[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 110 (Thursday, June 26, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H2984-H2989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JEREMY AND ANGEL SEAY AND SERGEANT BRANDON MENDOZA PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITIES FROM DUIS ACT OF 2025
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 530,
I call up the bill (H.R. 875) to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to provide that aliens who have been convicted of or who have
committed an offense for driving while intoxicated or impaired are
inadmissible and deportable, and ask for its immediate consideration in
the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 875
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 ``Jeremy and Angel Seay and
Sergeant Brandon Mendoza
[[Page H2985]]
Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY RELATED TO DRIVING
WHILE INTOXICATED OR IMPAIRED.
(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) Driving while intoxicated or impaired.--Any alien who
has been convicted of, who admits having committed, or who
admits committing acts which constitute the essential
elements of an offense for driving while intoxicated or
impaired, as those terms are defined under the law of the
jurisdiction where the conviction, offense, or acts
constituting the essential elements of the offense occurred
(including an offense for driving while under the influence
of or impaired by alcohol or drugs), without regard to
whether the conviction or offense is classified as a
misdemeanor or felony under Federal, State, tribal, or local
law, 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) Driving while intoxicated or impaired.--Any alien who
has been convicted of an offense for driving while
intoxicated or impaired, as those terms are defined under the
law of the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred
(including a conviction for driving while under the influence
of or impaired by alcohol or drugs), without regard to
whether the conviction is classified as a misdemeanor or
felony under Federal, State, tribal, or local law, is
deportable.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore).
General Leave
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 875.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we consider a simple, commonsense bill that says
if you are a guest in our country and you drive drunk, you should, in
fact, be deported.
To the average American, passing this bill is a no-brainer. Even in a
polarized time, Democrats should be able to join Republicans to
unanimously support such reasonable legislation. After all, deporting
dangerous criminals is a rational, normal, and coherent step that this
House should take. Unfortunately, I am skeptical that we will see much
agreement from my Democratic colleagues on this bill.
Regardless, I am thankful the House is considering H.R. 875, the
Jeremy and Angel Seay and Sergeant Brandon Mendoza Protect our
Communities from DUIs Act, a bill that I introduced last Congress and
again this Congress.
Every 45 minutes, that is how often someone in the United States dies
in a crash involving an alcohol-impaired driver.
In 2022 alone, there were 13,524 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities.
In 2020, drunk driving crashes led to nearly 400,000 injuries.
Those crashes do not discriminate, Mr. Speaker. The victim could be
me, it could be you, it could be anyone in our families or in our
communities.
This issue hits close to home for me. There was a newlywed couple
from my hometown of Enterprise, Alabama, named Angel and Jeremy Seay. I
knew this couple personally. I knew their family. I played ball with
their dad. Angel and Jeremy were riding a motorcycle together when, out
of nowhere, an illegal alien under the influence of alcohol collided
into the newlyweds with his pickup. Their lives were cut short by this
senseless act.
Tragedies like this are not uncommon across this country. In December
of 2023, an illegal alien killed a 46-year-old woman and her 16-year-
old son in Broomfield, Colorado, when he drove his truck up to 100
miles an hour and ran into the victims' vehicle, causing it to then
crash into a tree. Despite having five previous DUI convictions, a
Boulder, Colorado, county judge sentenced this illegal alien to
probation, community service, and work release on December 8, 2023, in
relation to two of those convictions, just 4 days before the drunk
driver crashed and killed the mother and her son.
Another case to consider is from Florida, where just earlier this
year an illegal alien from Mexico was arrested for his third DUI after
he hit and killed a kindergartner. In Texas, in December of 2024, an
illegal alien killed a 7-year-old girl after he drove drunk, crashed
into a car that was being driven by the girl's mother.
Just months earlier, under the Biden-Harris administration, ICE had
lifted a detainer which had previously been lodged against this illegal
alien after he was arrested for assaulting a family member in June of
2024.
