Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act

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

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

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

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.

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--

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

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

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

and immigration penalties for intentionally fleeing a pursuing Federal officer while operating a motor vehicle, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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.

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

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. 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

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz).

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani), the author of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.