[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 83 (Wednesday, May 17, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2394-H2401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROTECT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT 
                              ACT OF 2023


                             General Leave

  Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2494.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 398 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2494.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Moylan) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1309


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2494) to make the assault of a law enforcement officer a 
deportable offense, and for other purposes, with Mr. Moylan in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the

[[Page H2395]]

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or 
their respective designees.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, as we celebrate National Police Week, it is only 
appropriate that we pass H.R. 2494, the POLICE Act of 2023.
  H.R. 2494 makes an alien removable if they assault a police officer. 
43,649--that is the staggering number of law enforcement officers who 
were assaulted by performing their duties in just 2021. That represents 
an 11.2 percent increase from 2020.
  In both 2021 and 2022, at least 64 law enforcement officers were shot 
and killed in the line of duty. In my home State of Alabama, five law 
enforcement officers were shot and killed. That is a 21 percent 
increase over the number killed from 2010 to 2020.
  To make matters worse, many of those incidents involve criminal 
aliens who take advantage of our immigration system and then turn 
around and assault the very people who protect us every day.
  In a single 2-month operation in 2020, Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement arrested aliens with criminal histories with 1,500 
convictions and charges for assault.
  In 2019, ICE arrested aliens who accounted for 45,804 assault 
convictions and charges.
  The reports speak for themselves. Just 2 months ago, an illegal alien 
violently assaulted a U.S. Border Patrol agent as she attempted to 
arrest him. In November 2022, two aliens were arrested for pushing, 
dragging, and punching a Border Patrol agent in another incident.
  These acts of violence are not limited to just Border Patrol. Just 
last fall, a criminal alien was sentenced to 30 years in prison for 
stabbing a New York Police Department officer, taking his gun and then 
shooting at other officers.
  In 2020, a criminal alien shot and killed a Houston police sergeant 
as he responded to a domestic violence call.
  Despite these acts, the immigration statute does not explicitly make 
assaulting a law enforcement officer a deportable offense. H.R. 2494 
changes that by creating grounds of removability specific to aliens who 
assault law enforcement officers.
  Although many such offenders can be removed based on other grounds, 
such as an aggravated assault felony or a crime involving moral 
turpitude, H.R. 2494 ensures that criminal aliens cannot escape the 
immigration consequences of their actions through legal loopholes.
  Determining whether an alien is removable from the country is not as 
straightforward as it should be. In a case from last year, a Federal 
judge observed that the process to determine whether an alien had been 
convicted of a crime that would make him removable presented ``a single 
legal question about a single conviction.''
  Despite seemingly easy questions, the analysis ``has spawned, over 11 
years and counting: four decisions by the [Board of Immigration 
Appeals], four decisions by three different immigration judges, 
approximately six rounds of briefing, and a split opinion by [a 
Federal] court.''
  This bill would avoid those absurd results of that approach to make 
crystal clear that an alien who assaults a law enforcement officer can 
be removed from the United States.

