[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 30, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H289-H296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 AGENT RAUL GONZALEZ OFFICER SAFETY ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in

[[Page H290]]

which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material 
on H.R. 5585.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moore of Utah). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 980 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. 5585.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1449


                     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. 5585) to impose criminal and immigration penalties for 
intentionally fleeing a pursuing Federal officer while operating a 
motor vehicle, with Mr. Flood 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 amendments shall not 
exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, on December 7 of 2022, Border Patrol 
Officer Raul Gonzalez got up, he got dressed, kissed his family good-
bye, and left for work.
  His family would never see him again. He was killed later that day in 
Mission, Texas, doing his job trying to protect our country. A group of 
illegal aliens and their smuggler led him on a high-speed chase that 
ended in a fatal wreck that took his life.
  Now, this is becoming an increasingly common story along our southern 
border in the age of Biden's open-border policies. The number of high-
speed chases by Border Patrol or local law enforcement has exploded 
along with the illegal human trafficking and smuggling that they are 
trying to stop.
  The Biden administration's lax enforcement of our immigration laws 
has incentivized this, creating the conditions that create these deadly 
high-speed chases, and the problem has now reached critical levels.
  One lifelong Arizona resident reflected on the dangers of Highway 90 
in Cochise County, now a major smuggling route. She said, It is scary 
to the point you don't want to drive the highway, but to get to work 
you have to. I am actually scared about going out into the public 
sometimes, because what if there is a high-speed chase and something 
goes sideways, they get into a car accident, hop the curb and hit 
anybody?
  In Tombstone, Arizona, U.S. Marshal Jim Adams spoke of the high-speed 
chases racing through his town. He said, This is a weekly occurrence, 
sometimes daily, sometimes several times a day.
  Americans near the border should not be living in terror for 
themselves or their loved ones being killed by high-speed chases caused 
by cartel smugglers. Yet, in many communities, they do now.
  Human smuggling is an incredibly lucrative business. According to 
Border Patrol estimates in the Del Rio sector alone, cartels profit $32 
million a week for a staggering total of $1.6 billion per year just in 
that one sector. The cartels expertly control their side of the border. 
Nobody gets through without paying them.
  Yet, while the cartels are making billions controlling their side of 
the border, Joe Biden is spending billions of dollars while abandoning 
control of our side of the border.
  This bill is very simple. It makes it a Federal crime to evade the 
Border Patrol or local law enforcement that is assisting the Border 
Patrol within 100 miles of the international border. If you are a 
foreign national, it makes the conviction or admission of such a crime 
grounds for inadmissibility and removability. If you hurt somebody, we 
will put you in prison for 5 years. If you kill somebody, we will put 
you in prison for 10 years. If you are a foreign national, we will send 
you packing when you get out.
  That is what the Democrats in this House will oppose today, and that 
should be a wake-up call for every American.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5585.
  Once again, the majority is moving a bill that is a solution in 
search of a problem. H.R. 5585 adds duplicative and unnecessary 
immigration consequences. It amends the Immigration and Nationality Act 
to create a new ground of deportability and inadmissibility for any 
noncitizen who admits fleeing from Border Patrol while operating a 
motor vehicle.
  Sound interesting?
  Well, however, right now, being convicted of fleeing Border Patrol or 
any law enforcement already makes a person deportable and inadmissible. 
The key word here, though, is ``convicted.''
  Most existing law requires a conviction before a person can be 
deported for a wide variety of crimes. By not requiring a conviction, 
this bill makes it easier to deport someone for fleeing Border Patrol 
than for more serious crimes, like murder.
  Let's remember that when we talk about deportation, we are also 
talking about people who are here lawfully. Many of them are green card 
holders, and they have lived in the United States for decades. If we 
are going to deport them, we need to require a conviction and provide 
for basic due process and a day in court.

  Further, the new criminal penalties in this bill are largely already 
covered in another statute, which makes it a crime for individuals to 
flee or evade a Border Patrol checkpoint. We don't need another 
criminal statute with another mandatory minimum sentence on top of 
current law.
  Instead, what has long been needed is policy reforms. After an 
increase in fatalities of those being pursued during high-speed chases 
in 2021, CBP undertook a review of its vehicle pursuit policy. In 2023, 
after this detailed review, CBP overhauled the vehicle pursuit policy, 
adopting an ``objective reasonableness'' standard that is consistent 
with most law enforcement agencies across the United States. That was 
an important reform, and one that I am hopeful will better protect the 
safety of agents and the public.
  What we should be doing in this body is pursuing and strengthening 
commonsense solutions like this. We don't need to waste time passing a 
bill that makes someone deportable for fleeing law enforcement, that is 
already a deportable offense. We certainly don't need a bill that would 
make someone deportable without even having a conviction.
  This legislation is not needed. It is overly punitive. We have 
already wasted a lot of time on this floor because the other side 
couldn't get their act together to get the votes to pass the rule 
through. Let's just be clear. This is another waste of time, and it is 
deeply detrimental. It burdens border communities that are already 
often fearful of Border Patrol and the impact that it has on their 
daily lives.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary, unneeded, and 
harmful legislation.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani), the author of this bill.
  Mr. CISCOMANI. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. McClintock for yielding me 
the time. I am excited to see the House take up my bill, H.R. 5585, the 
Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act.
  This bill is simple. It makes evading law enforcement within 100 
miles of the border a Federal crime. Mr. Chairman, how anybody can be 
against this commonsense legislation is beyond me. Calling it 
unnecessary is something that maybe those that are opposing this should 
address with the families of those that have perished due to incidents 
and these tragedies that we see

