[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H53-H61]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LAKEN RILEY ACT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call
up the bill (H.R. 29) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
take into custody aliens who have been charged in the United States
with theft, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rulli). Pursuant to House Resolution 5,
the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 29
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Laken Riley Act''.
SEC. 2. DETENTION OF CERTAIN ALIENS WHO COMMIT THEFT.
Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1226(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'';
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the comma at the end
and inserting ``, or''; and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E)(i) is inadmissible under paragraph (6)(A), (6)(C), or
(7) of section 212(a), and
``(ii) is charged with, is arrested for, is convicted of,
admits having committed, or admits committing acts which
constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft,
larceny, or shoplifting offense,'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(E), the
terms `burglary', `theft', `larceny', and `shoplifting' have
the meaning given such terms in the jurisdiction where the
acts occurred.
``(3) Detainer.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
issue a detainer for an alien described in paragraph (1)(E)
and, if the alien is not otherwise detained by Federal,
State, or local officials, shall effectively and
expeditiously take custody of the alien.''.
SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF A STATE.
(a) Inspection of Applicants for Admission.--Section 235(b)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Enforcement by attorney general of a state.--The
attorney general of a State, or other authorized State
officer, alleging a violation of the detention and removal
requirements under paragraphs (1) or (2) that harms such
State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action
against the Secretary of Homeland Security on behalf of such
State or the residents of such State in an appropriate
district court of the United States to obtain appropriate
injunctive relief. The court shall advance on the docket and
expedite the disposition of a civil action filed under this
paragraph to the greatest extent practicable. For purposes of
this paragraph, a State or its residents shall be considered
to have been harmed if the State or its residents experience
harm, including financial harm in excess of $100.''.
(b) Apprehension and Detention of Aliens.--Section 236 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226), as
amended by this Act, is further amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) by striking ``or release''; and
(B) by striking ``grant, revocation, or denial'' and insert
``revocation or denial''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Enforcement by Attorney General of a State.--The
attorney general of a State, or other authorized State
officer, alleging an action or decision by the Attorney
General or Secretary of Homeland Security under this section
to release any alien or grant bond or parole to any alien
that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to
bring an action against the Attorney General or Secretary of
Homeland Security on behalf of such State or the residents of
such State in an appropriate district court of the United
States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief. The court
shall advance on
[[Page H54]]
the docket and expedite the disposition of a civil action
filed under this subsection to the greatest extent
practicable. For purposes of this subsection, a State or its
residents shall be considered to have been harmed if the
State or its residents experience harm, including financial
harm in excess of $100.''.
(c) Penalties.--Section 243 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(e) Enforcement by Attorney General of a State.--The
attorney general of a State, or other authorized State
officer, alleging a violation of the requirement to
discontinue granting visas to citizens, subjects, nationals,
and residents as described in subsection (d) that harms such
State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action
against the Secretary of State on behalf of such State or the
residents of such State in an appropriate district court of
the United States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief.
The court shall advance on the docket and expedite the
disposition of a civil action filed under this subsection to
the greatest extent practicable. For purposes of this
subsection, a State or its residents shall be considered to
have been harmed if the State or its residents experience
harm, including financial harm in excess of $100.''.
(d) Certain Classes of Aliens.--Section 212(d)(5) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) The attorney general of a State, or other authorized
State officer, alleging a violation of the limitation under
subparagraph (A) that parole solely be granted on a case-by-
case basis and solely for urgent humanitarian reasons or a
significant public benefit, that harms such State or its
residents shall have standing to bring an action against the
Secretary of Homeland Security on behalf of such State or the
residents of such State in an appropriate district court of
the United States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief.
The court shall advance on the docket and expedite the
disposition of a civil action filed under this subparagraph
to the greatest extent practicable. For purposes of this
subparagraph, a State or its residents shall be considered to
have been harmed if the State or its residents experience
harm, including financial harm in excess of $100.''.
(e) Detention.--Section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``During the removal period,'' and
inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--During the removal period,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Enforcement by attorney general of a state.--The
attorney general of a State, or other authorized State
officer, alleging a violation of the detention requirement
under subparagraph (A) that harms such State or its residents
shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary
of Homeland Security on behalf of such State or the residents
of such State in an appropriate district court of the United
States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief. The court
shall advance on the docket and expedite the disposition of a
civil action filed under this subparagraph to the greatest
extent practicable. For purposes of this subparagraph, a
State or its residents shall be considered to have been
harmed if the State or its residents experience harm,
including financial harm in excess of $100.''.
(f) Limit on Injunctive Relief.--Section 242(f) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(f)) is amended
by adding at the end following:
``(3) Certain actions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an
action brought pursuant to section 235(b)(3), subsections (e)
or (f) of section 236, or section 241(a)(2)(B).''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority
leader, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
General Leave
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 29.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the brutal murder of Laken Riley was foreordained the
day Joe Biden took office and reversed the successful Trump policies
that had finally secured our borders.
Since that day just 4 years ago, more than 7.8 million illegal aliens
have been deliberately allowed into our country--a population the size
of the State of Washington, our 13th largest State.
Very little is done to vet these millions of illegal migrants. We
don't know how many terrorists and violent criminals are among them,
and worse, the Democrats don't seem to care.
We know that the number of terrorists we are apprehending has
skyrocketed and that violent international crime cartels and violent
foreign gangs are now operating freely in our communities, often
protected from deportation and detention by the Democrats' sanctuary
laws.
One of these criminals has now been convicted of the brutal murder of
Laken Riley. How many such monsters have the Democrats deliberately
allowed into our country we do not know, but we are slowly, painfully,
and tragically finding out victim by victim.