  Democrats have argued that this bill would encompass too much conduct 
due to State definitions of assault. That couldn't be further from the 
truth.
  Listen to what the bill requires: first, either an admission or a 
conviction of an assault or an offense; the assault must have been 
against a law enforcement officer; and that assault must have been 
while the law enforcement officer was performing his or her duties, 
because of the performance of those duties, or because of his or her 
status as a law enforcement officer.
  Democrats' far-fetched hypotheticals make light of assault against 
law enforcement officers and do not align with reality. If an alien 
admits to assaulting a law enforcement officer but a far-left 
prosecutor refuses to prosecute that crime, why should that alien 
escape immigration consequences?
  Make no mistake, criminal aliens who assault dedicated men and women 
of law enforcement should find no safe harbor under our immigration 
laws.
  H.R. 2494 gives adjudicators a tool to ensure that these criminal 
aliens can quickly be removed from this country. In doing so, we make 
America safer, not only for our citizens but also for the hardworking 
men and women of law enforcement who serve our community every day.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let's be clear: Assaulting a law enforcement officer is 
a serious offense and cannot be tolerated in the United States. It is 
also largely already a deportable offense.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. NADLER. If this bill, the so-called Protect Our Law Enforcement 
with Immigration Control and Enforcement Act, or the POLICE Act of 
2023, closed an actual gap in current law and made our country safer, 
Democrats would gladly support it.
  Unfortunately, this bill represents another unserious attempt by my 
Republican colleagues to target and scapegoat immigrants and to score 
cheap, political points for National Police Week while doing nothing to 
actually protect law enforcement officers.
  It is important to remember who this legislation is targeting. This 
is not about undocumented immigrants who are, of course, already 
removable, and this is not about people who are seeking to enter the 
United States. This is about people who have come here the so-called 
``right way.'' We are talking about lawful, permanent residents.
  People have put down roots in our communities, many of whom have U.S. 
citizen spouses and children and have truly established themselves here 
in the United States. Many of these individuals are eligible to become 
U.S. citizens today, but this bill would make them deportable without 
even requiring that they be convicted of a crime, only that the assault 
or act constituting the assault was committed and that the individual 
admits to the commission of the act.
  That throws our whole notion of due process on its head. That is why 
it is absolutely critical that we adopt Mr. Correa's amendment to close 
this dangerous loophole. Even if we require a conviction, I am still 
concerned that the bill is so broad and overinclusive that it could 
lead to truly absurd results and to the deportation of people who had 
no intention of ever harming a law enforcement officer.
  Let me give you three examples of what this bill would do, as 
drafted:
  A person walks into a fire, sees a beam about to fall on a 
firefighter, and pushes the firefighter out of the way. He has 
committed an act that is an assault on the firefighter who is a peace 
officer, and he is deportable.
  A person sees two men fighting on the street and he breaks them up. 
He pushes them aside, not knowing that one of them is an undercover 
police officer. He has assaulted the police officer.
  A Jehovah's Witness is in an ambulance. The EMT reaches over to put a 
line in to give him a transfusion. The Jehovah's Witness pushes his 
hand away. He has committed assault on the EMT who is a peace officer 
and he is, therefore, deportable.
  Now, Republicans will say that these are far-fetched, absurd 
examples. The problem is that under the terms of the bill, this would 
happen. However far-fetched you may think the example, you have to read 
the bill.
  Mr. Correa's amendment would correct this. If Mr. Correa's amendment 
passes, we can support the bill. If it does not, this is a dangerous 
bill making lawful permanent residents who have been here for many 
years deportable for no good reasons.
  For years, we have had a bipartisan understanding that individuals 
should be deported only for a serious offense, but this bill breaks 
down that understanding. I hope we will fix the bill's most significant 
flaw through the amendment process, namely, the

[[Page H2396]]

Correa amendment. If not, I must recommend that my colleagues oppose 
this legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Garbarino).
  Mr. GARBARINO. Mr. Chair, I stand here today during National Police 
Week to urge the passage of H.R. 2494, the POLICE Act of 2023.
  The crisis at our southern border is a clear public safety and 
national security threat, but it also puts the lives and safety of our 
law enforcement officers at risk. It is not just Customs and Border 
Patrol agents who are affected, like the female Border Patrol agent who 
was violently attacked by an illegal immigrant while attempting to make 
an arrest in March. Local police departments have also been placed on 
the front lines as thousands of migrants are relocated to New York and 
States across the country.
  As the border crisis rages on unchecked and violence against law 
enforcement officers continues to rise, this legislation sends a 
crystal-clear message that any noncitizen who commits acts of violence 
against police cannot stay in this country.
  The POLICE Act codifies something that is common sense, but under 
current law remains ambiguous. This bill corrects that by providing 
clear guidelines for the removal of any migrant who engages in violence 
against a law enforcement officer. This is about improving officer 
safety and making it easier to remove migrants who have demonstrated 
flagrant criminal violence while on U.S. soil.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of 
the POLICE Act to show our brave men and women in law enforcement that 
we have their backs as they continue to battle the criminal element 
currently taking advantage of our unsecured southern border.
  Now, to address my colleague's concern from the other side of the 
aisle. This is not mandatory. This bill does not mandate immediate 
deportation. His admitted far-fetched, absurd examples that we just 
heard will be taken into account. This just says that an assault on a 
police officer or a firefighter or an EMT makes it a deportable 
offense.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to go on further. We heard about this possible 
amendment coming forward about requiring conviction. If our district 
attorneys in their roles would actually prosecute crimes against police 
officers, I would be fine requiring conviction, but what we have seen 
over the past several years where you have progressive, woke district 
attorneys like our district attorney in Manhattan, when an NYPD police 
officer is assaulted or firefighter is assaulted, the criminal, the 
assailant, is not actually prosecuted.
  We can't be left to require convictions on something like this when 
the district attorneys in certain areas are not doing their job.

