[Pages H277-H284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LAKEN RILEY ACT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 53, I call
up the bill (S. 5) 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. Pursuant to House Resolution 53, the bill is
considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

S. 5

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, shoplifting, or assault of a law enforcement officer
offense, or any crime that results in death or serious bodily
injury to another person,'';
(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', `shoplifting', `assault
of a law enforcement officer', and `serious bodily injury'
have the meanings given such terms in the jurisdiction in
which 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 paragraph (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

[[Page H278]]

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.''.
(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 such term
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 chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary 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 S. 5.
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, S. 5 bears the name of Laken Riley, murdered by one of
the 8 million illegal aliens that Joe Biden and his Democratic
supporters deliberately allowed into our country over these last 4
years.
In Laken's case, the murderer was paroled into this country through a
shocking abuse of that power. He was repeatedly arrested for theft and
other crimes in sanctuary jurisdictions and each time released back
onto our streets. Just months before he murdered Laken, he was arrested
for theft, but ICE couldn't take him into custody because of the Biden-
Harris administration's policies that shielded such monsters from
arrest and deportation.
This measure, first introduced by Representative Mike Collins, would
require ICE detention for illegal aliens who are charged with, arrested
for, or convicted of any burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting
offense.
The Democrats have argued that the mere accusation of committing a
crime should not be grounds for detention and that shoplifting is no
big deal. They ignore the fact that every illegal alien is currently
required to be detained by current law throughout the pendency of their
asylum claims.
The Democrats have thumbed their noses at this law for the past 4
years. Their excuse is that they were prioritizing detaining more
dangerous offenders. This bill does exactly that, yet they still oppose
it.

{time} 1415

During his first term, President Trump proved that the President, on
his own authority, can secure our borders. President Biden proved that
a President who is determined to make a mockery of our immigration laws
can willfully open our borders to the most violent criminals,
terrorists, gangs, and cartels on this planet and then use the
Democrats' sanctuary laws to protect them.
This national nightmare ended at noon on Monday, but what of future
Presidents? This bill ensures that what happened to Laken Riley cannot
happen again should another Joe Biden disgrace the Presidency.
Our Senate colleagues have added to the Laken Riley Act parts of
Sarah's Law, introduced by Representative Randy Feenstra and Senator
Joni Ernst, to mandate detention for illegal aliens who commit any
offense that involves death or serious bodily injury.
Sarah's Law was named after Sarah Root. On January 31, 2016, as Sarah
drove home after celebrating her college graduation, an illegal alien,
who was street racing while drunk, slammed into her SUV, snapping
Sarah's spine and fracturing her skull. Sarah died 4 days later, on
February 4.
Within hours of her death, a judge set the illegal's bond at $50,000
because no detainer was filed despite a desperate request by local
police to do so.
The administration defended this dereliction of duty because the
illegal alien had not been convicted of a criminal charge and,
therefore, was not an ``enforcement priority.''
S. 5 closes this loophole by requiring detention for illegal aliens,
like Sarah Root's killer, who are arrested for, charged with, admitted
to, or convicted of any crime that resulted in someone's death or
serious bodily injury.
In addition, this bill includes elements of Representative Jeff Van
Drew's Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Cops Act, which
passed the House last year and applies the same mandate for those who
assault law enforcement officials.
This bill would also allow States to bring a civil action against
derelict Federal officers who refuse to enforce immigration law. This
was first introduced by Representatives Dan Bishop and Chip Roy in the
SUE for Immigration Enforcement Act. That bill also passed the House
twice as part of the Laken Riley Act. That bill was also killed by
Senate Democrats last year.
Whether it is sober reflection or perhaps the sobering results of the
November election, a handful of Democrats in both the House and the
Senate have now come over to support this law. We welcome them. We wish
them well in convincing the majority of their party that they need to
change course, if not for the good of our country, then at least for
the good of themselves. We will take their support any way we can get
it.
I have every confidence that President Trump will end this scourge
upon our Nation during the next 4 years. This law, and the others that
will follow it, will ensure that no future President will be able to
unleash upon our country what Joe Biden and his Democratic supporters
did.

[[Page H279]]

