Jeremy and Angel Seay and Sergeant Brandon Mendoza Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act of 2025

Mr. Speaker, that was riveting. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, contained in this rule are two immigration bills, one of which Congress has already passed, another of which directs the administration to do something they already have the power to do.

There is a nonbinding resolution here to condemn rioting. We had an interesting conversation in the Rules Committee last night, and I don't remember Republicans offering a nonbinding resolution to condemn the riots that occurred outside this building on January 6, 2021.

We can't even get the Speaker of the House to hang the plaque expressing gratitude to the law enforcement officers who protected us that day that a law says he has to hang, so please forgive me if I think this one rings a bit hollow.

Then, we have an appropriations bill that continues this trend toward privatizing VA services and blocks women who are veterans from being able to get abortion services at the VA in most cases. Republicans are trying to restrict the freedoms of the people who are willing to fight and die for our freedoms. Republicans are unbelievable.

I am glad that we are here on the floor debating, Mr. Speaker. I just don't think we are debating what 90 percent of Americans want us to be talking about right now, which is the chaos and confusion that this administration has created and the real fear

that Americans have about this country being dragged into another quagmire in the Middle East.

The bottom line is that this administration is acting insane. The President yesterday said there was going to be a cease-fire forever between Israel and Iran. They are back to bombing each other this morning. The cease-fire he bragged about didn't even last a day.

He has inserted us into this war with zero thought to the consequences. We are bombing Iran. Iran is bombing us. The risk of miscalculation is massive, and the entire Republican Party is just going along for the ride.

Stephen Miller, a top administration official, is on TV talking about Donald Trump like he is Kim Jong-un. It is creepy.

The majority says they are not in a cult. Now is their chance to prove it.

Trump is doing literally the exact opposite of what he promised to do in his campaign. Instead of having the courage to say something, 99 percent of these guys suddenly decided they are in favor of endless wars. The mental gymnastics that takes is nuts.

Mr. Speaker, if it looks like a cult, if it acts like a cult, maybe, just maybe, it is a cult.

I thought Republicans said they were going to lower food prices. Food is just as expensive as it was 6 months ago, and now, we are dragged into another war in the Middle East. This isn't America First. This is not even normal. It is nuts.

This is an administration in way over its head that thought ending a war was as easy as ranting on Truth Social. Now, American troops and taxpayers are paying the price for their stupidity and carelessness.

Let's be crystal clear. These strikes were illegal, unauthorized, and unconstitutional. No debate, no vote, no evidence of an imminent threat--that is not how this should work. If we are going to drop bombs and put American lives in danger, Republicans in Congress should be willing to come down here and have the courage to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' so that people know where they stand.

Meanwhile, while families are bracing for gas prices to go up and dealing with food prices that never came down, these guys want Congress to ignore all of that and rubberstamp their big, ugly tax scam, a scam that hands tax breaks to billionaires while ripping food off kids' tables and healthcare out of seniors' hands.

Mr. Speaker, these guys do not know what the hell they are doing, and America is paying the price. Trump said there would be a cease-fire forever, and it lasted 1 day. He said the big, ugly bill won't touch Medicaid and won't screw over middle-class families, but the bill cuts 16 million people off their healthcare and ransacks the food budgets of working people.

Guess what. You can't trust him. You can't trust a word this administration says. We should be debating a War Powers Resolution. We should be talking about their awful, ugly bill that is working its way through the Senate. Instead, Republicans want business as usual, endless wars, and tax cuts for the rich.

Enough is enough. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues again about what is happening here. Trump said he would end the war in Ukraine on day one. He didn't. Last time I checked, it is still going on.

He said he wouldn't get us into another war. He just did. He said there was a cease-fire that would last forever. There wasn't.

He said his bill won't kick people off of Medicaid, and it will. Sixteen million people are about to lose their healthcare, and it is going to adversely impact rural areas even more so because of what he is doing.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what he has been doing since midnight? He has been on Truth Social. He has posted nearly 30 times since midnight on Truth Social, first of all declaring victory and that everything is beautiful and then retweeting posts calling for him to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

He is more interested in getting an award than he is in protecting people's healthcare and making sure that people in this country have enough to eat and that children don't go hungry.

I mean, these priorities, maybe they are the majority's priorities. They are not my priorities. I think they are all screwed up.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act of 2025, which would block the Republicans from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits and kicking people off these lifesaving programs as part of their reconciliation bill.

Last month, House Republicans jammed through their multitrillion- dollar tax scam by a one-vote margin. As a reminder, this bill includes the largest ever cut to food assistance and will strip healthcare from 16 million Americans, all while adding $3.3 trillion to the debt.

Mr. Speaker, some Republicans didn't even know what was in the bill when they voted for it. Yet when they had the chance for a revote 2 weeks ago, because they screwed it up the first time, they voted to cut Medicaid and SNAP again.

As we stand here, debating unrelated immigration measures, Senate Republicans are moving forward with their version of the big, ugly bill. Because House Republicans broke so many rules when they passed their bill the second time, they are going to have to vote on it a third time when it comes back from the Senate.

Miraculously, due to their own ineptitude, Republicans have given themselves yet another opportunity to protect healthcare and SNAP for millions of Americans. Let's see if they vote this time to bring up the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Figures).

