{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2025-01-07-pt1-PgH53-4", "2025-01-07", 119, 1, null, null, "LAKEN RILEY ACT", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H53", "H61", "[{\"name\": \"Tom McClintock\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jamie Raskin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mike Collins\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jerrold Nadler\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Andy Biggs\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Pramila Jayapal\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mark Harris\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Andrew S. Clyde\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jefferson Van Drew\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ben Cline\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"August Pfluger\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"5\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"5\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"29\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"29\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"29\"}]", "171 Cong. Rec. H53", "Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 3 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]\n[House]\n[Pages H53-H61]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                            LAKEN RILEY ACT\n\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call\nup the bill (H.R. 29) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to\ntake into custody aliens who have been charged in the United States\nwith theft, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate\nconsideration in the House.\n  The Clerk read the title of the bill.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rulli). Pursuant to House Resolution 5,\nthe bill is considered read.\n  The text of the bill is as follows:\n\n                                H.R. 29\n\n       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of\n     the United States of America in Congress assembled,\n\n     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.\n\n       This Act may be cited as the ``Laken Riley Act''.\n\n     SEC. 2. DETENTION OF CERTAIN ALIENS WHO COMMIT THEFT.\n\n       Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8\n     U.S.C. 1226(c)) is amended--\n       (1) in paragraph (1)--\n       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'';\n       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the comma at the end\n     and inserting ``, or''; and\n       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:\n       ``(E)(i) is inadmissible under paragraph (6)(A), (6)(C), or\n     (7) of section 212(a), and\n       ``(ii) is charged with, is arrested for, is convicted of,\n     admits having committed, or admits committing acts which\n     constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft,\n     larceny, or shoplifting offense,'';\n       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); and\n       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:\n       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(E), the\n     terms `burglary', `theft', `larceny', and `shoplifting' have\n     the meaning given such terms in the jurisdiction where the\n     acts occurred.\n       ``(3) Detainer.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall\n     issue a detainer for an alien described in paragraph (1)(E)\n     and, if the alien is not otherwise detained by Federal,\n     State, or local officials, shall effectively and\n     expeditiously take custody of the alien.''.\n\n     SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF A STATE.\n\n       (a) Inspection of Applicants for Admission.--Section 235(b)\n     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)) is\n     amended--\n       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and\n       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:\n       ``(3) Enforcement by attorney general of a state.--The\n     attorney general of a State, or other authorized State\n     officer, alleging a violation of the detention and removal\n     requirements under paragraphs (1) or (2) that harms such\n     State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action\n     against the Secretary of Homeland Security on behalf of such\n     State or the residents of such State in an appropriate\n     district court of the United States to obtain appropriate\n     injunctive relief. The court shall advance on the docket and\n     expedite the disposition of a civil action filed under this\n     paragraph to the greatest extent practicable. For purposes of\n     this paragraph, a State or its residents shall be considered\n     to have been harmed if the State or its residents experience\n     harm, including financial harm in excess of $100.''.\n       (b) Apprehension and Detention of Aliens.--Section 236 of\n     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226), as\n     amended by this Act, is further amended--\n       (1) in subsection (e)--\n       (A) by striking ``or release''; and\n       (B) by striking ``grant, revocation, or denial'' and insert\n     ``revocation or denial''; and\n       (2) by adding at the end the following:\n       ``(f) Enforcement by Attorney General of a State.--The\n     attorney general of a State, or other authorized State\n     officer, alleging an action or decision by the Attorney\n     General or Secretary of Homeland Security under this section\n     to release any alien or grant bond or parole to any alien\n     that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to\n     bring an action against the Attorney General or Secretary of\n     Homeland Security on behalf of such State or the residents of\n     such State in an appropriate district court of the United\n     States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief. The court\n     shall advance on\n\n[[Page H54]]\n\n     the docket and expedite the disposition of a civil action\n     filed under this subsection to the greatest extent\n     practicable. For purposes of this subsection, a State or its\n     residents shall be considered to have been harmed if the\n     State or its residents experience harm, including financial\n     harm in excess of $100.''.\n       (c) Penalties.--Section 243 of the Immigration and\n     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253) is amended by adding at the\n     end the following:\n       ``(e) Enforcement by Attorney General of a State.--The\n     attorney general of a State, or other authorized State\n     officer, alleging a violation of the requirement to\n     discontinue granting visas to citizens, subjects, nationals,\n     and residents as described in subsection (d) that harms such\n     State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action\n     against the Secretary of State on behalf of such State or the\n     residents of such State in an appropriate district court of\n     the United States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief.\n     The court shall advance on the docket and expedite the\n     disposition of a civil action filed under this subsection to\n     the greatest extent practicable. For purposes of this\n     subsection, a State or its residents shall be considered to\n     have been harmed if the State or its residents experience\n     harm, including financial harm in excess of $100.''.\n       (d) Certain Classes of Aliens.--Section 212(d)(5) of the\n     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) is\n     amended--\n       (1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears\n     and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and\n       (2) by adding at the end the following:\n       ``(C) The attorney general of a State, or other authorized\n     State officer, alleging a violation of the limitation under\n     subparagraph (A) that parole solely be granted on a case-by-\n     case basis and solely for urgent humanitarian reasons or a\n     significant public benefit, that harms such State or its\n     residents shall have standing to bring an action against the\n     Secretary of Homeland Security on behalf of such State or the\n     residents of such State in an appropriate district court of\n     the United States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief.