Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me set a couple of things straight.

The border is not open. Now, maybe some people think it is because my Republican colleagues every day for the last 2 years have come to the floor screaming, ``The border is open. The border is open. The border is open.''

However, the border is not open, and that is just a fact. Today, there are approximately 38,000 people in immigration detention, which is 4,000 more than what DHS is funded for and roughly what the Trump administration averaged in fiscal year 2018.

The Biden administration has also significantly increased removals in ways that many on our side of the aisle are concerned violates due process. Since the end of title 42 last year, the Biden administration has removed or returned to Mexico close to 500,000 individuals. The total is nearly equivalent to the number of people removed in all of fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration.

Please, please, stop making things up and stop claiming the border is open. It is not.

Do we have a problem at the border? Absolutely. Absolutely, we do. However, listening to the gentleman, he seems to have no solutions. I mean, I think he thinks this is Beetlejuice, if you say ``crisis'' three times, the problem goes away. No; you have to take some action. You have to work to try to address the issue.

Democrats and President Biden want to find real, comprehensive solutions to fix it. What we need is Republicans to stop playing political games, and that is the exact opposite of what is happening here and what has been happening under this Republican-controlled House of Representatives. It is shameful.

I know that because we called their bluff. Democrats said, yeah, we care about border security, too. Let's get to work. Now Republicans tell us that they would rather wait until after the election. They don't actually want the thing they have been talking about for the last year. It is all a big lie. It is all a big lie.

Why? Why would they want to wait? Why don't they want to work with us to fix the border right now? I think we all know the answer. Trump called--the guy they all worship, the guy they are all frightened to death of. He called, and he is demanding that they do nothing. No action at all on the border, that is what he said because he wants to campaign on it. I mean, what the hell is wrong with them?

The Senate is working on a bipartisan border security bill, and Republicans tell us here in the House that they don't care what is in it. They will oppose it no matter what. From what I hear, I am not sure that I can even support the bill they are working on over in the Senate. It has things in it that cause me a lot of angst, but Republicans are sure that they are against it because Trump told them to be against it.

That is because, at the end of the day, all he wants is to be able to scare people by demonizing immigrants and whipping up hate and fear and appealing to racism and bigotry. It is disgusting. It is that simple. I mean, I am not surprised. This is the guy who says: ``Immigrants poison the blood of America,'' echoing the words of Adolf Hitler. We can't get anyone on the other side of the aisle to try to disassociate themselves with those remarks. That is who the Republicans listen to. That is who is calling the shots here. Trump says no action on border security, period.

Please, spare us the outrage and indignation. It is all theatrics. It is all for show, all so you can go on FOX News and blame President Biden for something that they refuse to fix. Republicans tried to cut Customs and Border Protection personnel. They rejected President Biden's request for $106 billion in funding to fix this problem, and they have consistently voted against funding for border security.

You can't make this stuff up. They say we don't need more money. We just need a President who follows the law. We hear that again and again. We heard that last night in the Rules Committee. I hope that they are not implying that the former President--a rapist who was just ordered by a jury to pay $83 million for defaming his victim--follows the law.

He has been indicted 4 times with 91 felony counts. I mean, this guy has been indicted more times than he has been elected. Give me a break. That is who is calling the shots around here? It is shameful.

The bottom line is that they simply do not want to fix the border crisis. House Democrats, Senate Democrats, President Biden--hell, even Senate Republicans, some of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate, have been working together in a bipartisan way to solve this country's problems.

We acknowledge we need to address our problems at the border, provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, fix our broken immigration system, and address the root causes of migration.

What does the extreme MAGA clown show in this House care about? Not fixing the border. They care about Trump, about bending over backwards for his campaign and turning this place into a circus. What a shame. What a waste of time. What an embarrassment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I missed a lot of what the gentleman from Texas just screamed because I couldn't follow it all.

Mr. Speaker, it is being intimated that this bill that is being worked on in the Senate somehow does nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a CNN article titled: ``GOP Senators seethe as Trump blows up delicate immigration compromise.''

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that people like Senator Thom Tillis--I didn't think he was a liberal Democrat. Unless I missed something, he is a pretty conservative Republican--said: ``Don't pretend that the policy isn't strong. If you want to admit you're just afraid to tell President Trump the truth, that's fine. But for you to take a look at this framework and say it's a half measure, either you're not paying attention or you're not telling the truth.''

That is Senator Thom Tillis, a very conservative Republican Senator, saying that. It is not me. I would say that to the gentleman from Texas.

Senator Lankford, is he now a Democrat? Is he now a traitor to the cause? We heard some Republicans at a press conference yesterday talk about those who were supporting a compromise. He said the other day on ``Face the Nation,'' and I quote, House Republicans actually do not want a change in the law because it is a Presidential election year.