H.R. 875 makes commonsense changes to immigration laws to make an
alien who is convicted or who admits driving under the influence
inadmissible. It also makes an alien convicted of doing so removable.
In fact, 59 Democrats voted in favor of this legislation when I brought
it to the House floor last February.
If you are a guest in our country and you drive drunk, you should be
removed from this country, period.
Drunk drivers are involved in 31 percent of all crash deaths in this
country. On average, drunk driving killed roughly 11,000 people in the
United States every year between 2012 and 2022. Yet, current
immigration law does not make aliens inadmissible or removable if they
drive drunk and recklessly break our laws.
My colleagues across the aisle will undoubtedly argue that this bill
is unnecessary because current law already makes DUI inadmissible and a
deportable offense. However, if that is the case, then why would they
oppose this bill? Even more, their claim that this bill is redundant
could not be further from the truth.
Although some aliens who commit DUIs, such as those who kill or
injure innocent victims, may be found inadmissible or removable, but
the vast majority of the aliens with DUI convictions escape immigration
consequences. In fact, on its website just last year, the Biden-Harris
administration's U.S. Customs and Border Protection clearly stated: ``A
single driving under the influence (DUI) conviction is not grounds to
deny entry into the United States.''
Moreover, the Board of Immigration Appeals has held that a ``simple
DUI offense'' is not a crime involving moral turpitude that would make
an alien removable from the United States. Yet, as we know, any drunk
driving event can lead to death, with consequences that are far from
what they call simple.
We shouldn't have to wait for repeat drunk drivers to injure someone
or kill before they are deported. That is why H.R. 875 is so
imperative. It creates safer streets and safer communities for all of
us.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
With this strained legislation, we are bumping into two major social
problems: deadly drunk driving on our roads and a broken immigration
system. Alas, we are not doing anything to solve either problem. The
bill pretends to do something about both of them, but it really does
little or nothing about either of them.
We lose 11,000 people a year to drunk driving crashes. More than a
million people are arrested on DUI charges every year, Mr. Speaker. I
lost a beloved cousin of mine in Florida who was in the prime of her
life just after graduating from college when she was killed by a drunk
driver while she was riding a bicycle on the roads of Florida.
I take this issue of drunk driving very seriously. I have worked on
it fastidiously for a long time in my career. There is a lot we could
do in Congress to improve safety on the streets, including imposing a
nationwide mandatory ignition interlock device on the cars of all
convicted drunk drivers. We did that in my State of Maryland after
fighting the liquor lobby for a long time, but we finally got that
done.
We could also pass my bill, the Sarah Debbink Langenkamp Active
Transportation Safety Act, which would support State and local
government efforts to build safer transportation networks for
bicyclists and for pedestrians.
[[Page H2986]]
{time} 1230
Unfortunately, this bill does not do anything like that. Indeed, it
is hard to see how it will reduce drunk driving at all.
It is obviously not a serious attempt to address the social problem
of drunk driving. It does not increase criminal penalties for DUI
anywhere in the country. It does nothing to promote public education
about the dangers of drunk driving. It will, sadly, improve nothing on
the roads.
As an immigration law, it does nothing to make it more difficult for
undocumented people to enter our country unlawfully, nor does it make
it easier for people to acquire the documents to enter the country
legally.
It is a purely punitive measure, and it is both radically
underinclusive and radically overbroad.
It only targets the very tiny fraction of all DUI violations in the
country committed by noncitizens and does nothing to crack down on
drunk driving by citizens, who are responsible for the vast majority of
it.
Immigrants who drive drunk are already covered by the criminal law,
and the undocumented ones are already categorically deportable. They
don't need to drive drunk to be deported. They are deportable now
because they are not in the country lawfully.
Additionally, because of the breadth of DUI statutes around the
country, this legislation will render deportable people who never drove
drunk at all without any opportunity for judicial discretion or waiver.