In this case, the murderer was paroled into this country through a
shocking abuse of this power by the Biden administration. He was
repeatedly arrested for theft and other crimes in sanctuary
jurisdictions and each time released back onto our streets.
Just months before Laken Riley's murder, this murderer was arrested
for theft, but he was released. ICE did not take him into custody
because of a Biden administration policy that shields many criminal
aliens from arrest and deportation.
Sadly, this is exactly what those who voted for Joe Biden in 2020
voted for because this is exactly what the Democrats promised to do.
Fortunately, those who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 voted to stop
this tragic travesty of our immigration laws because that is what he
has promised to do and will begin doing over the Democrats' objections
beginning at noon on January 20.
During his first term, President Trump proved that the President on
his own authority can secure our borders. President Biden proved that a
President determined to undermine and make a mockery of our immigration
laws can willfully open those borders to the most violent criminals,
terrorists, gangs, and cartels on this planet and use the Democrats'
sanctuary laws to protect them.
This national nightmare will end at noon on Inauguration Day, but
what of future Presidents?
The Laken Riley Act would require ICE detention for illegal aliens
who are charged with, arrested for, or convicted of any burglary,
theft, larceny, or shoplifting offense.
H.R. 29 further requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue
a detainer for those illegal aliens and take custody of them
effectively and expeditiously. It would also allow States to bring a
civil action against derelict Federal officials who refuse to enforce
these laws.
Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas, I am looking at you.
This bill passed the Republican House in March of last year, but
Senate Democrats stopped it cold. I said at the time that, today, the
name on the bill is Laken Riley. Tomorrow, it will be another victim of
these policies, another son, daughter, or loved one.
It won't stop until this administration is stopped, and that can only
be done by the American people. Thank God, the American people have
done exactly that. They have given this Congress and this President the
tools and mandate to secure our borders and remove every person who has
broken into our country by violating our laws.
Without this law, a future Democratic President could once again
release dangerous illegal aliens back onto our streets to prey on our
people and destroy innocent lives like Laken Riley's. This bill would
stop them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration brought us back from a
devastating pandemic and the Trump economic crisis by investing in
American workers, American manufacturing, and American infrastructure.
Our policies for the working-class majority instead of the tiny
rapacious billionaire class pulled our economy back from the brink.
Today, our Nation's economic strength is ``the envy of the world,''
as The Economist magazine put it, with
[[Page H55]]
an unemployment rate of 4.2 percent, wages rising across America, and
the gross domestic product growing at a robust 3.1 percent.
Moreover, the murder rate is way down in America. Unlawful
immigration at the southern border is now below where it was when
Donald Trump left office 4 years ago. The roaring stock market, which
is what Trump and his billionaire entourage care about, just completed
its strongest 2 years in a quarter century.
Now, it is time to make sure all Americans enjoy the benefits of this
astonishing economic growth. We should be coming together today to
increase the minimum wage, to lift children out of poverty, and to
strengthen unions, Social Security, Medicare, and the middle class.
Donald Trump is instead assembling a billionaire Cabinet from the top
0.00003 percent of the wealthiest Americans, drawing the top tier of
his new administration from poolside cocktail hour at Mar-a-Lago and
setting up the broligarchs and the plutocrats to plunder an even larger
share of government contracts and public resources.
Trump campaigned on the seductive promise of bringing down the high
post-COVID-19 prices for rent, groceries, consumer goods, and
healthcare, but now he is preparing to give power over the economy to
his team of globe-trotting, dictator-dealing CEOs and billionaires, the
very people responsible for exploiting the pandemic to increase prices
in the first place.
I doubt the billionaire oligarchs have any interest in bringing down
the cost of living for the working middle class in America, but if they
do, Democrats stand ready to work with them. After all, we are the ones
who dramatically lowered prescription drug prices in Medicare, capping
out-of-pocket monthly expenses at $35 a month. I had constituents who
were paying $500 a month for insulin as diabetics before that, and it
is capped now at $35 a month. We capped annual total out-of-pocket
expenditures for prescription drugs at $2,000 a year.
It was the MAGA Republicans deep in the pocket of Big Pharma who
categorically and vehemently opposed us every step of the way on
lowering prescription drug prices in Medicare.
If our colleagues now have good policy proposals for continuing to
lower prices as we have done, which is what they campaigned on, by all
means, bring the proposals forward. Let's see them.
Democrats have repeatedly crossed the aisle to hammer out bipartisan
compromise. Last year, President Biden and Senate Democrats worked with
the ultraconservative Republican Senator James Lankford to arrive at a
tough bipartisan border security deal, but President Trump aggressively
tanked the deal, openly expressing his preference for rallying against
a border crisis rather than actually developing a border solution.
Now, today, the Republicans are on the floor but not with their long-
awaited, entirely missing policy solutions to the problems of inflation
or immigration. Instead, their bill today is an empty and opportunistic
measure. It is not, like the compromise they tanked in the last
Congress, a bill for greater border security or better technology in
the ports of entry, expanding legal pathways to immigration and
citizenship for millions of people, or addressing huge immigrant visa
backlogs. No, this bill would upend 28 years of mandatory immigration
detention policy by requiring that any undocumented immigrant arrested
for theft, larceny, or shoplifting be detained even if they are never
convicted or even charged with a crime.
This is a radical departure from current law, which since 1996 has
generally required mandatory detention only for persons who are
criminally convicted or who admit to having committed certain serious
crimes--that is, when criminal guilt is certain and established beyond
a reasonable doubt.
{time} 1130
Under this bill, a person who has lived in the United States for
decades, say for most of her life, paid taxes, and bought a home, but
who is mistakenly arrested for shoplifting would not be free to resume
her life. Rather, she would be detained and deported even if the
charges are dropped and even if the police admit that the arrest was
mistaken.