[[Page H291]]

on the border and in my district on a weekly basis.
  To me it is simple. It is common sense that this should be a Federal 
crime. Far too many lives have been jeopardized and tragically even 
taken at the hands of bad actors who engage in high-speed pursuits.
  If you evade CBP or local law enforcement, you are clearly not a good 
actor. Unfortunately, the current law does not make this a crime in and 
of itself, and it leaves the burden of prosecuting these individuals to 
our local communities--as if they haven't already paid the price of 
this administration's failures on this issue.
  Not only is this bill common sense, it is crucial, and in some cases, 
even lifesaving. To quote one of my constituents, At least once a week 
there is a high-speed chase through my town that includes a 15-mile-an-
hour school zone. Do residents need to die to get the attention needed 
to correct this border problem?
  I consistently hear about the detrimental impacts that high-speed 
chases have in southern Arizona--southeastern Arizona, to be more 
specific--and in Cochise County, which is in my district.
  This criminal activity is not just reserved to drug cartels and 
smugglers themselves. Cartels now recruit Americans to drive down to 
the border and transport migrants north. We must change the calculus 
for those who endanger all of us when failing to yield to law 
enforcement. For far too long, the administration has allowed cartels 
to profit off the border crisis while facing almost no consequences.
  Another constituent has said, We have multiple high-speed vehicle 
pursuits each week. The lack of Federal resources to deal with those 
has led the county sheriff to be the de facto law enforcement agency to 
interdict the human smugglers.

                              {time}  1500

  This bill is about supporting our local border communities who deal 
with the crisis daily and to stop the smuggling and trafficking. In 
calendar years 2022 and 2023, Cochise County reports booking 2,884 
individuals for border-related crimes, costing over $9.4 million. This 
is in one county, in one State. I have seen the toll it takes firsthand 
in our communities. By letting this happen, this administration has 
absolutely failed Americans.
  Our local law enforcement should not be taking on this burden. These 
migrants are evading detection, and the smugglers themselves are 
evading detection, or more likely, the cartels are telling them to do 
so. Yet again, our communities are being forced to do the job of the 
Federal Government.
  At a time when it is arguably the easiest to cross our southern 
border and be granted entry by this administration, freely almost, we 
should be asking ourselves why these people are fleeing law 
enforcement. The answer is these are the really bad actors who the 
cartels want to evade arrest.
  Finally, I want to highlight the hero this bill is named after, Agent 
Raul Gonzalez, who was killed in 2022 while pursuing illegal immigrants 
in Texas. His death underscored the tragic truth that our CBP officers 
risk their lives every day to protect our country. By passing this 
legislation, we are showing them that we have their backs. That is why 
this bill is supported by law enforcement groups like the National 
Border Patrol Council and seven law enforcement groups in Arizona 
alone.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my much-needed 
legislation. Let's send a message to our border communities and the 
authorities that we will always have their backs, and let's send a 
stronger message to the bad actors that we will pursue any actions that 
threaten American lives to the fullest extent of the law.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5585, the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act, 
would establish harsh criminal and immigration penalties for flight, 
while operating a motor vehicle, from a pursuing U.S. Border Patrol 
agent or other law enforcement officer assisting in the pursuit.
  Let me make clear: The death of Agent Gonzalez in the performance of 
his duties is a tragedy, and our hearts go out to his family and 
friends. However, H.R. 5585 is not the best or even a viable answer to 
the perceived problem this bill claims to solve.
  High-speed vehicle pursuits can be incredibly dangerous, often ending 
in horrific accidents with serious injuries or even the deaths of 
individuals being chased by law enforcement, as well as innocent 
bystanders and law enforcement personnel.
  According to a report by the ACLU of Texas, Border Patrol-involved 
vehicle pursuits resulted in 107 deaths, not including law enforcement 
officers, between January of 2010 and November of 2023.
  Following public outcry as the number of deaths continued to rise, 
CBP conducted a review of its vehicle pursuit policy. The review 
resulted in a newly revised directive published in January of last 
year, just 1 month after Agent Gonzalez was killed. The net effect of 
the new policy is to discourage the number of high-speed pursuits.
  When weighing the potential risk to the safety of the public and law 
enforcement officers, many jurisdictions have determined that the risks 
are far too great to justify a vehicle pursuit. I hope CBP agents will 
be encouraged to adhere to the agency's updated policy.
  I have many concerns with the criminal aspects of this legislation, 
but most troubling is its inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences. For 
more than a decade, mandatory minimums have been widely condemned for 
many reasons, including their disproportionate application of cases 
involving people of color and the resulting mass incarceration and 
overpolicing of marginalized communities. We must continue to resist 
every urge to add to the list of Federal criminal offenses subject to 
mandatory minimum penalties, because they have served to perpetuate 
injustice and inequity within our criminal justice system.
  Turning to the immigration provisions of this bill, the justification 
for such harsh penalties is similarly lacking. People who are convicted 
of fleeing law enforcement are already deportable and inadmissible.
  One of the many ways someone can become inadmissible and deportable 
is if they are convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, commonly 
called a CIMT. Courts have previously determined that knowingly fleeing 
or eluding law enforcement is a CIMT.
  However, this bill makes a significant change by not requiring that 
an individual actually be convicted of the crime to render them 
deportable. Under current law, to be deportable for a CIMT, there must 
be a conviction, but this bill would erase that conviction requirement, 
allowing someone to be rendered deportable even if they have never been 
convicted of a crime.
  Deportability is not about undocumented immigrants, who are already 
removable. This is about people who are here legally, who in many cases 
have put down roots, have American citizen spouses and family and 
children.
  By and large, we are talking about lawful permanent residents, people 
who have put down roots in our communities, as I said, many of whom 
have U.S. citizen spouses and children who have truly established 
themselves here in the United States.
  If they are convicted of evading or fleeing law enforcement, they are 
generally already removable. Rendering such a person deportable without 
requiring a conviction raises serious due process concerns.
  While the inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences is enough reason 
to vote no on H.R. 5585, the unjustifiably harsh immigration provisions 
render the bill a complete nonstarter.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).
  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
5585, the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act. This bill is named in 
honor of a heroic Border Patrol agent who was tragically killed in the 
line of duty last year while pursuing illegal migrants as they 
attempted to evade capture in my home State of Texas.
  The crisis at our southern border threatens our community safety and 
our national security. Far too often, we see smugglers and illegal 
immigrants, desperate to evade detection