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that everybody is going to be adversely impacted by the big, ugly bill. Senior citizens, children, and everybody in between will be impacted.

In the gentleman's district in Georgia, it is estimated that a total of 41,718 people will lose their insurance. It is estimated that 33,400 will lose Affordable Care Act coverage. Mr. Speaker, 8,318 will lose Medicaid coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how Republicans go back to their districts and meet with their constituents. I guess they don't meet with their constituents anymore. I know the Speaker of the House said Republicans shouldn't do townhalls.

At some point my Republican colleagues will have to face them. How do they tell their constituents they voted for a bill that will adversely impact them?

The cuts in SNAP alone will increase hunger in this country substantially. We should talk about how we end hunger and, instead, Republicans are moving legislation to increase hunger.

We should have a country where everybody has healthcare coverage. Instead, they are pushing a bill that will throw people off of health insurance. I don't know how people do that. I don't know how they go home and talk to constituents about the fact that they are here fighting on their behalf.

I thought our job, no matter whether Democrat or Republican, was to fight for things to improve the quality of life for everybody in this country. That is not what this big, ugly bill is about.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say the Senate has actually made the Medicaid provisions worse, if that was possible. Even more people will lose it. That is not me saying it. It is the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, saying that. It is not Jim McGovern or Democrats. The Congressional Budget Office is saying it.

It talks about not only how many people will lose their healthcare coverage and how many people will lose their SNAP benefits, but it talks about how much this is going to add to the debt. It will add trillions.

The people who are deficit hawks, they all talk a good game. They are going to be tough on the budget. They are going to make cuts to make sure we can balance the budget, except they don't. They add another $3.3 trillion, basically to give tax breaks to billionaires.

Who does that? Who thinks that is a good idea? I don't think I know any billionaires. I am hard-pressed to find somebody out there who is a billionaire who says he really needs another tax cut.

We ought to reject this big, ugly bill that they pushed through the House and that is on its way back from the Senate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question to the gentleman is: If he doesn't represent any billionaires, why is he for tax cuts for billionaires?

Why are Republicans for tax cuts for billionaires? Maybe it is because they write out big campaign contributions. That is really a cynical thing. That is what is at the heart of all of this.

The gentleman said that taxes will go up for middle-class families in Massachusetts. We actually gave them a chance in the Rules Committee. We are for middle-class tax cuts. We are for extending them. In the Rules Committee, I offered a number of amendments to exempt billionaires from the tax cut. Every Republican, the gentleman included, voted ``no.'' They wanted to make sure that the billionaires got the tax cuts.

Then we said: What about millionaires? Let's exempt millionaires. Let's keep the tax cuts for the middle class and exempt millionaires. Everyone on the Rules Committee, including the gentleman, voted ``no.''

By the way, if people want to know what is going on here, the cuts to SNAP alone are $300 billion. The cuts to Medicaid in the Affordable Care Act are $1 trillion. The tax cuts for people with incomes in the top 5 percent are $1.6 trillion.

The numbers don't lie, but it kind of shows what this debate is all about. This is about a transfer of wealth from those in the middle to those at the top. It is about rewarding and enriching those who are well-off and well-connected. It is about punishing those in the middle and those fighting to be able to just get by, to put food on the table, and to make sure they go to the doctor if they or their kids get sick.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Simon).

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

I, and I think everybody on the Democratic side, oppose violence and criminality, and people who commit violence ought to be held to account.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he would join with me in publicly condemning the pardon of all those who committed such heinous crimes and so much violence here on the Capitol on January 6.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to gentleman if he wants to condemn the pardons. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, Governor Newsom is not going to pardon those who looted stores or committed violence or attacked law enforcement, but Donald Trump pardoned the people who attacked the men and women who were protecting all of us here, our staff, and all of the people who work here.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he wants to condemn the pardons that Trump gave to all those who committed these terrible crimes on that horrific day.

Silence.

We can't even get the Speaker of the House to hang a plaque honoring the men and women in law enforcement who defended us.

What is wrong with this place?

Violence is wrong no matter whom it is committed by. The difference here is that Governor Newsom will not pardon people who committed violent crimes.

Again, Mr. Speaker, as we are gathered here today, we have a President who all he seems to want to do is tweet. As I said before, he has posted nearly 30 times since midnight. He took credit for a cease- fire which, by this morning, was broken. He attacked Federal Reserve Chair Powell. He attacked Representative Ocasio-Cortez, and he attacked Representative Thomas Massie. Again, I think attacking Massie may replace golf as the President's favorite pastime.

Of course, while talking about Representative Massie, Trump had to pat himself on the back for winning elections in Kentucky. He also posted multiple times about the Nobel Peace Prize. That is what he cares about, getting an award. It is all about him, not saving healthcare, not ending hunger, but getting an award.

We need serious people working to solve real problems, and what we have is a reality TV show White House with a stream of consciousness press operation, and it is supported by a Republican Congress that thinks it is a debate club rather than an equal branch of government.

This Congress doesn't even debate real things. The President sent our troops to bomb another country this week, and that is not what we are here debating this week. We are debating a meaningless resolution and bills to further demonize immigrants.

