, which, by the way, does enjoy bipartisan support. it's hard to swallow. and there's more. we hear that there's some extreme executive actions coming soon. for as much has been accomplished by this body, this chamber has also served as the backdrop for some of the most vile rhetoric in our nation's history. the same hatred that met irish and italian immigrants coming tlul ellis island permeated these walls for the chinese exclusion act. the same villainized west for

mexico and the southern border. every time political leaders villainize immigrants, communities like mine feel the effects. just ask any latino kid who's been told to go back to where they came from. ask anyone speaking spanish in america who's been told to speak english. ask any asian american who has harassed during the covid-19 pandemic. colleagues, what chapter of our nation's history are we choosing to write today? i ask because, yes, there will come a time when history judges us, and what will you say? will you say that you worked to defend the american dream for future generations, or settle and deny opportunity for future generations?

countless immigrants and children of immigrants will ask whether republicans and democrats will leave them behind once again. colleagues, i urge you to vote no today and to be more thoughtful in how we address border safety. i urge you to join me in staying true to our values in modernizing our immigration system. i urge you to join me today in doing what's right for dreamers, farm workers, and other long-term undocumented members of our communities. they deserve better, and we, we should be better than this. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: mr. president, it has been more than 100 days since republicans killed a procedure deal -- a border deal that they specifically demanded and they actively helped to wr write, from start to finish. this bill is not some partisan democratic wish list. in fact, the previous speaker, the senior senator from california, is correctly upset at our lack of attention to

legal immigration, to the plight of daca individuals, and to try to anchor our policy and our core values of understanding that we are a nation of immigrants and maybe even separate and apart from that, immigration is one of the most ef effective anti-inflation policies out there. but the vote we are about to take is not about immigration. it is about border security. and it is fair to say that the democratic conference has come a long way on border security. we negotiated with one of the most conservative members of the united states senate, james lankford. and when i heard that chris murphy and james lankford were negotiating, i was not hopeful.

not because i don't think they're serious legislators, but i figured they were too far apart. and so when they came to a conclusion, i didn't love everything in that bill, but i still support it, and here's why. because it makes real reforms and meaningful investments to address a real crisis at the border that needs to be fixed. there is no contradiction between believing in legal immigration and believing in the core values of the united states and believing in the need for order and security on our northern and southern borders. and so this bill will expedite the asylum process. it will provide, it would provide immediate work authorizations. it would expand legal immigration pathways. it would provide billions of dollars to law enforcement to stop the flow of fentanyl.

those are all necessary measures, but the reason the bill failed back in february, the reason the border continues to be the way it is today is donald trump. donald trump woke up one day and decided that doing nothing on the border would help him politically. he literally said, blame me. blame me. the funny thing about this situation is if you describe what happened exactly accurately, which is that we, with chris murphy, kirsten sinema and james lankford negotiated the toughest border package in many generations that has a chance to pass, a bipartisan bill where democrats were were understandably uncomfortable, that when this thing came out, i was in

conversations with republican members of the senate, and they were saying they expected a vote in the high 70's, close to 80 votes. they were very comfortable that this was going to win going away. and then donald trump said kill it, and that's what happened. it got killed. and so the thing about describing things factually in this instance is it sounds like i'm trying to lob rhetorical bombs or make a partisan statement, but that's just literally what happened. we negotiated this thing. they told us work with james lankford. they told us reform the asylum process. they told us cbp needs more resources, they're overwhelmed. they told us we need technology. we did all those things. chris murphy negotiated all those things. it's not easy for -- i'm not sure if he would like to be called this -- an