\n     The court shall advance on the docket and expedite the\n     disposition of a civil action filed under this subparagraph\n     to the greatest extent practicable. For purposes of this\n     subparagraph, a State or its residents shall be considered to\n     have been harmed if the State or its residents experience\n     harm, including financial harm in excess of $100.''.\n       (e) Detention.--Section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and\n     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(2)) is amended--\n       (1) by striking ``During the removal period,'' and\n     inserting the following:\n       ``(A) In general.--During the removal period,''; and\n       (2) by adding at the end the following:\n       ``(B) Enforcement by attorney general of a state.--The\n     attorney general of a State, or other authorized State\n     officer, alleging a violation of the detention requirement\n     under subparagraph (A) that harms such State or its residents\n     shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary\n     of Homeland Security on behalf of such State or the residents\n     of such State in an appropriate district court of the United\n     States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief. The court\n     shall advance on the docket and expedite the disposition of a\n     civil action filed under this subparagraph to the greatest\n     extent practicable. For purposes of this subparagraph, a\n     State or its residents shall be considered to have been\n     harmed if the State or its residents experience harm,\n     including financial harm in excess of $100.''.\n       (f) Limit on Injunctive Relief.--Section 242(f) of the\n     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(f)) is amended\n     by adding at the end following:\n       ``(3) Certain actions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an\n     action brought pursuant to section 235(b)(3), subsections (e)\n     or (f) of section 236, or section 241(a)(2)(B).''.\n\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,\nequally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority\nleader, or their respective designees.\n  The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) and the gentleman from\nMaryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.\n  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).\n\n                             General Leave\n\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members\nmay have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks\nand include extraneous material on H.R. 29.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from California?\n  There was no objection.\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may\nconsume.\n  Mr. Speaker, the brutal murder of Laken Riley was foreordained the\nday Joe Biden took office and reversed the successful Trump policies\nthat had finally secured our borders.\n  Since that day just 4 years ago, more than 7.8 million illegal aliens\nhave been deliberately allowed into our country--a population the size\nof the State of Washington, our 13th largest State.\n  Very little is done to vet these millions of illegal migrants. We\ndon't know how many terrorists and violent criminals are among them,\nand worse, the Democrats don't seem to care.\n  We know that the number of terrorists we are apprehending has\nskyrocketed and that violent international crime cartels and violent\nforeign gangs are now operating freely in our communities, often\nprotected from deportation and detention by the Democrats' sanctuary\nlaws.\n  One of these criminals has now been convicted of the brutal murder of\nLaken Riley. How many such monsters have the Democrats deliberately\nallowed into our country we do not know, but we are slowly, painfully,\nand tragically finding out victim by victim.\n  In this case, the murderer was paroled into this country through a\nshocking abuse of this power by the Biden administration. He was\nrepeatedly arrested for theft and other crimes in sanctuary\njurisdictions and each time released back onto our streets.\n  Just months before Laken Riley's murder, this murderer was arrested\nfor theft, but he was released. ICE did not take him into custody\nbecause of a Biden administration policy that shields many criminal\naliens from arrest and deportation.\n  Sadly, this is exactly what those who voted for Joe Biden in 2020\nvoted for because this is exactly what the Democrats promised to do.\n  Fortunately, those who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 voted to stop\nthis tragic travesty of our immigration laws because that is what he\nhas promised to do and will begin doing over the Democrats' objections\nbeginning at noon on January 20.\n  During his first term, President Trump proved that the President on\nhis own authority can secure our borders. President Biden proved that a\nPresident determined to undermine and make a mockery of our immigration\nlaws can willfully open those borders to the most violent criminals,\nterrorists, gangs, and cartels on this planet and use the Democrats'\nsanctuary laws to protect them.\n  This national nightmare will end at noon on Inauguration Day, but\nwhat of future Presidents?\n  The Laken Riley Act would require ICE detention for illegal aliens\nwho are charged with, arrested for, or convicted of any burglary,\ntheft, larceny, or shoplifting offense.\n  H.R. 29 further requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue\na detainer for those illegal aliens and take custody of them\neffectively and expeditiously. It would also allow States to bring a\ncivil action against derelict Federal officials who refuse to enforce\nthese laws.\n  Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas, I am looking at you.\n  This bill passed the Republican House in March of last year, but\nSenate Democrats stopped it cold. I said at the time that, today, the\nname on the bill is Laken Riley. Tomorrow, it will be another victim of\nthese policies, another son, daughter, or loved one.\n  It won't stop until this administration is stopped, and that can only\nbe done by the American people. Thank God, the American people have\ndone exactly that. They have given this Congress and this President the\ntools and mandate to secure our borders and remove every person who has\nbroken into our country by violating our laws.\n  Without this law, a future Democratic President could once again\nrelease dangerous illegal aliens back onto our streets to prey on our\npeople and destroy innocent lives like Laken Riley's. This bill would\nstop them.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their\nremarks to the Chair.\n  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration brought us back from a\ndevastating pandemic and the Trump economic crisis by investing in\nAmerican workers, American manufacturing, and American infrastructure.\nOur policies for the working-class majority instead of the tiny\nrapacious billionaire class pulled our economy back from the brink.\n  Today, our Nation's economic strength is ``the envy of the world,''\nas The Economist magazine put it, with\n\n[[Page H55]]\n\nan unemployment rate of 4.2 percent, wages rising across America, and\nthe gross domestic product growing at a robust 3.1 percent.\n  Moreover, the murder rate is way down in America. Unlawful\nimmigration at the southern border is now below where it was when\nDonald Trump left office 4 years ago. The roaring stock market, which\nis what Trump and his billionaire entourage care about, just completed\nits strongest 2 years in a quarter century.\n\n  Now, it is time to make sure all Americans enjoy the benefits of this\nastonishing economic growth. We should be coming together today to\nincrease the minimum wage, to lift children out of poverty, and to\nstrengthen unions, Social Security, Medicare, and the middle class.\nDonald Trump is instead assembling a billionaire Cabinet from the top\n0.00003 percent of the wealthiest Americans, drawing the top tier of\nhis new administration from poolside cocktail hour at Mar-a-Lago and\nsetting up the broligarchs and the plutocrats to plunder an even larger\nshare of government contracts and public resources.