Enough, Mr. Speaker. Let's try work on something, anything, that will help real people. This is not the way government is supposed to operate. It is not working. People are being hurt.

While we are having this discussion here today, this big, ugly bill is winding its way through the Senate to come back here to the House.

I predict that my Republican friends, as always, will say: Oh, I am really concerned about the cuts in Medicaid. I am really worried about people who will lose their healthcare. Yeah, I know, I wish they weren't cutting SNAP so deeply. Oh, yeah, I really care about this and care about that.

Do you know what they will do, Mr. Speaker?

They will come here, and they will cave. They get in line because they are afraid of even asking a question about what this President is doing and what this administration is advocating. We need to do so much better around here.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous that this is what we are doing this week when there is so much happening in the world. By the way, again, let's make sure everybody understands this: This big, ugly bill that is coming here is about a tax break for billionaires. I just showed you the figures, Mr. Speaker. There is more money going to billionaires than anybody else in the tax bill, and they are cutting programs like SNAP and Medicaid. It really is shameful.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple of things. The gentleman has had 30 minutes, and he couldn't spend 30 seconds to condemn the Trump pardons of those who viciously attacked our law enforcement on that terrible day on January 6. We have a Speaker of the House who won't hang a plaque that he is supposed to do under law honoring the law enforcement who were here protecting all of us and who were beaten right outside that door.

It is crickets on the other side. They can't bring themselves to condemn that. They can't say that the pardons were wrong. I don't get it.

I have spent my entire life fighting for peace, and when Trump says that he wants peace, where is the peace?

He said that he was going to bring peace to Ukraine on day one. Instead,

what he has done is he is constantly giving comfort to the Russian leader. He has lambasted Zelenskyy in the Oval Office and can't say enough nice things about Vladimir Putin.

That is not my idea of peace. That is capitulation. That is giving in to a vicious aggressor. I am sorry, if the gentleman thinks that that is peace, then we have a very different opinion of that.

Again, we all hope and pray that things de-escalate in the Middle East. Here is what we know: We don't know whether Iran still has nuclear material, and we also know that they have been lobbing bombs at each other still. We know there is tremendous unrest in the Middle East, and we don't really know what the endgame is. That is why we should have a debate, and that is why Congress has a role to play.

Again, Mr. Speaker, you may think that all that Donald Trump is doing is fabulous, and that is great, but do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

You should also, as a Member of Congress, want to defend the powers of the legislative branch and understand that we have a role in this too, and that sometimes through debate, if people decide they want to support the President's policies, well, that just strengthens his hand. If people have real questions, then maybe we have to take a different course.

I was around here when we rushed to war in Iraq. We did have a debate, but we were given faulty information by the administration at the time. We were lied to. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and look at what that cost us in terms of life, treasure, and credibility around the world.

Mr. Speaker, again, I think there are things that we should be focused on here right now that are much more pressing than the items that are before us here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman: You say that you support and respect the men and women who protect us here, the law enforcement who protect us here, yet you can't bring yourself to condemn the action that pardoned those individuals who viciously attacked law enforcement. Also, nobody on the Republican side will demand of the Republican Speaker of the House to hang the plaque that, by law, he is supposed to hang honoring the law enforcement who defended us on that day.

I think that is a lack of respect. That is a lack of respect to law enforcement. The Republicans can't even condemn the rioters who were here on January 6.

So what the hell is wrong with this place?

Mr. Speaker, I will close with this: Congress alone has the power to declare war, not Donald Trump, not his Truth Social account, and not his campaign donors. This administration cannot be trusted with that power. They have no plan, they have no strategy and no clue. Just follow him on Truth Social. Every day they stoke chaos abroad to distract from the misery that they are causing at home.

Mr. Speaker, does anyone remember the last time a Republican President misled the Nation about WMDs, using vague evidence to drag us into a war in the Middle East? He stood under a mission accomplished banner, and then we were at war for nearly a decade, and it cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

I guess the 2025 version of a mission accomplished banner is a Truth Social post telling everyone that this was a spectacular military success.

Give me a break. Mr. Speaker, 2003 called. They want their foreign policy back.

Republicans want to keep everyone divided and distracted. They went to distract us from their big, ugly bill, a tax scam so cruel and corrupt that it actually makes working families poorer just to make billionaires richer.

They want to distract us from the fact that under Trump's watch, grocery bills are sky-high, farmers will suffocate under tariffs, and now families are bracing for a spike at the pump because this President started a war, and he has no clue how to end it.

Well, I won't be distracted. We see this chaos for what it is: reckless, stupid, and dangerous. We see this tax bill for what it is: greedy, immoral, and bad for working people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this House to stop rubber-stamping chaos and to stop rubber-stamping corruption. Let's do our constitutional duty: Stop this illegal war, end this rotten tax scam, and stand up for the people we work for.

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

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

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

With this strained legislation, we are bumping into two major social problems: deadly drunk driving on our roads and a broken immigration system. Alas, we are not doing anything to solve either problem. The bill pretends to do something about both of them, but it really does little or nothing about either of them.

We lose 11,000 people a year to drunk driving crashes. More than a million people are arrested on DUI charges every year, Mr. Speaker. I lost a beloved cousin of mine in Florida who was in the prime of her life just after graduating from college when she was killed by a drunk driver while she was riding a bicycle on the roads of Florida.

