[Pages H682-H691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGENT RAUL GONZALEZ OFFICER SAFETY ACT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call
up the bill (H.R. 35) to impose criminal

[[Page H683]]

and immigration penalties for intentionally fleeing a pursuing Federal
officer while operating a motor vehicle, 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 5, the bill is
considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 35

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 ``Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer
Safety Act''.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(J) Evading arrest or detention while operating a motor
vehicle.--Any alien who has been convicted of, who admits
having committed, or who admits committing acts which
constitute the essential elements of a violation of section
40B(a) of title 18, United States Code, is inadmissible.''.
(b) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(G) Evading arrest or detention while operating a motor
vehicle.--Any alien who has been convicted of, who admits
having committed, or who admits committing acts which
constitute the essential elements of a violation of section
40B(a) of title 18, United States Code, is deportable.''.
(c) Ineligibility for Relief.--Chapter 2 of title II of the
Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after
section 208 the following:

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

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

SEC. 4. ANNUAL REPORT.

The Attorney General, in conjunction with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, shall submit an annual report to the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on
the Judiciary of the House of Representatives that--
(1) identifies the number of people who committed a
violation of section 40B(a) of title 18, United States Code,
as added by section 2(a); and
(2) summarizes--
(A) the number of individuals who were charged with the
violation referred to in paragraph (1);
(B) the number of individuals who were apprehended but not
charged with such violation;
(C) the number of individuals who committed such violation
but were not apprehended;
(D) the penalties sought in the charging documents
pertaining to such violation; and
(E) the penalties imposed for such violation.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority
leader, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock).

{time} 0915

General Leave

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 35.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, one of the great tragedies that came of the Democrats' 4
years of open-border policies was the number of fatalities of American
citizens and law enforcement officers that were caused by high-speed
chases of human and drug smugglers and illegal aliens who poured across
our southern border.
The Democrats' open-border policies incentivized and encouraged these
tragedies by creating the conditions that made these deadly high-speed
chases commonplace.
Just last year, Border Patrol agents in Eagle Pass told us that in
the Del Rio sector alone, the cartels were making $32 million every
week from human smuggling. That is just one sector of the southwest
border.
These policies created an enormous incentive that emboldened
criminals and cartels and human smugglers and illegal aliens alike.
High-speed chases with smugglers occurred almost daily in these border
communities, placing both law enforcement officials and innocent
Americans in grave danger.
For example, last year, criminals led the Texas Department of Public
Safety officers on a high-speed chase outside of Del Rio as they
attempted to smuggle half a dozen illegal aliens into the interior of
our country. At least one of the smugglers himself was a foreign
national from Nicaragua. Amazingly, the Biden-Harris administration
rewarded this criminal alien with a work authorization.
These criminals also smuggle deadly drugs, like fentanyl, which has
poisoned thousands of Americans.
Roughly 1 month ago, in California, a high-speed chase ensued after
two men had their car referred for secondary inspection at a port of
entry. Border Patrol officers ultimately stopped the men and recovered
nearly 5 pounds of fentanyl. That is enough to kill more than 100,000
Americans.
At the beginning of the last Congress, Cochise County, Arizona,
Sheriff Mark Dannels, a 38-year veteran of law enforcement, testified
before the House Judiciary Committee. Sheriff Dannels told us about a
woman named ``Wanda'' from his county who was killed while driving to
her own 65th birthday party by an individual who was evading law
enforcement while smuggling illegal aliens. She had hoped to enjoy some
time at the party with her son, who was receiving treatment for stage
IV cancer. According to Sheriff Dannels, the criminal who caused the
crash was smuggling illegal aliens when he fled from law enforcement
officers, blew through a red light, and crashed into Wanda's car,
cutting it in half and instantly killing her.
These dangerous car crashes kill our law enforcement heroes, as well.
On December 7, 2022, Border Patrol Officer Raul Humberto Gonzalez got
up, got dressed, and he left for work. His family would never see him
again. He was killed later that day in Mission, Texas, doing his job
trying to protect our country. A group of illegal aliens led him on a
high-speed chase that ended in a fatal wreck that took his life.
Authorities do not have the tools to fully prosecute and punish these
criminals. Currently the failure to yield to a

[[Page H684]]

Border Patrol agent or any other law enforcement officer assisting
Border Patrol is not explicitly criminalized under Federal law.
At the same time, there are no specific immigration consequences for
foreign nationals, including illegal aliens, who intentionally evade
the Border Patrol. In other words, criminals and foreign nationals have
little incentive not to evade them.
On November 5, the American people sent a strong message to the
world: There is only one pathway into the United States, and that is to
obey our laws.
This bill sends a message that we will no longer tolerate those who
evade our law enforcement officers who are upholding those laws.
H.R. 35 is named in honor and in memory of Agent Gonzalez. It ensures
that those who endanger border communities and law enforcement officers
by failing to yield to Border Patrol agents will face meaningful
consequences, ensuring these illegal aliens can be prosecuted and will
be ineligible for immigration relief under our laws.
This legislation also provides escalating criminal penalties if the
evasion results in serious bodily injury or death to another person.
Last session, this bill passed on a bipartisan basis, although 154 of
our Democratic colleagues opposed this commonsense measure. Taking
their cue, Senate Democrats refused to take it up last year. That is
inexplicable to me. I don't understand that.
I hope that today, after Democrats have had time to reflect on the
matter, especially in light of the decisive verdict of the American
people last November, that more of our Democratic colleagues will have
seen the light and will join us in protecting the American people from
these dangerous criminals and cartels and human smugglers.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Arizona Representative Juan Ciscomani for his
leadership on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I begin with an urgent constitutional public service
announcement based on millions of calls and messages that have been
flooding Congress.
There is a serial constitutional violator at large right now in the
District of Columbia whose overall project to dismantle our
Constitution and rule of law is now the target or subject of at least a
dozen different Federal court temporary restraining orders and
preliminary injunctions across the land and also faces emergency civil
actions in dozens of other courts and jurisdictions.