\n  Trump campaigned on the seductive promise of bringing down the high\npost-COVID-19 prices for rent, groceries, consumer goods, and\nhealthcare, but now he is preparing to give power over the economy to\nhis team of globe-trotting, dictator-dealing CEOs and billionaires, the\nvery people responsible for exploiting the pandemic to increase prices\nin the first place.\n  I doubt the billionaire oligarchs have any interest in bringing down\nthe cost of living for the working middle class in America, but if they\ndo, Democrats stand ready to work with them. After all, we are the ones\nwho dramatically lowered prescription drug prices in Medicare, capping\nout-of-pocket monthly expenses at $35 a month. I had constituents who\nwere paying $500 a month for insulin as diabetics before that, and it\nis capped now at $35 a month. We capped annual total out-of-pocket\nexpenditures for prescription drugs at $2,000 a year.\n  It was the MAGA Republicans deep in the pocket of Big Pharma who\ncategorically and vehemently opposed us every step of the way on\nlowering prescription drug prices in Medicare.\n  If our colleagues now have good policy proposals for continuing to\nlower prices as we have done, which is what they campaigned on, by all\nmeans, bring the proposals forward. Let's see them.\n  Democrats have repeatedly crossed the aisle to hammer out bipartisan\ncompromise. Last year, President Biden and Senate Democrats worked with\nthe ultraconservative Republican Senator James Lankford to arrive at a\ntough bipartisan border security deal, but President Trump aggressively\ntanked the deal, openly expressing his preference for rallying against\na border crisis rather than actually developing a border solution.\n  Now, today, the Republicans are on the floor but not with their long-\nawaited, entirely missing policy solutions to the problems of inflation\nor immigration. Instead, their bill today is an empty and opportunistic\nmeasure. It is not, like the compromise they tanked in the last\nCongress, a bill for greater border security or better technology in\nthe ports of entry, expanding legal pathways to immigration and\ncitizenship for millions of people, or addressing huge immigrant visa\nbacklogs. No, this bill would upend 28 years of mandatory immigration\ndetention policy by requiring that any undocumented immigrant arrested\nfor theft, larceny, or shoplifting be detained even if they are never\nconvicted or even charged with a crime.\n  This is a radical departure from current law, which since 1996 has\ngenerally required mandatory detention only for persons who are\ncriminally convicted or who admit to having committed certain serious\ncrimes--that is, when criminal guilt is certain and established beyond\na reasonable doubt.\n\n                              {time}  1130\n\n  Under this bill, a person who has lived in the United States for\ndecades, say for most of her life, paid taxes, and bought a home, but\nwho is mistakenly arrested for shoplifting would not be free to resume\nher life. Rather, she would be detained and deported even if the\ncharges are dropped and even if the police admit that the arrest was\nmistaken.\n  Consider a young Dreamer or TPS recipient who is with a group of\nfriends after school and someone in the group shoplifts, stealing a\ncandy bar. To scare the whole group straight, everyone is arrested,\nwhether they were involved in the shoplifting or not. However, nobody\nis charged, and the charges are dropped. For most of the kids, it is a\nhumiliating afternoon and a valuable life lesson, but for one of them,\na young person who has been in America lawfully for years with his or\nher family, the consequences would be devastating under this\nlegislation--mandatory detention and deportation from the country just\nfor having been arrested, even if never charged.\n  It seems to me passing strange, Mr. Speaker, that our friends are\ntaking this position when they do not even believe that the criminal\njustice system can be trusted when a jury unanimously convicts someone\nwho has had the best legal representation money can buy in the State of\nNew York on 34 different felony criminal counts after an extended\ncriminal trial with all due process protections, including cross-\nexamination and the right to counsel being afforded.\n  If the criminal justice process cannot be trusted to identify a truly\nguilty person even when that person has been arrested, charged,\nindicted, prosecuted, represented at every stage, given an opportunity\nto cross-examine all witnesses, and to testify personally, and then is\nunanimously convicted by a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt,\nhow can the criminal justice process be trusted to identify a truly\nguilty person just with an arrest and no indictment, no prosecution, no\ncross-examination, no neutral adjudication by an impartial judge, no\nfact-finding, and no criminal conviction by a 12-person jury beyond a\nreasonable doubt?\n  Mandatory detention has always been reserved for people who are\nconvicted of crimes and actually commit crimes. Expanding the detention\nrequirement to include every person who has merely been accused of or\narrested for, even if not charged for shoplifting, for example,\ncollapses the distinction between actual conviction on serious events\nversus simply being charged with or arrested for something very minor\neven if the charges don't even lead anywhere.\n  Congress has never even appropriated sufficient resources to detain\nall noncitizens who do fall under the currently serious mandatory\ndetention categories. Even President Trump, during his first term,\nnever tried to detain all migrants theoretically subject to mandatory\ndetention. Therefore, this extremely elastic new provision adds nothing\nto the equation other than more empty rhetoric and greater bureaucratic\nbloat.\n  The bill also seeks to give State governments authority and control\nover the Federal immigration system by trespassing on the Article II\nexecutive power in a way that eight out of nine Justices on the Supreme\nCourt completely repudiated 2 years ago as a blatant violation of the\nseparation of powers.\n  The bill seeks to give State attorneys general precisely what the\nSupreme Court has denied: constitutional standing to sue the Federal\nGovernment in court for perceived violations of sections of the\nImmigration and Nationality Act so States can block Federal immigration\npolicies, capsizing the Supremacy Clause and expanding judicial power\nto encroach upon executive discretion under Article II.\n  In June of 2023, the Supreme Court in the United States v. Texas\nemphatically rejected the alleged standing of States to sue the Federal\nGovernment to alter the government's immigration arrest policies. This\nbill attempts a legislative bypass of this constitutional decision in\nU.S. v. Texas written by Justice Kavanaugh and joined by eight of nine\nJustices on the Court.\n  In rejecting the States' standing argument, the Court observed, among\nother things, that lawsuits alleging insufficient arrests or\nprosecution run against the executive branch's exclusive Article II\nauthority to enforce immigration law, which includes the discretion to\ndetermine enforcement priorities in the face of a chronic lack of\nresources and shifting public safety, public welfare, and foreign\npolicy needs and priorities.\n\n[[Page H56]]\n\n  If this bill were to become law, both provisions would have the\nperverse effect of undermining the Federal Government's efforts to\nprioritize the detention and the deportation of the truly most\ndangerous convicted felons. With the vastly expanded new statutory\nscope and new authority for States to get legal standing on steroids,\nthe government can be sued by a State for not detaining everyone\ncharged with or not even arrested for the pettiest of crimes like\nshoplifting.\n  This bill tries to give States standing to sue for harms as small as\n$100, dramatically shifting power from the executive branch to the\ncourts and the Federal Government to the States, both in ways\nconsidered completely dubious by the Supreme Court.\n  Like many of the immigration-related bills the GOP is now advancing,\nthis one seems to follow a simple strategy: Pick a crime, paste into it\na template immigration law covering convicted criminals, and then\nrequire detention or deportation of certain persons merely accused of\ncommitting the crime or arrested for committing the crime. No due\nprocess is required at all. This allows us to get up and demonize\nimmigrants without doing anything to fix the immigration system and to\nact tough without actually making America safer or solving any of the\nproblems within the immigration laws.