[House Report 107-754]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-754

======================================================================



 
TO AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO OPERATE A 
  MOTOR VEHICLE WITH A DRUG OR ALCOHOL IN THE BODY OF THE DRIVER AT A 
           LAND BORDER PORT OF ENTRY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

October 15, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2155]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2155) to amend title 18, United States Code, to make 
it illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a drug or alcohol in 
the body of the driver at a land border port of entry, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as 
amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     3
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     3
Hearings.........................................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Vote of the Committee............................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     5
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     5
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     5
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     6
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     7
Markup Transcript................................................     9
Dissenting Views.................................................    27

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH A DRUG OR 
                    ALCOHOL IN THE BODY OF THE DRIVER AT LAND BORDER 
                    PORTS OF ENTRY.

    Section 13(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) Whoever with a drug or alcohol in his or her body operates a 
motor vehicle at a land border port of entry in a manner that is 
punishable, because of the presence of the drug or alcohol, if 
committed within the jurisdiction of the State in which that land 
border port of entry is located (under the laws of that State in force 
at the time of the act) shall be guilty of a like offense and subject 
to a like punishment.
    ``(3) Any individual who operates a motor vehicle at a land border 
port of entry is deemed to have given consent to submit to a chemical 
or other test of the blood, breath, or urine of the driver by an 
officer or employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
authorized under section 287(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1357(h)) for the purpose of determining the presence or 
concentration of a drug or alcohol in such blood, breath, or urine.
    ``(4) If an individual refuses to submit to such a test after being 
advised by the officer or employee that the refusal will result in 
notification under this paragraph, the Attorney General shall give 
notice of the refusal to--
            ``(A) the State or foreign state that issued the license 
        permitting the individual to operate a motor vehicle; or
            ``(B) if the individual has no such license, the State or 
        foreign state in which the individual is a resident.
    ``(5) The Attorney General shall give notice of a conviction of an 
individual under this section for operation of a motor vehicle at a 
land border port of entry with a drug or alcohol in the body of the 
individual, to--
            ``(A) the State or foreign state that issued the license 
        permitting the individual to operate a motor vehicle; or
            ``(B) if the individual has no such license, the State or 
        foreign state in which the individual is a resident.
    ``(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term `land border port 
of entry' means any land border port of entry (as defined in section 
287(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(h)(3))) 
that was not reserved or acquired as provided in section 7 of this 
title.''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZING OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE IMMIGRATION AND 
                    NATURALIZATION SERVICE TO CONDUCT TESTS FOR A DRUG 
                    OR ALCOHOL.

    Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h)(1) If an officer or employee of the Service authorized under 
regulations prescribed by the Attorney General is inspecting a driver 
at a land border port of entry and has reasonable grounds to believe 
that, because of alcohol in the body of the driver, operation of a 
motor vehicle by the driver is an offense under section 13 of title 18, 
United States Code, the officer or employee may require the driver to 
submit to a test of the breath of the driver to determine the presence 
or concentration of the alcohol.
    ``(2) If an officer or employee of the Service authorized under 
regulations prescribed by the Attorney General arrests a driver under 
this section for operation of a motor vehicle in violation of section 
13 of title 18, United States Code, because of a drug or alcohol in the 
body of the driver, the officer or employee may require the driver to 
submit to a chemical or other test to determine the presence or 
concentration of the drug or alcohol in the blood, breath, or urine of 
the driver.
    ``(3) For purposes of this subsection:
            ``(A) The term `driver' means an individual who is 
        operating a motor vehicle at a land border port of entry.
            ``(B) The term `land border port of entry' means any 
        immigration checkpoint operated by the Immigration and 
        Naturalization Service at a land border between a State (as 
        that term is used in section 13 of title 18, United States 
        Code) and a foreign state.''.

SEC. 3. REQUIRING NOTICE AT LAND BORDER PORTS OF ENTRY REGARDING 
                    OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRUGS AND ALCOHOL.