[[Page H292]]

and prosecution, who are willing to endanger themselves and innocent 
bystanders by taking brave law enforcement officers like Agent Gonzalez 
on high-speed chases.
  Tragically, this administration deliberately opened our borders to 
weaken national security, and their policies continue to encourage 
smugglers and cartels, who stand to make a profit by moving illegal 
immigrants and drugs into our country. Our Border Patrol agents want 
nothing more than to secure the border and apprehend those illegal 
migrants, but this administration won't let them do their jobs.
  As we have seen, cartel members, smugglers, and human traffickers 
have no qualms about surpassing speeds of 100 miles per hour, or 
greater, even in residential areas. Our law enforcement officers have 
to make a difficult decision in those cases about whether or not to 
pursue the vehicle. This pursuit could make a difference in a child's 
life who is in the grips of a human trafficker or could also prevent 
thousands of doses of deadly fentanyl from reaching our communities and 
murdering our children.
  H.R. 5585 will help protect our brave law enforcement officers by 
criminalizing the act of fleeing from Border Patrol agents and local 
law enforcement officers. By passing this bill, we will give our law 
enforcement officers the tools they need to prosecute and punish 
criminals who engage in these dangerous high-speed chases. We will 
ensure that any illegal alien who evades Border Patrol agents can be 
deported and not allowed to return to our country.
  Mr. Chair, we have a solemn duty to do everything in our power to 
protect those who protect us. I am grateful to my friend, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani), for offering this important piece of 
legislation and to Senator Cruz for offering a similar measure in the 
U.S. Senate.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I would remind the gentlewoman and others that 
people who engage in high-speed chases with the Border Patrol are 
already deportable. The question on this bill is not whether they 
should be deported. The question is whether they should be convicted of 
the crime of engaging in a high-speed chase before being deported or 
whether we throw due process out the window.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5585 because it 
is redundant, it is pointless, and it does nothing to move us in the 
direction to deal with the real issues and the real needs that we have 
on the U.S.-Mexico border.
  To me, it is purely a hollow, shrill political campaign tactic to 
satisfy Trump and to move fear, division, and the underpinnings of 
race, if not directly, then covertly, as the central tactic of the 
House Republicans, and Republicans in general, in the 2024 election. 
That cynicism is what prevents us from doing anything legitimately in a 
bipartisan way that is a lasting solution to the issue of the border 
and the issue of immigration.
  I believe that if we are going to talk about a humane solution, a 
secure solution, and a bipartisan solution, then everyone needs to be 
involved. We don't need more of the same.
  Right now, we are not going to see any action in this House by the 
Republican majority on the issue of real immigration reform. What we 
are going to see from them is to continue to feed the fear and the 
anger as a campaign tactic. To them, the more chaos, the less of a 
solution, the less of a humane and secure response to the issue at the 
border, the better for them. They believe it enhances their election 
chances in 2024.
  I think the American people are smarter than that, and the compassion 
and the dignity of the American people is strong. We will see through 
this ruse. If you want to deal with immigration, if you want to begin 
to solve this crisis in this country, then you have to do it as a 
country and not as a limited, ideological position on the part of one 
person running for President, Mr. Trump.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. De La Cruz).
  Ms. DE LA CRUZ. Mr. Chair, today, I have the honor to stand before 
this distinguished body to highlight the urgency and importance of the 
Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act. In the face of one of the most 
severe border crises in our history, it is imperative that we unite to 
support this crucial legislation.