I mean, this is ridiculous. This is all theatrics. Shame on them for exploiting this issue. Shame on them for ginning up all this hate and all this vitriol and not wanting to be part of the solution, not wanting to do anything to fix it.

I am also puzzled. I think I need to go to the Capitol's attending physician to see if I can get a neck brace because I have whiplash following the logic of some of my Republican friends.

We heard all year that we need to pass a bill in order to fix the immigration crisis at the border, and then last night in the Rules Committee we are told we don't need a bill, we don't need a law. Then here we are today dealing with four more bills that, by the way, most of which is already covered in existing law.

What is it? Do we need a law, or don't we need a law? If we don't need a law, what the hell are we here for?

Why are we wasting our time? This is not a debate club, right. We are here to actually get things done. If the gentleman wants to be part of the solution, then be part of the solution.

If the gentleman just wants to complain for the sake of complaining, then just do it in the press conferences. Don't waste time here.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act, which would provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, temporary protected status holders, and deferred enforced departure recipients.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan), to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, you need a map to follow the logic of that last speaker. First of all, the border is not open. We have more people in detention right now than we have funding for. My Republican friends continuously vote against more funding, so figure that out.

To the listening audience here, I am a little bit confused by the debate on the other side of the aisle. The gentleman from Missouri just talked about, oh, we are serious about securing our border. We passed

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, to illustrate the point that I made earlier that my Republican friends are not serious about governing or about getting anything done, I point out to people in this Chamber maybe something that they don't really know.

I have served on the Rules Committee for a long time, and the Rules Committee used to be a place where people showed up to try to get things done, where we would discuss big and pressing issues facing the country, and where we would debate how each side thought these problems should be solved. We would pass consequential legislation to improve the lives of Americans.

It has been difficult to be on the Rules Committee lately to just deal with messaging bills--bills that don't do anything, that don't mean anything,

that don't help anybody, and that don't solve any problems.

This is a Judiciary Committee bill that we are dealing with right now. I ask this question of my colleagues here in the House: Do you know how many bills the Judiciary Committee has brought before the Rules Committee that have become law in the last year?

The answer to that question is zero. Zero.

It seems like the Judiciary Committee is up in the Rules Committee every other day. Not a single Judiciary Committee bill that has come before the Rules Committee that has come to this floor has become law. That is absurd.

Now, you may say I am cherry-picking, but do you know the last time the Rules Committee met on a bill that actually was brought to the floor that got signed into law?

Eight months ago. That is when we met on the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

Even that moved forward because Democrats came to the rescue and voted for the rule to avoid a debt ceiling disaster.

That is 8 months, more than half of our time in this Congress, wasted on messaging bills. At this point, I am not sure if that is a bug or a feature for this Republican majority, but what is clear is this: None of these bills that we are talking about here today will address our border challenges.

None of these bills that we are dealing with today are going to ever become law. Republicans don't really care because they don't want to do anything real to solve problems at the border.

The economy is getting better. Their presumptive nominee for President is ethically challenged. He has more legal problems than--I don't even want to compare him to anybody. We have never seen anything like this before.

He was just ordered to pay $83 million for defaming a woman who he sexually abused, and this is just the beginning.

They are not interested in solving problems or governing. What they are interested in is trying to hold on to a campaign issue. I am tired of it, the American people are tired of it, and frankly, it is just sad.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman how many more speakers he has?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, here is the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want to work to get things done. We want to work with Republicans in a bipartisan way to fix our problems at the border. Republicans, well, let me just use their own words. Last night in the Rules Committee, we heard from the other side that we aren't going to fix the border crisis with laws. I mean, that is what was said in the Rules Committee last night.

I mean, what the hell are we even doing here then?

Why even pass any laws at all?

Why try to fix any problems?

Republicans say that Joe Biden and Democrats are single-handedly responsible for the crisis at the border. That is just not true. That is just not true. It is simply not true.

Look at the facts. Democrats voted to increase border funding by 17 percent. Democrats provided $65 million for 300 new Border Patrol agents, $60 million for 125 new personnel at points of entry, and $230 million for technology, like autonomous surveillance towers.

Republicans--Republicans--voted ``no'' every single time. Why? It is simple. Because Trump calls the shots around here, and Trump wants a crisis at the border. Somehow he thinks it helps him politically.

Unfortunately, there is not a lot of courage on the other side of the aisle in this House to stand up to the bully and to do what is right. In fact, we have our House leadership standing up and saying no to a deal that the most conservative Republicans in the other Chamber are saying is a good deal, is a tough deal. And they are saying no. Why? Because all of a sudden, Trump doesn't want it. How pathetic. How pathetic. What a cynical, rotten thing to do.

This is a serious problem that requires a serious solution, but they don't want to solve it. They don't want any action to secure the border. That is their strategy for November.