Consider a young Dreamer or TPS recipient who is with a group of
friends after school and someone in the group shoplifts, stealing a
candy bar. To scare the whole group straight, everyone is arrested,
whether they were involved in the shoplifting or not. However, nobody
is charged, and the charges are dropped. For most of the kids, it is a
humiliating afternoon and a valuable life lesson, but for one of them,
a young person who has been in America lawfully for years with his or
her family, the consequences would be devastating under this
legislation--mandatory detention and deportation from the country just
for having been arrested, even if never charged.
It seems to me passing strange, Mr. Speaker, that our friends are
taking this position when they do not even believe that the criminal
justice system can be trusted when a jury unanimously convicts someone
who has had the best legal representation money can buy in the State of
New York on 34 different felony criminal counts after an extended
criminal trial with all due process protections, including cross-
examination and the right to counsel being afforded.
If the criminal justice process cannot be trusted to identify a truly
guilty person even when that person has been arrested, charged,
indicted, prosecuted, represented at every stage, given an opportunity
to cross-examine all witnesses, and to testify personally, and then is
unanimously convicted by a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt,
how can the criminal justice process be trusted to identify a truly
guilty person just with an arrest and no indictment, no prosecution, no
cross-examination, no neutral adjudication by an impartial judge, no
fact-finding, and no criminal conviction by a 12-person jury beyond a
reasonable doubt?
Mandatory detention has always been reserved for people who are
convicted of crimes and actually commit crimes. Expanding the detention
requirement to include every person who has merely been accused of or
arrested for, even if not charged for shoplifting, for example,
collapses the distinction between actual conviction on serious events
versus simply being charged with or arrested for something very minor
even if the charges don't even lead anywhere.
Congress has never even appropriated sufficient resources to detain
all noncitizens who do fall under the currently serious mandatory
detention categories. Even President Trump, during his first term,
never tried to detain all migrants theoretically subject to mandatory
detention. Therefore, this extremely elastic new provision adds nothing
to the equation other than more empty rhetoric and greater bureaucratic
bloat.
The bill also seeks to give State governments authority and control
over the Federal immigration system by trespassing on the Article II
executive power in a way that eight out of nine Justices on the Supreme
Court completely repudiated 2 years ago as a blatant violation of the
separation of powers.
The bill seeks to give State attorneys general precisely what the
Supreme Court has denied: constitutional standing to sue the Federal
Government in court for perceived violations of sections of the
Immigration and Nationality Act so States can block Federal immigration
policies, capsizing the Supremacy Clause and expanding judicial power
to encroach upon executive discretion under Article II.
In June of 2023, the Supreme Court in the United States v. Texas
emphatically rejected the alleged standing of States to sue the Federal
Government to alter the government's immigration arrest policies. This
bill attempts a legislative bypass of this constitutional decision in
U.S. v. Texas written by Justice Kavanaugh and joined by eight of nine
Justices on the Court.
In rejecting the States' standing argument, the Court observed, among
other things, that lawsuits alleging insufficient arrests or
prosecution run against the executive branch's exclusive Article II
authority to enforce immigration law, which includes the discretion to
determine enforcement priorities in the face of a chronic lack of
resources and shifting public safety, public welfare, and foreign
policy needs and priorities.
[[Page H56]]
If this bill were to become law, both provisions would have the
perverse effect of undermining the Federal Government's efforts to
prioritize the detention and the deportation of the truly most
dangerous convicted felons. With the vastly expanded new statutory
scope and new authority for States to get legal standing on steroids,
the government can be sued by a State for not detaining everyone
charged with or not even arrested for the pettiest of crimes like
shoplifting.
This bill tries to give States standing to sue for harms as small as
$100, dramatically shifting power from the executive branch to the
courts and the Federal Government to the States, both in ways
considered completely dubious by the Supreme Court.
Like many of the immigration-related bills the GOP is now advancing,
this one seems to follow a simple strategy: Pick a crime, paste into it
a template immigration law covering convicted criminals, and then
require detention or deportation of certain persons merely accused of
committing the crime or arrested for committing the crime. No due
process is required at all. This allows us to get up and demonize
immigrants without doing anything to fix the immigration system and to
act tough without actually making America safer or solving any of the
problems within the immigration laws.
We should be working together on comprehensive, meaningful reform. My
colleague from California invites us to believe that the only crimes
committed by undocumented aliens are those who entered during the Biden
administration. Well, in fact, if you look at it, hundreds of
thousands, 500,000 crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in the first Trump
administration, and over 1.1 million people who crossed during the
first 4 years of his administration were eventually released from
custody.
One of the people released from custody, an undocumented alien, is
charged with murdering 19-year-old Adam Luker from Alabama. Why don't
we have a bill named after Adam Luker? Is it because of the
inconvenient fact that the undocumented alien who killed him came in
under Donald Trump? I would hate to think so. However, we can find lots
of cases like that.
That is not what we should be doing here in Congress. We should be
seriously confronting the problems in a serious way together rather
than just trying to make partisan hay out of other people's tragedies
in their lives.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not move the ball forward on any
of the problems facing America, and they are being moved under closed
rules without a hearing, without any legislative scrutiny. This means
that no Member--not only just Democrats, but Republicans, too, no
Member--can offer any amendments to repair the gaping flaws and gaps in
these slapdash political bills.