    (a) In General.--The Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by 
inserting after section 294 (8 U.S.C. 1363a) the following:
 ``notice at land border ports of entry regarding operation of a motor 
                     vehicle and drugs and alcohol
    ``Sec. 295. At each point where motor vehicles regularly enter a 
land border port of entry (as defined in section 287(h)(3)), the 
Attorney General shall post a notice that operation of a motor vehicle 
with a drug or alcohol in the body of the driver at a land border port 
of entry is an offense under Federal law.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The first section of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act is amended in the table of contents by inserting after 
the item relating to section 294 the following:

``Sec. 295.  Notice at land border ports of entry regarding operation 
of a motor vehicle and drugs and alcohol.''.

SEC. 4. IMPOUNDMENT OF VEHICLE FOR REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO TEST FOR DRUG 
                    OR ALCOHOL.

    Not more than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Attorney General shall issue regulations authorizing an officer or 
employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to impound a 
vehicle operated at a land border port of entry, if--
            (1) the individual who operates the vehicle refuses to 
        submit to a chemical or other test under section 13(a)(3) of 
        title 18, United States Code; and
            (2) the impoundment is not inconsistent with the laws of 
        the State in which the port of entry is located.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2155 would make it illegal to drive a vehicle at a 
land border port of entry with drugs or alcohol in the body. 
The bill authorizes the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) to perform a drug or alcohol test on suspected impaired 
drivers, deems such a driver to have given consent to submit to 
a chemical or other test by an INS officer, and requires the 
Attorney General to post notice of this offense and to issue 
regulations authorizing INS employees to impound vehicles of 
impaired drivers.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    INS inspectors working at the U.S. border ports of entry do 
not have the authority to take drunk or drugged drivers 
crossing the border into custody based on their impaired state. 
Impaired drivers crossing the border is an all too common 
phenomena. Currently, INS inspectors have to request state or 
local law enforcement to subsequently stop such drivers after 
they have left the border and must hope that state or local law 
enforcement will indeed stop them.
    H.R. 2155 gives more control over the dangerous situation 
to INS inspectors by authorizing the inspectors to take such 
drivers into custody and to test them for drugs or alcohol. It 
also requires the Attorney General to issue regulations 
authorizing inspectors to impound vehicles of drivers who will 
not submit to tests. With these tools, INS inspectors can 
prevent future deaths and injuries caused by drunk or drugged 
drivers who have crossed the border.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held on H.R. 2155.

                        Committee Consideration

    On September 25, 2002, the Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Border Security, and Claims met in open session and ordered 
favorably reported the bill H.R. 2155, by a voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On October 9, 2002, the Committee met in 
open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2155 
with amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    1. Ms. Jackson Lee offered an amendment to require the 
Comptroller General to conduct a study and submit an annual 
report to Congress concerning INS inspectors exercising their 
authority to test drivers for drugs or alcohol in their bodies, 
including the assembling and analysis of the number of times an 
inspector administered drug or alcohol tests; the race, gender, 
and national origin of the driver involved; and the results of 
the test. The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 7 
yeas to 17 nays.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Gekas.......................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Barr........................................................
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Graham......................................................                                           pass
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Ms. Hart........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Frank.......................................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott.......................................................
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              7              17          1 pass
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Mr. Watt offered an amendment to require that the 
Attorney General's regulations authorizing an officer of the 
INS to impound a vehicle not be inconsistent with the laws of 
the State in which the port of entry is located. The amendment 
passed by voice vote.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    H.R. 2155 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 
3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
is inapplicable.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 2155, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, October 15, 2002.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2155, a bill to 
amend title 18, United States Code, to make it illegal to 
operate a motor vehicle with a drug or alcohol in the body of 
the driver at a land border port of entry, and for other 
purposes.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                  Dan L. Crippen, Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 2155--A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to make it 
        illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a drug or alcohol in 
        the body of the driver at a land border port of entry, and for 
        other purposes.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2155 would have no 
significant cost to the Federal Government. Enacting the bill 
could affect direct spending and revenues, but CBO estimates 
that any impact on direct spending and revenues would not be 
significant. H.R. 2155 contains no intergovernmental or 
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of State, local, or 
tribal governments.
    H.R. 2155 would make it a Federal crime to operate a motor 
vehicle at a United States land border port of entry while 
under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Because the bill would 
establish a new Federal crime, the Government would be able to 
pursue cases that it otherwise would not be able to prosecute. 
However, we expect H.R. 2155 would apply to a relatively small 
number of offenders, so any increase in costs for law 
enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations would not 
be significant. Any such costs would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.
    Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 2155 
could be subject to criminal fines, the Federal Government 
might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted. 
Collections of such fines are recorded in the budget as 
revenues, which are deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and 
later spent. CBO expects that any additional revenues and 
direct spending would not be significant because of the 
relatively small number of cases involved.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz, 
who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by 
Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, section 8, clause 4 of the 
Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