Well, guess what, it is going to look a lot less strategic when they lose the next election because the American people see through their BS and vote them out of office.

I mean, we have an opportunity here to potentially do something that will actually address the problems at the border: something meaningful, not messaging bills that are going nowhere, not talking points, not press conferences where people have meltdowns, but actually do something meaningful. All they can say is no, no, because Trump doesn't want us to do it.

You know, I don't know how we progress here. I am hoping that there are some sensible Republicans who will stand up to Trump and stand up to their leadership who seems to have caved on trying to work together. I point out, again, that we have a divided government. I wish the Democrats were in control of everything. I am sure my Republican friends wished the Republicans were in control of everything. But the fact of the matter is, they are not, and they continue to act like they are, but when they behave that way nothing gets done.

So the way this is supposed to work is that we work across the aisle, we try to come up with some areas of commonality, and we move forward, and we work with the Senate, and we work with the White House. That is what the Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats are doing right now.

I mean, Mr. Speaker, I say to my Republican friends: You are not in control of everything. You don't have a dictatorship--at least yet. I know that is what the former President would like, but that is not what we have right now. If we want to get something done, we are going to have to compromise. We are going to have to give and take. We have to listen to each other. We have to try to move something forward.

For the life of me, I can't understand why we are wasting so much time coming to the floor with stuff that is going nowhere that serves no purpose, other than to get people all riled up and maybe continue to appeal to the worst instincts in people: hate, racism, and bigotry. Enough. Enough.

Mr. Speaker, if they want to solve the problem, then we are willing to work with them. If they don't, then please go away.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 980 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 980, providing for consideration of four measures: H.R. 5585, H.R. 6678, H.R. 6679, and H.R. 6976.

The rule provides for consideration of all four measures under structured rules with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction, or their designee. The rule provides one motion to recommit for each measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and support of the underlying bills.

Today, we are here to address an ongoing crisis, not a new concept to this body. The word ``crisis'' has been a hard one for my friends on the other side of the aisle to absorb when it comes to our current situation on the southern border.

Let's just put a few things into perspective:

In 2023, Customs and Border Protection encountered over 2\1/2\ million illegal migrants attempting to cross the southern U.S. border.

In December alone, Customs and Border Protection encountered 302,000 illegal migrants--that is just in the month of December--attempting to cross the U.S. southern border, the highest number of unlawful migrant crossings in a single month in recorded history.

In 2023, Customs and Border Protection confiscated almost 230,000 pounds of drugs, including 22,000 pounds of illicit fentanyl, being smuggled across the southern border.

If this doesn't sound like a crisis to you, I don't know what would.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I was at the southern border to witness firsthand the challenges faced by Texans and to hear directly from Border Patrol agents and law enforcement officers who are on the front lines of this crisis.

Magically, either by order of President Biden or by order of the cartels, the Eagle Pass area was completely cleared out that day. If that is possible when Members of Congress are visiting on a certain day, it is possible every single day.

Mr. Speaker, the President has every tool that he needs right now to stop the overwhelming flow of migrants to the border. The proof of this is that immediately upon taking office, President Biden dismantled the immigration policies that were put in place by the Trump administration. He did that by executive order. He can undo them by executive order.

President Biden halted the construction of the border wall, ended Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as the remain in Mexico program, and restarted the dangerous catch and release program with the simple stroke of a pen.

Now the consequences have been stark: record numbers of migrants crossing the border and increasing each month; record numbers of illegal migrants being released into the United States; an open season for drug smugglers, human traffickers, and Mexican cartels; and social support systems stretched to the breaking point, not only in my home State of Texas, but places across the country like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Denver.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an immigration problem; it is a national security problem. We have a responsibility to make certain that the laws of this land protect Americans and ensure their safety.

Earlier this Congress, we passed H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, to combat illegal migration and ensure operational control over the southern border, but the Senate has refused to even debate or have a vote on the bill.

Today, we take up four additional bills that will help undo the chaos caused by this administration to ensure that law enforcement, particularly the agents of Customs and Border Protection, Federal agents are supported in their mission to keep our communities safe. This means closing loopholes that allow illicit behavior to go without punishment, which is exactly what the following four measures will do.

Last year, Customs and Border Patrol Agent Raul Gonzalez was tragically killed in pursuit of illegal migrants fleeing law enforcement in a motor vehicle. High-speed chases started by those breaking our laws are not uncommon.

In fact, any of us who have been down and visited the border, whether it was several years ago or recently, have been shown the films, the dash cam videos collected by Customs and Border Protection of these very high-risk, high-velocity chases which frequently end up with a crash, with people hurt, or people simply bailing out on the highway and running away.

Currently, fleeing law enforcement in a motor vehicle does not carry immigration consequences for the perpetrators, even in situations that result in the death of an officer, like the one involving Agent Gonzalez.