\n  We should be working together on comprehensive, meaningful reform. My\ncolleague from California invites us to believe that the only crimes\ncommitted by undocumented aliens are those who entered during the Biden\nadministration. Well, in fact, if you look at it, hundreds of\nthousands, 500,000 crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in the first Trump\nadministration, and over 1.1 million people who crossed during the\nfirst 4 years of his administration were eventually released from\ncustody.\n\n  One of the people released from custody, an undocumented alien, is\ncharged with murdering 19-year-old Adam Luker from Alabama. Why don't\nwe have a bill named after Adam Luker? Is it because of the\ninconvenient fact that the undocumented alien who killed him came in\nunder Donald Trump? I would hate to think so. However, we can find lots\nof cases like that.\n  That is not what we should be doing here in Congress. We should be\nseriously confronting the problems in a serious way together rather\nthan just trying to make partisan hay out of other people's tragedies\nin their lives.\n  Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not move the ball forward on any\nof the problems facing America, and they are being moved under closed\nrules without a hearing, without any legislative scrutiny. This means\nthat no Member--not only just Democrats, but Republicans, too, no\nMember--can offer any amendments to repair the gaping flaws and gaps in\nthese slapdash political bills.\n  I would urge our colleagues to take a much more serious approach\nhere. The murder of Laken Riley was an unspeakable and appalling crime,\na heinous act, and no parent, no family should ever have to bear such a\ncalamity. We must take clear steps to make sure that people who commit\ncrimes like this are punished to the full extent of the law. I trust\nthat my friends agree that those who commit horrific, violent crimes\nlike these must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.\n  This bill fails to take any meaningful action to improve our broken\nimmigration system and to prevent crimes like this from occurring\nagain, whether the undocumented aliens entered under a Democratic\nadministration, as they have, or a Republican administration, as they\nhave. We are asked to vote on a bill that fails to address any of the\nreal issues at stake, and we are foreclosed from offering any\namendments to improve this sloppy and political product.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and\nI reserve the balance of my time.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fong). Members are reminded to refrain\nfrom engaging in personalities toward the President-elect.\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may\nconsume.\n  I want you to listen to what my friend just said, that we shouldn't\nbe placing illegals in detention simply for being charged with a crime;\nand, besides, shoplifting is no big deal anyway.\n  Listen to what he is actually suggesting. Current law requires the\ndetention of every illegal alien who crosses our border. Every one.\n  The Democrats have studiously ignored this law, and now they are\nsaying ignore this law even if the illegal has now been charged with\ncommitting other crimes as well. Let them back onto the streets, as\nthey did with Laken Riley's murderer. If a few innocent teens happen to\nget raped and murdered along the way, well, too bad.\n  The Democrats have told us for 4 years that their refusal to enforce\nour immigration laws is because they are prioritizing more dangerous\noffenders. That is precisely what this bill does. It prioritizes\ndangerous offenders, and yet the Democrats are still opposing it.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.\nCollins), the author of this measure. Mr. Collins represents Laken\nRiley's hometown and her grieving family in this House.\n  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to\nsupport the Laken Riley Act.\n  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we record into history\nexactly what happened to this young lady.\n  This young lady didn't have a care in the world. She was just out for\na jog, enjoying the day, when an illegal criminal took her life away.\nHe didn't even have any remorse. He never hesitated.\n  This legislation could have prevented her death. Her murderer was in\nour country illegally and was a known criminal. He had abused a child\nin New York City and was flown to Athens, Georgia, a sanctuary city,\nall of this on the taxpayers' dime, where he was once again cited for\nshoplifting. Every part of our system failed Laken that day, and there\nis nothing we can do to bring her back.\n  I will tell you what, we can make sure this never happens again.\nRight now, ICE is unable to detain and deport illegal criminals who\ncommit these minor-level crimes, but the Laken Riley Act will fix this\nand give ICE and our local law enforcement the tools to get these\ncriminals out of our country and make our communities safer.\n  We need to get these people off the street. These criminals are\ngetting bolder and bolder while our communities become more and more\nunsafe. Our lax policies gave her murderer the courage to kill Laken\nRiley. We have got to make sure that this doesn't ever happen again.\n  Mr. Speaker, he bashed her head in with a rock. This is one of the\nmost heinous crimes imaginable. People need to know what this animal\ndid to her. I am going to tell you what, they also need to know how she\nfought back. Laken fought back with every ounce in her body. When I\nspoke to the family about this bill last year, I told them I would\nnever let it go. I will fight with every ounce that I have to make sure\nthat no family has to suffer a loss like they have to these illegal\ncriminals.\n\n  Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day in America, it is a sad day when we\nallow these thug criminals to invade our homes, our country, and impose\ntheir violence and their will on the American people. We have the\nopportunity today, we have the opportunity to fix this, and I encourage\nall my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes.''\n  I will leave you with an excerpt from a statement made by Laken\nRiley's family:\n\n       The Laken Riley Act has our full support because it would\n     help save innocent lives and prevent more families from going\n     through the kind of heartbreak we have experienced. Laken\n     would have been 23 on January 10. There is no greater gift\n     that could be given to her or our country than to continue\n     her legacy by saving lives through this bill. Every single\n     Member of Congress should be able to get behind this purely\n     commonsense bill that will make our country and communities\n     safer.\n\n  Mr. Speaker, God help us. God help us.\n  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished\ngentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).\n  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 29.\n  I start by expressing my deepest condolences to Laken Riley's family.\nHer death was a tragedy, and we all mourn her loss. May her memory be a\nblessing.\n\n                              {time}  1145\n\n  I wish that we were considering legislation that was worthy of her\nname. Instead, the Republican majority is beginning this new Congress\nright where\n\n[[Page H57]]\n\nthey left off in the last one, with legislation that targets and\nscapegoats immigrants, but does nothing to address the real problems in\nour broken immigration system, all while ignoring basic due process and\nconstitutional principles.\n  Among other things, this legislation would subject to mandatory\ndetention any undocumented immigrants who are merely charged with\ncommitting an act of theft or shoplifting, even if they are innocent.\n  This means if someone is merely accused of shoplifting, someone who\nmight be innocent, who might be the victim of mistaken identity, and\nwho has not had the opportunity to clear his name, would be subject to\nmandatory detention.\n  This bill is so broad that it would lead to the detention of people\nwho have committed no crime and have no intention of harming anyone.\nThat flies in the face of all notions of basic due process and reason.\nIt is both pernicious and absurd.