Sec. 1. Making it Illegal to Operate a Motor Vehicle with a Drug or 
        Alcohol in the Body of the Driver at Land Border Ports of 
        Entry.
    Section 1 amends title 18 of the United States Code to make 
driving at a land border port of entry with drugs or alcohol in 
the body a Federal offense and deems a driver to have given 
consent to submit to a drug or alcohol test by an INS officer. 
If the individual refuses to submit to such a test, section 1 
of the bill requires the Attorney General to notify the 
driver's state of jurisdiction of the driver's refusal to 
submit to a test. If a driver is convicted of driving at a land 
border port of entry under the influence of drugs or alcohol, 
the Attorney General is also required to notify the driver's 
state of jurisdiction of such conviction.
Sec. 2. Authorizing Officers and Employees of the Immigration and 
        Naturalization Service to Conduct Tests for a Drug or Alcohol.
    Section 2 authorizes INS employees inspecting drivers at 
land border ports of entry to require impaired drivers to 
submit to a drug or alcohol test if inspectors have reasonable 
grounds to believe a driver is impaired or if the officer 
arrests a driver for operating a vehicle while impaired.
Sec. 3. Requiring Notice at Land Border Ports of Entry Regarding 
        Operation of a Motor Vehicle and Drugs and Alcohol.
    Section 3 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
require the Attorney General to post a notice at each land 
border port of entry that operating a motor vehicle with drugs 
or alcohol in the body at a land border port of entry is a 
Federal offense.
Sec. 4. Impoundment of Vehicle for Refusal to Submit to Test for Drug 
        or Alcohol.
    Section 4 requires the Attorney General to issue 
regulations, within 180 days from date of enactment of H.R. 
2155, authorizing INS officers to impound a vehicle operated at 
a land border port of entry if the driver refuses to submit to 
a drug or alcohol test and if the impoundment is not 
inconsistent with the laws of the state in which the port of 
entry is located.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

               SECTION 13 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 13. Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction

    (a)(1) Whoever within or upon any of the places now 
existing or hereafter reserved or acquired as provided in 
section 7 of this title, or on, above, or below any portion of 
the territorial sea of the United States not within the 
jurisdiction of any State, Commonwealth, territory, possession, 
or district is guilty of any act or omission which, although 
not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be 
punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of 
the State, Territory, Possession, or District in which such 
place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time of 
such act or omission, shall be guilty of a like offense and 
subject to a like punishment.
    (2) Whoever with a drug or alcohol in his or her body 
operates a motor vehicle at a land border port of entry in a 
manner that is punishable, because of the presence of the drug 
or alcohol, if committed within the jurisdiction of the State 
in which that land border port of entry is located (under the 
laws of that State in force at the time of the act) shall be 
guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment.
    (3) Any individual who operates a motor vehicle at a land 
border port of entry is deemed to have given consent to submit 
to a chemical or other test of the blood, breath, or urine of 
the driver by an officer or employee of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service authorized under section 287(h) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(h)) for the 
purpose of determining the presence or concentration of a drug 
or alcohol in such blood, breath, or urine.
    (4) If an individual refuses to submit to such a test after 
being advised by the officer or employee that the refusal will 
result in notification under this paragraph, the Attorney 
General shall give notice of the refusal to--
            (A) the State or foreign state that issued the 
        license permitting the individual to operate a motor 
        vehicle; or
            (B) if the individual has no such license, the 
        State or foreign state in which the individual is a 
        resident.
    (5) The Attorney General shall give notice of a conviction 
of an individual under this section for operation of a motor 
vehicle at a land border port of entry with a drug or alcohol 
in the body of the individual, to--
            (A) the State or foreign state that issued the 
        license permitting the individual to operate a motor 
        vehicle; or
            (B) if the individual has no such license, the 
        State or foreign state in which the individual is a 
        resident.
    (6) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``land border 
port of entry'' means any land border port of entry (as defined 
in section 287(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1357(h)(3))) that was not reserved or acquired as 
provided in section 7 of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                    IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