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 5.
We have all these fine speeches and all these fancy parties with
billionaires and Congressmen in tuxedos; all these executive orders for
Big Oil and tech broligarchs; all these complete and unconditional
pardons for Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and violent extremists who
chanted ``Hang Mike Pence'' and smashed, swarmed, and wounded our
police officers in this building with steel poles, baseball bats,
American flags, Confederate battle flags, and bear mace--all this sound
and fury on day one and week one, but nothing to bring down grocery
prices; nothing to bring down the cost of rent, as they promised;
nothing to improve our healthcare system or build on our success in the
last Congress in reducing prescription drug prices; nothing to get
health insurance coverage for millions of people who don't have it;
nothing to bring down the cost of housing or build new housing; nothing
to combat the nightmare of climate change, other than the full-scale
retreat of withdrawing from the Paris climate accord; nothing to
address the real problems faced by the American people.
Today, they want to change the subject from the indelible and
shocking public safety disaster of the President releasing hundreds of
convicted felons, specifically violent, cop-beating felons caught on
tape in the act, whom he had incited on January 6, 2021, back into the
population with no plan for protecting the American people or the
public safety.
What do they want to talk about today in their wisdom? Public safety
and immigration. Great. Let's do it.
This bill does nothing to address the major problems we face in the
immigration system or to secure the American border, nor does it do
anything to address the major problems we face in public safety, such
as the central and overriding problem of out-of-control gun violence,
which takes tens of thousands of American citizens' lives every year
and is the leading cause of death among American citizen children up to
the age of 18.
Mr. Speaker, it may surprise a lot of Americans, but we actually know
how to solve these problems, how to make substantial progress on both
immigration and public safety. The roadblock is that the majority
completely lacks the political will to do it.
Why? Well, the Republicans are divided between two extreme positions:
the big business tech oligarchs who bankroll their party and who love
cheap foreign labor under the current regime, and the inflamed,
nativist, MAGA element who want to shut down all immigration, including
legal immigration, and believe in rightwing conspiracy theories like
the racist great replacement theory.
Congress could pass bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform this
week. Senate Republicans and Democrats reached a powerful and
painstaking compromise with President Biden last year to fortify our
border with more border agents and more enforcement, more detection
technology, more asylum judges, and more funding, but President Trump
told House Republicans to tank this popular bipartisan agreement, to
sink it.

He didn't want a bipartisan border solution to improve things in the
real world. He wanted a permanent border crisis to run against on TV.
Not doing anything means that Trump doesn't offend his big business
supporters who want cheap foreign labor under the current regime, but
it allows him to pander indefinitely to his MAGA base with nativist
rhetoric and tiny, little messaging bills that move a few words around
but don't fundamentally change anything.
We should add to the tough border measures already negotiated last
Congress a meaningful pathway to citizenship proposed for Dreamers, TPS
holders, and other law-abiding, productive immigrants.
If we move from demagoguery to deliberation, we can flesh this out,
and we can make immigration work for America, a nation built on
immigrants.
We have huge job shortages in agriculture, manufacturing, retail,
seafood, nursing, hospitals, and many other areas. We should not be
plunging America into chaos to deport millions of people when we
already need millions of new people to work here.
If the GOP plan of deporting 12 million people were really to happen,
it would plunge us into another Trump economic crisis like the last one
under COVID-19 but maybe even cause a depression this time.
The vast majority of Americans know what common sense dictates. We
must make it a lot harder for people to get into our country illegally,
but we must make it a lot easier for people to get into our country
lawfully.
Today, only 2 percent of people seeking admission lawfully are
admitted, and Donald Trump, in his first administration, crippled legal
immigration into the country. He banned many legal immigrants unable to
prove that they have high incomes. He banned immigrants from 13
specific countries. He banned most visa applicants and most skilled
temporary workers, deeming them an economic threat. We must reform our
system consistent with our values as a nation.
Similarly, when it comes to public safety, we could arrive at a
commonsense, bipartisan agenda right now to make our communities a lot
safer if we were serious about it.
Let's take the central problem of gun violence, for example, which
now takes more than 48,000 American lives a year and is the leading
cause of death for children and young people in America up to the age
of 18.
Gun violence costs us, costs America, an astonishing $557 billion a
year, Mr. Speaker, more than half a trillion dollars a year because of
gun violence.
Mass shootings with an AR-15 or other assault weapons have become a
terrifying feature of gun violence in America, although they account
for just over 1 percent of the tens of thousands of lives we lose
generally to gun violence, with old-fashioned handgun homicides,
suicides, and accidents continuing to cause the vast majority of
deaths.
Here are some policies that the vast majority of Americans support
that we could pass this week if they would allow us to do it, Mr.
Speaker.
Congress could close the loopholes in the Brady legislation, like the
internet loophole and the private gun show loophole. We could pass
universal violent criminal background checks on all gun purchases,
something supported by upward of 90 percent of the American people,
vast majorities of people of both political parties, independents,
conservatives, liberals, gun owners, and non-gun owners. Almost
everybody supports it.
We could pass a military-style assault weapons ban, which more than
60 percent of Americans support. We could crack down on the
proliferating danger of ghost guns. We could expand red flag laws
nationwide.
Alas, our colleagues refuse to do any of it because their well-
advertised compassion for the American victims of violent crimes
committed by undocumented aliens, which they base their entire argument
on and which we all share, apparently does not extend to the far larger
class of American victims of violent gun crimes committed by other
American citizens, even though we have not just 48,000 Americans killed
every year but 115,000 American citizens wounded and maimed trying to
survive this gun violence debacle handed to us by the NRA and their
followers in Congress.
They argue that the Second Amendment prevents all these commonsense
gun safety measures, even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly
upheld them, including an assault weapon ban, criminal background
checks on gun buyers, and so on.
When a white supremacist gunman bearing an AR-15 assassinates dozens
of American citizen schoolchildren in Connecticut or Florida, dozens of
citizen and noncitizen Walmart shoppers in El Paso, Texas, supermarket
shoppers in Buffalo, worshippers at the Mother Emanuel Church in
Charleston, South Carolina, or worshippers at the Tree of Life
synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, our colleagues extend only
thoughts and prayers. They say nothing can be done. Alas, there is just
evil in the world, and the Second Amendment keeps them from acting. We
just have to accept this as the inescapable human price and sacrifice
paid for the Second Amendment, even though that is not what the Supreme
Court says.