\n  Where will the Federal Government get the resources to detain all\nthese people? Congress has never appropriated, and no administration\nhas ever requested, sufficient resources to detain all noncitizens who\nfall under the mandatory detention categories. Even President Trump,\nduring his first term, never tried to detain all migrants subject to\nmandatory detention. It was far too costly, even for him.\n  Since this bill is so sweeping, even Dreamers and people living here\non temporary protected status, people who may have lived in this\ncountry for decades and shortly after their birth, could be subject to\nthe bill's harsh provisions.\n  If that weren't bad enough, the bill also declares that States have\nstanding to sue over certain immigration provisions so long as the\nState or its residents suffer even the most trivial financial harm.\nThis appears to be a ham-handed attempt to circumvent recent Supreme\nCourt rulings limiting States' standing to sue the Federal Government\nover immigration enforcement matters.\n  Merely declaring that the States have standing to sue does not make\nit so. This provision is almost certainly unconstitutional.\nUnfortunately, the lack of attention that Republicans pay to such\nmatters perfectly sums up their entire approach to immigration.\n  Instead of working toward serious solutions to serious problems, they\nare content to simply play politics and consider it a job well done. I\nurge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nArizona (Mr. Biggs), who has done work on our subcommittee on this\nissue.\n  Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, again, our hearts go out to the\nLaken Riley family. We think about them. This bill is named for Laken\nRiley, but it has an impact far greater.\n  Once again, we must acknowledge that we can no longer take the famed\nempty words of sympathy from those across the aisle in the Biden-Harris\nadministration because they refuse to do anything meaningful to stop\nthe carnage or even slow down the border surge that has been going on.\n  Illegal aliens who commit crimes must not be released into our\ncommunities. Our colleagues cannot even use the term of art that is in\nthe statute: ``illegal alien.'' They cannot even use that. They\nconflate legal immigration with those who enter our country illegally.\nThey call them undocumented immigrants. That is what they do.\n  They don't ever stand up for the American people. Instead of taking\nthe mandate of an overwhelming popular vote victory and electoral\ncollege victory by this incoming President Donald Trump on the issue of\nborder security, they let it go. They ignore it.\n  In fact, places like San Diego--you know what San Diego just did?\nThey declared themselves a super sanctuary city. Nobody is going to be\nheld for ICE.\n  You get to explain to the victim of Nicholas Jose Francisco, a 25-\nyear-old illegal alien from Guatemala, charged with molesting and\nraping a 5-year-old little girl. In New York City, there is more than\n58,000 illegal aliens with a criminal record who have been charged with\na crime on their streets.\n  You get to explain and apologize to the victim of the 31-year-old\nillegal alien from Mexico who was recently arrested for breaking into a\nwoman's home and raping her. This goes on and on because my colleagues\ndon't want to hold these people in detention.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the\ngentleman from Arizona.\n  Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, you get to explain to the victim\nof the 28-year-old illegal alien who tortured and burglarized a Dallas\nwoman just a month or two ago.\n  You can stand up and say we are not bringing meaningful legislation.\nYou can stand up and say that you feel real bad for Laken Riley and her\nfamily. How about all the other victims of illegal aliens who have\ncommitted crimes? You know the first thing they did that was illegal?\nThey entered our country. Democrats want to protect them. Republicans\nwant the law enforced.\n  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Democrats got behind a\nbipartisan border security bill, which beefed up law enforcement at the\nborder, which beefed up judges at the border, and that was tanked by\nDonald Trump and by Republicans in the House.\n  They are the ones, Mr. Speaker, who refuse to engage in meaningful\nlegislative work to get the job done here. Democrats won't be lectured\nby our colleague that we don't stand up for the American people.\n  The author of this legislation actually yesterday sent out a tweet, a\nsocial media statement, characterizing the January 6 violent assault on\nthis Chamber where 140 officers were wounded, injured, and hospitalized\nby a rampaging mob this way: ``On this day in history, 2021,'' said the\ngentleman, ``thousands of peaceful grandmothers gathered in Washington,\nD.C., to take a self-guided, albeit unauthorized, tour of the U.S.\nCapitol Building.'' I like that touch, ``albeit unauthorized.''\n\n  ``Earlier that day, President Trump held a rally, where supporters\nwalked to the Capitol to peacefully protest the certification of the\n2020 election. During this time, some individuals entered the Capitol,\ntook photos, and explored the building before leaving.''\n  Well, isn't that sweet. We see exactly how much faith and confidence\nthey really have in the American criminal justice system and how much\nthey really stand on the side of law enforcement. Yeah, it was a just a\nleisurely stroll by a bunch of peaceful grandmothers on January 6.\n  These are the people that now are inviting us to dramatically change\nthe immigration laws without even a hearing as to what it is going to\nmean in any particular case.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from\nWashington (Ms. Jayapal).\n  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, Laken Riley was, by all accounts, a\nremarkable young woman, whose life was tragically cut short by a\nhorrific act that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.\nMy heart goes out to her family and loved ones who grieve her death.\n  I understand, as a mother myself, fully why in the face of such\nsenseless violence, especially against someone so young, there is an\nurge to do something, anything, to feel like you are actually helping\nto fix the problem.\n  Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to fix the immigration system\nor to prevent future tragedies like this. It is simply an attempt to\nscore cheap political points off of a tragic death, and in the process,\nit unfairly sweeps up many more innocent lives with no due process.\n  Let us be clear: This is the Republican playbook over and over again.\nScare people about immigrants, never propose anything that actually\nsolves an outdated and arcane immigration system that desperately needs\nCongress to allocate resources and update legal pathways to make the\nimmigration system work for everyone.\n  My Republican colleagues simply want to preserve a broken immigration\nsystem as a campaign issue so that they can scapegoat and demonize\nimmigrants all to distract the American people from their real goals of\nmaking working people pay for another Republican tax scam that benefits\nbillionaires and the wealthiest.\n  Just look at the rules package that they just passed. Out of the 12\nbills included in that, not a single one does anything to secure the\nborder, to fix\n\n[[Page H58]]\n\nthe broken immigration system, to lower costs for working people, to\naddress the housing crisis, tackle the extraordinary levels of income\ninequality in this country, or tamp down on inflation.\n  Those were the promises of the Trump campaign, but not a single one\nof those things is actually included in the first bills that they are\nbringing to the floor without hearings.\n  Let's talk about what this bill actually does. This bill goes far\nbeyond subjecting those who are convicted to or admit to committing a\ntheft offense to mandatory detention. What this bill actually does is\nsubject any undocumented immigrant to mandatory detention for merely\nbeing arrested or charged with committing an act of theft, larceny, or\nshoplifting, along with those who are convicted or who admit to\ncommitting such acts.\n  Under this bill, a DACA or TPS recipient could be subjected to\nmandatory detention for crimes that are extremely low-level or for\nsomething that is not even a crime without even having had a fair day\nin court, without a conviction.