     * * * * * * *

                          Title II--Immigration

     * * * * * * *

                         chapter 9--miscellaneous

Sec. 281.  Nonimmigrant visa fees.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 295.  Notice at land border ports of entry regarding operation of a 
          motor vehicle and drugs and alcohol.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--IMMIGRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Chapter 9--Miscellaneous

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


              powers of immigration officers and employees

    Sec. 287. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h)(1) If an officer or employee of the Service authorized 
under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General is 
inspecting a driver at a land border port of entry and has 
reasonable grounds to believe that, because of alcohol in the 
body of the driver, operation of a motor vehicle by the driver 
is an offense under section 13 of title 18, United States Code, 
the officer or employee may require the driver to submit to a 
test of the breath of the driver to determine the presence or 
concentration of the alcohol.
    (2) If an officer or employee of the Service authorized 
under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General arrests a 
driver under this section for operation of a motor vehicle in 
violation of section 13 of title 18, United States Code, 
because of a drug or alcohol in the body of the driver, the 
officer or employee may require the driver to submit to a 
chemical or other test to determine the presence or 
concentration of the drug or alcohol in the blood, breath, or 
urine of the driver.
    (3) For purposes of this subsection:
            (A) The term ``driver'' means an individual who is 
        operating a motor vehicle at a land border port of 
        entry.
            (B) The term ``land border port of entry'' means 
        any immigration checkpoint operated by the Immigration 
        and Naturalization Service at a land border between a 
        State (as that term is used in section 13 of title 18, 
        United States Code) and a foreign state.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  NOTICE AT LAND BORDER PORTS OF ENTRY REGARDING OPERATION OF A MOTOR 
                     VEHICLE AND DRUGS AND ALCOHOL

    Sec. 295. At each point where motor vehicles regularly 
enter a land border port of entry (as defined in section 
287(h)(3)), the Attorney General shall post a notice that 
operation of a motor vehicle with a drug or alcohol in the body 
of the driver at a land border port of entry is an offense 
under Federal law.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                       WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2002

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:25 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A 
working quorum is present. The first item on the agenda today 
is H.R. 2155. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for a motion.
    Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Border Security, and Claims reports favorably the bill H.R. 
2155 and moves its favorable recommendation to the full House.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, H.R. 2155 will 
be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    [The bill, H.R. 2155, follows:]