  This bill, which I proudly co-led with Congressman Ciscomani, is a 
commitment to our national security and public safety. It is also an 
acknowledgment of the perilous risks that our brave Border Patrol 
officers face daily. Agent Raul Gonzalez, a hero and a cherished member 
of our community, tragically lost his life in a high-speed chase 
involving illegal immigrants. This heart-wrenching incident is a 
reminder of the dangers at our border.
  This law proposes that any illegal immigrant who fails to yield to 
Border Patrol agents could be charged with a felony. Moreover, if their 
actions result in the tragic loss of an officer's life, they could face 
life sentences. This isn't about right versus left. It is about right 
versus wrong and protecting those who protect us.
  I invite my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join us. This 
is a time for unity, not division. Supporting this lifesaving 
legislation means standing up for the rule of law and sending a clear 
message: Evading American law enforcement is a serious offense, and if 
it results in the death of an officer, the consequences will be severe.
  Our Nation is stronger when we work together and prioritize common 
sense over division. The Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act is a 
pivotal step in ensuring our borders are not only safe but respected. 
Let's honor the memory of this brave man and the countless others who 
put their lives on the line every single day. Let this bill's passage 
be a testament to our shared resolve to safeguard our Nation and uphold 
its laws.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their support. Let's stand 
united for public safety, our Border Patrol agents, and for a stronger, 
more secure America.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman from, I think, Texas a moment ago said 
that this bill was necessary for the safety of our people. The truth is 
the safety of our people is already provided for by the current law, 
which makes engaging in a high-speed chase with Border Patrol agents a 
deportable offense already.
  What this bill does is to remove due process protections; due process 
protections that we recognize as very important throughout our law. The 
truth of the matter is this is a diversion.
  Everybody on that side of the aisle knows this bill is going nowhere 
in the Senate. This bill is not intended to go anywhere in the Senate. 
Everyone knows that a serious and very harsh overall immigration bill 
is being negotiated in the Senate, by Democratic Senators and by very 
conservative Republican Senators; a bill that is much more conservative 
than I would like to see, which I may not vote for, but which will 
probably get 75 or 80 votes in the Senate and could be signed by the 
President, establishing a very harsh regime that the other side of the 
aisle would probably like, that Senator Lankford likes, that Senator 
Tillis likes, not notable liberal Members.
  We have a former President who has said--and I appreciate his 
honesty--he doesn't want a solution to the problem. He doesn't want our 
border problem fixed until he is the President again because he wants 
the issue.
  What we are really dealing with is should we enact legislation that 
may solve the border problem, or should we keep it as an issue so that 
Donald Trump can campaign on it, and we can all debate that issue 
during the campaign but take no action? That is what we are really 
debating.
  This bill and the three bills that will come this week are 
diversions. They are minor bills. They don't really do anything to keep 
our safety.
  As I said, for instance, on this one, engaging in a high-speed chase 
with the CBP is already a deportable offense. All they want to do in 
this bill is remove some due process provisions for our longtime 
residents.
  However, this is pitiful, and it is minor-league stuff compared to 
major legislation that will actually solve our

[[Page H293]]

border problem, and that legislation is pending in the Senate. The 
Senate will probably pass it next week.
  Moreover, we are told that it won't even be allowed to come to a vote 
in the House. Why? Because Marjorie Taylor Greene has said that if the 
Speaker brings any immigration bill that the Senate passes to the 
floor, she will move to vacate the chair. Why? Because our former 
President wants a campaign issue.
  Senator Tillis has said this is shameful. Senator Romney has said 
this is more than shameful. Yet, that is what we are hearing. That is 
what we are seeing from our friends on the Republican side of the 
aisle--a total disinterest in the public interest, a total disinterest 
in the public safety, a total interest only in rhetoric and campaign 
material. They have said it by their own admission.
  So let's not waste our time with this bill, which is irrelevant. It 
is not a good bill either because it dispenses with due process, but it 
is irrelevant because it is not going anywhere in the Senate; neither 
are the other three bills that were reported out of the Judiciary 
Committee that are also going nowhere in the Senate that we will waste 
our time on in the next few days.
  Why waste our time? Why not deal with something real? Why not deal, 
if not with immigration, at least on something else real?
  This Congress, with the exception of continuing resolutions and the 
debt ceiling crisis, has passed not one single bill into law--not one. 
And even the continuing resolution to prevent the government from 
shutting down, half on March 1 and half on March 8, passed with 107 
Republicans voting yes, 106 Republicans voting no, and the Democrats 
all voting yes. We pulled the fat out of the fire.
  So let's not waste our time with this. Let's not waste our time with 
this unnecessary legislation. Let's do something serious about 
immigration. Let's do something serious about anything.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Chair, setting aside my good friend's weird obsession with Donald 
Trump, I hope Americans will take note of what has been said in this 
debate.
  The Democrats made the point, well, why chase them and endanger 
themselves and the public? Why not just let them go?
  Well, the answer should be obvious. Under the Democrats' open-borders 
policy, all that you have to do is flag down a Border Patrol officer 
and make a phony asylum claim. Under their policies, you will be 
immediately released into our country. You will get a plane or bus 
ticket anywhere you want to go. You will get free meals, free snacks, 
free clothes, free phones. You immediately qualify for free medical 
care, free housing, free education for your children. Within 6 months, 
you will be given a work authorization to undercut working American 
families. You will be assured that your phony claim won't be heard for 
many years into the future, if you show up at all.
  Also, when you are finally ordered deported, as is the case with the 
overwhelming majority of these claims, that court order will simply be 
ignored by our own government. There are already currently 1.3 million 
such deportation orders that the administration already simply ignores.
  With all of these benefits waiting for you simply by flagging down a 
Border Patrol officer, why in the world would you want to evade capture 
by endangering your own lives? Well, the only reason I can think of is 
that you are either hiding a criminal record, or you are committing a 
crime.