[[Page H280]]

At least today shows they think something can be done to stop violent
crime in America. Will they take their newfound sense of moral outrage
and compassion and apply it not just in one case but to the tens of
thousands of victims of gun violence in America? America is waiting for
an answer.
What is the majority proposing today? S. 5 is a bill to subject to
mandatory detention not just undocumented people who have been
convicted of theft, shoplifting, and other criminal offenses, which has
been the law supported unanimously by both parties since 1996, but
people who have been simply charged with such offenses or arrested for
such offenses, even if the charges are dropped or even if they are
never filed in the first place.
It is an odd way to fix the border because it has nothing to do with
the border, and it is an extremely attenuated and constitutionally
dubious way to protect public safety.
The vast majority of serious crimes committed in America are
committed by American citizens, not aliens, and the vast majority of
aliens don't commit crimes at all.

{time} 1430

However, this bill doesn't even focus on the culpable class of
undocumented immigrants who commit crimes. That the law already does.
It focuses on those who are arrested even if they are never charged or
those who are charged with crimes even if they are never convicted or
even if their charges are dropped.
A young person in DACA who is with a group of friends when one of
them is arrested for shoplifting and then all the kids get charged will
be subject to mandatory detention and deportation even if the child was
not shoplifting and the charges are dropped.
The bill is likely to pass, no doubt, because of the profound
sympathy we all share for the parents and family of Laken Riley who
have suffered an unthinkable, totally shocking, and profoundly
unnecessary trauma. This should not be a partisan issue, and it should
not be demagogued for partisan purposes.
Nevertheless, when we get serious about comprehensive threats to
public safety in our immigration system, we will have to address the
mass crises staring us in the face, like the gun violence epidemic,
which takes the lives of tens of thousands of American citizens every
year at the hands overwhelmingly of U.S. citizen gunmen.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the so-called bipartisan legislation
that the gentleman refers to would have made it impossible for
President Trump to have taken the actions he has just taken to secure
our border until illegal immigration exceeded 4,000 entries a day. That
is why it collapsed in the Senate and it was ultimately disavowed by
its own author.
The gentleman is correct to lament the terrible violence in our
Nation, especially in our dangerous Democratic cities. So here is a
modest proposal: Take the criminals off the streets, like Laken Riley's
killer, which is exactly what this bill does.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Yakym).
Mr. YAKYM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Laken
Riley Act.
The Biden-Harris administration was marked by failure and corruption,
but the failure that sits head and shoulders above all others was their
open-border policy. Almost immediately after President Biden was sworn
in, America was overrun by a massive, unprecedented surge in illegal
immigrants.
The chart next to me shows just how dramatically President Biden
failed compared to his predecessors, over double the southern border
crossings of any President since 2001. This border chaos was ignored
for all 4 years of the Biden-Harris administration. It was downplayed
as seasonal or written off as mere ebbs and flows.
Mr. Speaker, find me somewhere on this chart where the surge was only
seasonal. Show me where it ebbed or flowed.
Illegal immigrants continued streaming across President Biden's open
border in droves because they knew they would face no consequences from
an administration that was more focused on inventing new rhetorical
flourishes to paper over this very real crisis. They were more content
to wish it away rather than actually do something about it.
President Biden's failure at the border had impacts across America.
Every town was a border town. Once sleepy places were suddenly forced
to contend with sex trafficking, drug trafficking, child labor,
infectious diseases, petty theft, and, yes, even rape and murder.
Cartels got rich, and small towns in my district were left scrambling
for money and resources. This chaos was a choice made every single day
of Joe Biden's Presidency.
No more, Mr. Speaker. Monday marked a new era. President Trump has
already taken more decisive action in 48 hours than President Biden
took in 4 years.
Mr. Speaker, let's send this bill to President Trump's desk. I urge
my colleagues to vote for sanity and common sense. I urge them to vote
``yes.''
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 5. I rise in
opposition to S. 5 because the bill is redundant. In fact, the
provisions in this bill to penalize those who have committed violent
crimes are already included in the penal code. So this legislation is
redundant.
What it does do, in fact, is it would force ICE to treat minor
offenses as violent ones. That includes, of course, a child caught
stealing a candy bar from Walmart, someone who jumps the turnstile in a
New York City subway or takes a box of cornflakes because they
otherwise have no way to make ends meet.
It also sends a chilling effect out there amongst law-abiding
families and workers who are too frightened to show up to their shifts
at farms, hospitals, businesses, and schools across the country.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is redundant, and, frankly, the Laken Riley
family should not be subject to the political theater that is about to
happen here today.
In fact, we should be looking at this issue to fix the problems of
both the border, but also to regularize Dreamers, farmworkers, and keep
families whole. At the end of the day, Dreamers are productive. They
contribute to our society. Farmers need their workers, and we need
their workers. Families need to stay together because families that are
divided are weak families, and that makes a weak nation.
So this is a redundant bill.
While they are targeting the immigrant communities for stealing a
candy bar, the folks from January 6, get this, Mr. Speaker, were
released. Felons were released and sent out to our communities.
Today, I think of Officer Daniel Hodge whose gas mask was ripped off
his face as he was punched in the face and was stuck in between two
doors. America saw the film. America saw the video of him crying for
help.
Today, we will continue to fight for sanity and against any political
theater that happens here on our floor.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Feenstra), who is the author of Sarah's Law that is
incorporated into this bill.
Mr. FEENSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Laken Riley Act which includes my bill, Sarah's Law, as an amendment.
In the early morning hours of January 31, 2016, Michelle and Scott
Root received the call that every parent never wants to hear: their
daughter, Sarah, had been killed in a car accident. What is worse is
that Sarah was murdered by an illegal immigrant who was driving while
drunk three times over the legal limit.
However, instead of answering for his crimes, the illegal immigrant
posted bail, was released from jail, and fled our country never to be
seen again.
This egregious loophole in Federal law must be closed so that victims
like Sarah Root can receive justice and so that criminals can do the
hard time they deserve.
That is why I, alongside Senator Joni Ernst, introduced Sarah's Law
to ensure that any illegal immigrant who injures or kills an American
citizen is swiftly detained and punished to the fullest extent of the
law. As a father of