The suspect has been described as a very evil individual by Steve
Bannon and has been operating in a clandestine fashion with a night
crew of computer-hacking juvenile associates, one of whom goes by the
alias of ``Big Balls'' and another one they call ``the kid,'' who has
been known to post racist and anti-Semitic provocations online.
The accelerating spree of constitutional offenses alarming the Nation
involves dozens of episodes of computer fraud and data theft affecting
potentially 300 million Americans and escalating threats against
congressionally created Federal agencies serving the people from the
NIH to the National Weather Service to NOAA to the Department of
Justice; public workers; teachers and students; prosecutors of cop-
assaulting criminals and seditious conspirators against our government;
FBI agents; and anyone who depends on Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, or any other computerized public payment system.
The apparent ringleader of all the constitutional mayhem is a
reported father of 12, a formerly deportable undocumented immigrant who
worked illegally in the country and is apparently part of a loose
network of Silicon Valley billionaires who oppose American
constitutional democracy and openly favor creation of a monarchical
techno-state under their control.
The suspect was seen yesterday in the vicinity of 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW and is known to have been consorting as recently as a few
days ago with a convicted felon from New York.
Described as the richest person in the world, the suspect is both a
government contractor with billions of dollars in defense contracts--
and we learned yesterday $400 million slated from the State Department
for some of his armored Tesla vehicles--and also he is a part-time
government worker whose many taxpayer-supported businesses are being
investigated, fined, or sued by numerous Federal agencies, including
the Department of Transportation, the National Labor Relations Board,
the Department of Justice, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The suspect has allegedly been working to seize control over several
of these same agencies to shut them down, which would presumably
terminate all of the relevant threatening investigations.
The public has never received from the suspect any ethics disclosure
forms required of all Federal workers nor any conflict of interest
waiver to resolve his glaring conflicts of interest.
The suspect spent his formative years in apartheid South Africa and
has been known to post racist and anti-Semitic material and to engage
in a Nazi salute in public.
Steve Bannon calls him a truly evil individual. The ringleader and
his associates, sometimes called the Muskovites, have been seen by
numerous Federal workers violating the separation of powers and the
Spending Clause, usurping the powers of this body, trampling the civil
service laws, and violating the rights of both his Federal and
corporate workers.
The suspect, his sponsors, and accomplices should be considered
dangerous to the constitutional rights, freedoms, and institutions of
the people as well as their property, their jobs, and their
livelihoods.
If you know anything about the situation and you are a Republican
Member, please get in touch immediately with the Democrats so we can
form a majority to stop this unprecedented attack on the Constitution
and American law and order before we end up like apartheid South Africa
or Orban's Hungary or Putin's Russia.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled program where we avoid the
constitutional crisis overtaking the first and greatest multiracial,
multiethnic constitutional democracy on Earth and instead pass
completely redundant, unnecessary, and sloppily drafted laws that allow
us to vote against immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, as
Elon Musk was, without either engaging in comprehensive immigration
reform or fixing the border.
Now, with this bill, House Republicans are once again seeking to take
political advantage of a horrific crime by seizing on the death of
Agent Gonzalez in the performance of his duties, while doing nothing to
make our border more secure or to repair our broken immigration system.
Everyone knows, of course, that they blew up the bipartisan border
security deal that we had at the end of the last Congress.
H.R. 35 seeks to establish new criminal and immigration penalties on
anyone--citizens, permanent residents, documented immigrants, or
undocumented immigrants--for this offense: fleeing a Border Patrol
agent or a law enforcement officer who is working with the Border
Patrol.
Fleeing Border Patrol at the border already carries substantial
criminal and legal penalties under current law. That is already a
crime. Under 18 U.S. Code 758, whoever flees or evades a checkpoint
operated by the Customs and Border Protection, or any other law
enforcement agency, in a motor vehicle and flees from Federal, State,
or local law enforcement in excess of the legal speed limit can be
charged with and convicted of high-speed flight from an immigration
checkpoint.

Furthermore, many decades of prosecution and case law make it
perfectly clear that fleeing law enforcement is a crime involving moral
turpitude for which a conviction will render a noncitizen, whether
documented or undocumented, immediately deportable and inadmissible to
the country.
In other words, what they are dragging us through again is already
against the law. If all of it is already a crime, why do we need
another version of it, except for plainly opportunistic political
purposes.
I know those are the only bills they have been bringing forward. They
have got no other agenda for the country. They have handed over the
legislative authority of the Congress of the United

[[Page H685]]

States to Elon Musk, the fourth branch of government.
In any event, they want us to pass again something that is already
against the law. We don't need it. In fact, this characteristically
poorly drafted, pile-on bill is so poorly drafted this time that it
could subject not just undocumented people, not just permanent
residents, but American citizens to prison sentences for conduct that
the vast majority of Americans would not even recognize as a crime at
all and would not see as a crime.
Now, unlike existing Federal law or similar State statutes, the bill
does not define what it means to ``flee.'' In their haste to get this
to the floor, they just rushed over that element of the crime, which is
of extraordinary interest to every other jurisdiction and even Congress
before when dealing with it. Leave that aside, it does not even require
evidence of criminal intent, a guilty mind, what lawyers call mens rea,
the intention to do the evil thing.