H.R. 5585, the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act will change that by adding specific criminal and immigration consequences for individuals who operate motor vehicles while fleeing Border Patrol and law enforcement agents.

The penalties instituted by this bill include prison time and ensure that perpetrators can be deemed inadmissible to this country and deported from the United States.

Preventing deadly accidents that endanger lives is also the focus of H.R. 6976, the Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act.

With a simple turn of a key, an intoxicated driver commits a crime and illegal migrants are no different. Tragically, many of these incidents involve individuals who should not be in the country at all. Illegal migrants who have committed this offense are evaluated under the crimes involving moral turpitude standard, a difficult and complex legal analysis that results in long delays and lengthy legal proceedings.

H.R. 6976 will change this and provide immigration consequences for driving under the influence, rendering illegal migrants who have committed this offense inadmissible to this country and deportable without a lengthy process.

In a similar vein, with identification and fraud on the rise, H.R. 6678, the Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act will ensure that criminal or illegal migrants who commit Social Security and ID fraud can be removed and barred from this country.

Finally, we will take up H.R. 6679, the No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act. In October, the world watched in horror as Hamas, a designated terror organization, committed a vicious and evil attack on Israel. Twelve hundred Israelis, including American citizens, were murdered. Another 240 were taken back to Gaza as hostages where many remain today.

Terrorists who participated in, planned, or otherwise supported the October 7 attacks should not be admissible to the United States, full stop. There is no reason for a member of Hamas to ever be admitted into the United States. H.R. 6679 will make that a reality and ensure that we can prevent these deadly and evil people from

ever entering our country, thereby protecting our citizens.

Taken together, eradicating these gaps in our legal recourse will deter criminal activity and ensure that bad actors face appropriate punishment for their crimes.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have demonstrated that we are committed to governing for the American people and that the American people have spoken. Their message to their elected Representatives is: ``Enough.''

Enough with sending their tax dollars to process migrants that should not be in this country in the first place instead of enforcing the law; enough with putting law enforcement both at the border and across America in harm's way; enough with the fearmongering and lies.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the rule and the underlying bills. I urge my fellow Members to support the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds just to answer some of the charges flung against me.

The gentleman said he wants solutions. There are solutions. The solutions are to undo the executive order the President put in place in his first 5 minutes in office, end catch and release, cease the exploitation of parole authority, reinstate remain in Mexico, expand expedited removal authority, and renew the building of a wall.

Mr. Speaker, it is sheer fantasy that $106 billion will fix this problem. Of course, it won't. The gentleman knows it won't.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford) for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the bill being considered over in the Senate is a bill that sets a floor, not a ceiling, a bill that guarantees 2 million people illegally come into this country every year. Mr. Speaker, that is on top of the 1.2 million people that are admitted legally every year--and not to mention the people who come in under the radar. Yes, I am going to be against that bill, and I will be happy to join my friend from Massachusetts in a bipartisan fashion and vote against that legislation because it is bad legislation; not because someone else told me it is bad, but because I know it is bad, and my constituents know it is bad.

When we were down in Eagle Pass, Texas, a few weeks ago with the Speaker of the House, the deputy chief of the Border Patrol spoke to us the first evening down there, and he said, we are faced with a raging flood. And when you are faced with that, it is not that I need bigger buckets, I need someone to turn the water off. So is there a way to turn the water off? And he told us there was.

Simply reinstituting the remain in Mexico policy, the Migrant Protection Protocols that President Biden undid with an executive order on his first day in office, would reduce the flow by 70 percent and would allow our very beleaguered Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement the ability to actually maneuver and do what their job calls for; that is, to protect American citizens.

As it stands right now with the massive ingress of people, all they can do is process people. It becomes a question of throughput. So that is not an answer, and don't pretend that it is because the American people see through that.

I will just address one other thing. I am not running for reelection. I am bulletproof. You can't hurt me. But I support the former President and his approach to border control because I saw it work for the 4 years he was in office. He was the best President of the 21st century, and, yes, I would like to see him back in office; not because someone told me, but my constituents support the type of leadership that he provided for those 4 years.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this country is being invaded at the southern border--invaded to the extent that Governor Greg Abbott in my home State of Texas has officially declared an invasion. This administration has done nothing to help, nothing to help Texas, and has, instead, decided to take Texas to court to sue Texas just for trying to get the smallest bit of relief for its citizens and for its law enforcement officers.

The Republican majority has, once again, demonstrated that our agenda will be devoted to improving the lives of American citizens. Our governing majority will continue to focus on the issues that matter most to the American people: rising energy costs, sky-high inflation, rampant crime, and, yes, fixing our porous southern border.

These are issues that the American voters rightfully demand their elected Representatives to address. The Republican majority is committed to solving the many crises that this President and the minority have inflicted on our Nation.