  I remind the gentleman that is why the Border Patrol chases evaders. 
They have caught hundreds of known terrorists and countless pounds of 
fentanyl and other deadly drugs by doing so.
  FBI Director Chris Wray warned the Judiciary Committee that this 
constitutes a massive security threat--his words--a massive security 
threat. Let that sink in. And then consider the barbaric terrorist 
attack 103 days ago in Israel.
  I believe it is just a matter of time before we see a coordinated 
terrorist attack in our own country from elements that have entered as 
a direct result of Biden's policies. We have already seen lone wolf 
attacks in Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark because of their lax 
border policies. I am afraid this is only the tip of this iceberg.
  I, again, remind the gentleman that is why we chase evaders, and 
those evaders need to be held accountable to the law and punished, and, 
if they are foreigners, they need to be removed from our country. Yet, 
the Democrats object to this.
  Now, the Democrats have argued that the bill should not include a 
mandatory minimum sentence. Well, let's go over specifically what they 
object to. If you cause a high-speed chase that injures somebody, you 
are going to serve a minimum of 5 years under this bill. If you kill 
somebody, it is a minimum of 10 years.
  Does any reasonable person believe these mandatory minimums are 
unreasonable? Ask the American who has been paralyzed in such a crash 
if it is unreasonable. Ask the family of the mother who has been killed 
in such a crash if that is unreasonable. The only people who seem to 
think that this is unreasonable are the Democrats in this House, and 
voters might want to do something about that.
  The Democrats argue that the bill is unnecessary because aliens who 
are convicted of fleeing an immigration checkpoint are already 
removable. You heard that argument several times. Well, that is true, 
but it only applies to those who are fleeing a checkpoint. It doesn't 
make the alien inadmissible to come back into our country, either.
  This bill applies to all smugglers causing dangerous crashes or 
chases within 100 miles of the border, and it creates serious penalties 
for those who injure or kill officers or bystanders during these 
pursuits.
  Now, the Democrats have also claimed that this measure would destroy 
due process by deporting an alien who hasn't actually been convicted of 
a crime.
  Well, actually, this bill requires either a conviction of a crime, or 
an admission of committing that crime. That is the same standard we 
apply to aliens guilty of overstaying a visa, violating nonimmigrant 
status or condition of entry, smuggling aliens, committing marriage 
fraud, being a drug user or a drug addict, falsely claiming United 
States citizenship, or engaging in espionage. This bill simply adds 
evasion of the Border Patrol to this existing list.
  By the way, a confession is not an idle matter. Under 80 years of 
precedent, the alien's confession has to be explicit, unequivocal, and 
unqualified. The Department of Homeland Security then has the burden of 
proof to show that the statement meets the requirement for removal 
purposes, and an immigration judge must then find that the admission is 
based on reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.
  This is hardly a casual confession, but it does save years and years 
of court proceedings and appeals.
  Mr. Chair, we have heard directly from the officers and citizens of 
our border communities of the dangers that they now face day after day 
as cartel smugglers drive at high speeds through their towns to evade 
the Border Patrol or the police.
  This bill says, if you clearly admit to this crime or you are 
convicted of it and you are a foreign national, we will not only deport 
you, but it will be grounds for forbidding you from returning, which is 
not part of the current law.
  The bill says to legal and illegal residents alike, if you hurt 
somebody while causing this reckless hazard, we will throw you in jail 
for 5 years; if you kill somebody, it is 10.
  The Democrats are opposed to these reforms. We should tell people 
everything they need to know about the obstacles that we are facing to 
securing our border and returning our border communities to peace and 
safety.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, H.R. 5585, the ``Agent Raul Gonzalez 
Officer Safety Act'' would establish criminal and immigration penalties 
for flight in a motor vehicle from a pursuing U.S. Border Patrol agent 
or any federal, state, or local law enforcement assisting in such 
pursuit.
  We grieve the loss of Agent Gonzalez and honor his service and 
dedication to the safety and security of our country. We owe a great 
debt to Agent Gonzalez for his sacrifice and offer our deepest 
condolences to his family.

