Sarah's Law

Madam President, today I rise to tell a preventable, horrific story: 22-year-old Laken Riley, a nursing student, was killed by an illegal immigrant. This bright, young woman had her whole life ahead of her. She represented what our country needs more of, a life dedicated to caring for others.

Like all Iowans, my heart goes out to her family and her friends who continue to grieve this tragic loss.

The reality is, Laken's heartbreaking story did not have to happen. In 2022, Jose Antonio Ibarra illegally crossed over the border into El Paso and claimed asylum. Instead of being detained while he was processed, he was released into our country, never to be heard from again; that is, folks, until he was arrested in New York City for endangering a child. Was he held to face trial for this crime in New York City? Nope. Nope.

Was he deported for this crime or even for coming here illegally? Nope.

New York officials released him so quickly that ICE couldn't even try to lodge a detainer, even if they wanted to. Meanwhile, Ibarra made his way to Georgia, where he disfigured and killed an innocent young girl who was simply out for a jog.

This could have been avoided, but Biden's failure to enforce the laws at our border allowed it to happen. How many young Americans must die? How many families must be ripped apart for this administration to wake up and take border security seriously?

For more than 8 years, I have warned against the dangers of letting illegal immigrants, who have already broken our laws--again, those who have broken our laws--roam the country and continue their lawlessness. I have repeatedly called on this body to step up and protect innocent Americans from criminals who are here in our country illegally and pass my bill, Sarah's Law.

Eight years ago, Iowans Michelle and Scott Root woke up to every parent's worst nightmare, their daughter Sarah--right here, beautiful Sarah Root--was killed by a drunk driver. Sarah, a 21-year-old from Council Bluffs, had just graduated from Bellevue University in Nebraska with a 4.0 GPA and a bachelor's degree in criminal investigations. She was headed home after celebrating her important life milestone with family and friends. She had her entire life ahead of her. But while she was stopped at a traffic light, Sarah was struck and killed by Edwin Mejia, an illegal immigrant.

His blood alcohol level was three times over the legal limit. One would think her killer would clearly meet Immigration and Customs Enforcement's ``enforcement priorities.'' But no--nope. Citing the Obama administration's November 2014 memo on immigration enforcement priorities, ICE declined--declined--to take custody of Mejia, despite his repeated driving offenses and history of skipping court dates.

Before the Root family could even lay their daughter to rest, Mejia posted a $5,000 bond--5,000 bucks. He was released, and, just like in the past, folks, he disappeared never to be seen again.

Now, here we are, folks. We are over 8 years later. Sarah's killer is still at large, after that 5,000 bucks, and able to carelessly harm others. To rub salt in the wound, the Biden administration has removed Mejia from ICE's Most Wanted list.

No big deal, right?

No parent should have to endure the pain of losing a child, like the Root family did--and I know them personally--but, unfortunately, the Riley family is experiencing this same heartbreak. A loophole in our law means Sarah's killer escaped justice, but, today, we can do something to ensure no other family has to go through the pain Sarah's parents have felt every day for 8 long years.

My bill, named in Sarah's honor, would close the alarming loophole that let Sarah's killer go free. It would just require ICE to detain-- just to detain--otherwise deportable illegal immigrants charged with killing or seriously injuring another person.

Is that too much to ask? To detain someone who has killed another American?

It also requires ICE to inform victims and family members of critical information pertaining to the investigation. Right now, family members are left in the dark. Had Sarah's Law been enacted at the time of her death, law enforcement would have detained her killer instead of allowing him to flee from justice. The Root family would have been kept up-to-date on his status and Federal immigration authorities' efforts to remove him from the country.

Simply put, this should be an easy one, folks. Sarah and Laken's deaths are both tragic and, unfortunately, are doomed to be repeated, thanks to this administration's broken and ill-informed policies.

Those who come here illegally and harm our citizens should, without question, be a priority for removal. It is just common sense, folks.