I would urge our colleagues to take a much more serious approach
here. The murder of Laken Riley was an unspeakable and appalling crime,
a heinous act, and no parent, no family should ever have to bear such a
calamity. We must take clear steps to make sure that people who commit
crimes like this are punished to the full extent of the law. I trust
that my friends agree that those who commit horrific, violent crimes
like these must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
This bill fails to take any meaningful action to improve our broken
immigration system and to prevent crimes like this from occurring
again, whether the undocumented aliens entered under a Democratic
administration, as they have, or a Republican administration, as they
have. We are asked to vote on a bill that fails to address any of the
real issues at stake, and we are foreclosed from offering any
amendments to improve this sloppy and political product.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fong). Members are reminded to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the President-elect.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want you to listen to what my friend just said, that we shouldn't
be placing illegals in detention simply for being charged with a crime;
and, besides, shoplifting is no big deal anyway.
Listen to what he is actually suggesting. Current law requires the
detention of every illegal alien who crosses our border. Every one.
The Democrats have studiously ignored this law, and now they are
saying ignore this law even if the illegal has now been charged with
committing other crimes as well. Let them back onto the streets, as
they did with Laken Riley's murderer. If a few innocent teens happen to
get raped and murdered along the way, well, too bad.
The Democrats have told us for 4 years that their refusal to enforce
our immigration laws is because they are prioritizing more dangerous
offenders. That is precisely what this bill does. It prioritizes
dangerous offenders, and yet the Democrats are still opposing it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Collins), the author of this measure. Mr. Collins represents Laken
Riley's hometown and her grieving family in this House.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to
support the Laken Riley Act.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we record into history
exactly what happened to this young lady.
This young lady didn't have a care in the world. She was just out for
a jog, enjoying the day, when an illegal criminal took her life away.
He didn't even have any remorse. He never hesitated.
This legislation could have prevented her death. Her murderer was in
our country illegally and was a known criminal. He had abused a child
in New York City and was flown to Athens, Georgia, a sanctuary city,
all of this on the taxpayers' dime, where he was once again cited for
shoplifting. Every part of our system failed Laken that day, and there
is nothing we can do to bring her back.
I will tell you what, we can make sure this never happens again.
Right now, ICE is unable to detain and deport illegal criminals who
commit these minor-level crimes, but the Laken Riley Act will fix this
and give ICE and our local law enforcement the tools to get these
criminals out of our country and make our communities safer.
We need to get these people off the street. These criminals are
getting bolder and bolder while our communities become more and more
unsafe. Our lax policies gave her murderer the courage to kill Laken
Riley. We have got to make sure that this doesn't ever happen again.
Mr. Speaker, he bashed her head in with a rock. This is one of the
most heinous crimes imaginable. People need to know what this animal
did to her. I am going to tell you what, they also need to know how she
fought back. Laken fought back with every ounce in her body. When I
spoke to the family about this bill last year, I told them I would
never let it go. I will fight with every ounce that I have to make sure
that no family has to suffer a loss like they have to these illegal
criminals.
Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day in America, it is a sad day when we
allow these thug criminals to invade our homes, our country, and impose
their violence and their will on the American people. We have the
opportunity today, we have the opportunity to fix this, and I encourage
all my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes.''
I will leave you with an excerpt from a statement made by Laken
Riley's family:
The Laken Riley Act has our full support because it would
help save innocent lives and prevent more families from going
through the kind of heartbreak we have experienced. Laken
would have been 23 on January 10. There is no greater gift
that could be given to her or our country than to continue
her legacy by saving lives through this bill. Every single
Member of Congress should be able to get behind this purely
commonsense bill that will make our country and communities
safer.
Mr. Speaker, God help us. God help us.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 29.
I start by expressing my deepest condolences to Laken Riley's family.
Her death was a tragedy, and we all mourn her loss. May her memory be a
blessing.
{time} 1145
I wish that we were considering legislation that was worthy of her
name. Instead, the Republican majority is beginning this new Congress
right where
[[Page H57]]
they left off in the last one, with legislation that targets and
scapegoats immigrants, but does nothing to address the real problems in
our broken immigration system, all while ignoring basic due process and
constitutional principles.
Among other things, this legislation would subject to mandatory
detention any undocumented immigrants who are merely charged with
committing an act of theft or shoplifting, even if they are innocent.
This means if someone is merely accused of shoplifting, someone who
might be innocent, who might be the victim of mistaken identity, and
who has not had the opportunity to clear his name, would be subject to
mandatory detention.
This bill is so broad that it would lead to the detention of people
who have committed no crime and have no intention of harming anyone.
That flies in the face of all notions of basic due process and reason.
It is both pernicious and absurd.
Where will the Federal Government get the resources to detain all
these people? Congress has never appropriated, and no administration
has ever requested, sufficient resources to detain all noncitizens who
fall under the mandatory detention categories. Even President Trump,
during his first term, never tried to detain all migrants subject to
mandatory detention. It was far too costly, even for him.
Since this bill is so sweeping, even Dreamers and people living here
on temporary protected status, people who may have lived in this
country for decades and shortly after their birth, could be subject to
the bill's harsh provisions.
If that weren't bad enough, the bill also declares that States have
standing to sue over certain immigration provisions so long as the
State or its residents suffer even the most trivial financial harm.
This appears to be a ham-handed attempt to circumvent recent Supreme
Court rulings limiting States' standing to sue the Federal Government
over immigration enforcement matters.
Merely declaring that the States have standing to sue does not make
it so. This provision is almost certainly unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, the lack of attention that Republicans pay to such
matters perfectly sums up their entire approach to immigration.
Instead of working toward serious solutions to serious problems, they
are content to simply play politics and consider it a job well done. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs), who has done work on our subcommittee on this
issue.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, again, our hearts go out to the
Laken Riley family. We think about them. This bill is named for Laken
Riley, but it has an impact far greater.