Under current immigration law, undocumented people are already both
inadmissible and deportable. Furthermore, conviction for serious DUIs
already render even lawful permanent residents who have been in the
country for decades potentially deportable and inadmissible in the
first instance.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, any noncitizen who is
convicted of or who admits to a crime involving moral turpitude, a so-
called CIMT, is generally inadmissible to the country. Likewise, any
noncitizen who is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude where
a sentence of 1 year or longer may be imposed is deportable from the
country. Serious DUI offenses are already deportable crimes under
current law.
The following DUI offenses are all considered crimes involving moral
turpitude: any DUI where the maximum possible penalty is a year or more
and where there is serious bodily harm, hit-and-runs, any aggravated
DUI, and any DUI involving driving with knowledge of having an invalid,
suspended, or revoked license.
This bill goes far beyond even this very stringent current law by
making permanent resident green card holders deportable for a single
infraction even where no one is hurt and no property is damaged. This
will lead to some very harsh results.
In Arizona, sleeping in your car while drunk without even starting
the car can get you convicted of a misdemeanor DUI. Under this bill, a
single conviction for even that offense would make a 20-year permanent
resident of America, a green card holder, deportable from the country.
That person is rightfully deportable if they engage in an act of
drunk driving that hurts someone or kills someone or if they drive
drunk without a license, but that is the law today.
An undocumented alien is, of course, deportable in all cases. You
don't need a statute to deport them for falling asleep drunk in their
car.
Today, there are nearly 13 million green card holders, permanent
residents, in the United States. These are people who have followed all
the rules. We are not talking about undocumented people, the people who
are here unlawfully. They are already taken care of.
There are 13 million green card holders in the United States with 9
million eligible to become citizens now. Categorically deporting
individuals who are convicted for any DUI offense without any regard
for the severity or consequence simply defies common sense. This
legislation on a tiny subset of criminal events distracts from the real
problem.
My distinguished colleague has invoked several terrible drunk driving
incidents by repeat offenders who are undocumented. They should have
been deported from the country long ago. My colleague is talking about
people who drive drunk and kill people. That is already a deportable
and inadmissible offense. That is not what the meaning of this
legislation is.
Let's look at a tiny slice of the criminal events we are talking
about and ask whether, in fact, that is something that advances public
policy. I don't think it does. Let's work together to impose compulsory
ignition interlock devices on the cars of all convicted drunk drivers,
including the overwhelming majority who are U.S. citizens. Let's really
make the roads safer and stop the repetitive scapegoating of
immigrants.
We can address DUIs in a serious way here in Congress if we are
serious about the issue. That is what I did as a State senator in
Maryland. We could do that across the country, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my good friend.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 875, the Jeremy and
Angel Seay and Sergeant Brandon Mendoza Protect Our Communities from
DUIs Act of 2025. This piece of legislation is crucial to restoring
common sense to our Nation's judicial system.
Over the past 4 years, the Biden administration has allowed millions
of undocumented immigrants to pour into our country. Along with zero
oversight and accountability for the crisis, the Biden administration
allowed illegal immigrants to stay in the country even after committing
horrible crimes.
This piece of legislation would give the courts the ability to deport
illegal aliens from America and bar them from reentry if they are
convicted of a DUI or a DUI-related charge.
This issue hits home for me. In my district, a 15-year-old girl and
her grandmother were killed by an illegal alien who was driving drunk.
This was a terrible, avoidable tragedy. Sadly, true justice was not
served. The assailant received only 15 years per death and will be out
to roam free in America by the time he is 67 years old.
Madam Speaker, this was in Nahunta, Georgia, in Brantley County, in
my district. I met with the other grandmother of this child, who shared
with me the grief that this family has gone through since that time.
There is no reason at all that this should have happened. There is no
reason for the American taxpayer to have to fund the incarceration of
this person or any other programs to help him get back on the streets
of Georgia.