unreconstructed progressive to negotiate such a bill. he's looking at me right now. i think he doesn't love that term. but they voted to kill it anyway. republicans chose to preserve chaos at the border, and now this crisis is on them. so spare me the crocodile tears. spare me the press conferences, spare me the unanimous consent request, spare me the cable news hits, spare me the memes, spare me the tv ads. you had your chance. and now the beauty of this is you have your chance again. an hour and 45 minutes from now you can decide, am i going to vote for the strongest border package in a generation or am i going to vote no because my boss is donald trump and he doesn't want this to pass? the choice is theirs. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, president biden has opened our homeland to the world's criminals. under his leadership, over nine million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border. nine million people. that's more people than the population of 75% of our states. month after month and year after year the biden administration is shattering all the wrong records. for example, cbp has reported 1.6 million known got-aways in the last three years. a stark increase from the 1.4 million known got-aways we saw in a ten-year span from 2010 to

2020. and that's just the known got-aways. who really knows how many people have gotten past cbp undetected? these aren't just plain old numbers, folks, okay. they're people that too often include violent criminals who harm americans. hardly a day goes by without hearing of another american who has fallen victim to crimes perpetuated by the illegal immigrants the biden administration has let flood into our 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 laken 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 continues. just last friday news broke that raul santana, a mexican national who is in the united states illegally had his bail dropped from $1 million to $100,000. what did he do? well, 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

have already broken our laws roam the country and continue their lawlessness. i have called on this body to step up -- criminals who are in our country illegally, and pass my bill, sarah's law. eight years ago iowans michele and scott root woke up to every parent's worse nightmare. their daughter sarah was killed by a drunk driver. sarah, a 21-year-old from councilsbluff, graduated from bellevue university in nebraska with a 34. -- 4.0gpa. she was heading home after

celebrating her important milestone with her friends and family. she had her entire life aof her, but like trooper gadd, she was struck and killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driving. before the root family could even lay sarah to rest, her murderer posted a $5,000 bond, was released, disarounded -- 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 named for

sarah, would close the appalling loophole that let sarah's kill ergo free. it -- go free. it would merely require ice to detain otherwise deportable illegal immigrants charged with killing or seriously injuring another person, it also requires ice to inform victims and family members of necessary information pertaining to the investigation. had sarah's law been on the books when sarah and laken and trooper gadd were murdered, law enforcement would have to detain their killers instead of opening the door for them to simply flee. the roots, the rileys, and the gadds would have been kept

up-to-date on federal immigration authority's efforts to remove them from the country. simply put, this should be easy. sarah laken and trooper gadd's deaths were unnecessary and will be repeated thanks to the administration's ill-informed policies and the democrats' refusal to take up this very simple legislation. 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 s. 161, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: mr. president, 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 have 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 current law requires. current law requires the detention of any individual with serious criminal convictions, including those who have 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 detention and removal of individuals who have committed violent and offenses. and so as with earlier unanimous consent requests, this unanimous

consent request is essentially a reiteration of current law. i have a great deal of respect for my colleague. we 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 have committed violent crimes? of who right -- who right now are subject to removal for those crimes. 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 senate republicans. in the room was their appointed negotiator and representatives of their chosen leader of the conference. it couldn't be more official than that. their appointed negotiator, senatored lankford -- senator lankford, the leader of their caucus, senator mcconnell, in the room negotiating a bipartisan border security bill. in that room we achieved the result, we got an agreement that the senate republican caucus told us to get an agreement with. and within 24 hours almost every republican senator sided against that bill. i submit that they may have had reasons for it, but it was very can clear up until the point that donald trump said, don't do anything, i want the border to be a mess, there were many

republicans invested in that. colluded in that -- compromise are important reforms in the way that we try to make sure that anyone with a violent history never enters the united states. under current law, if you have a criminal history outside of the united states or previous criminal history inside the united states, that doesn't become relevant to the asylum claim until you present before an asylum judge. under the bipartisan bill 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 credible screening. that would be a really important bipartisan reform to make to make sure that anyone with a violent history never enters the united states. the current law isn't good enough, the bipartisan law would have made that better. but republicans almost to an individual are going to vote against that later today.