[[Page H281]]

four, I can't fathom the pain the Root family feels to this day. It is
truly heartbreaking.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to
deliver justice for Sarah and her family. I look forward to President
Trump signing this bill into law so that illegal immigrants who break
our laws are held accountable for their crimes. This must be done.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill for many reasons, but I
really want to get to the heart of the problem for me. On day one,
President Trump started his project to deport thousands of our
neighbors, even legal immigrants, asylum seekers, and people who were
born here in the United States. The Laken Riley Act is another piece of
that tragic project.
Laken Riley's death is a tragedy. She should be alive today, and I am
glad that that killer is facing accountability, as should anyone who
harms an innocent person.
However, we have to be really clear about the bill in front of us.
This bill does not make our communities safer. It gives this extreme
President the authority to do something that actually most Americans
don't agree with. Changing our laws so that any immigrant is detained
if they are accused, not convicted, of a crime undermines due process.
This bill requires the government to detain people who pose no risk
to our communities. It is a shameful bill that will result in the
violent detention of innocent people and children.
Many are going to regret enabling Trump's brutal agenda, and the
question is when.
When abusive boyfriends trap women in violent relationships by
threatening to falsely accuse them of a crime, will you think back to
this day?
When ICE raids kids' classrooms or goes into the Sunday school
service to lock up some classmates, will you feel shame then?
When there are no more resources because we have been prioritizing
looking at promising young DACA students and rounding them up for no
reason, will you regret voting for this bill then?
Our country has failed to ensure that every American has the
resources they need to live a good life. It is because of the greedy
and richest 1 percent of corporations and spineless politicians that
you don't have healthcare, that you need multiple jobs, that your check
isn't big enough for those bills, and that you can't afford to rent or
to buy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meuser). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FROST. It is not the fault of our fellow Americans who might be
undocumented. The solution here is not violence. On its face, this is
an evil bill meant to empower a violent man who is not interested in
solving the problems of working people but interested in power. It
seems that any bill that gives him power he and his party will
ruthlessly pursue, but not I.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that current law
already requires every illegal immigrant to be detained. That law is
simply not being enforced. This bill says that if that illegal alien
who is supposed to be in custody anyway is arrested for other crimes,
then they really have to be taken off the streets.
If this bill had been law, then Laken Riley would be alive today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Van Drew).
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, these are not prepared notes, but I wanted
to address a few of the things that the ranking member, Congressman
Raskin, mentioned. It seems to me that from what I hear on the other
side is everything but really dealing with and focusing on what this
bill says and what it does.
I want to talk about inflation which, by the way, was created on that
other side, food prices and energy and utilities, all of it. I want to
talk about all that.
I want to talk about gun violence. I am willing to debate gun
violence for hours and discuss the issue, but definitely even on that
issue, we don't want to speak about the liberal policies that exist in
so many urban areas where we let out violent criminals over and over
and over again and change very often felonies to misdemeanors.
Mr. Speaker, if you want to know about gun violence, that is what gun
violence does. That is what gun violence is created by, so much that is
happening there. Their answer would be to put more gun laws in place
that inflict more regulation upon honest, good gun owners who don't
ever do anything to anybody. It would be to impinge on Second Amendment
rights. Nevertheless, I don't want to talk about that.
I want to talk about this act because I know we are on the right side
of this. Laken Riley was killed while going for a jog. That is the
issue. An innocent woman who never did anything harmful to anybody in
her life, who wanted to be a nurse, who wanted to help other people,
and who couldn't even get the last damn telephone call from her mother,
was murdered.
Then I hear from the ranking member: Well, the vast majority of
illegals don't commit crimes.
My God, I hope not, because we have got close to 10 million of them,
as best as we can tell. There are hundreds who are on the terror watch
list and thousands who have committed crimes. That is where the
problems really do exist, and that is unacceptable.
The previous administration has recklessly abused the mass parole
policies. It has flooded our Nation with illegal immigrants. It never
should have happened, and it impinges and hurts the security of the
American people. I am here to represent, and we are here to represent
the American people.