{time} 0930

In other words, this bill does not require a person to know that they
are fleeing Border Patrol in order to be charged with that crime.
Think about it, Mr. Speaker. It applies to citizens, not just
noncitizens, and you can be prosecuted and jailed for fleeing from a
Border Patrol that you didn't know was Border Patrol.
This is a radical departure from the prevailing rule in American
jurisdictions.
For example, in Maryland--I looked up my State--the offense of
fleeing or eluding law enforcement requires that a uniformed officer
gives a person a visual or audible signal to stop and prominently
displays their official badge or other insignia. If an officer is not
in uniform, Maryland requires that an officer give a visual or audible
signal to stop while in an officially marked police vehicle to
establish the necessary mens rea before we put somebody in prison.
Under either circumstance, a visual or audible signal can be by hand,
voice, emergency light, or siren.
It is not only blue States like mine that require evidence that the
accused knew what they were doing was wrong before convicting them of
purposefully fleeing from law enforcement. That is the rule almost
everywhere.
I am sure the Crime and Federal Government Surveillance Subcommittee
chairman, Mr. Biggs, and the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Ciscomani, are
aware that, in Arizona, the offense of unlawful flight from pursuing
law enforcement requires proof that the officer's vehicle had markings
indicative of an official police vehicle, evidence that the driver knew
that the vehicle was an official law enforcement vehicle, or the
defendant must admit knowing that the vehicle was an official police
vehicle.
In other words, their own State takes the exact painstaking
precautions that they just run roughshod over in order to get this
bill, which has not had a hearing, to the floor of the United States
House of Representatives.
Should a defendant choose to exercise their right to trial by jury,
the trial judge in Arizona would instruct the jury that they may
consider whether the officer operated their emergency lights or siren
to determine whether the defendant is guilty of unlawful flight from an
actual pursuing vehicle.
As was stated in the collaborative reports ``Without Intent'' and
``Without Intent Revisited,'' published by The Heritage Foundation,
which is adamant about mens rea, and the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers, ``Ensuring that an adequate mens rea
provision is included in statutes and regulations that create criminal
offenses is critical.''
The Heritage Foundation says that it is critical to specify that
there must be a culpable or guilty state of mind before we put people
behind bars. It appears that nearly every State recognized this fact
when drafting their statutes carefully to address the fears and
consequences associated with people fleeing law enforcement.
We don't want people going to jail because they were simply moving
away from a person they thought was a criminal who turns out to be, for
example, an undercover police officer.
As a matter of fact, of the States represented by the 32 cosponsors
of this legislation, all but two of them specifically require, at
minimum, an audible or visual signal to stop the vehicle to prove that
there was intentional flight from a pursuing officer.
Looking at statutes that address similar conduct in all 50 States,
there are only 6 that do not explicitly require an order, direction,
request, or signal to stop the vehicle.
Despite this widely accepted approach to legislative construction,
H.R. 35 would allow Donald Trump's Department of Justice to not only
convict noncitizens but citizens of a violation of this so-called
offense and to deport noncitizens without allowing them their day in
court and without requiring any evidence of any knowledge that they
were actually fleeing a government agent.
Without any limiting characteristics, under this bill, a citizen
could be sent to prison because they did not immediately pull over when
hailed by someone--for example, a local undercover officer assisting
Border Patrol.
Similarly, in the immigration context, admitting to acts that
constitute this nebulous and vague conduct would render a green card
holder deportable.
The bill applies its criminal immigration penalties even if the law
enforcement officer is in plain clothes and is driving an unmarked
undercover vehicle.
There are a lot of good reasons why a law-abiding citizen or
permanent resident might be wary of pulling over for an unmarked
vehicle. Just last week, reports emerged of an alarming trend across
the country of rapists, criminals, or vigilantes pretending to be
immigration enforcement personnel targeting people whom they thought
might be undocumented in order to rape them, assault them, harass them,
or what have you.
I saw on TV a case last night of a sexual assailant who accosted a
woman and forcibly assaulted her while pretending to be an ICE agent. I
saw that last night.
Another man, Sean-Michael Johnson, was arrested for impersonating a
law enforcement officer, along with felony kidnapping, larceny, and
assault and battery, after he impersonated an ICE agent and stopped a
group of men in their car because he told them they were not lawfully
present in the country.
In this environment, Mr. Speaker, it would be neither unreasonable
nor surprising for law-abiding citizens to be wary of pulling over for
an unmarked car that claims to be working with Border Patrol. Further,
given that the Trump administration is deputizing anyone they can to
get to aid immigration enforcement efforts, the number of officers,
both in police clothing and in unmarked clothing, to whom this law
would apply is staggering.
In backing this bill, our colleagues want to impose extraordinary
criminal and immigration consequences for not immediately pulling over
when an unmarked car driven by a total stranger hails you at a time
when criminals, including a pardoned January 6 felon, by the way, are
going around impersonating immigration enforcement officers.

That is a real trend happening now, and I would love to be convinced
it is not if the gentleman has reason to think that all of these
reports and arrests of people impersonating officers are wrong.
This is a trend in the country. All of this is simply to give more
power to target immigrants, which already exists, just for the purposes
of a legislative show. This is outrageous.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, my friend argues that this bill is unnecessary because
aliens who are convicted of fleeing an immigration checkpoint are
already removable. That part is correct, but there are no corresponding
grounds for inadmissibility.
This bill fixes that omission. It also expands the law to someone who
is deliberately fleeing the Border Patrol not only from a checkpoint
but from anywhere within 100 miles of the border.
This begs the larger question: If, as the Democrats say, this bill
simply restates the existing law, then why are they opposing it?
They say you should prove that the alien knows that they are evading
the

[[Page H686]]