  With that said, I understand the idea behind the amendment, but 
requiring a conviction here would tie a lot of people's hands, 
especially when district attorneys are not doing their jobs and 
assaults against law enforcement are not getting prosecuted.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues, again, on both sides of the aisle to 
vote in favor of this piece of legislation and show that you support 
members of law enforcement.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from New York referenced our 
District Attorney Alvin Bragg. As a resident of Manhattan, I must say 
that I find Alvin Bragg a perfectly fine district attorney, and he is 
being attacked only because he has secured indictments on 34 counts 
against Donald Trump, and that is why they are holding him up for 
criticism.
  I am very glad that I supported him in the Democratic primary against 
a number of opponents 2 years ago, and he is doing a fine job, 
including the 34 indictments he secured against former President Trump, 
who it appears is also going to be indicted in Washington and in 
Georgia.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal)
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2494. 
Once again, the majority has put forward an extreme and unworkable 
piece of legislation. No one condones serious assaults against law 
enforcement officers. However, H.R. 2494 goes well beyond serious 
crimes to include minor offenses and would even allow people to be 
deported without an arrest, let alone a conviction.
  We hear a lot about the border from my Republican colleagues, but 
let's remember that this bill has absolutely nothing to do with the 
border or with undocumented immigrants. All this bill does is add a new 
way for people who are living here lawfully in the United States to be 
deported. Most importantly, we are talking about the ability to deport 
lawful, permanent residents, people with green cards.
  My Republican colleagues like to say that they support legal 
immigration, that these immigrants did things the ``right way.'' Do we 
really want to be deporting people with lawful status, many of whom are 
eligible to apply for citizenship for low-level offenses without a 
conviction, without due process, without a day in court?
  Let's remember that convictions for serious assaults on law 
enforcement are already offenses that make someone deportable under 
current law. Our immigration laws can be very unforgiving and many 
times capture actions that we do not intend to include.
  Under current law, if an individual is convicted of a crime of 
violence and sentenced to a year or more in prison, that is an 
aggravated felony and that person is deportable. The same is true for 
someone who is convicted of what is called a crime involving moral 
turpitude, where the crime is punishable by imprisonment of 1 year or 
more.
  Both of these deportability grounds are already invoked when someone 
is convicted of a serious, intentional assault on a law enforcement 
officer, where bodily injury occurs or is intended. Under this bill, no 
conviction is required at all. Merely committing the ``essential 
elements'' of an assault makes someone deportable. Who is to say what 
an essential element is? This bill certainly doesn't define it.
  I just want to give a couple more examples to what the ranking member 
already gave of what could happen under this bill and the unintended 
consequences of not requiring a conviction.
  Let's say someone gets a parking ticket. They are upset about getting 
a parking ticket. They crumple up the ticket, they throw it on the 
ground, and it lands in front of the feet of a police officer. That 
would actually be considered assault.
  Let's say an EMT is on the scene of an accident and they are going to 
give someone medical care, but that person is in the throes of having 
just been in a serious situation, they are afraid, they have pushed the 
hand of that EMT away, and it seems like they are pushing that person 
away. That action would be an assault against a law enforcement 
officer, a deportable offense, both of them, under this bill.
  Unfortunately, during our markup, which was lengthy, we learned that 
our Republican colleagues are completely fine deporting people for this 
kind of conduct. In fact, one Republican colleague even said that he is 
fine deporting someone if there is no contact at all with law 
enforcement. They referred to lawful, permanent residents--which I was 
a lawful, permanent resident, probably one of the few in this body that 
actually knows what that means--many of whom have lived here for 
decades as mere ``guests'' in this country and rejected any attempt to 
institute any due process or basic parameters around this unworkable 
piece of legislation.

  Instead of attempting to score cheap political points during National 
Police Week, my colleagues should be working with us on real bipartisan 
solutions to achieve humane and just immigration reform. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this bill.
  Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, let me say this: I think this 
bill is very important and extremely timely. We know that we have had 5 
million encounters on the U.S. southern border since Biden has been 
President, and in that situation with title 42 expiring, we expect more 
and more law enforcement is going to have to interact with aliens. Some 
we know are probably on some watch list somewhere, and they have a 
criminal history.
  I think that it is timely. I think that our friends across the aisle 
need to join

[[Page H2397]]

us in supporting police officers this week and get on board to support 
this bill, as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking 
member, and I thank the manager on the other side for their work.
  This is National Police Week. I started my week in joining a family 
from Houston whose husband and father had fallen as a police officer in 
the line of duty, but it was also with the throngs of men and women of 
law enforcement across America and families at the 42nd Annual National 
Memory Day for law enforcement officers.
  I spent quite a bit of time there, interacting with officers that 
were not only from Texas or Houston. I respect the service that they 
have given as we, as Members of Congress and Democrats and my friends 
on the other side of the aisle, should do.