I take this issue of drunk driving very seriously. I have worked on it fastidiously for a long time in my career. There is a lot we could do in Congress to improve safety on the streets, including imposing a nationwide mandatory ignition interlock device on the cars of all convicted drunk drivers. We did that in my State of Maryland after fighting the liquor lobby for a long time, but we finally got that done.

We could also pass my bill, the Sarah Debbink Langenkamp Active Transportation Safety Act, which would support State and local government efforts to build safer transportation networks for bicyclists and for pedestrians.

Unfortunately, this bill does not do anything like that. Indeed, it is hard to see how it will reduce drunk driving at all.

It is obviously not a serious attempt to address the social problem of drunk driving. It does not increase criminal penalties for DUI anywhere in the country. It does nothing to promote public education about the dangers of drunk driving. It will, sadly, improve nothing on the roads.

As an immigration law, it does nothing to make it more difficult for undocumented people to enter our country unlawfully, nor does it make it easier for people to acquire the documents to enter the country legally.

It is a purely punitive measure, and it is both radically underinclusive and radically overbroad.

It only targets the very tiny fraction of all DUI violations in the country committed by noncitizens and does nothing to crack down on drunk driving by citizens, who are responsible for the vast majority of it.

Immigrants who drive drunk are already covered by the criminal law, and the undocumented ones are already categorically deportable. They don't need to drive drunk to be deported. They are deportable now because they are not in the country lawfully.

Additionally, because of the breadth of DUI statutes around the country, this legislation will render deportable people who never drove drunk at all without any opportunity for judicial discretion or waiver. Under current immigration law, undocumented people are already both inadmissible and deportable. Furthermore, conviction for serious DUIs already render even lawful permanent residents who have been in the country for decades potentially deportable and inadmissible in the first instance.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, any noncitizen who is convicted of or who admits to a crime involving moral turpitude, a so- called CIMT, is generally inadmissible to the country. Likewise, any noncitizen who is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude where a sentence of 1 year or longer may be imposed is deportable from the country. Serious DUI offenses are already deportable crimes under current law.

The following DUI offenses are all considered crimes involving moral turpitude: any DUI where the maximum possible penalty is a year or more and where there is serious bodily harm, hit-and-runs, any aggravated DUI, and any DUI involving driving with knowledge of having an invalid, suspended, or revoked license.

This bill goes far beyond even this very stringent current law by making permanent resident green card holders deportable for a single infraction even where no one is hurt and no property is damaged. This will lead to some very harsh results.

In Arizona, sleeping in your car while drunk without even starting the car can get you convicted of a misdemeanor DUI. Under this bill, a single conviction for even that offense would make a 20-year permanent resident of America, a green card holder, deportable from the country.

That person is rightfully deportable if they engage in an act of drunk driving that hurts someone or kills someone or if they drive drunk without a license, but that is the law today.

An undocumented alien is, of course, deportable in all cases. You don't need a statute to deport them for falling asleep drunk in their car.

Today, there are nearly 13 million green card holders, permanent residents, in the United States. These are people who have followed all the rules. We are not talking about undocumented people, the people who are here unlawfully. They are already taken care of.

There are 13 million green card holders in the United States with 9 million eligible to become citizens now. Categorically deporting individuals who are convicted for any DUI offense without any regard for the severity or consequence simply defies common sense. This legislation on a tiny subset of criminal events distracts from the real problem.

My distinguished colleague has invoked several terrible drunk driving incidents by repeat offenders who are undocumented. They should have been deported from the country long ago. My colleague is talking about people who drive drunk and kill people. That is already a deportable and inadmissible offense. That is not what the meaning of this legislation is.

Let's look at a tiny slice of the criminal events we are talking about and ask whether, in fact, that is something that advances public policy. I don't think it does. Let's work together to impose compulsory ignition interlock devices on the cars of all convicted drunk drivers, including the overwhelming majority who are U.S. citizens. Let's really make the roads safer and stop the repetitive scapegoating of immigrants.

We can address DUIs in a serious way here in Congress if we are serious about the issue. That is what I did as a State senator in Maryland. We could do that across the country, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia has just offered us a vivid demonstration of what is wrong with this bill and how the rhetoric supporting it doesn't support the bill. He describes an indescribably tragic, terrible case where an undocumented alien is driving a car and kills people in the gentleman's district.

First of all, that person already could be deported just by virtue of being undocumented.

Secondly, under current law, having killed someone, he would be immediately deportable. He was convicted of his offense, sentenced to jail, and he would be deported immediately upon leaving. In fact, the President could commute his sentence, which is what he has been doing, and have him deported right now. You don't need this bill in order to make that happen.

That is a demonstration of why this is superfluous legislation. All it does is to say in a case where, say, nobody is hurt at all, the case of somebody who is asleep in their car in Arizona, for example--there are statutes like that

where you don't even have to be in a moving vehicle. If someone is drunk inside a vehicle, nobody is hurt, and there is no property damage, that person could be deported as a permanent resident even if they have been here for 20 years with kids in school and nothing else on their record.

