[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 90 (Thursday, May 23, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3871-S3872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1843
Mr. President, 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 benefited 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 are recycling children who have no
relationship to the adults that are bringing them in, because these
illegal aliens, being pushed by the cartels, are attaching children to
the adults so that they appear as a family unit at the border, and that
will help them 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 percent
of those children that are DNA-tested by border agents are not related
to the illegal aliens who are posing as their family members.
So I come to the floor to call for a motion to proceed to S. 1843,
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. 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 (Mr. Peters). Is there objection?
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I
understand this bill is intended to ``require a DNA test to determine
the relationship between'' asylum-seeking adults at the border and
``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 when there is any question
about the familial relationship between a noncitizen and a minor child
traveling 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 parent-child relationship, and additional scrutiny is
placed on individuals who are not related to the child to ensure that a
child is not being trafficked.
Due to what I assume is a drafting error in this proposal before us,
I have to note that this bill will not even apply to families seeking
asylum at the border. As it is currently written, this bill only
applies to someone who is ``admitted'' to the United States, but under
our immigration laws, asylum seekers at the border ``enter'' the United
States but are not usually ``admitted.'' There is a big distinction
here. That means that 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 claim asylum--exactly the opposite
of what the Senator says she wanted to achieve.
The family relationships 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 that
a family from Mexico wanted to come to Disney World in Florida and
applied for visitors visas for that purpose for themselves and 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 are going to expend our energy on? If the
family refuses, the adults may be arrested. The children would be
treated as unaccompanied children and placed in custody. Is that what
we want to achieve?
This bill would require every such family to prove their relationship
with their children at the airport or other ports of entry. The
burdensome requirements in this bill could bring our system for
processing lawful travelers 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 the 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 ongoing investigation into the issue.
We all agree that no child should be abused, exploited, or
trafficked, whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat.
I vigorously opposed the Trump administration's inhumane family-
separation policy, and I have demanded that the Biden administration do
more to protect migrant children.
It is 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 o'clock, every
Senate Republican and Democrat will have a chance to make history, to
start us on a bipartisan conversation for a better immigration system.
Instead of lobbing pro-partisan attacks, let's come together across
the aisle to fix the broken immigration system. We should provide
funding for enforcement against child labor violations and ensure child
migrants have the services they deserve.
I have introduced legislation to improve sponsor vetting and
placement,
[[Page S3872]]
help children navigate our legal system, and better protect minors in
government custody. I welcome my colleagues from either side of the
aisle to join me. I would 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I think the esteemed chairman of the
Judiciary Committee is misreading the bill because this would apply to
people who are entering the United States. It would apply to those who
are coming to the southern border.
This is a process that had been in place. The Biden administration
chose to stop this process. What we understand is that they chose to
stop this because the test takes 45 minutes--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. Thirty percent 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 into
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 have 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?
By the way, HHS has lost track of 85,000 of these children. They
can't tell the Presiding Officer's committee where those children are.
They can't tell the 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.
By the way, again I will mention that H.R. 2 has been in here. The
Homeland Security Committee has had 374 days to have a markup on a
border security bill. They chose not to. The Judiciary Committee could
have had a markup on a border security bill. They did not do it. But
they are bringing a political stunt bill to the floor today to try to
push it through to give cover to vulnerable Members of your party.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my
unanimous consent request, the following Senators be allowed to speak
prior to the scheduled rollcall vote: Senator Lankford for up to 5
minutes, Senator Sinema for up to 7 minutes, and Senator Murphy for up
to 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.