                              {time}  1330

  And as we interacted, the response was an appreciation, as I 
expressed, an appreciation for their service.
  We have done a number of bills on the floor, and I am glad that we 
had one that honored that day. I proudly managed that bill, as well as 
a number of others that were on previously.
  There are a number of bills that have been on the floor or are on the 
floor today, at least two. Before I speak of the underlying bill, let 
me acknowledge my support for H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement 
Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, which has previously been debated. 
I would say that this deals with Federal law enforcement officers in 
good standing.
  It is a smart way to deal with guns that have been retired. That will 
allow--rather than creating dust in the GSA, and as well, who knows, 
them falling in the wrong hands for whatever reason, you might say--
rather than destroying those guns, it would allow Federal agencies to 
sell the handguns used in the performance of their duties to Federal 
law enforcement officers in good standing, promoting public safety, 
reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer dollars.
  This is good legislation. I hope as it makes its way that they will 
add some form of a check--which all officers believe in background 
checks. Maybe they will take those resources and invest in bringing 
down gun violence, which we know, as of this week, two law enforcement 
officers were injured in New Mexico, as a young, underage teenager had 
an AR-15 and killed three innocent civilians.
  Mr. Chair, it would be nice if the legislation would use those 
resources to help bring down gun violence. H.R. 3091 is a good bill, 
and I intend to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3091, the Federal Law 
Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act (in its current form).
  When a federal agency has property it no longer needs, such as 
firearms, the property is declared excess and is reported to GSA to be 
screened for possible transfer to other Federal agencies with a need 
for such property.
  If no other agencies request the excess property, it is declared 
surplus--and in the case of firearms, required to be destroyed.
  Rather than destroying retired, surplus handguns, H.R. 3091 would 
allow federal agencies to sell the handguns used in the performance of 
their duties to federal law enforcement officers in good standing--
promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds.
  Although I support this legislation, I should point out that the 
previous version--introduced last Congress by my Democratic colleague--
included a requirement that any law enforcement officer making a 
purchase must pass a background check as part of the transfer. But this 
version does not.
  The previous version also wisely advised via a sense of Congress that 
proceeds from the sale of these handguns should be used to fund 
evidence-based gun violence prevention or gun safety programs.
  While we might assume that no problems could arise in the sale of a 
handgun to an officer in good standing, a background check or records 
check of some kind would ensure that vital information about that 
officer has not been missed, overlooked, or fallen through a gap in 
reporting.
  That is why I support the Jacobs' amendment that would further define 
the good standing requirement--ensuring that only responsible, law-
abiding officers can purchase these firearms.
  However, because we too must be responsible, especially when it comes 
to setting policy for buying, selling, and trading firearms, I cannot 
support this bill if the Republican poison pills are adopted.
  This trio of amendments would destroy each of the foundational 
purposes of the bill that brought Republican and Democratic members of 
the House Judiciary Committee together during the markup of this bill--
promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds.
  Together, these amendments would allow, not just handguns but 
military-grade weapons that have no business in civilian homes and 
communities, to be provided at little to no cost, to retired officers, 
without any means to determine their suitably for taking possession of 
these weapons.
  I am disappointed that we could lose the opportunity to pass this 
thoughtful legislation during National Police Week by attaching these 
reckless amendments.
  That is why I implore my colleagues to vote No to the Luttrell, 
McCormick, and Rosendale amendments.
  And I encourage members on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 
3091 and the Jacobs Amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, we are now at a time when we are talking 
about H.R. 2494. I would say that when interacting with law enforcement 
officers, I have never heard one person raise this. I don't think we 
can condemn prosecutors across America that they are not willing to 
stand up and be counted when any assault occurs against an officer.
  Any such legitimate assault should be both an arrest and prosecution. 
That is not what we are saying. If it happens to be an LPR or green 
card holder or whatever status the person has--arrested and prosecuted.
  What we are saying is desperate people come to this country and they 
work hard to get a status, and if it is legitimate, they wind up in 
jail. That is where they can be. H.R. 2494 ignores that.
  One, it is not one that you have heard any officers asking for. Two, 
that person can be convicted and wind up in jail. I know there is an 
amendment to say if they are convicted that would be the case. 
Ordinarily, they would be able to serve their time. I don't think that 
we should use this hammer to tear families apart.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has again expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, this bill has been ill-drafted in harmful 
measure and does not seek to address a need that people are crying for.
  The bill insults prosecutors across America. You can't label them 
all. In essence, it insults law enforcement officers, who themselves 
know that somebody who is in distress might respond accordingly. It 
insults the long time it takes to become a citizen of the United 
States, and some of these individuals have been waiting and waiting and 
maybe had an unfortunate circumstance. We are talking about some of the 
incidents that Ranking Member Nadler cited. It is just unruly.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to consider thoughtfully that we are 
doing good in a bipartisan way. Let us continue to do that. Police like 
to see that. They like to see themselves being affirmed in a bipartisan 
manner. They don't like to see other people being scapegoats.
  Mr. Chair, we want them to be safe. We don't want violence. We don't 
want them to be injured. That is the statement we all should make. 
Let's find laws that will ensure that that will not happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2494, the Protect Our Law 
Enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act.
  This bill is an incredibly ill drafted and harmful measure that does 
not seek to address illegal immigration or support for law 
enforcement--rather it creates punitive deportation penalties to remove 
individuals who are lawfully here--cruelly scaling back on legal 
immigration pathways rather than increasing them.
  This bill is a solution in search of a problem--essentially seeking 
to expand the scope of people who can be deported.
  It is so broadly drafted that people who pose no real danger to law 
enforcement could be subject to deportation.