what we're left with are these unanimous consent agreements that don't close to providing the kind of security that the bipartisan border bill does. but it 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. i know they care about crimes committed by others, but it seems that there is a disproportionate amount of energy on this floor dedicated to crimes committed by immigrants, which gives the impression to the american public that there is 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 is an effort afoot to try to turn us against each other, to make us fear

michls, when -- immigrants, in fact immigrants have crimes lowers, americans are two times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes than immigrants are. immigrants are less like to be incarcerated in this country than natural born americans are. the mass shooter in las vegas wasn't an immigrant. the mass shooter at pulse nightclub wasn't an immigrant, the mass shooter in uvalde wasn't an immigrant, the mass shooter in southingling sfrings wasn't an immigrant, the mass shooter in parkland wasn't an immigrant. yet, there wasn't a rush to the floor by my republican colleagues after those mass shootings to try to fix the problem. i grieve forevery single victim

of crime in this country and i think we should all be working on ways to better prkt our citizens -- protect our sglents, but i wore -- citizens, i worry this is will paper over the fact that the republicans will vote against a bipartisan border bill that would make this country safer and whether intentional or unintentional to make us specifically afraid of immigrants when in fact the truth is the people who are coming to this country are fleeing economic did hes using to -- did hesty using to, and they have been victims of terror and when they get to the united states are actually less of a threat to our public safety than those that were born in the united states, and for that reason i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. ernst: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for iowa. ms. ernst: thank you, mr. president. i will just respond briefly to a

thumb of points made by my colleague in opposition to this bill, and one, i just want to say, this -- this u.s., this bill -- this u.c., this bill, i'm not trying to distract from the vote that will happen this afternoon. this is an effort i have engaged on for eight years. i have brought this bill many times to see it passed for sarah, for her family and others in her similar situation. and so i would hope that we would able to pass 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 that are 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 that many times those illegal immigrants who in my bill i am asking ice to detain so that they can go to their hearings, i'm asking ice to detain them not voluntarily detain, 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 he'd within mejea, that's at least one of the names this gentleman used while he was in the united states, when he was released on bond, he was able to slip into the shadows. and the authorities were not able to trace him. they were not table to find him. why? because he was an illegal immigrant operating many assumed names. operating out of many different communities. with who knows what family or what contacts. whether america citizens are committing crimes, oftentimes we can trace them. we know who they are. we know who their family members

are. we know where they've worked. it is very difficult with those that enter the country illegally. we can't trace them. we can't find them. the families like sarah root's family, michele root, scott root, they will never see justice for their daughter because the man that killed her was released and slipped right back into the shadows where he came from. this family in council bluffs, iowa, will never see justice for their daughter. many of these other families will never see justice for their loved ones because our law does not require ice to detain and hold those murderers, those killers until they have been

seen by a court of law. that's what my bill does. it requires the detention, not allows ice to voluntarily to keep them. it requires them to keep them. justice for our families. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you very much. i'll be making a unanimous consent request here in a second. senator britt will be joining me in that endeavor. so we're going to have a vote at

2:00 about a bipartisan bill which i applaud the effort to change our immigration laws and get control of an out of control situation. unfortunately it 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 abused by this administration. since february until now, april, 77,800 people have been paroled in the united states, and i believe that's an abuse of the statute that's on the books. 1.3 million in f.y. 23. over 1.2 million were paroled by cbp alone. now let's talk about the parole

statute, if we have that. let me tell you what the law says. it basically says you can be paroled for two reasons. unique humanitarian need or a special benefit to the country. the statute that they're using to parole all 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's administration has been abusing. so f.y. 19, 7, 525. f.y. 18, 6, 466.