{time} 1445

Across the country, we heard about the woman that was set on fire in
New York City. What was the first thing that the city of New York did
with its liberal policies? They refused to honor ICE's detainer request
for the man responsible for setting another human being on fire.
Our immigration laws have to be upheld. Failure to do so is why Laken
Riley is not alive today. It is why Washington State Trooper
Christopher Gadd's family will never see him. His children and his wife
will never know him anymore. He is gone.
It is why, when Laken Riley struggled for almost a half hour, when
she was beaten, when she was disfigured, when her head and skull was
crushed, that we can't bring her back. We can't bring her life back.
I don't want to hear about all this other political stuff. I don't
think the American people do. They want an answer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Senate
adopted the amendment that we wanted, which was to put into the bill
the legislation that we had to detain and deport illegal aliens who
assault cops. They have broken the law once, and now we are saying: My
God, if you do it again, no, you are going to be detained, and you are
going to be deported. A lot of Democrats are going to vote for it.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).
Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want the American people to know, with eyes wide open,
what is inside this bill. We stand here just 2 days after President
Trump gave unconditional pardons to violent criminals who attacked our
Nation's Capitol on January 6, and these are the people who want us to
believe that they are trying to keep criminals off the streets, when
they are opening the floodgates.
I want the American people to know what is in this bill because, in
the guise and in the wake of tragedy, we are seeing a fundamental
erosion of our civil rights in this bill. If a person is so much as
accused of a crime or if someone wants to point a finger and accuse

[[Page H282]]

someone of shoplifting, they will be rounded up and put into a private
detention camp and sent out for deportation without a day in court,
without a moment to assert their rights, and without a moment to assert
the privilege of innocence until proven guilty.
Without being found guilty of a crime, they will be rounded up. What
is inside this bill is a fundamental suspension of a core American
value, and that is why I rise to oppose it.
If you are a Dreamer, all someone has to do is point a finger, and
you will be rounded up. We have seen moments like these happen before
in the USA PATRIOT Act, in the wake of the travesty of 9/11, a
fundamental suspension of America's civil liberties, that is what we
are seeing here today.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may wonder why so many of our friends
across the aisle, who care so deeply about the rule of law, happen to
be so desperate to pass this bill after they are unleashing people who
attacked police officers here in this Capitol and who are now free to
roam our streets, who are publicly saying now that they want to get a
gun. Suddenly, these folks care about public safety? I don't think so.
Look no further than the $83 billion price tag of this bill. They
know that it can't be paid for. They know that the capacity is not
there.
Do you know what will be there? Private prison companies are going to
get flooded with money, who give this money, no doubt. I want folks at
home to look at which Members of Congress are invested in private
prison companies, who receive this kind of money, and look at the votes
on this bill.
It is atrocious that people are lining their pockets with private
prison profits in the name of a horrific tragedy on the victim of a
crime. It is shameful. It is absolutely shameful.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with this: In a few months, there are
Members of Congress who voted for this bill who are going to pretend
that they didn't know about all the bad things that are going to happen
because of it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, when a private prison camp opens in
your town and they say they didn't know this was going to happen, know
that they did and that they voted for it.
When a Dreamer has disappeared from your classroom and when the
President of the United States destroys what is left of the
Constitution as he has announced in his attack on birthright
citizenship, they will all say: We didn't know this was coming.
I want the American people to know that they did. This vote
represents it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope we do open as
many prisons as possible to round up as many illegal aliens who have
invaded our country and those who are breaking our laws; killing our
citizens, women and children; and causing complete havoc across our
great land.
Mr. Speaker, I support the Laken Riley Act. I support the Laken Riley
Act because Laken Riley should be alive today, and she would be alive
today if it hadn't been for the Democrats and the Biden administration
who ripped our border open and allowed this illegal alien monster to
come into our country.
Then, in the State of New York, when this monster was arrested for
committing crimes, the Democrat-led State of New York let him go. That
is how he came down to Georgia and murdered our Laken Riley.