[[Page H2398]]

  Let's be clear, this is not about undocumented immigrants who are 
already removable. This is about people who have come lawfully and been 
admitted to the United States.
  We are talking about lawful permanent residents. People who have set 
down roots and established themselves here in the United States.
  Given that my Republican colleagues have been unwilling to add a 
conviction requirement or a requirement that the offense included the 
intention to cause harm or use violence, I had hoped they would have 
been willing to accept an amendment that allows an immigration judge or 
Department of Homeland Security adjudicator to look at variety of 
mitigating factors when assessing if someone should be deemed 
deportable.
  During the Judiciary Committee markup and the Rules Committee 
hearing, offered in the Rules Committee would have allowed for 
mitigating factors to be taken into account before someone is deported 
as a result of an assault on a law enforcement officer.
  However, my Democratic colleagues and I could not get any Republican 
to roll back their punitive and damaging intent to harm any and all 
individuals seeking refuge and citizenship here in the U.S.--no matter 
the vulnerability of their circumstances.
  As has already been discussed, this bill is attempting to add a new 
avenue to deport people with green cards.
  If we are going to deport these people, it should be for a serious 
offense and there needs to be serious consideration of the 
circumstances pertaining to the alleged offense.
  People who are convicted of serious assaults on law enforcement 
officers are already deportable.
  Under current immigration law, if an individual is convicted of a 
crime of violence and sentenced to a year or more in prison, that is an 
aggravated felony and that person is deportable.
  The same is true for someone who is convicted of a ``crime involving 
moral turpitude,'' where the crime is punishable by imprisonment of one 
year or more.
  Both of these deportability grounds are currently invoked when there 
is a conviction for a serious, intentional assault on a law enforcement 
officer, where bodily injury occurs or is intended.
  This amendment would have allow the official making the final 
determination on deportation the ability to examine additional 
mitigating factors as evidence weighing against deportation.
  The official would be able to take into account:
  if there was intent to harm;
  the severity of offense;
  if the act resulted in harm;
  the individual's military service (if any);
  how long the individual has been in the United States; and
  the individual's ties to the community.
  These factors are vitally important for an immigration judge or other 
adjudicator to consider in order to ensure that we do not end up with 
some of the absurd results which have already been outlined today by my 
colleagues.
  We should not be deporting long-term green card holders for minor 
offenses. Just as a reminder, these examples include:
  A green card holder in a fire who pushes a firefighter out of the way 
of a falling beam. This person would have committed assault and become 
deportable.
  Likewise, if a foreign student whose religion prohibits blood 
transfusions is receiving medical care from an Emergency Medical 
Technician (EMT) and she swats the EMT's hand away because she is 
trying to give him a blood transfusion, that student will have 
committed assault on a law enforcement officer and become deportable 
under this bill.
  As another example, if a green card holder sees a fight on the street 
and attempts to intervene by getting between the individuals and 
pushing them apart. If one of the individuals was an undercover police 
officer performing his duties, the individual would have committed 
assault under this bill and become deportable.
  In all of these examples, one would hope the individuals would never 
be charged, let alone convicted of a crime.
  However, even without a conviction or intent to harm requirement, by 
admitting to actions that constitute assault, any of those individuals 
would have admitted to intentionally assaulting a law enforcement 
officer and would become deportable under this bill.
  We should not be deporting green card holders for such minor 
offenses.
  If the majority insists on doing so, they should at least allow 
adjudicators to look at mitigating factors to ensure that we are 
preventing good members of our society from getting swept up in this 
overbroad bill.
  Let me just say that it is truly unfortunate that the Rules Committee 
did not consider my amendment or that of my colleagues.