Once again, we must acknowledge that we can no longer take the famed
empty words of sympathy from those across the aisle in the Biden-Harris
administration because they refuse to do anything meaningful to stop
the carnage or even slow down the border surge that has been going on.
Illegal aliens who commit crimes must not be released into our
communities. Our colleagues cannot even use the term of art that is in
the statute: ``illegal alien.'' They cannot even use that. They
conflate legal immigration with those who enter our country illegally.
They call them undocumented immigrants. That is what they do.
They don't ever stand up for the American people. Instead of taking
the mandate of an overwhelming popular vote victory and electoral
college victory by this incoming President Donald Trump on the issue of
border security, they let it go. They ignore it.
In fact, places like San Diego--you know what San Diego just did?
They declared themselves a super sanctuary city. Nobody is going to be
held for ICE.
You get to explain to the victim of Nicholas Jose Francisco, a 25-
year-old illegal alien from Guatemala, charged with molesting and
raping a 5-year-old little girl. In New York City, there is more than
58,000 illegal aliens with a criminal record who have been charged with
a crime on their streets.
You get to explain and apologize to the victim of the 31-year-old
illegal alien from Mexico who was recently arrested for breaking into a
woman's home and raping her. This goes on and on because my colleagues
don't want to hold these people in detention.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, you get to explain to the victim
of the 28-year-old illegal alien who tortured and burglarized a Dallas
woman just a month or two ago.
You can stand up and say we are not bringing meaningful legislation.
You can stand up and say that you feel real bad for Laken Riley and her
family. How about all the other victims of illegal aliens who have
committed crimes? You know the first thing they did that was illegal?
They entered our country. Democrats want to protect them. Republicans
want the law enforced.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Democrats got behind a
bipartisan border security bill, which beefed up law enforcement at the
border, which beefed up judges at the border, and that was tanked by
Donald Trump and by Republicans in the House.
They are the ones, Mr. Speaker, who refuse to engage in meaningful
legislative work to get the job done here. Democrats won't be lectured
by our colleague that we don't stand up for the American people.
The author of this legislation actually yesterday sent out a tweet, a
social media statement, characterizing the January 6 violent assault on
this Chamber where 140 officers were wounded, injured, and hospitalized
by a rampaging mob this way: ``On this day in history, 2021,'' said the
gentleman, ``thousands of peaceful grandmothers gathered in Washington,
D.C., to take a self-guided, albeit unauthorized, tour of the U.S.
Capitol Building.'' I like that touch, ``albeit unauthorized.''
``Earlier that day, President Trump held a rally, where supporters
walked to the Capitol to peacefully protest the certification of the
2020 election. During this time, some individuals entered the Capitol,
took photos, and explored the building before leaving.''
Well, isn't that sweet. We see exactly how much faith and confidence
they really have in the American criminal justice system and how much
they really stand on the side of law enforcement. Yeah, it was a just a
leisurely stroll by a bunch of peaceful grandmothers on January 6.
These are the people that now are inviting us to dramatically change
the immigration laws without even a hearing as to what it is going to
mean in any particular case.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, Laken Riley was, by all accounts, a
remarkable young woman, whose life was tragically cut short by a
horrific act that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
My heart goes out to her family and loved ones who grieve her death.
I understand, as a mother myself, fully why in the face of such
senseless violence, especially against someone so young, there is an
urge to do something, anything, to feel like you are actually helping
to fix the problem.
Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to fix the immigration system
or to prevent future tragedies like this. It is simply an attempt to
score cheap political points off of a tragic death, and in the process,
it unfairly sweeps up many more innocent lives with no due process.
Let us be clear: This is the Republican playbook over and over again.
Scare people about immigrants, never propose anything that actually
solves an outdated and arcane immigration system that desperately needs
Congress to allocate resources and update legal pathways to make the
immigration system work for everyone.
My Republican colleagues simply want to preserve a broken immigration
system as a campaign issue so that they can scapegoat and demonize
immigrants all to distract the American people from their real goals of
making working people pay for another Republican tax scam that benefits
billionaires and the wealthiest.
Just look at the rules package that they just passed. Out of the 12
bills included in that, not a single one does anything to secure the
border, to fix
[[Page H58]]
the broken immigration system, to lower costs for working people, to
address the housing crisis, tackle the extraordinary levels of income
inequality in this country, or tamp down on inflation.
Those were the promises of the Trump campaign, but not a single one
of those things is actually included in the first bills that they are
bringing to the floor without hearings.
Let's talk about what this bill actually does. This bill goes far
beyond subjecting those who are convicted to or admit to committing a
theft offense to mandatory detention. What this bill actually does is
subject any undocumented immigrant to mandatory detention for merely
being arrested or charged with committing an act of theft, larceny, or
shoplifting, along with those who are convicted or who admit to
committing such acts.
Under this bill, a DACA or TPS recipient could be subjected to
mandatory detention for crimes that are extremely low-level or for
something that is not even a crime without even having had a fair day
in court, without a conviction.
Let's be clear, we are talking about people who have been in this
country for decades. Many of us in Congress are parents. Imagine your
child is with a group of kids grabbing an after-school snack at a 7-
Eleven and one of them chooses to just snitch a little candy bar off
the shelf.
The shop owner calls the police, and all the kids are arrested for
shoplifting. If your child is a DACA recipient, someone who has lived
here nearly their entire life, they are now subject to mandatory
detention under this bill.
Unfortunately, there are countless real-life examples of people
getting wrongfully arrested for crimes that they didn't commit. In
2019, a man in New Jersey was arrested for shoplifting and trying to
hit a police officer with a car because facial recognition software
falsely identified him as the perpetrator.