Though my example is the worst outcome possible, illegal aliens
should not be able to stay in America with a minor penalty for driving
under the influence in the first place. This legislation would close
this loophole.
I thank the gentleman from Alabama for bringing this forward. It
would close that loophole that allows illegal aliens to get off lightly
when committing fatal acts, such as vehicular manslaughter under the
influence.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this
legislation to help bring back common sense to our immigration and
legal systems after these 4 years of pure chaos.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia has just
offered us a vivid demonstration of what is wrong with this bill and
how the rhetoric supporting it doesn't support the bill. He describes
an indescribably tragic, terrible case where an undocumented alien is
driving a car and kills people in the gentleman's district.
First of all, that person already could be deported just by virtue of
being undocumented.
Secondly, under current law, having killed someone, he would be
immediately deportable. He was convicted of his offense, sentenced to
jail, and he would be deported immediately upon leaving. In fact, the
President could commute his sentence, which is what he has been doing,
and have him deported right now. You don't need this bill in order to
make that happen.
That is a demonstration of why this is superfluous legislation. All
it does is to say in a case where, say, nobody is hurt at all, the case
of somebody who is asleep in their car in Arizona, for example--there
are statutes like that
[[Page H2987]]
where you don't even have to be in a moving vehicle. If someone is
drunk inside a vehicle, nobody is hurt, and there is no property
damage, that person could be deported as a permanent resident even if
they have been here for 20 years with kids in school and nothing else
on their record.
That is all this bill is doing. It is an opportunity to get up and
make speeches about how we are going to get rid of people who kill
people in their cars as drunk drivers. That is already the law.
What I am saying is if we are going to take the time on the floor to
deal with the problem of drunk driving--and, again, I take this very
seriously because I lost a cousin to a drunk driver who is a U.S.
citizen, not a noncitizen. The vast majority of drunk driving incidents
occur because of citizens, not because of noncitizens, because the vast
majority of the people in the country are here legally as citizens.
Let's do a serious thing. Let's say anybody convicted in the
country--a U.S. citizen, a permanent resident, or an unlawful person
who is somehow still in the country--must have a permanent ignition
interlock device put on their car.
Obviously, the undocumented person is going to be deported. Fine.
Now, what about everybody else? Should convicted drunk drivers be able
to just go back out on the road?
This is the fight I had with Republicans in Annapolis when I was a
State senator. They were the ones saying that is too harsh a
punishment. I am saying to them, no. Maybe it is painful that you have
to go through the ignition interlock device, which says you do the
Breathalyzer in your car before you can drive again. They say that it
is painful to have to do that every morning and going back from work.
That doesn't compare to the pain of someone who loses a mother, a
father, a son, a daughter, a cousin, an uncle, an aunt, or what have
you.
If we want to deal with drunk driving, let's seriously deal with
drunk driving. This legislation is not the way to do it.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 875.
I, too, take DUIs extremely seriously. According to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, approximately 37 people die in
drunk driving incidents every day in the United States. As the ranking
member has just been noting, there are many things that we can and
should do to prevent driving under the influence.
Also, as the ranking member has pointed out, all of these truly
horrifying and tragic stories that we are hearing about from the other
side are stories that already render an immigrant deportable right now.
If you kill somebody right now, you serve your time and then are
deported.
We just had a hearing this morning on how the Trump administration is
literally dismissing cases for people who are in a legal process for
immigration just so they can deport them. They can certainly also do
that for somebody who has been convicted of drunk driving and is
serving out their sentence. They could take that case and deport that
person immediately if they wanted to.
Scapegoating immigrants is what this bill does. It scapegoats
immigrants by making a single misdemeanor DUI subject to the extremely
serious punishment of deportation. It is simply not an appropriate
response.