  We need to stop putting forth harmful and unproductive legislation 
and work on passing legislation that truly addresses meaningful 
immigration reform.
  Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Casar).
  Mr. CASAR. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to House 
Republicans' H.R. 2494, which is not about defending police officers, 
it is about deporting people. This does nothing to defend against 
assault. This is about discriminating against immigrants. Let me tell 
you why.
  Under Texas law, an unwanted touch can be considered assault. My 
Republican colleague, Congressman Troy Nehls, a former law enforcement 
officer himself, pointed out during the bill markup that he had ``mixed 
emotions'' on that potentially leading to deportation.
  This is not theoretical. Just this month we saw this in Texas 
firsthand. Evan, an Austin resident, was at our State legislature 
peacefully opposing a bill there. As the bill was being taken up, the 
speaker of the house ordered the gallery to be cleared.
  Hats aren't allowed in the Chamber. As Evan was exiting the gallery, 
he was carrying his baseball cap in his left hand. An officer grabbed 
his arm and Evan swung around, surprised. The brim of his basketball 
cap bumped the officer. Evan was handcuffed and charged with assault by 
contact, a criminal charge. If Evan wasn't a citizen or had admitted 
fault, he would be deported under this proposed bill today.
  Here is another example from 2019. My constituent, Tania, was in 
mental health crisis. Her friends, family, and neighbors called 911 for 
help. The police and an ambulance arrived. The police said they needed 
to handcuff her to take her to the hospital. She was terrified. She was 
scared. She kicked as she was being handcuffed.
  The police body camera video has on the recording the officers 
saying: Thank you.
  That is now assault on a police officer, a felony charge for kicking. 
Rather than being taken to the hospital, Tania was booked into the 
jail. We feared that she would be deported. Because there was time for 
due process, her lawyers intervened. Members of Congress, such as 
Congressman Lloyd Doggett, intervened, and Tania was able to get out 
rather than be deported back to a country that she was brought from as 
a young child.
  If this law today had been in place, Tania instead could have been 
automatically deported. This law undermines due process and radically 
expands the ability to deport families from the U.S. who have never 
been charged or convicted of a crime.
  This bill would separate families and send people potentially to a 
country that they have never known, all for the brush of a hat or for 
the pinch of an arm.
  Mr. Chair, I am sick and tired of preposterous bills being heard in 
this Chamber. I am sick and tired of hearing the Republicans are for 
due process, freedom, or individual liberty, when we see bills like 
this that do nothing to reform our immigration system. This does 
nothing to increase public safety, and only leaves as collateral damage 
the freedom, due process, and individual liberties of those who are 
struggling to make this country a better home for themselves and their 
families.
  Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, this bill would make someone deportable if they assault a 
law enforcement officer, a fact that is already largely the case, as it 
should be. This bill would make it a deportable offense for a legal, 
permanent resident to merely perform the acts that could be described 
as a felony.
  That, as I said before, leads to absurd results. The gentleman may 
say that that is not the intended result and that wouldn't happen, but 
you have to read the statute as it reads.
  These absurd results that I mentioned before--I am not going to 
repeat them now--would be real unless the Correa amendment is adopted. 
Then it would solve the infirmities of the bill and we could recommend 
passage. If that doesn't happen, we cannot.
  Mr. Chair, I hope we will fix this bill's most glaring flaw by 
requiring

[[Page H2399]]

that a person actually be convicted of assault before they are rendered 
deportable--that is the Correa amendment. If not, I urge all Members to 
oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I urge our colleagues to pass this 
bill into law and support our policemen and -women in uniform.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-4. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.

                               H.R. 2494

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Our Law enforcement 
     with Immigration Control and Enforcement Act of 2023'' or the 
     ``POLICE Act of 2023''.