Today, we begin the most basic duties of stopping and punishing criminals who come across our southern border illegally.

I would like to thank Representative Juan Ciscomani from Arizona; Representative Tom McClintock from California, with whom I serve on the Budget Committee; and Representative Barry Moore from Alabama, for their leadership on these important pieces of legislation.

I, again, stand in strong support of the rule and the underlying bills, and I urge my fellow Members to support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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. 5585.

Mr. Chairman, on December 7 of 2022, Border Patrol Officer Raul Gonzalez got up, he got dressed, kissed his family good- bye, and left for work.

His family would never see him again. He was killed later that day in Mission, Texas, doing his job trying to protect our country. A group of illegal aliens and their smuggler led him on a high-speed chase that ended in a fatal wreck that took his life.

Now, this is becoming an increasingly common story along our southern border in the age of Biden's open-border policies. The number of high- speed chases by Border Patrol or local law enforcement has exploded along with the illegal human trafficking and smuggling that they are trying to stop.

The Biden administration's lax enforcement of our immigration laws has incentivized this, creating the conditions that create these deadly high-speed chases, and the problem has now reached critical levels.

One lifelong Arizona resident reflected on the dangers of Highway 90 in Cochise County, now a major smuggling route. She said, It is scary to the point you don't want to drive the highway, but to get to work you have to. I am actually scared about going out into the public sometimes, because what if there is a high-speed chase and something goes sideways, they get into a car accident, hop the curb and hit anybody?

In Tombstone, Arizona, U.S. Marshal Jim Adams spoke of the high-speed chases racing through his town. He said, This is a weekly occurrence, sometimes daily, sometimes several times a day.

Americans near the border should not be living in terror for themselves or their loved ones being killed by high-speed chases caused by cartel smugglers. Yet, in many communities, they do now.

Human smuggling is an incredibly lucrative business. According to Border Patrol estimates in the Del Rio sector alone, cartels profit $32 million a week for a staggering total of $1.6 billion per year just in that one sector. The cartels expertly control their side of the border. Nobody gets through without paying them.

Yet, while the cartels are making billions controlling their side of the border, Joe Biden is spending billions of dollars while abandoning control of our side of the border.

This bill is very simple. It makes it a Federal crime to evade the Border Patrol or local law enforcement that is assisting the Border Patrol within 100 miles of the international border. If you are a foreign national, it makes the conviction or admission of such a crime grounds for inadmissibility and removability. If you hurt somebody, we will put you in prison for 5 years. If you kill somebody, we will put you in prison for 10 years. If you are a foreign national, we will send you packing when you get out.

That is what the Democrats in this House will oppose today, and that should be a wake-up call for every American.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani), the author of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chair, setting aside my good friend's weird obsession with Donald Trump, I hope Americans will take note of what has been said in this debate.

The Democrats made the point, well, why chase them and endanger themselves and the public? Why not just let them go?

Well, the answer should be obvious. Under the Democrats' open-borders policy, all that you have to do is flag down a Border Patrol officer and make a phony asylum claim. Under their policies, you will be immediately released into our country. You will get a plane or bus ticket anywhere you want to go. You will get free meals, free snacks, free clothes, free phones. You immediately qualify for free medical care, free housing, free education for your children. Within 6 months, you will be given a work authorization to undercut working American families. You will be assured that your phony claim won't be heard for many years into the future, if you show up at all.

Also, when you are finally ordered deported, as is the case with the overwhelming majority of these claims, that court order will simply be ignored by our own government. There are already currently 1.3 million such deportation orders that the administration already simply ignores.

With all of these benefits waiting for you simply by flagging down a Border Patrol officer, why in the world would you want to evade capture by endangering your own lives? Well, the only reason I can think of is that you are either hiding a criminal record, or you are committing a crime.

I remind the gentleman that is why the Border Patrol chases evaders. They have caught hundreds of known terrorists and countless pounds of fentanyl and other deadly drugs by doing so.

FBI Director Chris Wray warned the Judiciary Committee that this constitutes a massive security threat--his words--a massive security threat. Let that sink in. And then consider the barbaric terrorist attack 103 days ago in Israel.

I believe it is just a matter of time before we see a coordinated terrorist attack in our own country from elements that have entered as a direct result of Biden's policies. We have already seen lone wolf attacks in Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark because of their lax border policies. I am afraid this is only the tip of this iceberg.

I, again, remind the gentleman that is why we chase evaders, and those evaders need to be held accountable to the law and punished, and, if they are foreigners, they need to be removed from our country. Yet, the Democrats object to this.

Now, the Democrats have argued that the bill should not include a mandatory minimum sentence. Well, let's go over specifically what they object to. If you cause a high-speed chase that injures somebody, you are going to serve a minimum of 5 years under this bill. If you kill somebody, it is a minimum of 10 years.