[[Page H294]]

  I am deeply concerned about the safety of those law enforcement 
officers working to secure our borders, particularly with regard to the 
dangers presented by vehicular pursuits. We must be certain that we are 
creating a framework that will truly ensure their safety. In doing so, 
we not only honor Agent Gonzalez but we make certain that we have no 
further loss of life in this way.
  It goes without saying that I cannot support this bill if the 
mandatory minimum penalties remain, especially since they would be 
triggered without a finding of intent to kill or inflict serious bodily 
injury.
  And still there are larger issues lurking in the definition of the 
offense--namely, the elements that must be proven to establish a 
violation.
  As the bill is currently written, it fails to require conduct that 
would indicate some knowledge of wrongdoing, such as the refusal to 
obey a verbal or audible signal by law enforcement to stop operation of 
the vehicle.
  But even if we forgive the vague definition of the offense, 
prosecutors would be required to prove not that the Border Patrol agent 
was acting within their duties as an employee but that the agent had 
the legal authority to engage in a pursuit--which is a considerably 
more involved question of law.
  This language would make it difficult for prosecutors to pursue cases 
involving flight and pursuits. We should work together to ensure the 
language of this bill gives prosecutors the authority to truly protect 
our officers at the border and keep them safe.
  To address several faults in this bill, I offered an amendment that 
would have eliminated the mandatory minimum penalties; required that 
the government prove that the Border Patrol agent in question acted 
within their official duties; and added an additional data point to the 
annual report to determine whether high speed chases near the border 
are commonly committed by citizens of the United States or non-
citizens.
  However, my amendment was not ruled in order, allowing these 
problematic features to remain.
  Vehicle pursuits have long plagued law enforcement agencies in every 
corner of the United States, particularly in determining the 
appropriate response to suspects that fail to stop or take flight from 
a lawful stop. And while law enforcement agencies across the country 
have increasingly restricted when vehicle pursuits can be undertaken, 
high speed chases along the border have continued to rise.
  While U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was slow to revise its 
own pursuit policy, the agency issued the newly revised CBP Emergency 
Driving and Vehicular Pursuits Directive in January of last year. The 
updated directive acknowledges the risks associated with vehicular 
pursuits--and shifts the agency's overall approach to a risk-based 
model when pursuits occur.
  The agency moved from a rather vague policy to a standard that seeks 
to minimize the impact on citizens and innocent bystanders, while 
maintaining the ability to pursue those individuals that present a 
danger to public safety.
  We must be certain that we do not undermine the work that CBP has 
done to move away from a policy that resulted in a record number of 
deaths of migrants and innocent bystanders.
  While I want to believe that this legislation is a legitimate effort 
by my Republican colleagues to protect not only law enforcement 
officers at the border but the safety of migrants and citizens, the 
true nature of this bill is revealed in the immigration provisions that 
would levy consequences as severe as inadmissibility and deportability 
without requiring a conviction.
  I am certainly willing to work with my colleagues to make this bill a 
useful tool for prosecutors. In its current form, this is a flawed, 
unworkable bill for more than a few reasons. That is why I must oppose 
H.R. 5585, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  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, an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
Print 118-21, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 
shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5585

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as ``Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer 
     Safety Act''.

     SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 40B. Evading arrest or detention while operating a 
       motor vehicle

       ``(a) Offense.--A person commits an offense under this 
     section by operating a motor vehicle within 100 miles of the 
     United States border while intentionally fleeing from--
       ``(1) a pursuing U.S. Border Patrol agent acting pursuant 
     to lawful authority; or
       ``(2) any pursuing Federal, State, or local law enforcement 
     officer who is actively assisting, or under the command of, 
     U.S. Border Patrol.
       ``(b) Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), any person who commits an offense described in 
     subsection (a) shall be--
       ``(A) imprisoned for a term of not more than 2 years;
       ``(B) fined under this title; or
       ``(C) subject to the penalties described in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B).
       ``(2) Serious bodily injury.--If serious bodily injury 
     results from the commission of an offense described in 
     subsection (a), the person committing such offense shall be--
       ``(A) imprisoned for a term of not less than 5 years and 
     not more than 20 years;
       ``(B) fined under this title; or
       ``(C) subject to the penalties described in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B).
       ``(3) Death.--If the death of any person results from the 
     commission of an offense described in subsection (a), the 
     person committing such offense shall be--
       ``(A) imprisoned for a term of not less than 10 years and 
     up to life;
       ``(B) fined under this title; or
       ``(C) subject to the penalties described in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 2 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``40B. Evading arrest or detention while operating a motor vehicle.''.

