Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, this is pitiful, and it is minor-league stuff compared to major legislation that will actually solve our border problem, and that legislation is pending in the Senate. The Senate will probably pass it next week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source