That is all this bill is doing. It is an opportunity to get up and make speeches about how we are going to get rid of people who kill people in their cars as drunk drivers. That is already the law.

What I am saying is if we are going to take the time on the floor to deal with the problem of drunk driving--and, again, I take this very seriously because I lost a cousin to a drunk driver who is a U.S. citizen, not a noncitizen. The vast majority of drunk driving incidents occur because of citizens, not because of noncitizens, because the vast majority of the people in the country are here legally as citizens.

Let's do a serious thing. Let's say anybody convicted in the country--a U.S. citizen, a permanent resident, or an unlawful person who is somehow still in the country--must have a permanent ignition interlock device put on their car.

Obviously, the undocumented person is going to be deported. Fine. Now, what about everybody else? Should convicted drunk drivers be able to just go back out on the road?

This is the fight I had with Republicans in Annapolis when I was a State senator. They were the ones saying that is too harsh a punishment. I am saying to them, no. Maybe it is painful that you have to go through the ignition interlock device, which says you do the Breathalyzer in your car before you can drive again. They say that it is painful to have to do that every morning and going back from work. That doesn't compare to the pain of someone who loses a mother, a father, a son, a daughter, a cousin, an uncle, an aunt, or what have you.

If we want to deal with drunk driving, let's seriously deal with drunk driving. This legislation is not the way to do it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

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

Madam Speaker, one can only regard with amazement the high indignation with which the previous gentleman speaker just mobilized against the Democrats in Congress. He accuses us of not taking DUIs seriously, and nothing he said could provide a more striking contrast between the parties.

I am afraid I have to go there. I was hoping not to have to go there. I seem to remember when we met in joint session at what would have been the State of a Union address in this year of 2025.

We left the Chamber after several years of--it seemed like years-- several hours of President Trump's speech. We got outside. Then a car plowed into the back of a parked police cruiser. The police descend on this situation. The door opens up. The driver staggers out. It turns out it is the chief of staff to Speaker Mike Johnson.

He is then administered the Breathalyzer test. He got a DWI. He is driving while drunk. Maybe it is a DUI, driving under the influence, in the District of Columbia. Speaker Johnson immediately said that everybody deserves a second chance and we should forgive him. We didn't make a big deal out of that.

We have a law right now which allows for the deportation and the inadmissibility of anybody who goes out and drives drunk and injures somebody. If they are here unlawfully, they are kicked out anyway. We are talking about permanent residents to the country. If they go out and get a DUI and injure somebody, they are immediately deported from the country.

They talk about all those cases. Those cases are already covered. We are talking about those cases where somebody is not injured at all and there is no property damage at all. They want to deport those people, even if they have family and even if they have been in the country for 15 or 20 years. They don't even want to give any discretion to the judge to decide.

That is what the disagreement is about. It is about this very small matter in a small number of cases where nobody is injured.

If the distinguished gentleman and his colleagues are really interested in doing something about drunk driving in America, let's use this as the occasion to do it. We have a bill, which is a bipartisan bill, called the End Driving While Intoxicated Act. It has been introduced by Mr. Mann, my colleague from Kansas; my colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Pappas, who is in my party; my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, who is in the Republican Party; and by myself.

We are the lead cosponsors. What it says is if a State is going to get Federal funding for highways and then if somebody is convicted for drunk driving in their State, there must be a compulsory ignition interlock device installed in the car.

What does that mean? For a period of time after someone has been convicted for drunk driving, they have to breathe into a Breathalyzer machine before their car will start. Some of our colleagues say that is too much or that it is too painful for them to go through that. No, it is too painful for us to lose thousands of people on the streets every year to drunk drivers.

If we are serious about the problem and the gentleman invites us to be serious about it, let's be serious about it. Let's do what a majority of the States have done. Let's make this a nationwide program. A compulsory ignition interlock device is saving lives across the country. I think it is in 31 States now and in the District of Columbia.

Why don't we do that? Why don't we do something real, rather than talk about cases that have nothing to do with the bill? Already if a person goes out and kills somebody in their car, they will be deported from the country. Whether they are a lawful permanent resident or an undocumented person and they could have been deported anyway, that is already taken care of.

I know that those are the lurid episodes that we want to invoke for this legislation, but that is not what this legislation is about.

In any event, it doesn't do anything to reduce drunk driving in America. Let's reduce drunk driving in America. Could we get behind that bipartisan legislation?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, forgive my emotion. For those of us whose families have experienced it and who have lost people on the roads, drunk driving is a problem of immense magnitude and seriousness. It changes the lives of families all across the country all the time.

I wish our colleagues on the House Committee on the Judiciary would bring out the End Driving While Intoxicated Act legislation to spread the compulsory ignition interlock device around the country. A majority of States and jurisdictions are using it right now. It is working. It should be nationwide.

We can save literally thousands of lives by doing that because it is a very, very small percentage of the population that engages in the profoundly antisocial act of driving drunk. For those who are undocumented, they are already covered, and they are already gone. For those who go out and seriously hurt people or kill people, they are already gone. That is already deportable. That is already inadmissible.

In an effort to try to find another way to go out and demonize and vilify immigrants, this legislation is now picking on people who are permanent residents of the country and could have been here for decades with their families. They get a DUI, which is a terrible thing regardless. They get a DUI, nobody is hurt, and there is no property damage. Then they want to deport those people from the country.