This is a bill that cannot get passed soon enough, and I am so
thankful that the American people overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump
so that we can sign this bill into law. It can't happen fast enough.
Thank God.
Listening to my colleagues, the Democrats on the other side of the
aisle, complain and whine and defend illegal aliens who break the law
the minute they cross our border is pathetic. The American people are
so sick and tired of it. They cannot believe what our country has gone
through. It is enough. It is absolutely enough.
Democrats will go on and on to defend anyone who is not American
because of their America-last policies. My colleagues on the other side
of the aisle talk about tax dollars used. Our tax dollars should be
used for defending Americans.
Members want to talk about spending a lot of money? Spending a lot of
money should happen for American causes, American purposes, and
Americans' security.
Laken Riley is a young woman who should be living her American Dream,
and she had the right to do it. People who come across our border
illegally are not Americans, and they do not have rights here.
That is exactly why, anytime they break a law and anytime they cross
into our country, they should be rounded up and shipped out as fast as
possible. If we need to build more prisons, then we will do it because
the American people will support it.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).
Mrs. RAMIREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congressman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to keep myself composed when I hear people
speak their hypocrisies that actually generate profits for them when
they talk the way they do and then also use the word ``God'' somehow in
their speech.
Let me say this: We cannot realize justice by engaging in grave
injustice. We cannot achieve safety by putting millions in harm's way.
We cannot honor our ideals that we talk so much about in this place by
undermining civil rights.
Preemptively jailing people is not accountability. It is inhumanity.
Mandatory, indefinite detention based not on charges or convictions,
but on accusations, that is the tool of dictators, not democracies.
Let me be clear that Laken Riley's death is a tragedy, and we have
work to do to protect women and make our communities safer. We should
be bringing bills like Break the Cycle of Violence Act to the floor. We
could perhaps have a discharge petition and do it right now.
Let's remember that undocumented immigrants didn't make college
unaffordable. They didn't destroy our environment. They didn't deny
insurance claims. They didn't raise our rents.
Scapegoating immigrants just deflects the accountability from the
corporations and from the billionaires and bosses profiting from
everyday American hardships. That is what this is all about. It is
about ending due process so that they can profit.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Onder).
Mr. ONDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 5, the Laken
Riley Act.
First, I point out that my Democratic colleagues are all exercised
about the pardons of Donald Trump of January 6 protesters, but they
said not a word when President Biden commuted the sentences of 37 cold-
blooded murderers on death row in our Federal prisons.
This bill is the Senate amended version of Representative Collins'
bill that passed this Chamber earlier this month. It is named after
Laken Riley, the 22-year-old Georgia nursing student who was brutally
murdered by a criminal illegal alien, another casualty of the Biden-
Harris, Democratic, open-border policies.
This bill adds burglary, theft, and larceny to a list of crimes for
which it would be mandatory that illegal alien criminals be deported.
The Senate also added to this act a very important provision that adds
assault of a law enforcement officer or causing bodily injury to
another person.
The Laken Riley Act, when signed by President Trump, will begin the
long and hard work of protecting Americans from the more than 10
million illegal aliens who were enabled by Biden's open-border
policies.
On January 7, I was very encouraged to see 48 of our Democratic
colleagues in this Chamber vote for the commonsense protections that
Americans support in the Laken Riley Act. Yesterday, 12 Senate
Democrats joined all the Republicans in supporting this commonsense
measure.
Mr. Speaker, deporting criminal illegal aliens should not be a
partisan bill.

[[Page H283]]

I hope our Democratic colleagues will side with us on this issue to
protect Americans and put Americans first.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is so shameful that the first bill of the new
Congress will put a target on the backs of millions of our neighbors.
These are neighbors who worked so hard and who build up our
communities. It is also going to increase militarization of our
neighborhoods.
As someone who grew up in southwest Detroit, where you will find 20
different ethnicities, people from all over the world, who came
together, you should see how beautifully diverse it is. They built up
communities and neighborhoods. They are an integral part of our
neighborhoods.
One of the things that I have been seeing over and over again on
social media already, Mr. Speaker, is literally militarization of
Border Patrol, officials everywhere, just people scared and petrified
because that is what is exactly happening because this promotes racial
profiling.
The bill blatantly violates due process. These have literally been
allegations and charges, not actual convictions. You all act like if
somebody is undocumented they can't be deported. They can. As a former
immigration attorney, I know that for a fact.