Otherwise deportable illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes-- they commit them here. They should face justice. We can no longer prioritize illegal immigrants over public safety. We must pass Sarah's Law to send this message loud and clear--for Sarah's family, for Laken's family, and for the countless American families that Sarah's Law would protect.

Madam President, as if in legislative session and not withstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 160 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I am very sad that we are on the floor today and that Sarah's Law has been objected to. We have been down this road before, many times over, through the years since Sarah Root's death.

Now, I do understand that ICE has discretion, and that is what we are discussing today. It is the fact that ICE had discretion and chose to allow Edwin Mejia to post bond of $5,000 to disappear into the night. Before Sarah was even laid to rest, Edwin Mejia was long gone, and he has yet to face justice for Sarah's family.

In July 2020, a Mexican national was drunk-driving in Texas and struck and killed a Chicago resident and two retired U.S. Army officers. All were part of a pro-law enforcement motorcycle club. The Mexican national was out on bond and awaiting trial for allegedly striking a man with his truck in 2018, biting the victim's back, and biting off a portion of his ear. If Sarah's Law had been on the books, he would have been detained in 2018 to await trial.

In June 2011, a Chicago resident was killed in a drunk-driving accident. The driver, a Mexican national, was driving with a blood alcohol level four times over the legal limit. He struck and killed a Chicago resident, dragged the victim's body 300 feet, and then attempted to run away on foot. He was bailed out--again, bailed out, not held. He bailed out and fled to Mexico. He was extradited back to the United States in 2022.

If Sarah's Law had been on the books, he would have been detained and not been able to flee to Mexico.

In March 2021, a Mexican national shot and killed his next-door neighbor in Chicago. He then injured the three officers attempting to arrest him. The Mexican national was arrested in 2011 for driving with an open container. In 2015, he was arrested again for aggravated assault. In 2012, he attempted to lie his way into a visa reserved for victims of criminal activity. And he also twice unsuccessfully applied for the DACA Program in 2014 and 2015.

If Sarah's Law had been on the books, he would likely have been detained after the aggravated assault in 2015, and, again, we would have another innocent who was killed still alive today.

So these are just a handful of examples of where Sarah's Law would have made a difference.

I do understand that there is an objection to the discretionary part of this bill, and the example that was given is of those who are being trafficked for sex-type operations. Sex trafficking is very real. Because I have worked in this space of domestic violence and violence against women, I do and have heard from those who have been sex- trafficked that sometimes the only way to break away from those who are trafficking them is actually to be arrested and pulled away from those johns or those sex traffickers. So maybe to put them in an area of safety would be the right thing to do.

So I appreciate having been heard. I will continue to work on behalf of the Root family, on behalf of the Riley family, and others who have lost loved ones to those who should not be here in our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, President Biden has opened our homeland to the world's criminals. Under his leadership, over 9 million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border--9 million people. That is more people than the population of 75 percent of our States.

Month after month and year after year, the Biden administration is shattering all the wrong records. For example, CBP has reported 1.6 million known ``got-aways'' in the last 3 years, a stark increase from the 1.4 million known ``got-aways'' we saw in a 10-year span from 2010 to 2020. And that is just the known ``got-aways.'' Who really knows how many people have gotten past CBP undetected?

And these aren't just plain old numbers, folks. OK? They are people that, too often, include violent criminals who harm Americans. Hardly a day goes by without hearing of another American who has fallen victim to crimes perpetuated by the illegal immigrants the Biden administration has let flood into our country.

We all read the stories of the illegals arrested on serious criminal charges and post bail, never to be heard from again.

Everyone knows the story of Laken Riley, the 22-year-old nursing student, beaten to death by an illegal immigrant who was in police custody in New York City before being let go.

But the crisis only continues. Just last Friday, news broke that Raul Santana, a Mexican national who is in the United States illegally, had his bail dropped from $1 million to $100,000. What did he do? Well, he struck and killed Washington State Trooper Christopher Gadd while driving drunk and high at 112 miles per hour.