     SEC. 3. INADMISSIBILITY, DEPORTABILITY, AND INELIGIBILITY 
                   RELATED TO EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION WHILE 
                   OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

       (a) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(J) Evading arrest or detention while operating a motor 
     vehicle.--Any alien who has been convicted of, who admits 
     having committed, or who admits committing acts which 
     constitute the essential elements of a violation of section 
     40B(a) of title 18, United States Code, is inadmissible.''.
       (b) Deportability.--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) Evading arrest or detention while operating a motor 
     vehicle.--Any alien who has been convicted of, who admits 
     having committed, or who admits committing acts which 
     constitute the essential elements of a violation of section 
     40B(a) of title 18, United States Code, is deportable.''.
       (c) Ineligibility for Relief.--Chapter 2 of title II of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after 
     section 208 the following:

     ``SEC. 208A. INELIGIBILITY FOR RELIEF RELATED TO EVADING 
                   ARREST OR DETENTION WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR 
                   VEHICLE.

       ``Any alien who has been convicted of, who admits having 
     committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the 
     essential elements of a violation of section 40B(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, shall be ineligible for relief under 
     the immigration laws, including asylum under section 208.''.

     SEC. 4. ANNUAL REPORT.

       The Attorney General shall submit an annual report to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on 
     the Judiciary of the House of Representatives that--
       (1) identifies the number of people who were charged, 
     during the reporting period, with a violation of section 
     40B(a) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 
     2(a); and
       (2) summarizes--
       (A) the penalties sought in the charging documents 
     pertaining to the violations referred to in paragraph (1); 
     and
       (B) the penalties imposed for such violations.

  The ACTING CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
be in order except those printed in part A of House Report 118-362. 
Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
as 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 Ms. Crockett

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part A of House Report 118-362.
  Ms. CROCKETT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H295]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 2, strike ``actively assisting, or''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 980, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Crockett) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. CROCKETT. Mr. Chair, as legislators, it is our job to make sure 
we are not moving forward with drafting legislation that is, on its 
face, flawed. If we want to legislate and address immigration, let's 
mean what we say and do so in an effective manner.

                              {time}  1530

  This bill does not live up to that standard. The inclusion of the 
term ``actively assisting'' is ripe for judicial scrutiny and will, 
undoubtedly, result in court challenges wasting taxpayer dollars and 
government resources.
  Nonetheless, fiscal issues caused by poor legislative drafting are 
the least of my concerns with this bill. This language is so deeply 
concerning because we already have been witnessing how aggressive 
policing tactics and unconstitutional racial profiling directed by 
rogue Governors like Governor Greg Abbott have led to severe harm to--
and has undermined--our legal system all in the name of actively 
assisting the U.S. Border Patrol.
  Take, for instance, this last Christmas where U.S. citizens--a 
husband, wife, their 13-year-old daughter, and their grandmother--
living in El Paso were wrongfully targeted by Texas officers in 
unmarked vehicles after they were coming back from visiting relatives 
just across the border in Mexico. The officers ran the family off the 
road, and at least four Texas Department of Public Safety officers 
wearing street clothes and tactical vests quickly surrounded their car 
and began pointing semiautomatic rifles at them.
  Because of the accident, the grandmother had to receive x-rays and 
still has lingering back pain. The daughter was likely traumatized from 
having weapons of war pointed at her and her family.
  No one, including me, doubts more must be done to address the 
problems we are seeing at the border, but this type of unlawful 
harassment of citizens is not it.
  To be clear, my amendment in no way prevents Federal, State, or local 
officers from working with Border Patrol agents, nor does it say that 
Federal, State, and local officers do not have a role to play here. In 
fact, several border counties, including counties in Texas, already 
have U.S. Customs and Border Protection memoranda of understanding with 
State and local officials to work with immigration enforcement.
  Nothing in my amendment would prevent these written agreements that 
lay out clear chains of command and clear codes of conduct.
  What my amendment does do is prevent State and local law enforcement 
from acting lawlessly at the misguided direction of a Governor who 
refuses to work with men and women of the United States Border Patrol 
because he thinks he is above the law.
  If my Republican colleagues reject this amendment and keep the 
current language, then they are supporting actions that have 
historically lacked due diligence to prevent harm and encourage 
lawlessness that leads to more dangerous instances like the one that 
occurred at Christmas.
  If the House rejects this amendment, then it will give Governor 
Abbott a tool to carry out his unconstitutional border policies without 
Federal oversight and coordination.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fulcher). The gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires a new fact to 
be proven at trial that the pursuing law enforcement officer was 
``under the command'' of the U.S. Border Patrol in each and every case.
  I can imagine many circumstances where local law enforcement is 
alerted to a Border Patrol chase that is going through their 
jurisdiction and then act immediately to assist them without 
necessarily being directly under their command.
  The issue is not who is pursuing smugglers but rather the 
circumstances of the pursuit; namely, this person is evading the Border 
Patrol. It is unlikely that during each and every pursuit in progress 
the Border Patrol is going to have time to deputize local law 
enforcement and place them under their command.
  This is a ridiculous expectation, so ridiculous as to raise the 
suspicion that it is intended solely to render the bill unworkable and 
meaningless.
  These high-speed chases occur far too often in our border 
communities, and State and local law enforcement are often first 
responders in protecting these communities along with the Border 
Patrol.
  This amendment would serve only to challenge law enforcement, who are 
properly doing their job, to stop smugglers and illegal aliens from 
terrorizing their communities.
  Mr. Chair, I, therefore, oppose this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. CROCKETT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman has opposition and has 
an offer to define ``actively assisting,'' then that would be great. 
However, the reality is that what is going to happen is what we have 
seen happen in the State of Texas where we have a Governor who has 
murders on his hands, as far as I am concerned, because we have had 
active deaths at the hands of mishandling this.
  If this is going to be a Federal issue, then the Federal Government 
needs to be the one that is absolutely going to be over Federal law. So 
they can have memorandums of understanding. If that means that every 
single county at the border needs to go ahead and enter into a 
memorandum of understanding, then they need to.
  Nonetheless, this is a Federal issue, it is not a State issue, and 
this protects federalism and makes sure that it will be under the hands 
of the Federal Government with this Federal law instead of State 
Government.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman 
is finished.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CROCKETT. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I was just shocked to hear the gentlewoman 
accuse the Governor of Texas of murder. This is an example of the kind 
of extremism that we see on the left in this House today.
  Now, the fact is the Border Patrol agents are strained to the 
breaking point by this administration's open-border policies, and they 
often rely on local law enforcement having their backs.
  If the gentlewoman doesn't know what active assistance is, it is a 
high-speed chase that is going through their community and they are 
there in a position to back up the Border Patrol. Mr. Chair, you can't 
negotiate that. You cannot be deputized. That is part and parcel of law 
enforcement. You have to spring into action.
  When overt local police are providing this assistance, they should 
have the protection that this bill provides. It also puts every 
smuggler on notice that if they are trafficking human beings or drugs 
across the border and they are pursued, then they darn well better pull 
over.
  Apparently, this is just too much for the Democrats to bear. I am not 
sure whether we should laugh this amendment off the floor or merely 
defeat it. In either event, it is a foolish idea.
  Mr. Chair, it deserves a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Crockett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. CROCKETT. 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 gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Molinaro