They want to kick those people out of the country. I presume they have got their votes together. They will vote for it. I presume it passes. It doesn't do anything to deal with the problem of drunk driving in America.

The vast majority of drunk driving episodes have nothing to do with a permanent resident who drives drunk and doesn't hurt anybody. That is not where we are losing lives. We are losing lives because there is a small percentage of people who drive drunk repeatedly. The vast majority of them are citizens.

We are not taking that seriously enough, but a lot of States are. In fact, a majority of the States have now imposed the compulsory ignition interlock device on people who have driven drunk and are convicted of it.

That is what we should be working on. That is something that will actually effectuate a change and make a difference. Why can't we do that? That is all I say to my colleague.

I hope they will join us in this legislation. It is bipartisan legislation that comes from the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I am on it. We have Republicans. We have Democrats. Why don't we do something real to make the roads in America safer?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 530 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 to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 530, providing for consideration of four measures, including H.R. 3944, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, provides for one motion to recommit, and makes 32 amendments in order.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 275, the Special Interest Alien Reporting Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Further, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 875, the Jeremy and Angel Seay and Sergeant Brandon Mendoza Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Lastly, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 516, Condemning the Violent June 2025 Riots in Los Angeles, California, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule on four pieces of legislation, beginning with H.R. 3944, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2026.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3944 supports those who have sacrificed for our country and maintains our commitment to the well-being of both servicemembers and veterans.

It provides a total of $453 billion in overall funding, including a discretionary allocation of more than $152 billion, which is nearly $5 billion above the previous year's enacted level.

It fully funds veterans' healthcare programs, including medical care for toxic exposure. It fully funds veterans' benefits and VA programs and supports President Trump's effort to combat veteran homelessness by investing in the new bridging rental assistance for the veteran empowerment program.

It protects the Second Amendment rights of veterans by preventing the VA from sending information on veterans to the FBI without a judge's consent.

Further, it syncs with President Trump's executive order on no funds for DEI or gender-affirming care and protects the Hyde-like language at the VA.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3944 continues support for the Guard and Reserve, providing more than $1.2 billion for Guard and Reserve facility construction.

It includes $2 billion for military family housing, with a focus on child development centers to improve the quality of life of our military families.

It provides robust funding for military construction, which enables continued investment in the Indo-Pacific region and the infrastructure necessary to support U.S. advanced weapon systems.

Furthermore, it prohibits the VA from purchasing resources directly or indirectly from the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides significant investments and support for our veterans, servicemembers, and their families, and it should pass in a bipartisan manner.

Moving on, Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 275, the Special Interest Alien Reporting Act of 2025.

It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that the situation at our southern border has improved significantly under the Trump administration. However, under the previous administration, illegal aliens from over 170 different countries, including Iran, the People's Republic of China, and Russia, came across our borders.

H.R. 275 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to publish a monthly report on the number of special interest aliens--people who pose a significant threat to our national security based on analysis of travel patterns--who have been encountered while attempting to illegally enter the United States.

This bill is common sense, and the American people have a right to know.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 875, the Jeremy and Angel Seay and Sergeant Brandon Mendoza Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act of 2025.

This bill is simple and necessary. It closes a loophole in U.S. immigration law and ensures that aliens who endanger communities by driving while intoxicated are inadmissible to and deportable from the United States.

All three of the individuals included in the title lost their lives in automobile crashes caused by illegal aliens who were driving under the influence. We should honor their memory and work to keep the American people safe by passing this bill in a bipartisan manner.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 516, Condemning the Violent June 2025 Riots in Los Angeles, California.

The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the right to peacefully protest. However, it does not protect against riots and violence. This resolution recognizes the right to assemble and protest peacefully while condemning the riots and violence against law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these pieces of legislation. I urge passage of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump--I know it pains my colleagues to say that, ``President of the United States Donald J. Trump''--for his decisive action. I thank him for calling both sides out on the cease- fire.

I point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that, as of right now, the cease-fire is holding, and most of the world wants that cease-fire to hold.

Mr. Speaker, when you talk about a cult, the cult would be the people who hate Donald Trump so bad that they want the cease-fire to fail.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act is ridiculous. I think it is necessary. I think our veterans have earned it. I think it is a good piece of legislation. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, I expect it will probably pass in a bipartisan manner.

I will say this: President Trump wants peace between Israel and Iran. He took decisive action, and without that decisive action, that peace would not have been possible. He wanted peace with India and Pakistan, and he wants peace with Ukraine and Russia. He wants peace.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you may disagree with the way he goes about it, but to attack him and say that he doesn't want a resolution that ends the killing, you just don't know the man if you think that about him. He wants peace.

Sometimes peace requires strength, and it requires a leader who has the mental capacity to make the decisions to carry out the actions necessary to bring about that peace. I am thankful that we have a President who has the ability to make those decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have thanked before, and I will thank again, all of the law enforcement and the men and women who keep us safe in this Capitol. I appreciate what they do for us.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close. I don't have any additional speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this week, the House has the ability to advance four pieces of legislation under this rule.