\n  Let's be clear, we are talking about people who have been in this\ncountry for decades. Many of us in Congress are parents. Imagine your\nchild is with a group of kids grabbing an after-school snack at a 7-\nEleven and one of them chooses to just snitch a little candy bar off\nthe shelf.\n  The shop owner calls the police, and all the kids are arrested for\nshoplifting. If your child is a DACA recipient, someone who has lived\nhere nearly their entire life, they are now subject to mandatory\ndetention under this bill.\n  Unfortunately, there are countless real-life examples of people\ngetting wrongfully arrested for crimes that they didn't commit. In\n2019, a man in New Jersey was arrested for shoplifting and trying to\nhit a police officer with a car because facial recognition software\nfalsely identified him as the perpetrator.\n  He spent 10 days in jail, even though he was actually 30 miles away\nfrom where the crime was committed. If he had been a DACA or a TPS\nrecipient, and this bill had been enacted, he would be subject to\nmandatory immigration detention even though he was innocent of the\ncrime of which he was accused.\n  People deserve to have their day in court and are innocent until\nproven guilty. That seems to be something that the majority has\nforgotten or doesn't seem to care about unless the alleged criminal is\nthe President-elect.\n  The upcoming administration is poised to bring back their no-priority\nimmigration enforcement priority guidelines in which a convicted\nmurderer would be the same priority for deportation as an undocumented\nmom who has been living in this country for 20 years.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.\n  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the\ngentlewoman from Washington.\n  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, imagine how much money a sweeping mandatory\ndetention proposal like this will cost the Federal Government at a time\nwhen Republicans are talking a big game about cutting budgets, but not\nthis one. Why? Because this is a great boon to those for-profit\ndetention companies who make enormous profits for mandatory detention\nwhen there are far more effective and cheaper ways to address the\nissue.\n  Who pays for all this? The taxpayers. Even in a Republican trifecta,\nICE has limited resources to detain and remove folks. However, in this\nbill, like President Trump's enforcement priorities, we seek to use\nthose resources on people who committed low-level crimes or even no\ncrime at all. That makes no one safer and costs a lot of money.\n\n  Finally, this bill also bizarrely attempts to give State attorneys\ngeneral the authority to try and stop the administrations from carrying\nout important policy priorities by giving them standing to sue in\nFederal court under various sections of the Immigration and Nationality\nAct. That entire section of the bill, likely unconstitutional.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this overly\nbroad, deeply flawed legislation.\n  THE SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from\nengaging in personalities toward the President-elect.\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from\nWisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).\n  Mr. VAN ORDEN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to go a long way to\nreverse the lawlessness of the Biden-Harris administration. I will tell\nyou a story for a moment.\n  A criminal illegal alien entered the country with known gang tattoos\nand was allowed through Biden's porous border. He made his way to the\nState of Wisconsin where he had warrants issued in Dane County for\nstrangulation, suffocation, false imprisonment, battery, and disorderly\nconduct. He was not detained and deported, as he should have been,\nbecause Dane County is a sanctuary county.\n\n                              {time}  1200\n\n  He then made his way to Minneapolis, Minnesota, where he was arrested\nfor simple property crimes. He was not detained and deported, as he\nshould have been as a criminal illegal alien, because Minneapolis is a\nsanctuary city.\n  He then made his way to a small town of 5,600 people, Prairie du\nChien, my hometown, where he brutally raped a mother and savagely beat\nher daughter over a period of days and was finally arrested for\ndomestic battery, strangulation, suffocation, physical abuse to a\nchild, disorderly conduct, and two counts of second-degree sexual\nassault.\n  None of this needed to happen if the law was adhered to. None of this\nwould have taken place if this person was detained and deported for a\nsimple property crime. Enough.\n  It is the Federal Government's primary responsibility to protect its\ncitizens. My Democratic colleagues are refusing to do this, and it is\nshameful. It is time to protect our American citizens against criminal\nillegal aliens, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to\nstrongly support this bill.\n  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom North Carolina (Mr. Harris).\n  Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong\nsupport of H.R. 29, the Laken Riley Act.\n  For the past 4 years, the American people have suffered under the\nBiden administration's disastrous open-border policies that have\nallowed millions of illegal aliens to flood our communities.\n  One of those illegal aliens was Jose Ibarra. In 2023, he was caught\nshoplifting. Despite multiple arrests on his record in addition to his\nillegal status, he was released under the Biden administration. Months\nlater, as we all know, he murdered 22-year-old nursing student Laken\nRiley.\n  There is no other way to put it. Her death is a direct result of\nPresident Biden's deliberate refusal to enforce our laws. It is the\nFederal Government's job to defend our borders and protect our\ncitizens, and our government has failed us.\n  Fortunately, a new leader is taking office soon. This past November,\nAmericans demonstrated that they are fed up with the left's refusal to\nsecure our border. I am proud to be part of a Republican majority that\nwill work with the new administration to strengthen our laws to ensure\nthe safety of every American.\n  While I am confident that the Trump administration will secure our\nborder and, yes, empower ICE to do its job, we must not allow our\nsecurity to depend on whether or not a Republican occupies the White\nHouse. We in this Congress must ensure there are no future Laken\nRileys.\n  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to\nsupport this legislation.\n  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Georgia (Mr. Clyde).\n  Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 29,\nthe Laken Riley Act.\n  This bill is in remembrance of Laken Riley, the 22-year-old nursing\nstudent who was tragically murdered last year in my home community of\nAthens, Georgia, by an illegal alien from Venezuela who should have\nnever even been in our country.\n\n[[Page H59]]\n\n  After illegally crossing the southern border in 2022, Laken's\nmurderer was released through the Biden administration's weaponization\nof the parole program. The following year, he was arrested by the NYPD\nfor acting in a manner to injure a minor and for committing a motor\nvehicle license violation.\n  According to an Athens-Clarke County Police Department report, this\nillegal alien went on to shoplift in Georgia just weeks after his\nencounter with law enforcement in New York.\n  Clearly, this illegal alien had a pattern of criminal history, one\nthat started when he accepted Joe Biden's invitation to illegally enter\nour country. He should never have been allowed to reside in the United\nStates illegally, and ICE should have immediately issued a detainer\nafter he committed these crimes. Ultimately, if ICE had been aware and\nthen issued a detainer, this criminal illegal alien would not have even\nbeen in the United States to commit the horrific murder of Laken Riley.\n  We must enact changes now to protect our communities across the\ncountry from facing additional avoidable tragedies.\n  Thankfully, H.R. 29 provides a commonsense solution to do just that.\nThis legislation requires ICE to issue detainers and take custody of\nillegal aliens who commit crimes like theft, burglary, and larceny.