[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 90 (Thursday, May 23, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3866-S3868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 160

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, President Biden has opened our homeland to 
the world's criminals. Under his leadership, over 9 million illegal 
immigrants have crossed our southern border--9 million people. That is 
more people than the population of 75 percent 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 3 years, a stark increase from 
the 1.4 million known ``got-aways'' we saw in a 10-year span from 2010 
to 2020. And that is just the known ``got-aways.'' Who really knows how 
many people have gotten past CBP undetected?
  And these aren't just plain old numbers, folks. OK? They are 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 8 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 repeatedly 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, Iowans Michelle and Scott Root 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 investigations.
  She was headed home after celebrating her important life milestone 
with her friends and her family. She had her entire life ahead of 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, disappeared, and has never been 
seen again.
  These tragedies don't have to continue happening. Today, we can act 
to ensure no family will be subject to the pain and anguish Sarah's 
parents have experienced every day for the past 8 years.
  My bill, which is named for Sarah, would close the appalling loophole 
that let Sarah's killer 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 authorities' efforts to remove their loved one's murderers 
from the country.
  Simply put, folks, this should be easy. This should be easy. Sarah, 
Laken, and Trooper Gadd's deaths are tragic and, unfortunately, doomed 
to be repeated, thanks to the administration's broken and ill-informed 
policies and my Democrat colleagues' 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 is just common sense, folks. 
Otherwise deportable illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes in 
the United States should face justice.
  We can no longer prioritize illegal immigrants over public safety. We 
must pass Sarah's Law to send this

[[Page S3867]]

message loud and clear for Sarah's family and for countless American 
families that Sarah's Law would protect.
  As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 160 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?
  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 or removal of 
individuals who have committed violent 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 who right now are subject to removal for those crimes?
  And I come to two conclusions: The first is that it is a means of 
distracting the conversation from the vote that is 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, Senator 
Lankford, and the leader of their caucus, Senator McConnell, in the 
room for 4 months negotiating a bipartisan border security bill.
  At the end of that process, we achieved a result. We got an agreement 
with the people that the Senate Republican caucus told us to get an 
agreement with. Within 24 hours, almost every Senate Republican had 
sided against that bill.
  I submit, everybody probably had different reasons for it, but it was 
very clear that up until the point where Donald Trump said: Don't do 
anything; I want the border to be a mess, there were plenty of Senate 
Republicans who were very invested in that process. Included in that 
bipartisan 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 a previous criminal history inside of the United 
States, that doesn't become relevant to your 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 fear screening. That would be a 
really important bipartisan reform to make 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, almost to an individual, vote against that later today.
  And so what we are left with are these unanimous consent agreements 
that don't come 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 immigrants, when in fact immigrants commit 
crimes at a rate 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 percent less likely 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 at Sandy Hook 
wasn't an immigrant. The mass shooter in Uvalde wasn't an immigrant. 
The mass shooter in El Paso wasn't an immigrant. The mass shooter in 
Sutherland Springs wasn't an immigrant. The mass shooter in Lewiston, 
ME, wasn't an immigrant. The mass shooter in Parkland wasn't an 
immigrant. And 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 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 UC 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 who are coming to this country are fleeing economic 
destitution, trying to save their children's lives, are coming from 
places in which they were victims of terror and torture and violence 
and when they get to the United States are actually less of a threat to 
our public safety than those who were born in the United States.
  For that reason, I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Madam 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 that 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 have engaged on for 8 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 who are in this similar situation.
  So I would hope that we would be 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 who 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 who are committing crimes and illegal 
immigrants who are committing crimes against American citizens.
  The difference is that many times those illegal immigrants whom, in 
my bill, I am asking ICE to detain so that they can go to their 
hearings--I am asking ICE to detain them--not voluntarily detain, 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 Mejia--that is 
at least one of the names that this gentleman used while he was in the 
United States--when he was released on bond,

[[Page S3868]]

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 an illegal immigrant, operating under many 
assumed names, operating out of many different communities, with who 
knows which family or what contacts.
  When American 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 have worked. It is very different with those who enter 
the country illegally. We can't trace them. We can't find them. The 
families like Sarah Root's family--Michelle Root and Scott Root will 
never see justice for their daughter because the man who killed her was 
released and slipped right back into the shadows where he came from. 
This family in Council Bluffs, IA, 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 is what my bill does. It requires the detention. It does not 
allow ICE to voluntarily keep them. It requires them to keep them--
justice for our families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.