For more than 8 years, I have warned against the dangers of letting illegal immigrants--who have already broken our laws--roam the country and continue their lawlessness.

I have repeatedly called on this body to step up and protect innocent Americans from criminals who are in our country illegally and pass my bill, Sarah's Law.

Eight years ago, Iowans Michelle and Scott Root woke up to every parent's worst nightmare. Their daughter Sarah was killed by a drunk driver.

Sarah, a 21-year-old from Council Bluffs, had just graduated from Bellevue University in Nebraska with a 4.0 GPA. She had a bachelor's degree in criminal investigations.

She was headed home after celebrating her important life milestone with her friends and her family. She had her entire life ahead of her. But like Trooper Gadd, she was struck and killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driving.

Before the Root family could even lay Sarah to rest, her murderer posted a $5,000 bond, was released, disappeared, and has never been seen again.

These tragedies don't have to continue happening. Today, we can act to ensure no family will be subject to the pain and anguish Sarah's parents have experienced every day for the past 8 years.

My bill, which is named for Sarah, would close the appalling loophole that let Sarah's killer go free. It would merely require ICE to detain otherwise deportable illegal immigrants charged with killing or seriously injuring another person. It also requires ICE to inform victims and family members of necessary information pertaining to the investigation.

Had Sarah's Law been on the books when Sarah and Laken and Trooper Gadd were murdered, law enforcement would have to detain their killers instead of opening the door for them to simply flee. The Roots, the Rileys, and the Gadds would have been kept up-to-date on Federal immigration authorities' efforts to remove their loved one's murderers from the country.

Simply put, folks, this should be easy. This should be easy. Sarah, Laken, and Trooper Gadd's deaths are tragic and, unfortunately, doomed to be repeated, thanks to the administration's broken and ill-informed policies and my Democrat colleagues' refusal to take up this very simple legislation.

Those who come here illegally and harm our citizens should, without question, be a priority for removal. It is just common sense, folks. Otherwise deportable illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes in the United States should face justice.

We can no longer prioritize illegal immigrants over public safety. We must pass Sarah's Law to send this

message loud and clear for Sarah's family and for countless American families that Sarah's Law would protect.

As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 160 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I will just respond briefly to a number of points made by my colleague in opposition to this bill.

And, one, I just want to say that this UC--this bill--I am not trying to detract or distract from the vote that will happen this afternoon. This is an effort I have engaged on for 8 years. I have brought this bill to the floor many times in an effort to see it passed for Sarah, for her family and for others who are in this similar situation.

So I would hope that we would be able to pass it today. I know that I will again, in the future, be bringing this bill to the floor.

As my colleague pointed out, we do--we do--appreciate the fact that there is crime all across the United States. And for those who are impacted by that crime, we do wish that they had not had to go through that crime. But the fact of the matter is, there is a difference between American citizens who are committing crimes and illegal immigrants who are committing crimes against American citizens.

The difference is that many times those illegal immigrants whom, in my bill, I am asking ICE to detain so that they can go to their hearings--I am asking ICE to detain them--not voluntarily detain, maybe have someone release them early, but they will be detained to face justice. Many times those illegal immigrants are operating under assumed names, under assumed Social Security numbers. We don't know their true identities. Many times they don't have roots in communities.

So what has happened--and we know this to be true because it happened in the case of Sarah Root and her killer--is that Edwin Mejia--that is at least one of the names that this gentleman used while he was in the United States--when he was released on bond,

he was able to slip into the shadows, and the authorities were not able to trace him. They were not able to find him.

Why? Because he was an illegal immigrant, operating under many assumed names, operating out of many different communities, with who knows which family or what contacts.