He spent 10 days in jail, even though he was actually 30 miles away
from where the crime was committed. If he had been a DACA or a TPS
recipient, and this bill had been enacted, he would be subject to
mandatory immigration detention even though he was innocent of the
crime of which he was accused.
People deserve to have their day in court and are innocent until
proven guilty. That seems to be something that the majority has
forgotten or doesn't seem to care about unless the alleged criminal is
the President-elect.
The upcoming administration is poised to bring back their no-priority
immigration enforcement priority guidelines in which a convicted
murderer would be the same priority for deportation as an undocumented
mom who has been living in this country for 20 years.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, imagine how much money a sweeping mandatory
detention proposal like this will cost the Federal Government at a time
when Republicans are talking a big game about cutting budgets, but not
this one. Why? Because this is a great boon to those for-profit
detention companies who make enormous profits for mandatory detention
when there are far more effective and cheaper ways to address the
issue.
Who pays for all this? The taxpayers. Even in a Republican trifecta,
ICE has limited resources to detain and remove folks. However, in this
bill, like President Trump's enforcement priorities, we seek to use
those resources on people who committed low-level crimes or even no
crime at all. That makes no one safer and costs a lot of money.
Finally, this bill also bizarrely attempts to give State attorneys
general the authority to try and stop the administrations from carrying
out important policy priorities by giving them standing to sue in
Federal court under various sections of the Immigration and Nationality
Act. That entire section of the bill, likely unconstitutional.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this overly
broad, deeply flawed legislation.
THE SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President-elect.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).
Mr. VAN ORDEN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to go a long way to
reverse the lawlessness of the Biden-Harris administration. I will tell
you a story for a moment.
A criminal illegal alien entered the country with known gang tattoos
and was allowed through Biden's porous border. He made his way to the
State of Wisconsin where he had warrants issued in Dane County for
strangulation, suffocation, false imprisonment, battery, and disorderly
conduct. He was not detained and deported, as he should have been,
because Dane County is a sanctuary county.
{time} 1200
He then made his way to Minneapolis, Minnesota, where he was arrested
for simple property crimes. He was not detained and deported, as he
should have been as a criminal illegal alien, because Minneapolis is a
sanctuary city.
He then made his way to a small town of 5,600 people, Prairie du
Chien, my hometown, where he brutally raped a mother and savagely beat
her daughter over a period of days and was finally arrested for
domestic battery, strangulation, suffocation, physical abuse to a
child, disorderly conduct, and two counts of second-degree sexual
assault.
None of this needed to happen if the law was adhered to. None of this
would have taken place if this person was detained and deported for a
simple property crime. Enough.
It is the Federal Government's primary responsibility to protect its
citizens. My Democratic colleagues are refusing to do this, and it is
shameful. It is time to protect our American citizens against criminal
illegal aliens, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
strongly support this bill.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 29, the Laken Riley Act.
For the past 4 years, the American people have suffered under the
Biden administration's disastrous open-border policies that have
allowed millions of illegal aliens to flood our communities.
One of those illegal aliens was Jose Ibarra. In 2023, he was caught
shoplifting. Despite multiple arrests on his record in addition to his
illegal status, he was released under the Biden administration. Months
later, as we all know, he murdered 22-year-old nursing student Laken
Riley.
There is no other way to put it. Her death is a direct result of
President Biden's deliberate refusal to enforce our laws. It is the
Federal Government's job to defend our borders and protect our
citizens, and our government has failed us.
Fortunately, a new leader is taking office soon. This past November,
Americans demonstrated that they are fed up with the left's refusal to
secure our border. I am proud to be part of a Republican majority that
will work with the new administration to strengthen our laws to ensure
the safety of every American.
While I am confident that the Trump administration will secure our
border and, yes, empower ICE to do its job, we must not allow our
security to depend on whether or not a Republican occupies the White
House. We in this Congress must ensure there are no future Laken
Rileys.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this legislation.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 29,
the Laken Riley Act.
This bill is in remembrance of Laken Riley, the 22-year-old nursing
student who was tragically murdered last year in my home community of
Athens, Georgia, by an illegal alien from Venezuela who should have
never even been in our country.
[[Page H59]]
After illegally crossing the southern border in 2022, Laken's
murderer was released through the Biden administration's weaponization
of the parole program. The following year, he was arrested by the NYPD
for acting in a manner to injure a minor and for committing a motor
vehicle license violation.
According to an Athens-Clarke County Police Department report, this
illegal alien went on to shoplift in Georgia just weeks after his
encounter with law enforcement in New York.
Clearly, this illegal alien had a pattern of criminal history, one
that started when he accepted Joe Biden's invitation to illegally enter
our country. He should never have been allowed to reside in the United
States illegally, and ICE should have immediately issued a detainer
after he committed these crimes. Ultimately, if ICE had been aware and
then issued a detainer, this criminal illegal alien would not have even
been in the United States to commit the horrific murder of Laken Riley.
We must enact changes now to protect our communities across the
country from facing additional avoidable tragedies.
Thankfully, H.R. 29 provides a commonsense solution to do just that.
This legislation requires ICE to issue detainers and take custody of
illegal aliens who commit crimes like theft, burglary, and larceny.
The local jurisdiction, the Athens-Clarke County Unified Government,
was a sanctuary city, and that is another problem. That is a big
problem. The sanctuary policy hampered the Athens-Clarke County
Department of Police Services and the Clarke County Sheriff's Office
from recognizing and acting upon an ICE detainer, which could have
prevented Laken's murder.