Does any reasonable person believe these mandatory minimums are unreasonable? Ask the American who has been paralyzed in such a crash if it is unreasonable. Ask the family of the mother who has been killed in such a crash if that is unreasonable. The only people who seem to think that this is unreasonable are the Democrats in this House, and voters might want to do something about that.

The Democrats argue that the bill is unnecessary because aliens who are convicted of fleeing an immigration checkpoint are already removable. You heard that argument several times. Well, that is true, but it only applies to those who are fleeing a checkpoint. It doesn't make the alien inadmissible to come back into our country, either.

This bill applies to all smugglers causing dangerous crashes or chases within 100 miles of the border, and it creates serious penalties for those who injure or kill officers or bystanders during these pursuits.

Now, the Democrats have also claimed that this measure would destroy due process by deporting an alien who hasn't actually been convicted of a crime.

Well, actually, this bill requires either a conviction of a crime, or an admission of committing that crime. That is the same standard we apply to aliens guilty of overstaying a visa, violating nonimmigrant status or condition of entry, smuggling aliens, committing marriage fraud, being a drug user or a drug addict, falsely claiming United States citizenship, or engaging in espionage. This bill simply adds evasion of the Border Patrol to this existing list.

By the way, a confession is not an idle matter. Under 80 years of precedent, the alien's confession has to be explicit, unequivocal, and unqualified. The Department of Homeland Security then has the burden of proof to show that the statement meets the requirement for removal purposes, and an immigration judge must then find that the admission is based on reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.

This is hardly a casual confession, but it does save years and years of court proceedings and appeals.

Mr. Chair, we have heard directly from the officers and citizens of our border communities of the dangers that they now face day after day as cartel smugglers drive at high speeds through their towns to evade the Border Patrol or the police.

This bill says, if you clearly admit to this crime or you are convicted of it and you are a foreign national, we will not only deport you, but it will be grounds for forbidding you from returning, which is not part of the current law.

The bill says to legal and illegal residents alike, if you hurt somebody while causing this reckless hazard, we will throw you in jail for 5 years; if you kill somebody, it is 10.

The Democrats are opposed to these reforms. We should tell people everything they need to know about the obstacles that we are facing to securing our border and returning our border communities to peace and safety.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires a new fact to be proven at trial that the pursuing law enforcement officer was ``under the command'' of the U.S. Border Patrol in each and every case.

I can imagine many circumstances where local law enforcement is alerted to a Border Patrol chase that is going through their jurisdiction and then act immediately to assist them without necessarily being directly under their command.

The issue is not who is pursuing smugglers but rather the circumstances of the pursuit; namely, this person is evading the Border Patrol. It is unlikely that during each and every pursuit in progress the Border Patrol is going to have time to deputize local law enforcement and place them under their command.

This is a ridiculous expectation, so ridiculous as to raise the suspicion that it is intended solely to render the bill unworkable and meaningless.

These high-speed chases occur far too often in our border communities, and State and local law enforcement are often first responders in protecting these communities along with the Border Patrol.

This amendment would serve only to challenge law enforcement, who are properly doing their job, to stop smugglers and illegal aliens from terrorizing their communities.

Mr. Chair, I, therefore, oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman is finished.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I was just shocked to hear the gentlewoman accuse the Governor of Texas of murder. This is an example of the kind of extremism that we see on the left in this House today.

Now, the fact is the Border Patrol agents are strained to the breaking point by this administration's open-border policies, and they often rely on local law enforcement having their backs.

If the gentlewoman doesn't know what active assistance is, it is a high-speed chase that is going through their community and they are there in a position to back up the Border Patrol. Mr. Chair, you can't negotiate that. You cannot be deputized. That is part and parcel of law enforcement. You have to spring into action.

When overt local police are providing this assistance, they should have the protection that this bill provides. It also puts every smuggler on notice that if they are trafficking human beings or drugs across the border and they are pursued, then they darn well better pull over.

Apparently, this is just too much for the Democrats to bear. I am not sure whether we should laugh this amendment off the floor or merely defeat it. In either event, it is a foolish idea.

Mr. Chair, it deserves a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5585, the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act, would establish harsh criminal and immigration penalties for flight, while operating a motor vehicle, from a pursuing U.S. Border Patrol agent or other law enforcement officer assisting in the pursuit.

Let me make clear: The death of Agent Gonzalez in the performance of his duties is a tragedy, and our hearts go out to his family and friends. However, H.R. 5585 is not the best or even a viable answer to the perceived problem this bill claims to solve.

High-speed vehicle pursuits can be incredibly dangerous, often ending in horrific accidents with serious injuries or even the deaths of individuals being chased by law enforcement, as well as innocent bystanders and law enforcement personnel.

According to a report by the ACLU of Texas, Border Patrol-involved vehicle pursuits resulted in 107 deaths, not including law enforcement officers, between January of 2010 and November of 2023.