You are making this up so you can literally allow people to be
profiled and discriminated against.
Blame them for the cost of eggs? Is that what we are doing here? We
are blaming them because you guys can't put corporate greed to the
side? That is a disease, and that is killing our economy. People can't
afford housing. You think it is because of our immigrant neighbors?
No. If you truly care about fixing our immigration system, you would
go fix it so that U.S. citizens married to undocumented spouses can
actually adjust their status when we have mixed statuses because we
have ignored and vilified immigrants for 30 years.
Enough is enough.
It will separate families. It would lead again to continued
discrimination. It is shameful that my colleagues are giving in to
racist fear-mongering at the first opportunity to pass legislation, to
scapegoat our immigrant neighbors and fuel hate in our communities.
I know what is going to happen. It won't just be undocumented. It
will be people like my mother who will get stopped and profiled. Does
she have to carry her U.S. passport around? Are we asking people now to
have documentation? That is what you want to turn our neighborhoods
into, is militarization?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. TLAIB. I just ask all of you to truly understand what this will
do to our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to please vote ``no'' on this
divisive bill. It is so important to understand what you are going to
turn our communities and our neighborhoods into. We can't allow that to
continue to happen.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Palmer). Members are reminded to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins). He is the author of the Laken Riley Act in the
House, representing her hometown and her grieving family.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I will take a minute to talk a little bit about the
journey of this bill. When this tragedy happened and we took a look at
what possibly could be done to make sure that this doesn't happen
again, I talked with the family and asked them if we could put Laken
Riley's name on it.

{time} 1500

Their response was: Congressman, if there is anything that Congress
can do to make sure that this doesn't happen to another family, then
please put her name on it and get this thing passed.
Mr. Speaker, and that we did. Thirty-seven Democrats with all
Republicans in the House passed that bill in the 118th Congress. We
sent it over to the Senate and where so many of the other good bills
went, it fell into the black hole of the Senate never to be seen again.
I had another discussion with the family later and told them where
the bill was sitting and what was going on. I told them that I can
never let it go. I just couldn't let this go because Laken fought with
every ounce in her body to stay alive that day. I vowed I would fight
with every ounce I had to make sure that we protected families across
this country, and that we did.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the family for allowing us to do that. I also
thank my colleagues for sticking in here and voting with us, not just
the Republicans but the Democrats, people on the other side of the
aisle and not just in the House, it went through the Senate. We had
Senate Democrats that went with this bill, as well.
This is a good bill. It is a commonsense, law enforcement bill. It
simply states that for minor-level crime local law enforcement can
contact ICE to get these people detained, processed, and deported.
These people, these criminals that come across and inflict violence on
American families, they just get more and more emboldened.
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 Georgia.
Mr. COLLINS. They commit larger and more heinous crimes, and that is
exactly what happened here in the Laken Riley murder.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to get this passed
today. Let's get this done. I will leave you with one other thought,
too. I have always heard a saying that there is nothing with any
meaningful legislation that happens up here in this town until the
American people demand it, and by God, they are demanding this get
passed and we get these criminals out of our country.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague from California
for leading this charge and being that strong voice.
Mr. Speaker, we seem to have a common California problem on a lot of
issues. I will remind people that California is a sanctuary State and
some of the first sanctuary cities emanated from California leading to
this problem.
Governor Gavin Newsom and the rest of the State is actually defying
Federal law on enforcing borders and turning over criminal illegal
aliens when they capture them and detain them. Lives are being lost
because of that.
Let me go back in time a little bit so they are not forgotten.
Jamiel Shaw, II, a 17-year-old high school student and a promising
athlete was shot and killed in March 2008 near his home in Los Angeles.
His assailant, an undocumented immigrant or illegal alien, whatever you
want to call it, was a member of the 18th Street Gang and had been
released from jail just a day before this shooting.
Later, he was finally convicted in 2012 and sentenced to death, then
commuted by Gavin Newsom.
Shaw's death led to increasing scrutiny of these policies and
hopefully results here today.
Let me remind you of Kate Steinle. That one gripped the Nation as
well. She was killed on a pier in San Francisco when an illegal
immigrant, who shouldn't have been there, got ahold of a gun and
discharged it and shot poor Kate Steinle. This man was acquitted of
murder and manslaughter and only put away on a felon in possession of a
firearm. This became a focal point in discussions of sanctuary cities,
as well.
We have an opportunity here to not have this happen again and again.
We know well, unfortunately, the story of Laken Riley because that is
fresher in our minds. We can't go back and forget about people like
Jamiel Shaw, whose father I met who was grieving at the time and is
still grieving now; Kate Steinle, and so many other names that we are
not naming here yet today. We need to do better.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Palmer). The gentleman from Maryland has
6 minutes remaining.

[[Page H284]]

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that Representative Collins has left. I was
just presented with a tweet that he sent out about the New Jersey-born
Episcopalian Bishop Mariann Budde, who performed a service as part of
the inaugural ceremonies. Apparently, he was not pleased with what she
had to say, and he wrote, ``The person giving this sermon should be
added to the deportation list.''
I would have asked him whether he was serious about that. Of course,
the Episcopalian Bishop is a U.S. citizen, but, of course, that is very
much in the spirit of the times. It reminds me of the period of the
Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 when there was an effort to use the
Alien and Sedition Acts, which have been invoked recently by the new
President, in order to persecute the political opponents of the
administration as well as to chase down and kick out of the country all
of the dangerous French immigrants who were spreading revolutionary
propaganda in the country. A friend of Jefferson's wrote to him, John
Taylor, to say how exhausted he was by all of the political fighting
and the demonizing of immigrants and the attempt to shut the borders
down and to attack political opponents as enemies of the State, and so
on.