f.y. 19 again, 7500. in f.y.22, the biden administration paroled 795 be 561. in f.y. 23, 1.2 million plus. why are they doing parole differently than obama and trump? they're abusing the statute. why are they just waiving so many people in the country? that's for the voters to decide. i think they're 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 the country in violation of the law. again, the parole statute in question is limited to two circumstances, unique benefit to the country, special benefit to the country, unique humanitarian situation, your mother's dying, special need to the country,

you're a witness in a trial and we need to get you in on a limited situation. parole is not a permanent status. laken riley of which we will ask unanimous consent to vote on the bill authored by senator britt, the man accused of murdering her indicted in georgia, jose ibarra. he was apprehended by the border patrol in september 2022. he was released through parole. it took me forever to find this out. the reason for parole, the subject was paroled due to detention capacity at the central processing center in el paso, texas. the reason for parole, subject was paroled due to detention capacity at the central processing center in el paso, texas. they had no room for the guy. and he's now being charged with

murdering this young woman in georgia. he was arrested in 2024 and senator britt will tell us what her bill does here in a moment. she's trying to find a way to make sure this never happens again. the two crimes he was charged with should result in immediate expulsion 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. why create a new law that's not going to be any more effective than the current law? from the time we had this debate until the end of april, did

things get better? no. 77,800 people paroled from the original debate to now. clearly they haven't changed their idea or policies regarding the use of parole. the average for obama-trump was around 60,000 for the entire year -- 6,000 for the entire year. 77,800 since february. so why are we skeptical? because of the way they do business of the bidening administration. secretary mayorkas has all the power he needs to stop this. you'll never convince me that 77,800 people were individually screened. they have a program waving people through based on country, not individual status. they promised me that an individual analysis was done on each parolee. i asked them that and they said

yes. we found one parolee accused of murdering a lady in georgia was not analyzed and released based on the statute. he was released because they had no place for 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 to recognize senator britt now to tell us what her bill does, because what do we know about the georgia case? we know the man charged with the murder of ms. riley was released into the united states under parole not based on statutory requirements but just because we were full. if i were the riley family, i'd be pretty upset. they might want to thank about

suing. but right now i'd like to yield to senator britt from alabama who has tried to find a solution to this problem. mrs. britt: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mrs. britt: first i'd like to say thank you to my colleague from south carolina for his leadership on this critical issue. the laken riley act is the bipartisan border bill that should be on the senate floor today. i am proud to be the lead senate sponsor of this critical legislation along with my colleague from north carolina. the laken riley act passed the house of representatives in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. the gentleman from georgia, congressional district 10, 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 laken riley act and would vote for it today.

the house already did its work in a bipartisan fashion on this legislation, and now it's our turn here in the senate. and frankly, 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, laken riley would still be alive today. now this body has an opportunity and a responsibility in my opinion to prevent this kind of unimaginable tragedy to happening to more families across america. the laken riley act is straightforward. it says that ice would be required to detain and deport illegal aliens who commit theft offenses. it would also allow states to seek an injunction against any action taken by the secretary of homeland security or the attorney general that violate immigration law to the detriment of the state or its citizens.

my colleague from south carolina has been at the forefront of exposing the biden administration's unprecedented abuse of immigration parole, which is directly relevant to the laken riley case. under the trump administration and the obama administration, parole was granted at our southern border on average less than 6,000 people a year. however, under president biden, grants of parole have skyrocketed and now we know over 1.3 million people have been paroled in the past year. one of those grants of parole went to laken riley's 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 pass the laken riley act. it will secure our homeland. it will help to safeguard our streets. it will help defend our families. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i make a u.c. request in a minute. senator blackburn would you like to speak? i'm just about to wrap up. so i sent a letter yesterday to secretary mayorkas wanting to know about the two people who tried to get into the marine base, quantico. apparently both of them are illegal claiming to be amazon contractors who were not, and there's a lot of mystery around this. i want a response to my letter. 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 two fighting age illegal immigrants joined together to try to falsely get into a marine base. that sends shivers up my spine. so i want to introduce this letter into the record, if i may. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 3933 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered and read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, we all agree noncitizens who are convicted of violent crimes should be detained and removed from the united states, period.