The bill also applies to all immigrants, including lawful permanent
residents, people who Republican colleagues across the aisle have
claimed to like, the ones that they said came here the right way. It
gives no recognition whatsoever to the patchwork of differences and
overbroad statutes of what actually constitutes a DUI across the
country in different States.
It is important to recognize first that serious public safety threats
are already deportable offenses. We have been talking about this, but
it is important to say it again. Again, the cases that are being
brought up are cases where those people are already deportable under
current immigration law.
Many serious DUI crimes are considered what is called a crime
involving moral turpitude and, therefore, already make someone
removable or inadmissible. This bill does not recognize how widely DUI
laws differ across the country and the extremely low bar that is set to
receive a DUI conviction in some States.
For example, in Arizona, the DUI statute allows people to be charged
with a DUI if they are intoxicated and have ``physical control'' of
their vehicle. This issue came to a head in the Ninth Circuit, which,
in reviewing an appeal of a removal case for a noncitizen who was
charged under this law, found that the physical control language meant
that under this statute: ``One may be convicted under it for sitting in
one's own car in one's own driveway with the key in the ignition and a
bottle of beer in one's hand.''
While the person in this case had been ordered deported because his
conviction under Arizona law constituted a crime involving moral
turpitude, the Ninth Circuit overturned that ruling because the actions
covered by the law could not all reasonably be seen as crimes involving
moral turpitude.
As the court put it: ``Drunken driving is despicable. Having physical
control of a car while drinking is not.''
{time} 1245
Madam Speaker, if this bill had been law at the time, the case would
have never reached the Ninth Circuit because no judge would have had
the discretion to rule whether this so-called crime merited
deportation. This bill would prevent judges from being able to decide
if the punishment fits the crime.
In my home State of Washington, we have a similar law where someone
can be convicted of a misdemeanor DUI without actually driving a
vehicle. While Republicans might wave away our concerns by saying that
prosecutors have the discretion to not bring charges under these
circumstances, we know about this case precisely because prosecutors
chose to file charges and it went to court.
This bill does not recognize under these overbroad DUI statutes the
individuals who have made a conscious choice not to drive. They have
gone to a party. They have had a couple of beers. They realize they
should not drive. They go and sit in their car to sleep it off.
Under this bill, those people who have made that conscious choice not
to drive impaired may be charged with DUIs simply for sleeping in their
car.
I ask my Republican colleagues: How many of them have constituents or
friends or neighbors who have sat in their cars after leaving the bar
to stay warm? We know how cold Midwest winters get. Should we really
criminalize people for staying warm in their cars and sleeping off a
hangover? Under this bill, people would now be subjected to
deportation.
During markup and at the Committee on Rules, I submitted an
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of West Virginia). The time of
the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. JAYAPAL. During markup and at the Committee on Rules, I submitted
an amendment to ensure that immigration judges have the discretion to
decide if a DUI conviction actually merits deportation for green card
holders and others here lawfully.
It would have allowed judges to merely consider mitigating factors,
such as if anyone was harmed or the length of time since they were
convicted of a DUI. This is a commonsense amendment that would have
made the bill substantially fairer. Unfortunately, the amendment was
rejected.
There are Members and former Members of this body right here in
Congress who have been arrested and convicted of a DUI, and I would
just ask that the charity and the grace that we extend for second
chances to those people would extend also to those green card holders,
including those who have been here for decades. Let's just give a judge
the chance to determine whether their conviction merited deportation,
let alone that second chance.
Madam Speaker, this bill does nothing but scapegoat immigrants for
so-called DUIs, and I urge my colleagues to reject the bill.
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
[[Page H2988]]
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, this bill presents a very simple
proposition: Should someone who is a guest in this country and who
endangers Americans, while driving drunk, be allowed to stay in this
country?
Republicans say: Of course, not.
The Democrats say: Sure, why not.
This ought to be a no-brainer, especially after so many incidents of
preventable DUI traffic deaths involving foreign nationals.