Jefferson wrote in this beautiful letter back--you should check it
out online, if you can. It is a letter to John Taylor. In it he
counseled patience.
He said:

A little patience, and the reign of witches shall pass
over, their spells dissolve and the people, recovering their
true sight, recover the true principles of their government.
In the meantime, we are suffering all of the horrors and
indignities of the hysteria. If the game runs against us at
home sometimes, as inevitably it will, then we must have
patience because this is a game where principles are at
stake.

Our colleagues have spoken up for nothing other than due process. The
idea that the bipartisan compromise that has been cemented and lost
since 1996 should stand, saying that we want the immediate detention
and deportation of undocumented people who actually commit crimes. In
an effort to drive a wedge in this body, they now say they want to move
from people who have been convicted of crimes, which obviously accords
completely with common sense, to people who have just been accused or
charged with crimes, even if the charges are dropped even for offenses
as small as shoplifting.
In any event, we don't claim somehow that one side or the other is
morally righteous and the other is morally wrong. We are trying to have
a public policy debate. In the role of public emotion in public policy
debates, Mr. Speaker, is an interesting thing. Some people think it is
enough to show up and say, there has been a terrible event. There has
been a sickening murder or rape, therefore, you must pass our bill
without even reading the bill, without even looking to see what is in
the bill. Does it make sense as a matter of public policy?
If that were the standard they actually believed in, they would be
voting for all of the gun safety legislation they have been rejecting,
because every time there is a massacre, whether it is in Connecticut or
Florida or Texas or Illinois or any of our communities, we come in and
we say, we want what the American people want in public opinion polls:
a universal, violent criminal background check. We want a ban on
military-style assault weapons.
There is no reason 18 year olds should be bearing AR-15s and showing
up in classrooms and churches and synagogues with weapons of mass
destruction. If it were enough just to appeal to emotion, they would be
voting with us, but, no, they say that conflicts with their public
policy understanding.
Well, at the very least you would think they would have the burden of
telling us what they do support, but we never hear anything. You don't
hear a peep out of them about gun violence because the second
amendment, as they misinterpret it, is sacrosanct as well as their NRA
support and contributions. That is what they bow down to is the
National Rifle Association when it comes to this policy debate because
they won't advance anything that conflicts with the NRA, even if the
Supreme Court says it is perfectly fine.
We had a ban on assault weapons for a decade. It was perfectly
constitutional. We have the Brady act. We have a violent criminal
background check, but even though expanding it to make it universal
would save hundreds or thousands of American citizen lives every year,
they won't touch it.
Don't invoke emotion selectively and say everybody has got to go
along with what you are saying without even analyzing the policy
implications and the constitutional implications if you are not willing
to put anything on the table to reduce the sickening death toll for gun
violence in America. There is nothing in the world that approaches what
we have got here. It is 25 times higher than the EU countries, dozens
of times higher than Japan, Canada, U.K., you name it. Yet, they
pretend as if there is no problem and they seize on an opportunistic
bill like this to try to drive a wedge within our Congress and within
our people.
I hope they do better when we get to the second week of this new
administration than freeing violent criminal felons who stormed this
Capitol and attacked our police officers than bringing forward a bill
like this to try to cover up for their complicity with that sickening
violence against our constitutional order.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 7 minutes
remaining.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First, in response to my friend, I would say after the last 4 years
in which the Democrats brought the full force of the government to
intimidate social platforms, to shut down dissenting opinions, and
stifle public debate, I would be a little more careful about invoking
the Alien and Sedition Acts.
The gentleman offers us gun control as an antidote; we offer criminal
control. Get the criminals off the streets, which is exactly what this
bill does. I am sure that he must be very upset that Mr. Biden pardoned
his son for gun crimes.
Mr. Speaker, to my Democratic colleagues who have joined Republicans
to pass this bill into law, I thank them for standing up to the woke
left of their party. That is a hard thing to do, especially when it
exposes them to their insults and epithets and threats of political
retribution. To the others, I ask how many more laws with names
attached to them do we need to pass before you take this crisis
seriously.
How many American citizens must die at the hands of illegal aliens
before we all agree that these tragedies are fully preventable? Must
the name of my child or their child be the one attached to an H.R.
number or an S. number before Democrats can vote ``yes'' on these
commonsense bills?
The fine point of the matter comes down to this: If this bill had
been law, Jocelyn Nungaray, Sarah Root, Rachel Moran, Laken Riley, and
many, many more such victims would be alive today because their killers
would have been taken into custody. Under President Trump, they never
would have been allowed into our country in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for adoption of this measure, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 53, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be 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. Mr. 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.

____________________