Border Patrol when they initiate a high-speed chase through a crowded
neighborhood. He forgets that there are many, many acts that are
themselves deadly and dangerous that we sanction. Drunk driving is such
an offense. It doesn't matter if you intended to kill somebody when you
got behind that wheel drunk. The behavior itself is deadly and
dangerous and punishable under law.
Leading a high-speed chase through a crowded highway is also such an
inherently dangerous act, which my friends on the other side of the
aisle, for some inexplicable reason, want to excuse.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Cline).
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the ranking member of the committee has
his talking points today when he wants to complain about a businessman
helping the administration to save taxpayer dollars, and he is raising
histrionics to a new level by talking about a constitutional crisis.
Mr. Speaker, we do have the power of the purse under Article I, but
Article II, when given that money, has a responsibility for
administering it in a responsible manner. If this administration is
going to grant taxpayer funds for irresponsible purposes, or if the
last administration granted money to irresponsible recipients, then
this administration should be able to reconsider those grants or stop
those grants from occurring and direct the money into a more
appropriate place.
It doesn't surprise me that the gentleman from suburban Washington,
who has so many Federal employees in his district, is now worried that
we are going to have a number of Federal employees who are going to be
put out of work.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We have too many Federal employees in
this country. It is about time that we shrink the size and scope of the
Federal Government, and I think that even though it results in people
in suburban Washington unfortunately having to seek employment
elsewhere, it will save the taxpayers money and improve government
efficiency for the long term.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill, the Agent Raul Gonzalez
Officer Safety Act, because, in recent years, cartels and human
smugglers have recruited drivers to transport illegal aliens from the
southwest border further into the United States and many of our
communities.
Unsurprisingly, when encountered by law enforcement and Customs and
Border Protection officials, these drivers routinely flee, often at
high speeds.
Raul Gonzalez was a Border Patrol agent who was killed in 2022 in a
high-speed chase while pursuing a car filled with illegal immigrants in
Texas. That same year, there were six Border Patrol agents who died on
the job.
A high-speed chase puts agents, first responders, and innocent
bystanders in danger. Because these chases happen as often as daily to
multiple times a day, they take up the bulk of the U.S. marshals'
responses to calls.
This bill provides a Federal criminal penalty for individuals who
intentionally evade Border Patrol agents or law enforcement officers
assisting Border Patrol and provides for escalating penalties when
evading law enforcement results in serious bodily injury or death.
The consequences of the Biden-Harris administration's open-borders
policies are clear. Now, House Republicans, along with President Trump,
can ensure the safety of our communities and the security of our
borders.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do
so, as well.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, yes, we have hundreds of thousands of Federal employees
who live in Maryland, and we are very proud of them. I assume the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia is proud of the hundreds of
thousands of Federal employees who live and work in Virginia, including
in Roanoke. They have constitutional rights just like other American
citizens have.
None of our rights, whether they are constitutional or in the civil
service, should be trashed by an unelected billionaire bureaucrat who
doesn't understand our system of government.
As to the merits, the distinguished gentleman talks about high-speed
chases, which is what most statutes talk about in the country. This
bill--I don't know if the gentleman read the language--doesn't mention
high-speed chases or any speed at all. It just says ``fleeing.'' It is
the only statute I could find in the country that doesn't define what
``fleeing'' means.

It is a very sloppy bill that has not had a hearing and that was
brought to the floor for political entertainment purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Jayapal), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee
on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, do you remember when candidate Trump said
that, on day one, he would end inflation and bring prices down for
American citizens? That is, in fact, the number one reason he got
elected.
Guess what, Mr. Speaker? He has done nothing on this. Republicans
have spent no time on the floor trying to bring down prices for average
Americans. In fact, the data that was just released yesterday says that
prices have shot up because of many of the proposals that Donald Trump
has put forward and the chaos he is inflicting on the economy.
Are we spending time on that here on the floor? No. We are wasting
time on yet another attack on all immigrants, including U.S. citizens.
Once again, the majority is moving a bill to expand the Trump
administration's mass deportation machine and trample on the core
American principle of due process.
All of these bills that are being put forward utilize a very simple
formula: first, take laws that are already on the books about deporting
and making inadmissible to the United States people who are convicted
of committing certain crimes and fool the American people into thinking
somehow that is not already the law; and, second, dangerously expand
those laws so that simply being accused of something or admitting to
something that no one would reasonably consider being a crime makes it
sufficient to now deport someone or make him inadmissible without any
due process and without a fair day in court.
This is terrorizing communities across the country, and Donald
Trump's obsession with using every lever of government to target
immigrants has undermined our national security and our safety by
forcing Federal law enforcement officials to abandon fighting drug
trafficking or human smuggling and instead focus on arresting,
detaining, and deporting immigrants who pose no threat to public
safety. Many of them have lived and worked in this country for decades.
Already, we have seen the effects on U.S. citizens, with the unlawful
detention of U.S. citizens, the targeting of Native Americans, and the
arrest of countless people with no criminal records.
ICE agents are treating the act of speaking Spanish as probable cause
for interrogation, and they are revoking all the crucial and successful
legal pathways put in place by the Biden administration, like parole
and temporary protected status, including, by the way, for Venezuelans
and Cubans, who feel Trump's betrayal deeply.

{time} 0945

This bill follows the same divisive, deceptive formula. H.R. 35
amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to create a new ground of
deportability and inadmissibility for any noncitizen who admits fleeing
from Border Patrol while operating a motor vehicle, whether or not they
knew it was Border Patrol that they were fleeing from.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Just as I said with the formula, being
convicted of fleeing from Border Patrol or any law enforcement already
makes a person deportable and inadmissible. That is current law. The
key word here is ``convicted.''
Remember that when we talk about deportability, we are also talking
about people who are in the United States lawfully. Many are green card
holders and have lived in the United States for decades. If we are
going to deport them, I hope that we would all agree that they should
have basic due process rights and a day in court, just like any
American would want for themselves.