    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, to strike the last word.
    Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2155 authorizes INS 
inspectors at the border to take drunk or drugged drivers into 
custody based on their impaired state. Currently, border 
inspectors do not have the authority to do so other than as 
private citizens making citizen arrests. Typically inspectors 
now have no alternative than to wave impaired drivers through 
the port of entry with the hope that the driver will not do any 
harm.
    This bill, H.R. 2155, makes it a crime for a person to 
operate a motor vehicle at a land border port of entry in an 
impaired manner because of the presence of drugs or alcohol. 
The bill deems any such driver to have given consent to submit 
to a chemical test by the INS to determine the presence or 
concentration of a drug or alcohol in the driver's body. If an 
individual refuses to submit to such a test after the INS 
advises the driver that the refusal will result in notification 
to the driver's State or foreign state of jurisdiction, the 
bill requires the Attorney General to notify the driver's State 
or a foreign state of the driver's refusal to submit to the 
test.
    The Attorney General is also required to notify the 
driver's government of a conviction of the driver for impaired 
driving.
    The bill authorizes INS inspectors at land border ports of 
entry to perform chemical tests upon drivers if the INS has 
reasonable grounds to believe that a driver is dangerous 
because of a drug or alcohol in the driver's body.
    The Attorney General is required to post a notice that 
operation of a motor vehicle with drugs or alcohol in the 
driver's body at a land border port of entry is a Federal 
offense.
    Finally, the bill requires the Attorney General to issue 
regulations authorizing INS officers and employees to impound a 
vehicle if the driver refuses to submit to a chemical or other 
test.
    This bill is a long overdue solution to a dangerous problem 
at our borders. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members' 
opening statements will be placed in the record at this point.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas. The 
clerk will report the amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2155, offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee of Texas:
    Page 4, after line 26, insert the following (and 
redesignate provisions accordingly):
    Paragraph (3)(A), Each year--.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 
thank you and the Members of the Committee. This bill certainly 
has a good foundation. I am from a border State, and what it 
simply does is authorizes officers, employees of the INS, to 
conduct tests for drug or alcohol consumption when they have 
reasonable grounds to believe such. This, of course, ensures 
the safety of all travelers and as well those very fine Border 
Patrol personnel that are working on our behalf.
    I believe the bill can be enhanced by a provision that has 
been utilized in this Committee many, many times in a 
bipartisan manner, and that is to ask the Comptroller of the 
GAO office to provide a study on the number of stops and the 
particular background of those who are stopped.
    This is a format that has been used many, many times to 
ensure a commitment that this Committee has made over the 
years. It is to ensure the fairness in the implementation of 
laws no matter where they are and who they are implemented 
against.
    I would ask my colleagues to consider this legislation--or 
amendment. I believe that it will strongly enhance the 
legislation. I commend Mr. Flake and the Chairman for their 
leadership on this. As a representative from a border State, I 
think that this provision will ensure the balance and fairness 
that this Committee always adheres to.
    With that, Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. I support the amendment, and I--.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I will be happy to yield.
    Mr. Conyers. I support the amendment, and I suspect the 
Chairman does too.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman very much. I yield 
back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 
Flake.
    Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill has been a 
long time in coming. It closes a dangerous loophole that we 
currently have. Over the past 2 years, two highway patrolman in 
California were killed by drunk drivers; kids under the age of 
21 who had gone across the border to drink and had come across, 
were visibly impaired, but were allowed to cross the border 
anyway and end up killing two officers. A highway construction 
worker was also killed. These are simply the ones that we know 
about.
    It simply is wrong to allow individuals, when an INS 
officer is right there, to cross the border visibly impaired 
and to just send them on. We were told by INS officials that 
they send them on through with a wing and a prayer and hope 
that local law enforcement officials will pick them up.
    The most important part of this is simply allowing them to 
put signs up to say that the INS has the authority and the 
ability to actually stop you if you are visibly impaired. That 
deterrent value will be significant. If individuals know that 
they can't go across the border where drinking laws are lax or 
unenforced, get drunk, come across unimpeded, they will be a 
lot less likely to do so. So the deterrent value is important.
    I am committed to work with Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee 
on this amendment; however, I simply think that this amendment 
will kill the bill. This is a very important piece of 
legislation. We need to get it passed. It will save lives on 
the border in Arizona, in Texas, in California, and to encumber 
it with this kind of requirement--there are some problems with 
this. This is a Comptroller General who will be authorized to 
do this, but we won't have a GAO person there at the border to 
determine, you know, the race of each person coming across.
    I would just implore the Members here to understand how 
important this bill is and how important that it is that it go 
on unencumbered by amendments like this.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Flake. Yes, I would.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank you. I want to assure you that were 
this amendment accepted, that it wouldn't go--the bill--it 
wouldn't endanger the bill at all. I mean, everybody is for 
this proposition. It is a safety valve which cautions everybody 
to do the thing right, and I can assure you that there are no 
forces that come to my mind that would oppose a bill of this 
importance because of this provision. The gentleman should 
sleep more soundly in his bed at night knowing that there are 
no opponents to this provision.
    Mr. Flake. Reclaiming my time, there is a larger problem 
here. The amendment requires the GAO to conduct this study, but 
there is no baseline information which this study--these 
numbers can be checked against. So essentially you are just 
collecting this information for the sake of collecting it with 
no baseline numbers.