     SEC. 2. ASSAULT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

       Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(G) Assault of law enforcement officer.--
       ``(i) In general.--Any alien who has been convicted of, who 
     admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which 
     constitute the essential elements of, any offense involving 
     assault of a law enforcement officer is deportable.
       ``(ii) Circumstances.--The circumstances referred to in 
     clause (i) are that the law enforcement officer was 
     assaulted--

       ``(I) while he or she was engaged in the performance of his 
     or her official duties;
       ``(II) because of the performance of his or her official 
     duties; or
       ``(III) because of his or her status as a law enforcement 
     officer.

       ``(iii) Definitions.--In this subparagraph--

       ``(I) the term `assault' has the meaning given that term in 
     the jurisdiction where the act occurred; and
       ``(II) the term `law enforcement officer' is a person 
     authorized by law--

       ``(aa) to apprehend, arrest, or prosecute an individual for 
     any criminal violation of law; or
       ``(bb) to be a firefighter or other first responder.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order, except those printed in part A of House 
Report 118-59. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Boebert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part A of House Report 118-59.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of the bill the following:

     SEC. 3. REPORT ON ALIENS DEPORTED FOR ASSAULTING A LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

       On an annual basis, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall submit to Congress and make publicly available on the 
     website of the Department of Homeland Security a report on 
     the number of aliens who were deported during the previous 
     year under section 237(a)(2)(G) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(G)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 398, the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in favor of my amendment, which will require the 
Department of Homeland Security to create an annual report on the 
number of illegal aliens who have been deported for assaulting a law 
enforcement officer. This report will be made available to Congress and 
to the public on the DHS website. My amendment will promote 
accountability and transparency for the removal of these criminal 
aliens.
  The complete and total invasion taking place at our southern border 
has made America less safe. Biden's border crisis has opened the door 
to human traffickers, gang members, and other dangerous criminals who 
enter our country with malicious intent, threatening the safety of our 
citizens and the police officers who serve as our first line of defense 
against crime.
  Earlier this year, a female Border Patrol agent was violently 
attacked by a male alien while attempting to make an arrest.
  Last year, two law enforcement officers were injured by an illegal 
alien when responding to a disturbance in New York. One officer 
suffered a concussion and the other had a broken hand.
  We cannot allow these criminals to run rampant in our communities. 
The American people have the right to know if illegal aliens are 
attacking law enforcement officers and to what extent. That is why my 
amendment requires DHS to be accountable and transparent about the 
removal of these criminals.
  Rather than wasting time on the Democrats' agenda to keep our 
southern border wide open and defund the police, House Republicans are 
proud to back the blue, especially this week on National Police Week as 
we recognize these brave men and women throughout our country for their 
service.
  We, as Republicans, have proposed policy solutions to put an end to 
Biden's border crisis.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague, Representative  Andrew Garbarino, 
for his leadership to ensure that we can hold these illegal criminal 
aliens accountable for violence against law enforcement officers with 
H.R. 2494.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment, as 
well as the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Boebert amendment requires the Department of 
Homeland Security to make publicly available on its website an annual 
report on the number of noncitizens deported for assaulting a law 
enforcement officer.
  It is important for us to take a step back and remember what this 
bill is all about. This bill is attempting to add a new avenue for 
people who are living here lawfully in the United States to be 
deported.
  By and large, we are talking about the ability to deport lawful 
permanent residents, people with green cards. These are people who my 
Republican colleagues like to say have done things the so-called 
``right way.'' I sincerely hope that this report would not be used to 
further demonize immigrants.
  However, on its face, I do not find this amendment to be 
objectionable.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I am glad that we have found some common 
ground on this.
  I thank my colleague for supporting this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Correa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A of House Report 118-59.

[[Page H2400]]

  