sadly, the laken riley act does nothing to address violent crime. under current law, current existing law, noncitizens who enter the country illegally, violate the terms of their status, or have their visas revoked can be detained now under the law by officials of the immigration and customs enforcement, better known as ice. current law also requires, requires the detention of individuals with serious criminal convictions. those who have committed murder, rape, or any crime of violence or theft offense with the term of imprisonment of at least one year. the law also gives ice discretion beyond that to detain a noncitizen in any case in which a noncitizen has been charged with a crime. to make this decision, aisles assesses the individual circumstances of the case, ensuring the agency's limited resources are used effectively to protect national security and

public safety. the reality is congress has never appropriated nearly enough money for ice to detain every undocumented immigrant who's charged with a crime. and remember, the vast majority of our senators on the other side of the aisle, including the sponsors of this measure, blocked a bipartisan national security supplemental in february that would have given ice more funding to detain more undocumented immigrants who might pose a threat to our countries. they voted against it. they'll have another chance to vote to provide that 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 exist on the books. here's the reality, the sweeping approach in this bill would actually harm national security. why? because it would eliminate ice's discretion to prioritize

dangerous individuals. certainly, people who are being convicted of a violent crime or charged with a violent crime are more serious offenders than perhaps those guilty of theft. we don't know the circumstances of each case. we would instead require ice to treat those arrested for nonviolent crimes, this proposal would, treat those for nonviolent crimes the same as individuals who actually did violent crimes. 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 requires ice to detain every immigrant ha is simply arrested for shoplifting. arrested. even if it quickly becomes clear the person is innocent ballparks this bill does not require a charge or conviction. does it make sense to treat a n noncitizen arrested for shoplifting the same as someone

convicted of murder? i think we all know the answer. this bill also grants state attorneys general the standing to sue federal immigration authorities if a state disagrees with immigration enforcement decisions made by the federal government. for example, this bill would give a state attorney general the standing to challenge the use of the parole authority, like uniting for ukraine, which allows ukrainians flewing putin's war to -- fleeing putin's war to temporarily come to the united states if the state can show harm of $100. you talk about parole, how many, 70,000 in the last six months or so? among those were ukrainian ref refugees. they were brought to the united states from the war-torn zone because of vladimir putin's invasion. 36,000 of them came to chicago. the conditions of their coming to chicago? a background check, secondly a sponsoring family so they have someone who will help them assimilate into the united states, and third they're given

the right to work. we have had little or no negative publicity about these ukrainians. we have a very proud ukrainian american community, and they're absorbing these individuals who are the victims of the war in ukraine. these are part of the parole numbers that have just been alluded to. in contrast, we received 46,000 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 it's really put a tax and strain hon the governments of the -- strain on the governments of the area. to argue parole for ukrainian refugees is wrong? i disagree with that. that was a humanitarian gesture on the part of the united states. it's worked well, at least in our community. the situation with the governor of texas is a sharp contrast there this circumstance. laken riley's murder, by any standard, was a tragedy.

every description i've read about this young woman supths she was -- suggests she was an amazing person. that she lost her life is terrible, no excuses. we must do everything to prevent crimes like this from happening. this legislation before us makes our system less orderly and less safe. it does nothing to help the situation, the circumstances that affected her. the reality is that most immigrants in the united states are law-abiding individuals who are seeking a better life in our nation. many studies have shown immigrants are less likely to commit crime than natural-born u.s. citizens. donald trump recently said undocumented immigrants were, quote, poisoning the blood of our country, closed quote, a phrase that closely mirror's hitler's "mein kampf." when the supplemental comes to a vote, the vast majority of republicans opposed it at the

request of donald trump. you know what he said publicly and clearly? blame me if the bill fails. i am blaming it on him. the normer president -- the former president made it clear he does not want a solution at the border. he wants a campaign issue for november. i urge my colleagues to reject donald trump's advice, support the actual solutions before us in the