    Now, if you say you are going to get baseline numbers, that 
means that everyone who crosses a border port of entry would 
have to be stopped by an INS official to see what race or 
gender they were in order to have baseline numbers that these 
numbers could be checked against.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield? I would just like 
to assure him that we shouldn't try to be the people that are 
conducting the report. I mean, the experts will handle this, 
Mr. Flake. There is no reason for us to think that we are going 
to impede the flow of traffic or create some unusual 
sensational problem. It just doesn't work this way. Your fear, 
I assure the gentleman, is without foundation.
    Mr. Flake. Reclaiming my time, this amendment also fails to 
provide procedures for the GAO to collect information. Is GAO 
going to stand at the border and simply count the number of 
individuals that come across? What are we to gain from that?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Flake. Yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I want to thank the gentleman for his 
concerns. I want to refresh the Committee's recollection to 
know that we have passed these studies on numerous occasions. 
Particularly, we did it just recently in the visa waiver 
program with no opposition. This will not burden or impose a 
negative on the enforcement which the distinguished gentleman 
is seeking. It simply will provide additional data.
    We have always respected the ability of the GAO, the 
Comptroller General of the United States, to be able to do an 
independent study, and in fact I think the gentleman requested 
that the language be changed from the INS Commissioner, which I 
was glad to do.
    So I think this study has been utilized previously, to no 
detriment to the legislation that we have passed, and I would 
ask him to consider the potential compromise--.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. I rise to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. I will yield to Mr. Flake if he wanted to 
continue his thought.
    Mr. Flake. I yield back.
    Mr. Conyers. Okay. Now, we are at the end of the session, a 
few more days, an innocuous amendment to an important bill. 
What would endanger this bill is that it would go on the 
suspension calendar and fail to get the one-third votes, Mr. 
Flake. Therein is the problem, and that is what I and you and 
the Ranking Subcommittee Member ought to be doing to try to 
make sure the important bill gets through.
    Let us not take this moment to create, seriatim, four 
different reasons that you don't like the provision. I guess we 
could be around here all day. You could think of one after 
another after another.
    Hopefully not, the Chairman says. But all I am saying is 
that the way to endanger this bill is to knock out the 
amendment and then put it on suspension. You know the 
procedure.
    Mr. Flake. If the gentleman will yield, my problem is 
having an amendment that, as we have just mentioned, is 
meaningless and simply encumbers the bill. We had a situation 
where, as I mentioned, there are no baseline numbers which this 
information can be checked against, and if we are blind that 
somehow we are going to seek to obtain baseline numbers, then 
that is a big problem. It would impose a huge cost that is not 
already there and it would certainly endanger the bill at that 
point.
    So what I am saying is that this is important legislation. 
Lives are being lost at the border because people are coming 
across impaired. I think those on the floor of the House of 
Representatives will take that into account and understand that 
the important part of this legislation is to allow the INS to 
have that authority and that these other measures are 
secondary.
    Thank you for yielding.
    Mr. Conyers. Well, we create a base by starting this study. 
I mean, pace lines don't appear like magic out of the thin air. 
You have got to start somewhere, sir, and that is what we are 
doing is starting.
    Now, as I counted, that is the fifth reason that you have 
offered against this amendment. And, you know, you may be--have 
you considered the position that I have suggested to you, that 
opposing the amendment could endanger your bill, which I think 
we all support in the Committee?
    Mr. Flake. Yes. I am considering that. I am also 
considering how it might be endangered if we accept the 
amendment.
    Mr. Conyers. Well, you need two-thirds on the floor under a 
suspension.
    Mr. Flake. That is what I understand.
    Mr. Conyers. That means one-third of the Members could kill 
the bill.
    Mr. Flake. I understand that.
    Mr. Conyers. Well, don't you want to pass the bill?
    Mr. Flake. I do, very much; but I want to pass a bill that 
actually gets to the problem, and it doesn't contain measures 
that are secondary. That is the important thing. And I am told 
that this will encumber the bill even further and make it less 
likely that it will pass on suspension if we include--.
    Mr. Conyers. Okay, let me try--this is my last shot, Mr. 
Flake. Do you know any Senator can kill any bill?
    Mr. Flake. Yes.
    Mr. Conyers. What I am trying to guarantee you is the fact 
that that would not happen even if--despite my wisdom about how 
little likelihood you would have in obtaining two-thirds of the 
vote. I will assure you that nobody would do that on the other 
side. Does that make you feel more comfortable?
    Sure it does. Okay. I yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Conyers. A recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. rollcall is requested. Those in 
favor of agreeing to the Jackson Lee amendment will, as your 
names are called, answer aye; those opposed, no. And the clerk 
will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas, no.
    Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no.
    Mr. Barr.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no.
    Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham, pass.
    Mr. Bachus.
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no.
    Mr. Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no.
    Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no.
    Mr. Keller.
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no.
    Mr. Issa.
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no.
    Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no.
    Mr. Flake.
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no.
    Mr. Pence.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye.
    Mr. Frank.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye.
    Ms. Baldwin.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye.
    Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members in the Chamber wish to cast 
or change their votes?
    The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Pence.
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If there are no further Members who 
wish to cast or change their vote, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 17 ayes--I am sorry--7 
ayes and 17 nays and 1 pass.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from North 
Carolina, Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]