[[Page H687]]

That is why conviction is required for deportation. Convictions also
mean that law enforcement can focus on the most serious criminals, not
those who are simply accused and may well be innocent.
Let me also debunk the Republican argument that admitting to fleeing
is the same as a conviction. That is simply not true. People may admit
to fleeing without even knowing that the person chasing them is Border
Patrol.
Let me give an example. Let's say that a woman is driving alone on a
deserted road at night. She hears a siren. She sees an unmarked car
behind her signaling that she should pull over. She had heard many
stories about the men who prey on solo female drivers by pretending to
be law enforcement, so she slows down and puts on her hazards. She even
calls 911 to confirm that they have an officer in the area.
They confirm that one of their officers, who is deputized by CBP, is
in the area, so she pulls over. When the officer comes up to her
window, she says: I am sorry, Officer. I needed to keep driving while I
confirmed that you were with law enforcement since you were in an
unmarked car.
That constitutes an admission that she was intentionally fleeing from
law enforcement. Under this bill, even if she is a lawful permanent
resident who has been in this country for 10 years or 20 years, she has
just rendered herself deportable. A conviction requirement importantly
ensures that people have due process and that that essential context
isn't missed.
Just last week, The Washington Post reported an uptick in people who
are impersonating immigration enforcement officers to harass and attack
people they suspect of being undocumented. One North Carolina man
showed a woman a fake badge and told her that he would deport her if
she didn't come to a motel and have sex with him.
He ended up being arrested and charged with impersonating law
enforcement, kidnapping, second-degree forcible rape, and assault. In
this environment, it is not surprising that people keep driving away
when unmarked cars tell them to pull over, claiming to work with Border
Patrol.
U.S. citizens should also be aware of the fact that the new criminal
penalties in this bill would subject U.S. citizens to draconian
mandatory minimums for something as minor as failing to immediately
stop when hailed by an unmarked police car.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, this bill applies to anyone within 100
miles of the border. That is two-thirds of the population of the United
States, cities like Jacksonville; Charleston; Green Bay, Wisconsin;
Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Fear is already pervasive. People are afraid to go to work and
school. Businesses are hurting. Local economies and communities and
States, from Nebraska to Ohio to Texas, are hurting.
Mr. Speaker, this bill plays on fear. It is cruel. It is unnecessary.
It is dangerous for all Americans' due process rights. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Democrats even listen to
themselves. The gentlewoman just told us that this bill is simply
duplicative of existing law and, therefore, a farce. A moment later,
the gentlewoman told us that it is a dangerous expansion of existing
law. I ask them to pick at least one side or the other and stick to it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Guest).
Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 35,
legislation named after Agent Raul Gonzalez, a 38-year-old father of
two, who lost his life in an ATV accident on December 7, 2022, as he
was attempting to apprehend a group of immigrants who had entered the
country illegally.
This legislation not only honors the sacrifice of Agent Gonzalez, but
it reinforces Republican support to secure our border.
This legislation helps fulfill the promise that President Trump made
to the American people to protect those who protect each of us. This
legislation will protect American communities by imposing criminal
penalties on people who evade U.S. Border Patrol agents or other law
enforcement agents at our border.
This legislation will also help protect the brave men and women who
enforce our border, those who risk their lives for the mission of
keeping us safe and providing a secure border for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to work alongside President Trump to make our
country safe for all American citizens. I am proud to support this
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to please vote ``yes'' on H.R.
35.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just in answer to a couple of the recent comments that
the good gentleman, the floor manager, says: How could it be possible
that this bill is both duplicative and wildly expansive?

Mr. Speaker, it is duplicative of the actual criminal offense. That
already exists. It is already a crime for somebody at the border to
flee in a high-speed chase away from an officer. That is already a
crime.
What is expansive is this applies to citizens. It goes way beyond the
border. It goes all over the country. It doesn't define what it means
to flee. It doesn't require a high-speed chase.
As the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) was saying, it can
apply to a woman who hears on the news, the way I heard last night,
that there is a maniac out there claiming to be an ICE agent who is
attacking women. She hears about it, and then a plainclothes officer in
an unmarked car begins to chase her. If she moves away and stops three
or four blocks later, she is guilty of violating their sloppily drafted
bill.
If Republicans are serious about it, we should go back and have a
real hearing, and the majority should look at what States across the
country are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Bynum).
Ms. BYNUM. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 35.
Let's call this bill what it is: fear-mongering dressed up as officer
safety.
This bill echoes one of the darkest chapters in our Nation's history,
the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Just like that shameful law, H.R. 35
forces local authorities and encourages the deputizing of randos to do
the Federal Government's work, punishing them if they refuse.
Back then, it was hunting down people who dared to seek freedom.
Today, it is forcing local police to become Federal enforcers, which is
a violation of States' rights.
This bill is duplicative of existing law. It threatens members of our
community who are here legally and lacks the surgical precision needed
for solid immigration policy. We need to start focusing on real
solutions for the border.
I support law enforcement. I support public safety, but I oppose the
Federal Government overreach that erodes local control and threatens
civil rights.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue seeking comprehensive
immigration policy reform and to vote ``no'' on H.R. 35.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz).
Ms. De La CRUZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 35, the Agent Raul
Gonzalez Officer Safety Act, which I am proud to have co-led with
Congressman Ciscomani.
Agent Raul Gonzalez was stationed in my community of McAllen, Texas,
and was dedicated to protecting the Rio Grande Valley and, quite
frankly, all of the Nation. In 2022, he tragically lost his life while
pursuing a car full of illegal immigrants.
By passing this legislation, we can take critical steps to protect
the safety of law enforcement officers and prevent this tragedy from
ever happening again.
This bill will make failing to yield to Border Patrol agents or law
enforcement a Federal crime. Further, if anyone is killed during the
apprehension, it could result in life in prison.
Criminals will think twice before engaging in dangerous and reckless
behavior like a high-speed chase from Border Patrol agents.