H.R. 3944 is the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2026, which provides significant investments and support for our veterans, servicemembers, and their families, as well as military construction. I expect and hope that it will pass in a bipartisan manner.

H.R. 275 is the Special Interest Alien Reporting Act of 2025 which provides transparency by publishing a monthly report on the number of special interest aliens attempting to enter the U.S. and includes the encounter location and their country of origin. This is information that the public has a right to know.

H.R. 875 is the Jeremy and Angel Seay and Sergeant Brandon Mendoza Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act of 2025, which works to keep the American people safe by closing a loophole in U.S. immigration law to ensure that aliens who drive intoxicated are inadmissible to, and deportable from, the United States.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I hope and expect it will pass in a bipartisan manner.

H. Res. 516 condemns the violent June 2025 riots in Los Angeles, California, which recognizes the right to assemble and protest peacefully while condemning the riots and violence against law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 530, I call up the bill (H.R. 875) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens who have been convicted of or who have committed an offense for driving while intoxicated or impaired are inadmissible and deportable, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 875.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we consider a simple, commonsense bill that says if you are a guest in our country and you drive drunk, you should, in fact, be deported.

To the average American, passing this bill is a no-brainer. Even in a polarized time, Democrats should be able to join Republicans to unanimously support such reasonable legislation. After all, deporting dangerous criminals is a rational, normal, and coherent step that this House should take. Unfortunately, I am skeptical that we will see much agreement from my Democratic colleagues on this bill.

Regardless, I am thankful the House is considering H.R. 875, the Jeremy and Angel Seay and Sergeant Brandon Mendoza Protect our Communities from DUIs Act, a bill that I introduced last Congress and again this Congress.

Every 45 minutes, that is how often someone in the United States dies in a crash involving an alcohol-impaired driver.

In 2022 alone, there were 13,524 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities. In 2020, drunk driving crashes led to nearly 400,000 injuries.

Those crashes do not discriminate, Mr. Speaker. The victim could be me, it could be you, it could be anyone in our families or in our communities.

This issue hits close to home for me. There was a newlywed couple from my hometown of Enterprise, Alabama, named Angel and Jeremy Seay. I knew this couple personally. I knew their family. I played ball with their dad. Angel and Jeremy were riding a motorcycle together when, out of nowhere, an illegal alien under the influence of alcohol collided into the newlyweds with his pickup. Their lives were cut short by this senseless act.

Tragedies like this are not uncommon across this country. In December of 2023, an illegal alien killed a 46-year-old woman and her 16-year- old son in Broomfield, Colorado, when he drove his truck up to 100 miles an hour and ran into the victims' vehicle, causing it to then crash into a tree. Despite having five previous DUI convictions, a Boulder, Colorado, county judge sentenced this illegal alien to probation, community service, and work release on December 8, 2023, in relation to two of those convictions, just 4 days before the drunk driver crashed and killed the mother and her son.

Another case to consider is from Florida, where just earlier this year an illegal alien from Mexico was arrested for his third DUI after he hit and killed a kindergartner. In Texas, in December of 2024, an illegal alien killed a 7-year-old girl after he drove drunk, crashed into a car that was being driven by the girl's mother.

Just months earlier, under the Biden-Harris administration, ICE had lifted a detainer which had previously been lodged against this illegal alien after he was arrested for assaulting a family member in June of 2024.

H.R. 875 makes commonsense changes to immigration laws to make an alien who is convicted or who admits driving under the influence inadmissible. It also makes an alien convicted of doing so removable. In fact, 59 Democrats voted in favor of this legislation when I brought it to the House floor last February.

If you are a guest in our country and you drive drunk, you should be removed from this country, period.

Drunk drivers are involved in 31 percent of all crash deaths in this country. On average, drunk driving killed roughly 11,000 people in the United States every year between 2012 and 2022. Yet, current immigration law does not make aliens inadmissible or removable if they drive drunk and recklessly break our laws.

My colleagues across the aisle will undoubtedly argue that this bill is unnecessary because current law already makes DUI inadmissible and a deportable offense. However, if that is the case, then why would they oppose this bill? Even more, their claim that this bill is redundant could not be further from the truth.

Although some aliens who commit DUIs, such as those who kill or injure innocent victims, may be found inadmissible or removable, but the vast majority of the aliens with DUI convictions escape immigration consequences. In fact, on its website just last year, the Biden-Harris administration's U.S. Customs and Border Protection clearly stated: ``A single driving under the influence (DUI) conviction is not grounds to deny entry into the United States.''

Moreover, the Board of Immigration Appeals has held that a ``simple DUI offense'' is not a crime involving moral turpitude that would make an alien removable from the United States. Yet, as we know, any drunk driving event can lead to death, with consequences that are far from what they call simple.

We shouldn't have to wait for repeat drunk drivers to injure someone or kill before they are deported. That is why H.R. 875 is so imperative. It creates safer streets and safer communities for all of us.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would remind our colleagues that 59 Democrats voted for this legislation last February when I brought it. We cannot wait until an illegal driving drunk kills a family member or a member of our community.

Time and time again, Mothers Against Drunk Driving say that on a DUI, normally it is 80 times they have driven drunk before they are actually caught. Statistics show that it is at least a dozen times that people drive drunk before they are caught.

