[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 90 (Thursday, May 23, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3868-S3871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3933

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be making a unanimous consent 
request here in a second, and Senator Britt will be joining me in that 
endeavor.
  We are going to have a vote at 2 o'clock about a bipartisan bill. I 
applaud the effort to change our immigration laws and get control of an 
out-of-control situation. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what law is 
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. One of the problems I had the 
entire time is that parole is being abused by this administration. 
Since February until now, April, 77,800 people have been paroled in the 
United States, and I believe that is an abuse of the statute that is on 
the books. There were 1.3 million in fiscal year 2023. Over 1.2 million 
were paroled by the CBP alone.
  Now let's talk about the parole statute, if we have that. If we 
don't, well, let me tell you what the law says.
  It basically says you can be paroled for two reasons: a unique 
humanitarian need or a special benefit to the country. The statute that 
they are using to parole all of these people has limitations as to how 
it can be used. 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 the Biden administration has 
been abusing. In fiscal year 2019, it was 7,525; in fiscal year 2018, 
6,466; in fiscal year 2015, during the Obama years, 4,598; in fiscal 
year 2019, again, 7,500. In fiscal year 2022, the Biden administration 
paroled 795,561 and, in fiscal year 2023, 1.2 million plus.
  Why are they doing parole differently than Obama and Trump? They are 
abusing the statute. Why are they just waiving so many people into the 
country? That is for the 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 the 
country in violation of the law.
  Again, the parole statute in question is limited to two 
circumstances: a unique benefit to the country or a special benefit to 
the country. A unique humanitarian situation is that your mother is 
dying. A special need to the country is you are a witness in a trial, 
and we need to get you in for a limited situation. Parole is not 
permanent status.
  As for Laken Riley--and we will ask unanimous consent to vote on the 
bill authored by Senator Britt--the man accused of murdering her and 
who was indicted in Georgia, Mr. Ibarra, in September 2022, was 
apprehended by the Border Patrol. He was released through parole. And 
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, TX. The reason for parole: The subject was paroled due to 
detention capacity at the central processing center in El Paso, TX. 
They had no room for the guy, and he is now being charged with 
murdering this young woman in Georgia. He was arrested in 2024.

  Senator Britt will tell us what her bill does here in a moment. She 
is trying to find a way to make sure this never happens again. The two 
crimes he was charged with should result in an immediate expulsion from 
the country. That is 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 the 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 isn't 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. There have been 77,800 people paroled from the original 
debate until now. So, clearly, they haven't changed their idea or 
policies regarding the abuse of parole. The average for Obama-Trump was 
around 6,000 for the entire year using the parole statute in question. 
This is 77,800 since February. So why are we skeptical? Because of the 
way they do business in the Biden administration.
  Secretary Mayorkas has all the power he needs to stop this. You will 
never convince me that 77,800 people were individually screened. They 
have a program to waive people through based on country, not individual 
status. They promised me that an individual analysis was done on each 
parolee. I asked him that, and he said yes. Well, we found one parolee 
accused of murdering a young lady in Georgia who was not individually 
analyzed and released based on the criteria of the statute. He was 
released because they 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 the 
murder of this young lady.
  The law has a loophole in it, I guess, for lack of a better word. I 
am 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 would be pretty upset. They might 
want to think about suing.
  Right now, I would like to yield to Senator Britt from Alabama, who 
has tried to find a solution to this problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, first, I would 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, from 
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 supports 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 is our turn here in the Senate. Frankly, it is 
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 from 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