\n  The local jurisdiction, the Athens-Clarke County Unified Government,\nwas a sanctuary city, and that is another problem. That is a big\nproblem. The sanctuary policy hampered the Athens-Clarke County\nDepartment of Police Services and the Clarke County Sheriff's Office\nfrom recognizing and acting upon an ICE detainer, which could have\nprevented Laken's murder.\n  Time and time again, communities and families throughout our Nation\nhave been devastated by heinous crimes committed by illegal aliens. In\nfact, this past October, the Peach State faced another unspeakable\ntragedy. In Habersham County, in my home district, Ms. Mimi Rodriguez-\nRamirez was brutally murdered by an illegal alien from Mexico. She was\njust 25 years old and left behind a young daughter and a loving family.\n  The citizens of Clarke County and Habersham County are hundreds of\nmiles from any border but are still being brutally victimized by\nillegal aliens. Enough is enough. These preventable tragedies must come\nto an end.\n  As a cosponsor of this critical legislation, I urge my colleagues on\nboth sides of the aisle to support the Laken Riley Act. After all, one\nof the most formidable ways that Congress can deliver justice for Laken\nRiley, Mimi Rodriguez-Ramirez, and their families is by passing this\nlegislation to prevent additional avoidable tragedies from victimizing\nthe law-abiding citizens of our Nation.\n\n  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).\n  Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Speaker, I want to address one thing before we\nstart. It was again mentioned about the bipartisan bill. The bipartisan\nbill was a bad bill. It didn't stop catch and release. It didn't\nexpedite immediately to the country of origin. It didn't rebuild the\nwall. It didn't have a stay in Mexico policy. It was words. It wasn't\nactions. It wasn't good. That is why people didn't vote for it. That is\nwhy it wasn't successful.\n  Speaking about words, though, when I came here today, I thought about\na lot of words. I hear a lot of words, a lot of debate, a lot of\ndiscussion. To the family of Laken Riley and to so many others across\nthe United States of America, words don't matter. Condolences don't\ncount. Speeches don't do it. Words will never replace her life.\n  In life, we have all gone through tragedies sometimes, so we often\nsay: My God, why did this happen? Why did this car accident happen? Why\ndid this person get cancer? Whatever it is.\n  This is different. We know why it happened. It happened because of\nthe administration allowing illegals, some of whom--not all of whom but\nsome of whom--were criminals into our country, feeding them, clothing\nthem, transporting them, housing them, paying for them. Men and women\nare breaking their backs in this country to make a living, but we are\npaying for it.\n  We know how it happened. We know how it happened to the New York City\nwoman who was set on fire. We know how it happened to State Trooper\nChristopher Gadd in Washington State when he died because of an illegal\nalien. We know how it happened to Lizbeth Medina from the great State\nof Texas. She was 16 years old, and her life was snuffed out. That is\nnever okay.\n  Laken Riley fought for her life. You hear about her last 20 minutes\non this Earth. She fought, and she fought with everything she had. She\ndidn't want to be raped. She didn't want to be brutalized.\n  I don't want to curse here.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Bice). The time of the gentleman has\nexpired.\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the\ngentleman from New Jersey.\n  Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Speaker, this individual then took a rock and\nbashed her head in until she was unrecognizable.\n  Do you know what? Condolences aren't going to do it. I say it to my\nfriend on the other side of the aisle, the ranking member. Feeling bad,\nfeeling sorry, is not going to do it. It doesn't make the difference.\n  All of us here, most of us have been mothers, fathers, brothers,\nsisters, daughters, or sons. You can't imagine how her family feels.\nPeople say, ``I know how you feel.'' No, I don't know. I don't know.\nYou don't know.\n  There is something we can do. All this bill does is detain people who\nhave done something wrong, who have broken the law already, and who\nhave the potential to do even worse. All of these cases that I\nmentioned and many more would not have occurred if we had this law in\nplace.\n  Don't give condolences. Vote for the bill.\n  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Madam Speaker, I am moved by the words of the gentleman from New\nJersey who said: Don't give us words. Words don't matter. Speeches\ndon't cut it. Speeches don't do it.\n  It sounds like an absolute echo of what you hear from our colleagues\nwhenever there is an explosion of gun violence in any of our\ncommunities. We hear thoughts and prayers, lots of words, but no\naction.\n  The fact that there is sympathy or condolences, I agree with the\ngentleman, is not enough. We need real public policy changes that will\nbe effective and that will be constitutional.\n  That is what the discussion is about today. Will these policy\nchanges, in fact, be effective? Will they be constitutional or not?\n  I agree that we should move from the situation of identifying and\nempathizing with people who have suffered terrible family tragedies and\nprivate tragedies to effective public policy. That is our job as\nlegislators.\n  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, perhaps we should take all the\ncriminals off the streets, starting with those who shouldn't have been\nin our country in the first place, which is what this bill does.\n  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.\nCline).\n  Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I support this important legislation that\nwould take concrete policy steps toward addressing the problem of open\nborders created by this administration.\n\n  We listened to the gentlewoman from Washington on the other side talk\nabout the cost of implementing the legislation. That requires a certain\namount of hubris to claim to be worried about the cost of implementing\na piece of legislation when the cost of the open borders that have been\ncreated by this administration and embraced by the other side are\nclearly evident.\n  I have been to the border. We have seen the impact that open borders\nhave had on the educational systems, the transportation systems, the\nhousing systems, and the agriculture systems. All across this country,\nour Nation is a nation of border communities now because we are all\nbeing impacted by these open borders.\n  Back in 2022, Laken Riley's horrific murder shocked the Nation. Also\n\n[[Page H60]]\n\nshocking was the fact that her murder was preventable. It was\npreventable by enforcing the laws of this country. After his arrest for\ncrossing the border illegally in 2022, he was paroled into the United\nStates. Months before murdering Laken Riley, he was arrested for theft.\nLocal authorities in Georgia released him, and ICE didn't lodge a\ndetainer for the alien. Unfortunately, these two actions directly\ncontributed to the murder of Laken Riley.\n  This legislation that bears her name would require ICE to arrest\nillegal aliens who commit theft offenses and, importantly, would\nmandate that these aliens are detained until they are removed from the\ncountry. It further requires that the Department of Homeland Security\nissues a detainer for these illegal aliens and take custody of them\neffectively and expeditiously.\n  While we anxiously await President Trump's inauguration and know that\nhis administration will follow and enforce immigration law and take\nsteps to advance the enforcement of our borders, the Laken Riley Act\nensures that all administrations are held accountable, including the\nprevious one, and that our immigration laws are followed.\n  Madam Speaker, I support this important legislation, and I thank the\ngentleman for his leadership on the bill.\n\n                              {time}  1215\n\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the chairman of the Republican Study\nCommittee.\n  Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support and full support\nof H.R. 29, the Laken Riley Act. It is long overdue that we actually\ntake law and order seriously, that we enforce the laws that are on the\nbooks.