In Florida, that is why we saw the third time an illegal had a DUI was when he killed a kindergartner. The fifth time in Colorado, the judge released him 4 days before an illegal killed a mother and her 16- year-old son.

A friend of mine, a judge who is no longer on the bench, texted me the other night and thanked me for this piece of legislation. He said that in the last administration, he knew in the courtroom when that illegal got the DUI and he turned him over to ICE, they went out, they got in a white van, and they drove off. They did not detain him.

Time and time again, our communities are suffering because we are not taking these people and holding them to account and getting them out of this country.

I encourage my colleagues to get behind this legislation. Americans look to Congress for solutions to real problems. Despite what my colleagues on the other side have argued today, drunk driving by aliens is an issue in this country that must be addressed. This bill does so.

Making guests in our country inadmissible to and removable from the United States, because they have endangered our communities by driving drunk, is just plain common sense.

The Jeremy and Angel Seay and Sergeant Brandon Mendoza Protect Our Communities from DUI Act of 2025 is straightforward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 875.

I, too, take DUIs extremely seriously. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, approximately 37 people die in drunk driving incidents every day in the United States. As the ranking member has just been noting, there are many things that we can and should do to prevent driving under the influence.

Also, as the ranking member has pointed out, all of these truly horrifying and tragic stories that we are hearing about from the other side are stories that already render an immigrant deportable right now. If you kill somebody right now, you serve your time and then are deported.

We just had a hearing this morning on how the Trump administration is literally dismissing cases for people who are in a legal process for immigration just so they can deport them. They can certainly also do that for somebody who has been convicted of drunk driving and is serving out their sentence. They could take that case and deport that person immediately if they wanted to.

Scapegoating immigrants is what this bill does. It scapegoats immigrants by making a single misdemeanor DUI subject to the extremely serious punishment of deportation. It is simply not an appropriate response.

The bill also applies to all immigrants, including lawful permanent residents, people who Republican colleagues across the aisle have claimed to like, the ones that they said came here the right way. It gives no recognition whatsoever to the patchwork of differences and overbroad statutes of what actually constitutes a DUI across the country in different States.

It is important to recognize first that serious public safety threats are already deportable offenses. We have been talking about this, but it is important to say it again. Again, the cases that are being brought up are cases where those people are already deportable under current immigration law.

Many serious DUI crimes are considered what is called a crime involving moral turpitude and, therefore, already make someone removable or inadmissible. This bill does not recognize how widely DUI laws differ across the country and the extremely low bar that is set to receive a DUI conviction in some States.

For example, in Arizona, the DUI statute allows people to be charged with a DUI if they are intoxicated and have ``physical control'' of their vehicle. This issue came to a head in the Ninth Circuit, which, in reviewing an appeal of a removal case for a noncitizen who was charged under this law, found that the physical control language meant that under this statute: ``One may be convicted under it for sitting in one's own car in one's own driveway with the key in the ignition and a bottle of beer in one's hand.''

While the person in this case had been ordered deported because his conviction under Arizona law constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, the Ninth Circuit overturned that ruling because the actions covered by the law could not all reasonably be seen as crimes involving moral turpitude.

As the court put it: ``Drunken driving is despicable. Having physical control of a car while drinking is not.''

Madam Speaker, if this bill had been law at the time, the case would have never reached the Ninth Circuit because no judge would have had the discretion to rule whether this so-called crime merited deportation. This bill would prevent judges from being able to decide if the punishment fits the crime.

In my home State of Washington, we have a similar law where someone can be convicted of a misdemeanor DUI without actually driving a vehicle. While Republicans might wave away our concerns by saying that prosecutors have the discretion to not bring charges under these circumstances, we know about this case precisely because prosecutors chose to file charges and it went to court.

This bill does not recognize under these overbroad DUI statutes the individuals who have made a conscious choice not to drive. They have gone to a party. They have had a couple of beers. They realize they should not drive. They go and sit in their car to sleep it off.

Under this bill, those people who have made that conscious choice not to drive impaired may be charged with DUIs simply for sleeping in their car.

I ask my Republican colleagues: How many of them have constituents or friends or neighbors who have sat in their cars after leaving the bar to stay warm? We know how cold Midwest winters get. Should we really criminalize people for staying warm in their cars and sleeping off a hangover? Under this bill, people would now be subjected to deportation.

During markup and at the Committee on Rules, I submitted an amendment.

During markup and at the Committee on Rules, I submitted an amendment to ensure that immigration judges have the discretion to decide if a DUI conviction actually merits deportation for green card holders and others here lawfully.

It would have allowed judges to merely consider mitigating factors, such as if anyone was harmed or the length of time since they were convicted of a DUI. This is a commonsense amendment that would have made the bill substantially fairer. Unfortunately, the amendment was rejected.

There are Members and former Members of this body right here in Congress who have been arrested and convicted of a DUI, and I would just ask that the charity and the grace that we extend for second chances to those people would extend also to those green card holders, including those who have been here for decades. Let's just give a judge the chance to determine whether their conviction merited deportation, let alone that second chance.

Madam Speaker, this bill does nothing but scapegoat immigrants for so-called DUIs, and I urge my colleagues to reject the bill.