[[Page S3869]]

the Attorney General that violates 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, to fewer than 6,000 
people a year. However, under President Biden, grants of parole have 
skyrocketed, and now we know that 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 to defend our families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be making the unanimous consent 
request in just a minute, as I am just about to wrap up.
  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 were illegal, claiming to be Amazon 
contractors but were not. There is a lot of mystery around this, and I 
want a response to my letter.
  Who are these people? What do we know about them? Have they 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 ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record, 
if I may.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             United States Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 2024.
     Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas,
     U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Mayorkas: I am writing today to seek 
     information from your agency regarding the reported arrest of 
     two Jordanian nationals posing as delivery drivers while 
     attempting to infiltrate Marine Corps Base Quantico on May 3, 
     2024.
       As soon as possible, please inform me and the committee on 
     the status of these two individuals. Please explain how they 
     came to the United States. Were they here illegally? Are 
     either of them on any terrorist watchlist?
       Please provide the committee with the answers to these 
     questions and any other information relevant to their 
     background and intent, including copies of the complete and 
     most current alien files for each individual. This will allow 
     us to make an informed decision about how to address the 
     recurring threat posed to our national security by this kind 
     of incident, which is not isolated.
       I would hope for and expect an immediate reply.
           Sincerely,

                                            Lindsey O. Graham,

                                                   Ranking Member,
                                       Senate Judiciary Committee.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 3933 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time 
and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we all 
agree that noncitizens who are convicted of violent crime 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 a term of 
imprisonment of at least 1 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, ICE assesses the individual's circumstances in the 
case, ensuring the Agency's limited resources are used effectively to 
protect national security and public safety.
  The reality is that Congress has 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 Senators on the other side of the 
aisle--including the sponsors of this measure--blocked the 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 country. They voted against it.
  They will have another chance to vote to provide that additional 
funding in just a short time today. I hope they will finally take this 
opportunity. Vote for more ICE agents if you want more ICE enforcement 
of existing laws that are serious on the books.
  Here is 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 
or more serious offenders than, perhaps, those who are guilty of theft. 
We don't know the circumstances in each case.
  This proposal would, instead, require ICE to treat those arrested for 
nonviolent crimes the same as individuals who are actually convicted of 
violent crimes. With limited ICE agents, you have to make a choice: 
What is the priority? Who is 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 a charge or conviction.
  Tell me, 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 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 fleeing Putin's war to temporarily 
come to the United States--if the State can show harm of $100.
  Let me tell you, they talk a lot about parole and how many--70,000 or 
so in the last 6 months or so. Among those were the Ukrainian refugees. 
They were brought to the United States from the war-torn zone because 
of Vladimir Putin's invasion. And 36,000 of them came to Chicago. The 
conditions of their coming to Chicago: a background check; secondly, 
they had a sponsoring family so that they have someone who will help 
them assimilate into the United States; and, third, they were given the 
right to work.
  We have had little or no publicity, negative publicity, about these 
Ukrainians. We are a very proud Ukraine-American community. They are 
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 have received 46,000 migrants sent by the Governor of 
Texas on over 880 buses to Chicago without any warning, without any 
preparation. That has been a difficult situation, and it has really put 
a taxing strain on the governments in the area. But to argue that 
parole for Ukrainian refugees is wrong--I disagree with that. It was a 
humanitarian

[[Page S3870]]