Then gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter) mentioned a few of the cases of aliens with
multiple drunk driving offenses released time and time again and not
deported, while the butcher's bill steadily grows.
Why are such people allowed to remain in our country? The Democrats
want it that way. In 2020, Joe Biden said that illegal aliens with DUI
convictions should be allowed to stay in the United States. He said:
``You only arrest for the purpose of dealing with a felony that's
committed, and I don't count drunk driving as a felony.''
When Republicans tried to enact this law in 2021, then Democratic
Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler opposed any limit to
DUI convictions. He said that whether someone has 2, 6, 10, or 20
convictions for DUI 30 years ago, someone can change. Of course, that
begs the question: How many have to die before they change?
Through some of these debates, the Democrats have consistently
supported open borders, sanctuary laws that shield violent criminals,
and even modest measures like this one that say we shouldn't have to
tolerate guests in this country who recklessly endanger our families.
In fact, now they are telling us that in order to stop their riots,
we have to stop enforcing our existing immigration laws.
Madam Speaker, the American people need to take note of debates like
this because none more clearly differentiate the two political parties
today.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, one can only regard with amazement the high
indignation with which the previous gentleman speaker just mobilized
against the Democrats in Congress. He accuses us of not taking DUIs
seriously, and nothing he said could provide a more striking contrast
between the parties.
I am afraid I have to go there. I was hoping not to have to go there.
I seem to remember when we met in joint session at what would have been
the State of a Union address in this year of 2025.
We left the Chamber after several years of--it seemed like years--
several hours of President Trump's speech. We got outside. Then a car
plowed into the back of a parked police cruiser. The police descend on
this situation. The door opens up. The driver staggers out. It turns
out it is the chief of staff to Speaker Mike Johnson.
He is then administered the Breathalyzer test. He got a DWI. He is
driving while drunk. Maybe it is a DUI, driving under the influence, in
the District of Columbia. Speaker Johnson immediately said that
everybody deserves a second chance and we should forgive him. We didn't
make a big deal out of that.
We have a law right now which allows for the deportation and the
inadmissibility of anybody who goes out and drives drunk and injures
somebody. If they are here unlawfully, they are kicked out anyway. We
are talking about permanent residents to the country. If they go out
and get a DUI and injure somebody, they are immediately deported from
the country.
They talk about all those cases. Those cases are already covered. We
are talking about those cases where somebody is not injured at all and
there is no property damage at all. They want to deport those people,
even if they have family and even if they have been in the country for
15 or 20 years. They don't even want to give any discretion to the
judge to decide.
That is what the disagreement is about. It is about this very small
matter in a small number of cases where nobody is injured.
If the distinguished gentleman and his colleagues are really
interested in doing something about drunk driving in America, let's use
this as the occasion to do it. We have a bill, which is a bipartisan
bill, called the End Driving While Intoxicated Act. It has been
introduced by Mr. Mann, my colleague from Kansas; my colleague from New
Hampshire, Mr. Pappas, who is in my party; my colleague from New
Jersey, Mr. Smith, who is in the Republican Party; and by myself.
We are the lead cosponsors. What it says is if a State is going to
get Federal funding for highways and then if somebody is convicted for
drunk driving in their State, there must be a compulsory ignition
interlock device installed in the car.
What does that mean? For a period of time after someone has been
convicted for drunk driving, they have to breathe into a Breathalyzer
machine before their car will start. Some of our colleagues say that is
too much or that it is too painful for them to go through that. No, it
is too painful for us to lose thousands of people on the streets every
year to drunk drivers.
If we are serious about the problem and the gentleman invites us to
be serious about it, let's be serious about it. Let's do what a
majority of the States have done. Let's make this a nationwide program.
A compulsory ignition interlock device is saving lives across the
country. I think it is in 31 States now and in the District of
Columbia.