Time and time again, communities and families throughout our Nation
have been devastated by heinous crimes committed by illegal aliens. In
fact, this past October, the Peach State faced another unspeakable
tragedy. In Habersham County, in my home district, Ms. Mimi Rodriguez-
Ramirez was brutally murdered by an illegal alien from Mexico. She was
just 25 years old and left behind a young daughter and a loving family.
The citizens of Clarke County and Habersham County are hundreds of
miles from any border but are still being brutally victimized by
illegal aliens. Enough is enough. These preventable tragedies must come
to an end.
As a cosponsor of this critical legislation, I urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to support the Laken Riley Act. After all, one
of the most formidable ways that Congress can deliver justice for Laken
Riley, Mimi Rodriguez-Ramirez, and their families is by passing this
legislation to prevent additional avoidable tragedies from victimizing
the law-abiding citizens of our Nation.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).
Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Speaker, I want to address one thing before we
start. It was again mentioned about the bipartisan bill. The bipartisan
bill was a bad bill. It didn't stop catch and release. It didn't
expedite immediately to the country of origin. It didn't rebuild the
wall. It didn't have a stay in Mexico policy. It was words. It wasn't
actions. It wasn't good. That is why people didn't vote for it. That is
why it wasn't successful.
Speaking about words, though, when I came here today, I thought about
a lot of words. I hear a lot of words, a lot of debate, a lot of
discussion. To the family of Laken Riley and to so many others across
the United States of America, words don't matter. Condolences don't
count. Speeches don't do it. Words will never replace her life.
In life, we have all gone through tragedies sometimes, so we often
say: My God, why did this happen? Why did this car accident happen? Why
did this person get cancer? Whatever it is.
This is different. We know why it happened. It happened because of
the administration allowing illegals, some of whom--not all of whom but
some of whom--were criminals into our country, feeding them, clothing
them, transporting them, housing them, paying for them. Men and women
are breaking their backs in this country to make a living, but we are
paying for it.
We know how it happened. We know how it happened to the New York City
woman who was set on fire. We know how it happened to State Trooper
Christopher Gadd in Washington State when he died because of an illegal
alien. We know how it happened to Lizbeth Medina from the great State
of Texas. She was 16 years old, and her life was snuffed out. That is
never okay.
Laken Riley fought for her life. You hear about her last 20 minutes
on this Earth. She fought, and she fought with everything she had. She
didn't want to be raped. She didn't want to be brutalized.
I don't want to curse here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Bice). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Speaker, this individual then took a rock and
bashed her head in until she was unrecognizable.
Do you know what? Condolences aren't going to do it. I say it to my
friend on the other side of the aisle, the ranking member. Feeling bad,
feeling sorry, is not going to do it. It doesn't make the difference.
All of us here, most of us have been mothers, fathers, brothers,
sisters, daughters, or sons. You can't imagine how her family feels.
People say, ``I know how you feel.'' No, I don't know. I don't know.
You don't know.
There is something we can do. All this bill does is detain people who
have done something wrong, who have broken the law already, and who
have the potential to do even worse. All of these cases that I
mentioned and many more would not have occurred if we had this law in
place.
Don't give condolences. Vote for the bill.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am moved by the words of the gentleman from New
Jersey who said: Don't give us words. Words don't matter. Speeches
don't cut it. Speeches don't do it.
It sounds like an absolute echo of what you hear from our colleagues
whenever there is an explosion of gun violence in any of our
communities. We hear thoughts and prayers, lots of words, but no
action.
The fact that there is sympathy or condolences, I agree with the
gentleman, is not enough. We need real public policy changes that will
be effective and that will be constitutional.
That is what the discussion is about today. Will these policy
changes, in fact, be effective? Will they be constitutional or not?
I agree that we should move from the situation of identifying and
empathizing with people who have suffered terrible family tragedies and
private tragedies to effective public policy. That is our job as
legislators.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, perhaps we should take all the
criminals off the streets, starting with those who shouldn't have been
in our country in the first place, which is what this bill does.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Cline).
Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I support this important legislation that
would take concrete policy steps toward addressing the problem of open
borders created by this administration.
We listened to the gentlewoman from Washington on the other side talk
about the cost of implementing the legislation. That requires a certain
amount of hubris to claim to be worried about the cost of implementing
a piece of legislation when the cost of the open borders that have been
created by this administration and embraced by the other side are
clearly evident.
I have been to the border. We have seen the impact that open borders
have had on the educational systems, the transportation systems, the
housing systems, and the agriculture systems. All across this country,
our Nation is a nation of border communities now because we are all
being impacted by these open borders.
Back in 2022, Laken Riley's horrific murder shocked the Nation. Also
[[Page H60]]
shocking was the fact that her murder was preventable. It was
preventable by enforcing the laws of this country. After his arrest for
crossing the border illegally in 2022, he was paroled into the United
States. Months before murdering Laken Riley, he was arrested for theft.
Local authorities in Georgia released him, and ICE didn't lodge a
detainer for the alien. Unfortunately, these two actions directly
contributed to the murder of Laken Riley.
This legislation that bears her name would require ICE to arrest
illegal aliens who commit theft offenses and, importantly, would
mandate that these aliens are detained until they are removed from the
country. It further requires that the Department of Homeland Security
issues a detainer for these illegal aliens and take custody of them
effectively and expeditiously.
While we anxiously await President Trump's inauguration and know that
his administration will follow and enforce immigration law and take
steps to advance the enforcement of our borders, the Laken Riley Act
ensures that all administrations are held accountable, including the
previous one, and that our immigration laws are followed.
Madam Speaker, I support this important legislation, and I thank the
gentleman for his leadership on the bill.
{time} 1215
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the chairman of the Republican Study
Committee.
Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support and full support
of H.R. 29, the Laken Riley Act. It is long overdue that we actually
take law and order seriously, that we enforce the laws that are on the
books.
Laken Riley is not an isolated incident, unfortunately. Jocelyn
Nungaray from Texas, mother Rachel Morin, and many others, were
innocent women who were horrifically killed by illegal aliens, and
their families are going to be mourning their loss of life for the rest
of their lives.
Violent criminals like the ones who committed this heinous act and
others continue to pour over our border daily, which is why we
desperately need to pass this act today.
This legislation will protect American communities by requiring
Immigration and Customs Enforcement to issue detainers, mandatory
detention for those who are here illegally who also commit theft. It is
pretty simple. There should be nothing controversial about this.
In fact, I am interested to see how my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle who vote against this go back to their districts, Madam
Speaker, and say: I don't stand for law and order because I don't want
illegal aliens who are here committing theft, rape, murder, or any
other offense, to be detained. How can you go back to a district and
say that?
In Texas, by the way, good news. With the Laken Riley Act, you now
have standing to sue the Federal Government when they don't do this,
when they don't enforce the laws on the books. You have standing to sue
the Federal Government for failing to uphold the laws that are on our
books.
My heart goes out to Laken Riley's family. My heart goes out to other
people who have had to watch as this administration has stood by and
done nothing to protect our country, our communities, and the sanctity
of the safety that we as Americans should always have. Let's go home
and let's be proud, in a bipartisan way, that we are willing to uphold
the law.
I stand in full support of the Laken Riley Act.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In answer to the distinguished gentleman, he stated precisely what
the law is now. He said: How can we go back to our districts and not
defend the immediate deporting of people who have committed theft? That
is what the law is. They want to change the law to go from someone who
has actually committed theft, or been convicted of theft, to people who
have been charged with it, even if the charges have been dropped, or
arrested for it, even if charges were never brought in the first place.
I think that the misstatement of the meaning of this legislation
speaks very deeply to what an opportunistic exercise this really is.
What the gentleman was asking for is the law today.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I remind my friend that the law also
requires every illegal alien to be detained until their case is
adjudicated, which is what the Democrats have ignored these last 4
years.
This bill simply says if on top of that the illegal is charged with a
crime, they need to be detained and taken off the streets.
The murderer of Laken Riley was charged but not convicted. Had he
been treated as the detainer law requires, he would have been deported
and Laken Riley would be alive today.
I am prepared to close when the gentleman is ready. I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 3\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close, and I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for this
debate.
I must say that the legislation before us and the approach that it
embodies reflect a profound disrespect for our criminal justice system
and for our constitutional values.
To begin with, they want to change the mandatory detention provisions
which we have had since 1996 on a bipartisan basis for the last 28
years. We have operated on the basis of criminal conviction, which is
obviously congruent with the constitutional demands and values that we
have in our country.
Now, without having a legislative hearing, they want to radically
revise the statutes to say that it is sufficient for somebody to have
been charged with or arrested for an offense like shoplifting or theft,
even if the charges are dropped and even if charges are never brought
after an arrest is made. It seems to me that they are backtracking from
purported fidelity to our constitutional values.
Similarly, they want to essentially overthrow Justice Kavanaugh's 8-1
decision in the United States v. Texas from just a couple of years ago
where the Supreme Court determined that States do not have standing to
go to court to say that they don't like the way that a particular
administration is allocating its resources and implementing a public
policy.
Now, if they want to argue that there is a law that is
unconstitutional, they can argue that, but they can't go to court and
simply say that the executive branch is implementing the law in a way
that a particular State doesn't like. Yet, they want to occasion that
massive shift of power, as Justice Kavanaugh characterized it, so that
the States would essentially be able to control Federal immigration
policy.
I am still reeling from reading the author of this legislation's
statements yesterday, which I think also speak to a fundamental
disrespect for the rule of law, which says: Since January 6, hundreds
of peaceful protesters have been hunted down, arrested, held
in solitary confinement, and treated unjustly. Countless hours and
taxpayer dollars have been spent pursuing innocent grandmothers and
raiding President Trump's home while terrorists and millions of illegal
immigrants continue to cross our Nation's borders.
That is the fundamentally demagogic and lawless approach to this
whole debate that they have taken. Our body was invaded by a mob of
insurrectionists who injured 140 officers, wounding them and
hospitalizing them, and they cannot even acknowledge that as a fact but
instead change the subject to millions of people crossing the border
illegally, which over the decades has undoubtedly happened under both
Democrats and Republicans. That is what we should be working on today.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the
riot at the Capitol 4 years ago was an abomination. I have said so
repeatedly whenever the subject arises. There is no excuse for it.
I would also remind the gentleman what Justice Kavanaugh said in the
United States v. Texas. That is where the Supreme Court ruled the
States
[[Page H61]]
currently don't have standing to sue to enforce these laws. What he
actually says was, the ruling was, it would require a change in law:
elevating de facto injuries to the status of legally cognizable
injuries redressable by a Federal court. That is what Justice Kavanaugh
said we needed to do. That is exactly what this bill does, by the book,
and yet the Democrats still oppose it.
To my Democratic colleagues, I ask them: How many more laws with
names attached to them do we need to pass before they take this crisis
seriously?
How many American citizens must die at the hands of illegal aliens
before we all agree that these tragedies are all preventable, lest the
name of my child or your child be the one attached to an H.R. number
before the Democrats can vote ``yes'' on these commonsense bills?
How much more blood must be shed before we can all join in calling
for an absolute end to the Democrats' reckless open borders and
sanctuary city policies that have threatened our safety, devastated our
families, and are in the process of destroying our country?
The American people have now spoken clearly on this issue. Enough is
enough.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________