[[Page H688]]

Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to
protect our communities. I am committed to protecting those who protect
us, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill in honor of the life
and service of a Texas hero, Agent Raul Gonzalez.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. We are voting on yet
another bill that just promotes racial profiling.
That is exactly what is happening because Americans right now who are
Brown or Black or have an accent and who are American citizens are
carrying passports with them. Why? It is because we are going to allow
the targeting of communities that look like my district, to police them
and to militarize them.
This bill strips away the right to due process. We already know that.
I think that many of my colleagues who are supporting this know that.
This is going to target even legal permanent residents. The majority
is going to separate families instantly without ever allowing anyone to
be able to go to trial or even have a conviction. It is absolutely and
clearly unconstitutional.
Everyone in our country has rights, and I want my residents to hear
me say this again: Everyone has rights, no matter their status, in the
United States of America.
This is what Republicans want. My colleagues on the other side of the
aisle want to make racial profiling the law of the land and make
discrimination the law of the land. That is what my Republican
colleagues want. Republican Members want to go back to that kind of
militarization and policing of targeting people who look like my mother
and who look like my neighbors in the 12th Congressional District.
Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear, though. What my colleagues don't
get, and I want my residents to hear me when I say this, is that no
President--none--has the power to end constitutional rights, the right
to due process; not one.
Mr. Speaker, this is not about fixing our immigration system. The
dollars and the people who support measures like this and the fear-
mongering want a broken immigration system because, as the ranking
member probably knows, they make money off of our broken immigration
system.
If my colleagues really wanted to address it, let's get to the core
issues of the fact of who is benefiting the most from not allowing our
families and our loved ones who have been here for decades and years to
be able to have a pathway to citizenship. It is because someone
benefits from it, and it is unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats will have the backs of our immigrant neighbors
and even our American citizens who feel like they are being targeted by
this law.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I assure the gentlewoman that the
innocent victims of these high-speed chases come from all races and all
backgrounds.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Onder).
Mr. ONDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 35,
the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act.
This important legislation would make it a crime to evade arrest or
detention while operating a motor vehicle within 100 miles of the U.S.
border. For aliens, the bill would go a step further, making it a
deportable offense to flee from a pursuing Border Patrol agent.
Our southern border is under attack, and our Border Patrol agents are
on the front lines. The former administration depleted Border Patrol
resources, leaving them with an impossible task that routinely puts
them in harm's way.
The Border Patrol experienced over 5,700 encounters every day in
December 2022, the month that Agent Raul Gonzalez was killed while
pursuing an illegal alien who was evading arrest.
The following year, the Biden administration doubled down on its
open-border policies, surging these encounters to 2.5 million in 2023.
Under President Biden's so-called leadership, border wall materials
were sold off, and razor wire was removed.
Under President Trump's leadership, we are taking full advantage of
our resources to secure the border, and Mexico and Canada have already
agreed to bolster enforcement.
The Trump policies are already working. Yesterday, The Washington
Times reported what they called a reverse flow of illegal immigrants
streaming back home after being blocked at Trump's border.

{time} 1000

When migrants learn of the new, enhanced security measures at the
southern border, they are giving up and going home. Border Patrol
agents who previously encountered as many as 10,000 illegal immigrants
in a day are seeing fewer than 500.
By passing this legislation, we are showing Border Patrol agents that
we have their backs and that we prioritize their safety. This bill
provides additional protections for Border Patrol agents by imposing
harsher penalties for illegal aliens evading arrest at our border.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Jordan), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been saying for 2 weeks now,
instead of stopping the stupid spending, they attack the guy who is
exposing the stupid spending. I think we should maybe get rid of the
stupid spending.
Trans comic opera in Ireland, Sesame Street on Iraqi television, I
think maybe we should focus on that. No. No. No. We can't do that.
I think this just underscores the fundamental difference between the
left and those of us in the Republican Party, those of us who are
conservatives.
The left thinks the bureaucrats are smarter than we the people. You
have to trust the bureaucracy. You have to trust the experts in the
government. I would rather trust the people, the 77 million people who
elected President Trump who told us he was systematically going to go
through these agencies and identify dumb things where taxpayer money is
going to. He told us he was going to do it. The American people
understood it. He got elected, and now he is carrying out that mission.
Now they are attacking the guy who President Trump has put in charge of
this effort.
The bureaucrats who decided Big Bird and Bert and Ernie on Baghdad TV
was a good use of taxpayer money, can't question them. We can't do
that. We can't question the people in the bureaucracy. We can't
question the 108,000 people who work at the Department of the Treasury.
No. No. No. They are smarter than the folks President Trump has asked
to come in and look at where our tax money is going.
Think about this, the smartest bureaucrat in the history of the
world, Dr. Fauci, the things he told us. We weren't allowed to question
him for 2 years, and he ran our lives.
Here is the irony: Everything he told us turned out to be false. He
told us the virus didn't come from a lab. Yes, it did. We have agencies
now that tell us that and confirm that. He told us the vaccinated
couldn't get it. He told us the vaccinated couldn't transmit it. He was
wrong on both those counts. He told us that masks work. He told us 6
feet social distancing was based on science, but they just made it up.
Here is the kicker: He told us this is the first virus in history
where there was no such thing as natural immunity. We can't question
him. We have to trust the bureaucracy. I prefer to trust the people.
By the way, remember when they tried to set up a bureaucracy in the
government that was going to tell us what we were allowed to say? They
actually tried to set up the Disinformation Governance Board as if a
bunch of Federal bureaucrats can tell us what we can say, what we can't
say, what is information, and what is disinformation. You have to be
kidding me.
I will trust the guy who was elected by 77 million Americans. I will
trust the Constitution that says: The executive power shall be vested
in a President of the United States.
Do you know why they did that in the Constitution? Because that is
the guy who puts his name on a ballot and has to get votes, not the
bureaucracy.