When American citizens are committing crimes, oftentimes we can trace them. We know who they are. We know who their family members are. We know where they have worked. It is very different with those who enter the country illegally. We can't trace them. We can't find them. The families like Sarah Root's family--Michelle Root and Scott Root will never see justice for their daughter because the man who killed her was released and slipped right back into the shadows where he came from. This family in Council Bluffs, IA, will never see justice for their daughter. Many of these other families will never see justice for their loved ones because our law does not require ICE to detain and hold those murderers--those killers--until they have been seen by a court of law.

That is what my bill does. It requires the detention. It does not allow ICE to voluntarily keep them. It requires them to keep them-- justice for our families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I don't think we are in disagreement on the Senate floor on this matter. I think we all agree that noncitizens who are convicted of serious violent crimes--who have committed serious violent crimes--should be detained, and they should be subject to removal proceedings.

The good news is that is the current law. That is the current law. This bill is a reiteration of current law.

Let me tell you what current law requires.

Current law requires the detention of any individual with serious criminal convictions, including those who have committed crimes of violence or theft offenses, including murder, rape, and assault. That is the current law.

Furthermore, this administration has given specific direction to the Department of Justice to prioritize the detention or removal of individuals who have committed violent offenses.

And so, as with earlier unanimous consent requests, this unanimous consent request is essentially a reiteration of current law.

I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. We worked together on a number of important matters. But I find myself asking the question, Why are we being asked to simply restate current law when it comes to the detainment or removal of immigrants who have committed violent crimes who right now are subject to removal for those crimes?

And I come to two conclusions: The first is that it is a means of distracting the conversation from the vote that is going to happen in an hour and a half.

We went through a painstaking process to negotiate a bipartisan compromise. That process was begun at the request of Senate Republicans. In the room was their appointed negotiator and representatives of their chosen leader of the conference. It couldn't be more official than that: their appointed negotiator, Senator Lankford, and the leader of their caucus, Senator McConnell, in the room for 4 months negotiating a bipartisan border security bill.

At the end of that process, we achieved a result. We got an agreement with the people that the Senate Republican caucus told us to get an agreement with. Within 24 hours, almost every Senate Republican had sided against that bill.

I submit, everybody probably had different reasons for it, but it was very clear that up until the point where Donald Trump said: Don't do anything; I want the border to be a mess, there were plenty of Senate Republicans who were very invested in that process. Included in that bipartisan compromise are important reforms in the way that we try to make sure that anyone with a violent history never enters the United States.

Under current law, if you have a criminal history outside of the United States or a previous criminal history inside of the United States, that doesn't become relevant to your asylum claim until you present before an asylum judge.

Under the bipartisan bill, that question of whether you have a violent history and whether you should enter the United States happens at the border as part of your credible fear screening. That would be a really important bipartisan reform to make to make sure that anybody with a violent history never enters the United States.

The current law isn't good enough. The bipartisan bill would have made that law better and made this country safer. But Republicans are going to, almost to an individual, vote against that later today.

And so what we are left with are these unanimous consent agreements that don't come close to providing the kind of security that the bipartisan border bill does.

But it also serves a second purpose. It also has a secondary impact. I wish my Republican colleagues didn't care only about crimes committed by immigrants. I know they care about crimes committed by others, but it seems that there is a disproportionate amount of energy on this floor dedicated to crimes committed by immigrants, which gives the impression to the American public that there is a specific problem related to immigrant communities; that they commit crimes at rates that are higher than natural-born Americans, when in fact the opposite is true.

I worry that there is an effort afoot to try to turn us against each other, to make us fear immigrants, when in fact immigrants commit crimes at a rate much lower than natural-born Americans. U.S. citizens are over two times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes than immigrants are. Immigrants are 60 percent less likely to be incarcerated in this country than natural-born Americans are.

The mass shooter in Las Vegas wasn't an immigrant. The mass shooter at Pulse Nightclub wasn't an immigrant. The mass shooter at Sandy Hook wasn't an immigrant. The mass shooter in Uvalde wasn't an immigrant. The mass shooter in El Paso wasn't an immigrant. The mass shooter in Sutherland Springs wasn't an immigrant. The mass shooter in Lewiston, ME, wasn't an immigrant. The mass shooter in Parkland wasn't an immigrant. And yet there wasn't a rush to the floor by my Republican colleagues after those mass shootings to try to fix the problem.