Why don't we do that? Why don't we do something real, rather than
talk about cases that have nothing to do with the bill? Already if a
person goes out and kills somebody in their car, they will be deported
from the country. Whether they are a lawful permanent resident or an
undocumented person and they could have been deported anyway, that is
already taken care of.
I know that those are the lurid episodes that we want to invoke for
this legislation, but that is not what this legislation is about.
In any event, it doesn't do anything to reduce drunk driving in
America. Let's reduce drunk driving in America. Could we get behind
that bipartisan legislation?
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, forgive my emotion. For those of us whose families
have experienced it and who have lost people on the roads, drunk
driving is a problem of immense magnitude and seriousness. It changes
the lives of families all across the country all the time.
I wish our colleagues on the House Committee on the Judiciary would
bring out the End Driving While Intoxicated Act legislation to spread
the compulsory ignition interlock device around the country. A majority
of States and jurisdictions are using it right now. It is working. It
should be nationwide.
We can save literally thousands of lives by doing that because it is
a very, very small percentage of the population that engages in the
profoundly antisocial act of driving drunk. For those who are
undocumented, they are already covered, and they are already gone. For
those who go out and seriously hurt people or kill people, they are
already gone. That is already deportable. That is already inadmissible.
In an effort to try to find another way to go out and demonize and
vilify immigrants, this legislation is now picking on people who are
permanent residents of the country and could have been here for decades
with their families. They get a DUI, which is a terrible thing
regardless. They get a DUI, nobody is hurt, and there is no property
damage. Then they want to deport those people from the country.
They want to kick those people out of the country. I presume they
have got their votes together. They will vote for it. I presume it
passes. It doesn't do anything to deal with the problem of drunk
driving in America.
The vast majority of drunk driving episodes have nothing to do with a
permanent resident who drives drunk and doesn't hurt anybody. That is
not where we are losing lives. We are losing lives because there is a
small percentage of people who drive drunk repeatedly. The vast
majority of them are citizens.
We are not taking that seriously enough, but a lot of States are. In
fact, a majority of the States have now imposed the compulsory ignition
interlock device on people who have driven drunk and are convicted of
it.
[[Page H2989]]
That is what we should be working on. That is something that will
actually effectuate a change and make a difference. Why can't we do
that? That is all I say to my colleague.
I hope they will join us in this legislation. It is bipartisan
legislation that comes from the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann) and
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I am on it. We have
Republicans. We have Democrats. Why don't we do something real to make
the roads in America safer?
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Madam Speaker, I would remind our colleagues that 59 Democrats voted
for this legislation last February when I brought it. We cannot wait
until an illegal driving drunk kills a family member or a member of our
community.
Time and time again, Mothers Against Drunk Driving say that on a DUI,
normally it is 80 times they have driven drunk before they are actually
caught. Statistics show that it is at least a dozen times that people
drive drunk before they are caught.
In Florida, that is why we saw the third time an illegal had a DUI
was when he killed a kindergartner. The fifth time in Colorado, the
judge released him 4 days before an illegal killed a mother and her 16-
year-old son.
{time} 1300
A friend of mine, a judge who is no longer on the bench, texted me
the other night and thanked me for this piece of legislation. He said
that in the last administration, he knew in the courtroom when that
illegal got the DUI and he turned him over to ICE, they went out, they
got in a white van, and they drove off. They did not detain him.
Time and time again, our communities are suffering because we are not
taking these people and holding them to account and getting them out of
this country.
I encourage my colleagues to get behind this legislation. Americans
look to Congress for solutions to real problems. Despite what my
colleagues on the other side have argued today, drunk driving by aliens
is an issue in this country that must be addressed. This bill does so.
Making guests in our country inadmissible to and removable from the
United States, because they have endangered our communities by driving
drunk, is just plain common sense.
The Jeremy and Angel Seay and Sergeant Brandon Mendoza Protect Our
Communities from DUI Act of 2025 is straightforward.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Nebraska). All time for debate
has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________