[[Page H689]]

It is not the thousands and thousands of people who think they are so
much smarter than us regular folks who just get to vote.
I trust the guy who was elected and the people he has put in charge
of this effort. He told us he was going to do it. The American people
elected him to do it. Maybe we should focus on stopping the stupid
spending. After all, we have a $36 trillion debt.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JORDAN. Finally, I will just say this: It is a good bill by a
good Member of our Congress, Mr. Ciscomani. We passed it last year. We
should pass it again.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani), the author of this measure.
Mr. CISCOMANI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McClintock for yielding me
time here to talk about this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of my legislation, H.R.
35, the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act.
We have heard talk on both sides of the aisle on the floor on this
bill on the merits of it, and I am very proud to be supporting this and
to actually share a little bit of the story of how we came about this
bill.
One of my first official meetings that I had after being elected in
'22 was to go back to one of my border counties in Cochise. This
meeting happened in early '23.
I asked them, if there is one bill that I could start on immediately,
what would it be? This meeting included law enforcement, local law
enforcement from the State, from the county, Border Patrol, and
stakeholders. The unanimous vote and feedback was to make sure that
something like what happened to Agent Raul Gonzalez never happened
again. The issue we homed in on dealt with the issue of high-speed
chases and the inability of law enforcement to be able to pull over and
punish those that are fleeing law enforcement and their failure to
yield not being a Federal crime. This was it.
To all those on the other side of the aisle here who criticize this
bill as saying that it is anti-fill in the blank, this came from the
same people that my friends on the other side claim that this is
against. This is a bill that came from the feedback of those that are
highly impacted by this in our border communities.
It is not only law enforcement that is suffering and actually being
risked in this kind of activity, it is innocent bystanders that are
hurt by these high-speed chases that are literally dying in border
communities and being killed by these pursuits.
The bill is simple: It makes evading law enforcement within 100 miles
of the border a Federal crime. To me, it is simply common sense that
this should be a Federal crime. Far too many lives have been
jeopardized and even tragically taken, like I said, at the hands of bad
actors who engage in these high-speed chases.
If you evade CBP or local law enforcement, you clearly don't have
good intentions. That is obvious. Unfortunately, the current law does
not make this a crime in and of itself. It leaves the burden of
prosecuting these individuals to our local border communities, as if
they don't have enough challenges already with what the previous
administration caused at the border.
Not only is this bill common sense, it is crucial and in some cases,
even lifesaving.
To quote one of my constituents, he said: At least once a week there
is a high-speed chase through town that includes a 15-mile-an-hour
school zone. Do residents need to die to get the attention needed to
correct the border problem?
The sad truth is that some have died, both law enforcement and
innocent civilians. Law enforcement wants this bill, Mr. Speaker.
Mayors in my border districts want this bill. My constituents want this
bill, but every opposition that I have heard from my friends on the
other side is coming from the same people that stood by as the previous
administration and the White House caused this border crisis. Forgive
me if I am not moved by those arguments. I am moved by the feedback
from those that are on the front lines of this border crisis.
I consistently hear about the detrimental impact that high-speed
chases have in southeastern Arizona and across the southern border,
specifically in the county that I mentioned earlier, Cochise County.
This criminal activity is not just reserved to drug cartels or
illegal immigrants or smugglers themselves. These cartels are targeting
American citizens to be those drivers. In most cases, those drivers
happen to be American citizens, as well.
Yes, this legislation goes beyond just the illegal immigrants that
are driving. It goes to punish also U.S. citizens that are engaging in
this activity. Anyone endangering American lives should be held to
account.
This bill is about supporting our law enforcement communities who
deal with this crisis on a daily basis to stop the smuggling and
trafficking.
In calendar year 2022 and 2023, Cochise County reports booking 2,884
individuals for border-related crimes, costing over $9.4 million to
that local community. This is in one county, in one State. I have seen
the toll it takes firsthand in our communities.
We should be asking ourselves why these people are fleeing law
enforcement. The answer is: These are bad actors who the cartels want
to evade law enforcement.
Finally, I will highlight the hero that this bill is named after.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. CISCOMANI. Agent Raul Gonzalez was killed in 2022 while pursuing
illegal immigrants in Texas. His death underscores the tragic truth
that our Customs and Border Protection agents and officers risk their
lives every day to protect our community.
By passing this legislation, we are showing them that we have their
backs. That is why this bill is supported by law enforcement groups
like the National Border Patrol Council and the National Sheriffs'
Association and many local law enforcement groups in Arizona, as well.
This bill passed last Congress with bipartisan support. I hope and
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
bill, prioritize border security, and make our border communities
safer.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee
(Mr. Jordan) invites us to believe that we should just suspend our own
interests in legislative power. We should no longer defend the laws we
have passed, the programs we have adopted, the money we have
appropriated but that we should turn it over to the new fourth branch
of government, Elon Musk, who can do whatever he wants.
Then he wants to also delegate to Mr. Musk our oversight power. We
have an entire committee chaired by Mr. Comer. We have our own
subcommittee on Oversight in the Judiciary Committee, but do they want
to have hearings on Big Bird and Ernie and all of the alleged waste,
fraud, and abuse that Mr. Musk is finding with his untutored, unvetted,
juvenile computer hacker crew?
Come on. Let's show some institutional self-respect. This is the
Congress of the United States. We are not delegating our power to Elon
Musk or anybody else.
Mr. Speaker, many of our great heroes have understood that sloppy
legislation undertaken as part of an attempt to whip up anti-
immigration hysteria comes to haunt not just the immigrant community,
of course, but citizens, too.
This bill is a great example of that because I don't know if they
meant to write it this way, but it applies to citizens. It doesn't
require mens rea, so call the Heritage Foundation about that. They are
opposed to bills like this that don't require you prove that people
have a specific intent to violate the law and commit a criminal
offense. It doesn't define what fleeing even means. It doesn't require
a high-speed chase, which is what they keep talking about. That is
already against the law in lots of places.