\n  Laken Riley is not an isolated incident, unfortunately. Jocelyn\nNungaray from Texas, mother Rachel Morin, and many others, were\ninnocent women who were horrifically killed by illegal aliens, and\ntheir families are going to be mourning their loss of life for the rest\nof their lives.\n  Violent criminals like the ones who committed this heinous act and\nothers continue to pour over our border daily, which is why we\ndesperately need to pass this act today.\n  This legislation will protect American communities by requiring\nImmigration and Customs Enforcement to issue detainers, mandatory\ndetention for those who are here illegally who also commit theft. It is\npretty simple. There should be nothing controversial about this.\n  In fact, I am interested to see how my colleagues on the other side\nof the aisle who vote against this go back to their districts, Madam\nSpeaker, and say: I don't stand for law and order because I don't want\nillegal aliens who are here committing theft, rape, murder, or any\nother offense, to be detained. How can you go back to a district and\nsay that?\n  In Texas, by the way, good news. With the Laken Riley Act, you now\nhave standing to sue the Federal Government when they don't do this,\nwhen they don't enforce the laws on the books. You have standing to sue\nthe Federal Government for failing to uphold the laws that are on our\nbooks.\n  My heart goes out to Laken Riley's family. My heart goes out to other\npeople who have had to watch as this administration has stood by and\ndone nothing to protect our country, our communities, and the sanctity\nof the safety that we as Americans should always have. Let's go home\nand let's be proud, in a bipartisan way, that we are willing to uphold\nthe law.\n  I stand in full support of the Laken Riley Act.\n  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  In answer to the distinguished gentleman, he stated precisely what\nthe law is now. He said: How can we go back to our districts and not\ndefend the immediate deporting of people who have committed theft? That\nis what the law is. They want to change the law to go from someone who\nhas actually committed theft, or been convicted of theft, to people who\nhave been charged with it, even if the charges have been dropped, or\narrested for it, even if charges were never brought in the first place.\n  I think that the misstatement of the meaning of this legislation\nspeaks very deeply to what an opportunistic exercise this really is.\n  What the gentleman was asking for is the law today.\n  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I remind my friend that the law also\nrequires every illegal alien to be detained until their case is\nadjudicated, which is what the Democrats have ignored these last 4\nyears.\n  This bill simply says if on top of that the illegal is charged with a\ncrime, they need to be detained and taken off the streets.\n  The murderer of Laken Riley was charged but not convicted. Had he\nbeen treated as the detainer law requires, he would have been deported\nand Laken Riley would be alive today.\n  I am prepared to close when the gentleman is ready. I reserve the\nbalance of my time.\n  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is\nremaining?\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 3\\1/4\\\nminutes remaining.\n  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to\nclose, and I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for this\ndebate.\n  I must say that the legislation before us and the approach that it\nembodies reflect a profound disrespect for our criminal justice system\nand for our constitutional values.\n  To begin with, they want to change the mandatory detention provisions\nwhich we have had since 1996 on a bipartisan basis for the last 28\nyears. We have operated on the basis of criminal conviction, which is\nobviously congruent with the constitutional demands and values that we\nhave in our country.\n  Now, without having a legislative hearing, they want to radically\nrevise the statutes to say that it is sufficient for somebody to have\nbeen charged with or arrested for an offense like shoplifting or theft,\neven if the charges are dropped and even if charges are never brought\nafter an arrest is made. It seems to me that they are backtracking from\npurported fidelity to our constitutional values.\n  Similarly, they want to essentially overthrow Justice Kavanaugh's 8-1\ndecision in the United States v. Texas from just a couple of years ago\nwhere the Supreme Court determined that States do not have standing to\ngo to court to say that they don't like the way that a particular\nadministration is allocating its resources and implementing a public\npolicy.\n  Now, if they want to argue that there is a law that is\nunconstitutional, they can argue that, but they can't go to court and\nsimply say that the executive branch is implementing the law in a way\nthat a particular State doesn't like. Yet, they want to occasion that\nmassive shift of power, as Justice Kavanaugh characterized it, so that\nthe States would essentially be able to control Federal immigration\npolicy.\n  I am still reeling from reading the author of this legislation's\nstatements yesterday, which I think also speak to a fundamental\ndisrespect for the rule of law, which says: Since January 6, hundreds\nof peaceful protesters have been hunted down, arrested, held\nin solitary confinement, and treated unjustly. Countless hours and\ntaxpayer dollars have been spent pursuing innocent grandmothers and\nraiding President Trump's home while terrorists and millions of illegal\nimmigrants continue to cross our Nation's borders.\n\n  That is the fundamentally demagogic and lawless approach to this\nwhole debate that they have taken. Our body was invaded by a mob of\ninsurrectionists who injured 140 officers, wounding them and\nhospitalizing them, and they cannot even acknowledge that as a fact but\ninstead change the subject to millions of people crossing the border\nillegally, which over the decades has undoubtedly happened under both\nDemocrats and Republicans. That is what we should be working on today.\n  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the\nriot at the Capitol 4 years ago was an abomination. I have said so\nrepeatedly whenever the subject arises. There is no excuse for it.\n  I would also remind the gentleman what Justice Kavanaugh said in the\nUnited States v. Texas. That is where the Supreme Court ruled the\nStates\n\n[[Page H61]]\n\ncurrently don't have standing to sue to enforce these laws. What he\nactually says was, the ruling was, it would require a change in law:\nelevating de facto injuries to the status of legally cognizable\ninjuries redressable by a Federal court. That is what Justice Kavanaugh\nsaid we needed to do. That is exactly what this bill does, by the book,\nand yet the Democrats still oppose it.\n  To my Democratic colleagues, I ask them: How many more laws with\nnames attached to them do we need to pass before they take this crisis\nseriously?\n  How many American citizens must die at the hands of illegal aliens\nbefore we all agree that these tragedies are all preventable, lest the\nname of my child or your child be the one attached to an H.R. number\nbefore the Democrats can vote ``yes'' on these commonsense bills?\n  How much more blood must be shed before we can all join in calling\nfor an absolute end to the Democrats' reckless open borders and\nsanctuary city policies that have threatened our safety, devastated our\nfamilies, and are in the process of destroying our country?\n  The American people have now spoken clearly on this issue. Enough is\nenough.\n  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.\n  Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the previous question is ordered on\nthe bill.\n  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.\n  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was\nread the third time.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.\n  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that\nthe ayes appeared to have it.\n  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.\n  The yeas and nays were ordered.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further\nproceedings on this question will be postponed.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2025-01-07-pt1-PgH53-4"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 49.17831195052713, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}