Following public outcry as the number of deaths continued to rise, CBP conducted a review of its vehicle pursuit policy. The review resulted in a newly revised directive published in January of last year, just 1 month after Agent Gonzalez was killed. The net effect of the new policy is to discourage the number of high-speed pursuits.

When weighing the potential risk to the safety of the public and law enforcement officers, many jurisdictions have determined that the risks are far too great to justify a vehicle pursuit. I hope CBP agents will be encouraged to adhere to the agency's updated policy.

I have many concerns with the criminal aspects of this legislation, but most troubling is its inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences. For more than a decade, mandatory minimums have been widely condemned for many reasons, including their disproportionate application of cases involving people of color and the resulting mass incarceration and overpolicing of marginalized communities. We must continue to resist every urge to add to the list of Federal criminal offenses subject to mandatory minimum penalties, because they have served to perpetuate injustice and inequity within our criminal justice system.

Turning to the immigration provisions of this bill, the justification for such harsh penalties is similarly lacking. People who are convicted of fleeing law enforcement are already deportable and inadmissible.

One of the many ways someone can become inadmissible and deportable is if they are convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, commonly called a CIMT. Courts have previously determined that knowingly fleeing or eluding law enforcement is a CIMT.

However, this bill makes a significant change by not requiring that an individual actually be convicted of the crime to render them deportable. Under current law, to be deportable for a CIMT, there must be a conviction, but this bill would erase that conviction requirement, allowing someone to be rendered deportable even if they have never been convicted of a crime.

Deportability is not about undocumented immigrants, who are already removable. This is about people who are here legally, who in many cases have put down roots, have American citizen spouses and family and children.

By and large, we are talking about lawful permanent residents, people who have put down roots in our communities, as I said, many of whom have U.S. citizen spouses and children who have truly established themselves here in the United States.

If they are convicted of evading or fleeing law enforcement, they are generally already removable. Rendering such a person deportable without requiring a conviction raises serious due process concerns.

While the inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences is enough reason to vote no on H.R. 5585, the unjustifiably harsh immigration provisions render the bill a complete nonstarter.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would remind the gentlewoman and others that people who engage in high-speed chases with the Border Patrol are already deportable. The question on this bill is not whether they should be deported. The question is whether they should be convicted of the crime of engaging in a high-speed chase before being deported or whether we throw due process out the window.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman from, I think, Texas a moment ago said that this bill was necessary for the safety of our people. The truth is the safety of our people is already provided for by the current law, which makes engaging in a high-speed chase with Border Patrol agents a deportable offense already.

What this bill does is to remove due process protections; due process protections that we recognize as very important throughout our law. The truth of the matter is this is a diversion.

Everybody on that side of the aisle knows this bill is going nowhere in the Senate. This bill is not intended to go anywhere in the Senate. Everyone knows that a serious and very harsh overall immigration bill is being negotiated in the Senate, by Democratic Senators and by very conservative Republican Senators; a bill that is much more conservative than I would like to see, which I may not vote for, but which will probably get 75 or 80 votes in the Senate and could be signed by the President, establishing a very harsh regime that the other side of the aisle would probably like, that Senator Lankford likes, that Senator Tillis likes, not notable liberal Members.

We have a former President who has said--and I appreciate his honesty--he doesn't want a solution to the problem. He doesn't want our border problem fixed until he is the President again because he wants the issue.

What we are really dealing with is should we enact legislation that may solve the border problem, or should we keep it as an issue so that Donald Trump can campaign on it, and we can all debate that issue during the campaign but take no action? That is what we are really debating.

This bill and the three bills that will come this week are diversions. They are minor bills. They don't really do anything to keep our safety.

As I said, for instance, on this one, engaging in a high-speed chase with the CBP is already a deportable offense. All they want to do in this bill is remove some due process provisions for our longtime residents.

However, this is pitiful, and it is minor-league stuff compared to major legislation that will actually solve our

border problem, and that legislation is pending in the Senate. The Senate will probably pass it next week.

Moreover, we are told that it won't even be allowed to come to a vote in the House. Why? Because Marjorie Taylor Greene has said that if the Speaker brings any immigration bill that the Senate passes to the floor, she will move to vacate the chair. Why? Because our former President wants a campaign issue.

Senator Tillis has said this is shameful. Senator Romney has said this is more than shameful. Yet, that is what we are hearing. That is what we are seeing from our friends on the Republican side of the aisle--a total disinterest in the public interest, a total disinterest in the public safety, a total interest only in rhetoric and campaign material. They have said it by their own admission.

So let's not waste our time with this bill, which is irrelevant. It is not a good bill either because it dispenses with due process, but it is irrelevant because it is not going anywhere in the Senate; neither are the other three bills that were reported out of the Judiciary Committee that are also going nowhere in the Senate that we will waste our time on in the next few days.