[[Page H690]]

It is a sloppy bill that is going to come back and haunt us if it
were ever to become law, which it won't.
Thomas Jefferson said during the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts where
people were trying to whip up hysteria--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I first am tempted to address my friend's obsession with
Elon Musk. The situation is pretty simple: A new boss takes over and he
brings in an auditor. The auditor calls in the Democrats and says, I
would like to see your expense account receipts, and the Democrats go
absolutely berserk.
Now, what does that tell you about what has been going on with our
money all this time?
My experience has been that the most closely guarded secrets of
government are not those that are marked ``top secret,'' they are the
secrets that are embarrassing.
Elon Musk is embarrassing the Democrats, which is why they have
unleashed this torrent of invective, vitriol, and character
assassination upon him, and why they have spent so much time today
obsessing on Elon Musk rather than the bill before us to protect the
victims of illegal immigration that they themselves unleashed upon our
country.
Mr. Speaker, Scott Jennings of CNN recently wondered aloud: What
possesses the Democrats to constantly take the 20 percent side of every
major issue, whether it is waste in government, men competing in girls'
sports, crime and homelessness, or, in this case, border security? They
seem instinctively to reject a commonsense position expressed by 80
percent or more of the electorate and double down on the 20 percent or
less position taken only by the lunatic fringe of the radical left, and
they are doing that again today.

{time} 1015

High-speed chases due to human and drug smuggling at the border have
claimed the lives of far too many Americans, including a Border Patrol
agent who was simply trying to protect his local community. This bill,
named in his memory, makes it a Federal crime to evade the Border
Patrol or local law enforcement acting in support of the Border Patrol
within 100 miles of the international border.
If you are a foreign national, it makes a conviction or admission of
such a crime grounds for inadmissibility and removability. If you
endanger our local law enforcement officers or innocent bystanders by
initiating a high-speed chase, we will throw you in prison for a long
time. Then, we will send you packing when you get out.
I suspect this bill has the support of well over 80 percent of the
American people, yet once again, the Democrats oppose it. I suspect
most will vote against it, as they did last year.
The American people have seen this unfold in this Chamber time and
time again. They clearly understand what is at stake, and they well
understand the implications to the sovereignty of our country and to
the safety of our communities. Last November, they gave us the votes to
pass this legislation, and they gave us a President who will sign it.
Let's get on with it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition H.R. 35. This bill is
a solution that has already been addressed in law. Right now, the House
of Representatives has important work to do. The deadline to fund the
government is only one month away, and the price of eggs is
skyrocketing under President Trump. But instead of addressing these
problems, Republicans put forward the same messaging bill we voted on
last Congress.
To be clear, fleeing the border patrol already carries criminal and
legal penalties under current law, and a conviction for fleeing border
patrol already makes a person deportable. This bill is poorly written
and politicizes a tragedy. It does nothing to make our border more
secure or fix our broken immigration system. Republicans continue to
demonstrate they are not willing to work toward real solutions to bring
order to the border and fix our immigration system.
This is another bill in a series of Republican slippery-slope
immigration bills that erodes the rights of everyone present in the
United States, including green card holders, students, temporary
workers, DACA recipients, and even citizens. It attacks due process
under the United States Constitution and targets immigrants who are
lawfully in the United States. In H.R. 35, there is no requirement that
a noncitizen actually be charged by law enforcement, making a person
deportable without even being convicted of a crime. Our Constitution
holds that in the United States, you are innocent until you are proven
guilty. This bill undermines that basic principle.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 264,
nays 155, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 42]

YEAS--264

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Bishop
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Budzinski
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Case
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DeLauro
Deluzio
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gillen
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gonzales, Tony
Gooden
Goodlander
Gosar
Gottheimer
Graves
Gray
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Harder (CA)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Houlahan
Hoyle (OR)
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Kean
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kennedy (NY)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Landsman
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lee (NV)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Lynch
Mace
Mackenzie
Magaziner
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Mannion
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClain Delaney
McClintock
McCormick
McDonald Rivet
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Min
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Morelle
Moskowitz
Mrvan
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Riley (NY)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Ryan
Salazar
Salinas
Scalise
Schmidt
Scholten
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Sorensen
Spartz
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Suozzi
Sykes
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Titus
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Vasquez
Veasey
Vindman
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Whitesides
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NAYS--155

Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly
Correa

[[Page H691]]

Crockett
Crow
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Goldman (NY)
Gonzalez, V.
Green, Al (TX)
Hayes
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (PA)
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morrison
Moulton
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Soto
Stansbury
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Swalwell
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Turner (TX)
Underwood
Vargas
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Williams (GA)

NOT VOTING--14

Donalds
Gomez
Grijalva
Himes
Hunt
Kelly (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Mills
Mullin
Pelosi
Pettersen
Scott, David
Sherrill
Wilson (FL)

{time} 1045

Mses. McCLELLAN and JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. VEASEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Speaker, I recently gave birth and am unable to
travel to D.C. to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on
Roll Call No. 42.

____________________