    
    
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2155 offered by Mr. Watt. On 
page 6, section 4, line 10, insert the following after 
``vehicle": Paren, ``not inconsistent with the laws of the 
State into which the operator seeks entry.''.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina 
is recognized for 5 minutes. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Watt. Yes, I will.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I believe that this is a 
constructive amendment because it makes clear that there is not 
a Federal law relative to driving while impaired, and it is the 
State law that the entrant into the United States is entering 
into. So I would hope that this amendment would be adopted.
    Mr. Watt. I couldn't have said it more eloquently myself, 
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agree--yes, the 
gentleman from Arizona.
    Mr. Flake. No. I will just say I am fine with that as well.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Watt.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Flake. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Flake. I just wanted to point out, it has just been 
pointed out to me that a GAO study does not require a statute. 
And so those who feel that a GAO study is warranted are more 
than able to make that request at any time, without statute. So 
if that is truly the concern, I would hope that that would not 
impair the bill from moving forward, the defeat of the Jackson 
Lee amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Flake. Yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I wish the gentleman had cooperated with 
another Member, who as you well know, worked with you through 
the process of the Subcommittee. The amendment stands as a 
request. I would be happy for you to ask for a reconsideration 
for the amendment to pass, and I would be happy for you to--I 
would be happy to suggest that we only narrow it to four or 
five areas so that we can have a pilot program and have this 
amendment reformed to that extent. And then I would be glad to 
be supportive of this legislation.
    At this point--.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chairman will suggest that 
there is time between the Committee and the floor to deal with 
that.
    Mr. Flake. I am glad to work with the gentlelady on that.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Flake. Yes.
    Mr. Conyers. Would he be agreeable if the Chair of the 
Committee, the Ranking Member, the Subcommittee chair and the 
Ranking Subcommittee person join together to make such a 
request to GAO?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Pardon me?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair will be happy to sign the 
request to the GAO.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Excuse me. Is it possible--I appreciate 
the distinguished Ranking Member, but it is also possible to 
include in that discussion the possibility of accepting 
language that narrows it to four or five areas and have that 
language inside so it be a pilot. It wouldn't be everywhere. 
And then we would have an opportunity to have--.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman from Arizona will 
yield, I don't think this is the place to negotiate out the 
text of letters to the GAO. If there are going to be letters 
sent to the GAO, we can deal with that later.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No. I was talking about language in the 
amendment--in the bill.
    Mr. Flake. I would be glad to work with the gentlelady and 
distinguished minority leader on this, and yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments? If 
not, the Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum. The 
question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 2155 
favorably, as amended.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
motion to report favorably is agreed to. Without objection, the 
bill will be reported favorably to the House in the form of a 
single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating 
the amendment adopted here today.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to move to go to 
conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the 
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes, 
and all Members will be given 2 days as provided by House rules 
in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental, or 
minority views.
                            Dissenting Views