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A of House Report 118-362.

[[Page H296]]

  

  Mr. MOLINARO. 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:

       Page 4, line 21, insert after ``Attorney General'' the 
     following: ``, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security,''.
       Page 5, line 1, strike ``were'' and all that follows 
     through ``with'' on line 2, and insert ``committed''.
       Page 5, strike lines 6 through 10, and insert the 
     following:
       (A) the number of individuals who were charged with the 
     violation referred to in paragraph (1);
       (B) the number of individuals who were apprehended but not 
     charged with such violation;
       (C) the number of individuals who committed such violation 
     but were not apprehended;
       (D) the penalties sought in the charging documents 
     pertaining to such violation; and
       (E) the penalties imposed for such violation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 980, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Molinaro) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety 
Act is an important measure meant to impose criminal penalties and 
deportation against those who flee the U.S. Border Patrol officers in a 
vehicle.
  The bill also seeks to ensure that individuals who do so are not able 
to apply for legal immigration status going forward.
  My amendment ensures Congress and the public are fully aware, 
extending greater transparency, of the extent of these crimes that are 
being committed.
  Specifically, my amendment requires a report to Congress from the 
Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security on the number of 
individuals who are charged with fleeing Border Patrol, those caught 
but not charged, and those who have committed the crime but are not 
caught.
  Now, of course, none of this and this amendment would be necessary at 
all were the President to take appropriate action to secure our border. 
Nonetheless, his failure to do so has led us to the necessity to 
continue to impose new restrictions to ensure that our border is 
secure.
  The public deserves to know the true extent of how open our borders 
are. Any time an individual starts to flee from law enforcement in a 
vehicle, they not only put the lives of other Americans at risk but 
they risk the lives of law enforcement and even their own lives.
  So, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt this measure, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise 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, I won't oppose the amendment, but I do want to make two 
points.
  First, the data collected under this amendment is unlikely to be of 
much value without any understanding of the circumstances surrounding 
the charging decisions. Although I will not oppose it, I am concerned 
that without additional information, such a report could draw 
misleading or false conclusions.
  Second, and more important, this amendment does absolutely nothing to 
improve the underlying bill. Therefore, whether or not this amendment 
passes, I still urge strong opposition to the bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, I welcome my colleagues' support of the 
amendment. I also would just reinforce that greater transparency is 
always appropriate and necessary. I, of course, again reiterate that 
should the President take appropriate action which exists under the 
current law, we could, in fact, avoid these kinds of crimes from being 
committed.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Molinaro) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fulcher, 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. 5585) to 
impose criminal and immigration penalties for intentionally fleeing a 
pursuing Federal officer while operating a motor vehicle, had come to 
no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________