gesture on the part of the United States, and it has worked well, at 
least in our community. The situation with the Governor of Texas is a 
sharp contrast in this circumstance.
  Laken Riley's murder, by any standard, was a tragedy. Every 
description I have read about this young woman suggests she was an 
amazing person, and the fact that she lost her life is terrible. There 
are no excuses. We must do everything possible to prevent crimes like 
this from happening. But 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 that immigrants are less likely to commit 
crimes than natural-born U.S. citizens. But Donald Trump recently said 
that undocumented immigrants were ``poisoning the blood of our 
country''--a phrase that closely mirrors one used several times in 
Hitler's ``Mein Kampf.'' He has also promised to round up and deport 
every single undocumented immigrant in our country, including Dreamers 
who grew up here.
  When the bipartisan border supplemental came to a vote, the vast 
majority of Republicans opposed it at the request of Donald Trump. Do 
you know what he said publicly and clearly? ``Blame 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 and a half.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to my colleague from Illinois, Senator 
Durbin, we do a lot of things together. I enjoy working with you. But, 
here, we have a fundamental disagreement.
  No. 1, you are entitled to your opinion but not your facts. There 
were 77,800 people paroled in the U.S. since February who came from 
Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. That doesn't count the people 
from Ukraine. They all showed up at the border. They were paroled in. 
There is no way that two statutory requirements were applied to 77,800 
people.
  Why did they just wave them through? All I can tell you is that 
parole has been abused. The average was 6,000 per year for Trump and 
Biden during their Presidency. From April to now, it is 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 are in a war 
zone or things are bad where you live. They are taking the parole 
statute and just granting to anybody and everybody they choose to 
grant. The bottom line is we are either a rule-of-law nation or we are 
not.
  This has nothing to do with ICE funding. We were 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.
  Why does Senator Britt offer legislation? Because we have a real-
world example where the system failed. Let's make it stronger.
  Why did this bill pass overwhelmingly in the House? Because it makes 
sense.
  If you learned nothing from the Laken Riley case, learn the 
following: She is 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 ``we have no place to put you,'' not the 
statutory requirements to get paroled.
  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 is why we 
are not going to add a new law that won't be enforced.
  Until you prove to me you are serious about following the law as 
written, you are going to have a problem with us on this side of the 
aisle and, hopefully, a few Democrats.
  We should learn from the Laken Riley case and do what 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 have learned nothing from this case. We are 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 are caught for crimes, and you are 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 is intended to work, and 
you are OK with what is going on, vote for Biden. You are going to get 
more of the same. If you think this is broken, it needs to change, you 
ought to think about voting for somebody else.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I know there is another unanimous consent 
request to be made, so I will be very brief.
  I have 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 are 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.
  The reforms are significant: an elimination of 236(a) parole, the 
parole that is used between the borders; a substitution for that 
process with a new rigorous examination of every individual who is 
arriving credentialed for asylum; major reforms to the humanitarian 
parole program to make sure that it is truly used only for humanitarian 
purposes.
  So the irony of the complaints that are 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 parole authority, that 
anyone here in this Senate has likely ever negotiated.
  That is why it is 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 colleagues.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?
  Mr. MURPHY. I would yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?
  Mr. MURPHY. I would.
  Mr. DURBIN. What intervening event prohibited or stopped this 
bipartisan measure from passing on the floor of the Senate?
  Mr. MURPHY. Thank you for the question, Senator Durbin.
  As I mentioned, we negotiated this bill in good faith. We negotiated 
it with the appointed representatives by the Republican conference. 
Senator Graham was amongst those in those conversations.
  We thought we had achieved a product that could get the broad support 
of the Republican conference because they ticked off to us their 
priorities.
  And they were legitimate priorities. We heard them loud and clear. 
They said: We want to reform the asylum system. We want to raise the 
standard for a credible fear. We want more detention beds. We want to 
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 a compromise, an old-fashioned compromise.

[[Page S3871]]

  The night we released that bill, Senator Durbin, I thought that we 
were on a path to passage. But it was President Trump who intervened 
and said, plain and clear, as Senator McConnell has admitted: I want 
nothing to pass before the election. He said I want nothing to pass 
before the election, because President Trump's team decided that it 
would be better 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 is 
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 o'clock this afternoon, we are going to have a vote 
on that bipartisan measure. It will be an opportunity for those who 
have amendments to come forward with those amendments after we pass it; 
is that not correct?
  Mr. MURPHY. That is correct. And, of course, this is a motion to just 
proceed to debate.
  So this isn't final passage. If Members think there are imperfections 
in this bill, if they want additional restrictions on parole authority, 
they could vote to proceed, and then we could get into a process by 
which we could try 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 onto this bill so we could try to sort this 
out instead of allowing this issue to become a perpetual political 
football, as seems to be the interest of many of my Republican 
colleagues.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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, and it has been here since May 15 of 
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.