    We are concerned that this well intentioned legislation 
merely recodifies powers that border inspectors currently have, 
unnecessarily adds to the already burdensome job of border 
inspectors, and has the potential to be improperly used to 
target persons on the basis of race or national origin.
    Border inspectors already have the authority to arrest 
persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the border. 
18 U.S.C. section 13 (the Assimilative Crimes Act) currently 
incorporates State criminal law into Federal law, for issues 
where there is no applicable Federal criminal law, in places in 
Federal jurisdiction such as military bases and, no doubt, 
ports of entry. Therefore, a criminal offense such as DUI under 
State law is already a Federal criminal offense in a Federal 
area (areas not in State jurisdictions).
    Further, this law would extend the authority of border 
inspectors beyond State law by incorporating non-criminal 
sanctions (e.g., suspension of licenses for failure to agree to 
a drug test) into Federal law. It also would extend the 
admittedly broad authority the INS currently has at the border 
to conduct searches, to blood, breath or urine testing. At a 
time when their workload is heavy and the lines and waits for 
border traffic are already causing huge burdens to border 
economies, this legislation will impose new duties, unrelated 
to terrorism, on immigration inspectors at the border. 
Essentially, H.R. 2155 is enlisting INS officers to enforce 
State law.
    Finally, in our view, it is critical to include in the 
legislation provisions to monitor whether law enforcement uses 
their new authority in a discriminatory, and thus illegal, 
manner. During both the Subcommittee markup and the full 
Committee markup of this legislation, after being assured that 
the Majority would work with the Minority on concerns with the 
legislation, we offered an amendment that would require the 
General Accounting Office to conduct an annual study concerning 
the exercise of the new authorities by officers and employees 
of the INS. The study would assemble and analyze the number of 
times the officers exercised this authority, the race, gender, 
and national origin of the driver involved, and the results of 
the exercise of this new authority. The amendment further 
directed the General Accounting Office to submit a report to 
Congress no later than March 31 of each year.
    It is important to include this amendment as part of the 
bill because the legislation raises the potential for abuse of 
authority to stop and detain individuals at the border. The 
amendment would ensure that the new authorities granted the 
officers and employees of the INS to test for the use of 
alcohol and drugs by a driver at the border is carried out in a 
efficient, fair, and equitable manner without targeting any 
group of people. Most importantly, through the collection of 
data, the amendment by its very nature would curb any tendency 
toward abuse. Unfortunately, the Majority refused to accept the 
amendment arguing that the measure would place an extreme 
burden on the officers carrying out the provisions of the 
amendment. No such burden in fact would occur since the study 
would be conducted by the GAO after the border inspectors 
actions were completed.
    The majority's refusal to include the amendment also was 
surprising in light of the fact that the majority and the 
minority have worked together in the past to prevent the 
heinous practice of racial profiling from raising its head. 
During consideration of H.R. 3767, the Permanent Visa Waiver 
Program Act (P.L. 106-396), bipartisan action was taken to 
include language in section 206 and 207 of the bill to ensure 
that race, gender or disability would not be considered as 
criteria for the calculation of visa refusal rates. The measure 
further enacted reporting requirements on the Secretary of 
State to ensure that this provision was followed.
    We therefore oppose this legislation.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.

                                