I grieve for every single victim of crime in this country. And I think we should be all working on ways to better protect our citizens. But I worry that these UC requests are an effort, one, to try to paper over the fact that Republicans are about to vote against a bipartisan border bill that would make this country safer and being in facilitation of an effort--whether intentional or unintentional--to try to make us specifically afraid of immigrants, when in fact the truth is that the people who are coming to this country are fleeing economic destitution, trying to save their children's lives, are coming from places in which they were victims of terror and torture and violence and when they get to the United States are actually less of a threat to our public safety than those who were born in the United States.

For that reason, I would object.

Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and reserving the right to object, I want to make it clear that we can all agree: Noncitizens who are convicted of committing violent crime should be detained and removed from the United States, period.

Under current law--under current law--any noncitizen who entered the country illegally, violated the terms of their status, or had their visa revoked, can be ordered detained by ICE officials. Current law-- current law--also requires the detention of individuals with serious criminal convictions and those who have committed murder, rape, or any crime of violence or theft offense with a term of imprisonment of at least 1 year.

The law also gives ICE the discretion to detain or release a noncitizen in cases where a noncitizen has merely been charged but not convicted.

This bill that we are considering now from the Senator from Iowa would require ICE to detain any individual charged with a crime that resulted in death or serious bodily injury of another person, pending their criminal case, no matter what the circumstances or the nature of the crime, and no exceptions.

As just one example, a victim of trafficking or domestic violence who defended themselves against an abuser would have to be detained under the law.

Most immigrants in the United States are law-abiding individuals who are seeking a better life. Studies have shown that immigrants have no impact on crime rates, and immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than ordinary U.S. citizens. But the sweeping approach in this bill would deprive immigrants of the due process that everyone is afforded to prove that they are innocent of a crime.

And I agree with many of my colleagues that we need a more orderly system to process recent arrivals at the border and assure that bad actors are detained, if they have serious criminal convictions.

Recently, a bipartisan group of Senators and the White House began negotiating a change in our immigration laws and a tough border deal. It was written by the Republican's designated negotiator, Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, along with two other Senators--one, an independent from Arizona, and the other, a Democrat from Connecticut. The bill that they wrote to make our border safer and to deal with immigration was endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, which represents the men and women on the border who are risking their lives every day to keep us safe.

I had personal concerns about this bill, but I wanted to move it forward. And yet, when it came to a vote, the vast majority of Senators on the other side of the aisle opposed it, at the request of Donald Trump, who tanked the border agreement for his own cynical reasons.

What were those reasons? One House Republican said:

Let me tell you, I'm not willing to do too damn much right

now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden's approval

rating.

President Trump himself was crystal clear. He said: ``Blame it on me'' if the bill fails.

That bill was our vehicle and opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis, to change many of the provisions in immigration law, to make America safer, and to make our borders secure and more effective.

Some extremists have said the quiet part out loud: Donald Trump doesn't want a solution to our challenges at the border; he wants a political issue for November.

It is time that my Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues stop talking about the border in one-off responses to it and start legislating, rather than vilifying all immigrants based upon a few bad actors.

It is a tragedy what happened to these two young women. There is no excuse for it, and those responsible should be held accountable.

I urge my colleagues to do the best that we can to come up with an immigration reform that resolves not only this serious issue but all of the other issues we are haunted with on a regular basis.

I object.

Madam President, I believe we have 15 minutes, and just for the order of battle here, I would like to recognize Senators Grassley, Cornyn, and Hawley to make some brief remarks. I will make some brief remarks, and we will make a unanimous consent for the bills that I have indicated we are trying to call up.

With that, I would turn it over to Senator Grassley.