Why waste our time? Why not deal with something real? Why not deal, if not with immigration, at least on something else real?

This Congress, with the exception of continuing resolutions and the debt ceiling crisis, has passed not one single bill into law--not one. And even the continuing resolution to prevent the government from shutting down, half on March 1 and half on March 8, passed with 107 Republicans voting yes, 106 Republicans voting no, and the Democrats all voting yes. We pulled the fat out of the fire.

So let's not waste our time with this. Let's not waste our time with this unnecessary legislation. Let's do something serious about immigration. Let's do something serious about anything.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I won't oppose the amendment, but I do want to make two points.

First, the data collected under this amendment is unlikely to be of much value without any understanding of the circumstances surrounding the charging decisions. Although I will not oppose it, I am concerned that without additional information, such a report could draw misleading or false conclusions.

Second, and more important, this amendment does absolutely nothing to improve the underlying bill. Therefore, whether or not this amendment passes, I still urge strong opposition to the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for his service. We will be missing him next Congress, but we still have some more time and work to do together.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about the bills that are sitting here in front of them because they are going to vote against at least three of them. We know that because they did it in Judiciary Committee.

These bills are pretty simple. If you are here and you evade Border Patrol, you can't stay here or come here. If you are here and you have committed Social Security fraud, you can't stay here or come here. If you are here and you have committed a DUI, you can't stay here or come here. Judiciary Democrats voted against all three of those. Let's put aside that if you are here, illegally, you should be deported anyway.

Then there is if you are here and a member of Hamas, or participated in, or facilitated the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, you cannot stay here or come here. Now, on that, it was passed unanimously. We will see what happens when it comes to the floor when some of the folks not on Judiciary Committee look at the bill.

I find it interesting that a blanket statement is made that some of us take our orders from former President Trump. Well, if somebody has a phone line into Mar-a-Lago, why don't you give him a call? I think he would be surprised to hear that I take orders from former President Trump, in light

of the recent time I have spent around the country.

I would tell you this: I don't take orders from the former President. I know that we shouldn't make this a political issue. I know this is an issue we should solve, but I don't think that is what the former President was saying.

I think the former President was saying this bill in the Senate is garbage, that it will make the problem worse; that we have all the power we need now to secure the border, and that the current President and current administration are ignoring it, and, indeed, purposely avoiding the law in order to flood America, which is endangering Americans; fentanyl flowing in; empowering cartels; empowering China; terrorists coming into our country; and criminals coming into our country. That is the truth. What the former President knows is that the bill being negotiated in the Senate is not a good one. He is calling that out.

However, I can assure you, I don't take orders from the former President, nor do I take orders from Somalis in Minnesota, but some people do. That is the truth.

The fact here is, we have legislation before us right now to address real problems for the people that we represent. I can tell you we do in Texas. We have a bill being negotiated in the Senate that is being deemed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as, Oh, a reasonable solution. A reasonable solution, when we had a bill last year that would actually secure the border with H.R. 2, which would close loopholes being exploited by our Democratic colleagues.

I had witnesses in a recent hearing on the Constitution and States stepping into the breach. The first assistant attorney general of Texas and the former attorney general of Arizona, they all testified under oath that there is an invasion. They all came forward to say that it was the right of the Governors, the right of the States to step in.

I had the ACLU witness acknowledge to me: I said, Hey, if cartels are coming guns a-blazing, they come across the river, can you defend yourself?

He said, Well, if it is a violation of State law, sure.

I said, Oh, really? That is an interesting piece of information to hear from the ACLU, that the State, that the Governor can, in fact, do what is necessary to defend the people of his State based on the laws of that State and, frankly, based on every understanding of what a leadership of a sovereign would do, and that is the truth.

Right now what we have are Democrats in the Senate wanting to hide behind a bill they know has no chance of moving through because, frankly, if it were passed, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are concerned about us campaigning on this, making it a political issue.

If that legislation were passed, the issue would still exist because the legislation wouldn't do anything to stop it. It sets a floor, not a ceiling. It sets a standard of 5,000 a day. Come on in, 1.8 million folks. That is the truth, if you read the bill.

The reality is, the gentleman talks about, Oh, we have 38,000 people in detention. Well, the truth is, we had 900,000 people get released last year; 900,000 got released. That doesn't count the ICE releases, that doesn't count the 50,000 a month of got-aways. These are the numbers we are talking about, and they are on an extraordinary level.

I remind everybody that here before us is legislation that all it does is try to layer on a commonsense ability to remove bad actors, DUIs, those affiliated with Hamas, Border Patrol having to chase people in high-speed chases, and those committing Social Security fraud. My Democratic colleagues don't want to talk about it because they are not going to support those commonsense measures.