  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 1, beginning on line 12, strike ``convicted of,'' and 
     all that follows through the end of line 14 and insert 
     ``convicted of''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 398, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Correa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Chairman, as you know, this week is National Police 
Week. I thank every peace officer and law enforcement officer for doing 
their service and for protecting our communities day in and day out.
  I want to make clear, Mr. Chairman, that no Democrat or Republican 
condones a serious assault on any peace officer, period. To the 
contrary, we want to help our police officers do their job.
  Yesterday, my local Orange County sheriff was here to testify to 
address public safety issues. After that meeting, he pulled me aside, 
and he reminded me of how hard and long we had worked in Orange County 
to gain the trust of the immigrant community--trust that public safety 
needs to do their job--to report crimes when they happen and to 
cooperate with public safety because police officers need the help of 
the immigrant community to do their job.
  That is just the fact. This bill threatens to undo decades of hard 
work and of building trust between public safety and the immigrant 
community.
  This bill, in fact, is so broad that individuals can be deported for 
actions they are merely accused of.
  Let me repeat: People can be deported for actions that they are 
merely accused of. We are talking about the ability to deport lawfully 
permanent residents, people with green cards.
  Do we really want to deport these individuals--many of whom are close 
to becoming U.S. citizens--not based on convictions but simply an 
accusation?
  What about the constitutional notion of innocent until proven guilty?
  Mr. Chairman, in this bill a conviction is not required.
  One would hope that someone who did not intend or did not cause harm 
would never be charged let alone convicted of a crime. However, any 
conduct could be considered an assault under this bill, and by the 
bill's broad definition, it would make someone deportable even without 
a charge and even without a conviction.
  It is important to remember that convictions for serious assaults on 
a law enforcement officer are offenses today that make someone 
deportable under current law. In fact, we have a wide variety of 
criminal grounds for deportation, almost all of which require a 
conviction.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple amendment. It is simple. It 
requires a conviction. My amendment simply requires a court--a judge--
to decide on the facts and the law before a green card holder can be 
deported.
  My amendment is simple. It asks for due process under the law.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. Correa is a good friend of mine, I think one of my closest 
friends across the aisle, so I am going to have a little debate on his 
amendment.
  H.R. 2494 requires that an alien either be convicted of an offense 
involving assault of a law enforcement officer or admit to assaulting a 
law enforcement officer.
  Contrary to the Democrats' talking points on the other side, not 
every ground of removability in the Immigration and Nationality Act 
requires a conviction.
  In fact, here are some of the removable offenses that do not require 
conviction: smuggling, marriage fraud, drug abuse or drug addiction, 
trafficking, document fraud, terrorist activities, and participation in 
violations of religious freedom.
  By requiring at least an admission of assault, this bill conforms to 
the pattern of other grounds of removability even exceeding many of 
those already listed.
  The language of this bill also tracks closely with the language for 
certain grounds of inadmissibility as well, such as crimes involving 
moral turpitude and controlled substance offenses.
  In a world of increasing threats against law enforcement officers--
whom we all support--it makes no sense to require a conviction. If an 
alien has admitted to assaulting a law enforcement officer, then why 
can't the alien's own admission be used to show that alien is 
deportable?
  Listen to what the bill requires: an admission or a conviction of an 
assault offense; the assault must have been against a law enforcement 
officer; and that assault must have been while the law enforcement 
officer was performing his or her duties or because of his or her 
status as a law enforcement officer.
  Even then, DHS would have to charge the alien as removable, the 
immigration judge would have to sustain that charge of removability, 
and then the alien would be allowed to appear for relief to remain in 
the United States.
  This amendment would strike the reasonable provision that would allow 
criminal aliens to be removed if they admit to assaulting a law 
enforcement officer.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Correa's 
amendment.
  Any conviction requirement would greatly improve this bill. No one in 
this caucus condones serious assaults against law enforcement officers. 
As written, however, this bill goes well beyond serious offenses to 
include minor offenses and even actions for which an individual is 
never charged or convicted.
  That is right. Under this bill, a conviction is not required. This 
will lead to bizarre consequences in which someone who had no intent of 
harming a law enforcement officer but nevertheless committed an act 
that constituted assault would be deemed deportable.
  Mr. Chairman, remember the three examples I gave before: pushing a 
fireman out of the way of a falling beam. That would make the person 
deportable under this bill.

  It is important to remember that convictions for serious assaults on 
law enforcement are already offenses that make someone deportable under 
current law. In fact, we have a wide variety of criminal grounds for 
deportation, nearly all of which require a conviction. That is why 
adding a requirement that an individual be convicted of assaulting a 
law enforcement officer to become deportable would significantly 
improve the bill.
  However, it would not fix all the issues associated with this bill. 
For example, the bill does not require an intent to cause harm or any 
physical injury which would sweep in very low-level offenses.
  Since the bill only impacts people who are here legally, the prospect 
of deporting longtime members of our communities for very minor 
offenses is deeply concerning, but the bill would be improved by this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Moore of Alabama) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moylan, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2494) to make the assault of a law enforcement officer a deportable 
offense, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

[[Page H2401]]

  

                          ____________________