19–006

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session 107–754

TO AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH A DRUG OR ALCOHOL IN THE BODY OF 

THE DRIVER AT A LAND BORDER PORT OF ENTRY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

OCTOBER 15, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2155] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2155) to amend title 18, United States Code, to make it illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a drug or alcohol in the body 

of the driver at a land border port of entry, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 

amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 3

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 3

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 3

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 4

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 5

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 5

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 5

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 5

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 6

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 6

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 7

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 9

2

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 27

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH A DRUG OR ALCOHOL 

IN THE BODY OF THE DRIVER AT LAND BORDER PORTS OF ENTRY. 

Section 13(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(a)’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(2) Whoever with a drug or alcohol in his or her body operates a motor vehicle 

at a land border port of entry in a manner that is punishable, because of the presence of the drug or alcohol, if committed within the jurisdiction of the State in 

which that land border port of entry is located (under the laws of that State in force 

at the time of the act) shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment. ‘‘(3) Any individual who operates a motor vehicle at a land border port of entry 

is deemed to have given consent to submit to a chemical or other test of the blood, 

breath, or urine of the driver by an officer or employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service authorized under section 287(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(h)) for the purpose of determining the presence or concentration of a drug or alcohol in such blood, breath, or urine. ‘‘(4) If an individual refuses to submit to such a test after being advised by the 

officer or employee that the refusal will result in notification under this paragraph, 

the Attorney General shall give notice of the refusal to— ‘‘(A) the State or foreign state that issued the license permitting the individual to operate a motor vehicle; or ‘‘(B) if the individual has no such license, the State or foreign state in which 

the individual is a resident. 

‘‘(5) The Attorney General shall give notice of a conviction of an individual 

under this section for operation of a motor vehicle at a land border port of entry 

with a drug or alcohol in the body of the individual, to— ‘‘(A) the State or foreign state that issued the license permitting the individual to operate a motor vehicle; or ‘‘(B) if the individual has no such license, the State or foreign state in which 

the individual is a resident. 

‘‘(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘land border port of entry’ means any land border port of entry (as defined in section 287(h)(3) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(h)(3))) that was not reserved or acquired as provided 

in section 7 of this title.’’. 

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZING OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE TO CONDUCT TESTS FOR A DRUG OR ALCOHOL. 

Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357) is amended 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(h)(1) If an officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General is inspecting a driver at a land border port of entry 

and has reasonable grounds to believe that, because of alcohol in the body of the 

driver, operation of a motor vehicle by the driver is an offense under section 13 of 

title 18, United States Code, the officer or employee may require the driver to submit to a test of the breath of the driver to determine the presence or concentration 

of the alcohol. 

‘‘(2) If an officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General arrests a driver under this section for operation of 

a motor vehicle in violation of section 13 of title 18, United States Code, because 

of a drug or alcohol in the body of the driver, the officer or employee may require 

the driver to submit to a chemical or other test to determine the presence or concentration of the drug or alcohol in the blood, breath, or urine of the driver. 

‘‘(3) For purposes of this subsection: 

‘‘(A) The term ‘driver’ means an individual who is operating a motor vehicle 

at a land border port of entry. 

‘‘(B) The term ‘land border port of entry’ means any immigration checkpoint 

operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service at a land border between a State (as that term is used in section 13 of title 18, United States Code) 

and a foreign state.’’. 

SEC. 3. REQUIRING NOTICE AT LAND BORDER PORTS OF ENTRY REGARDING OPERATION OF 

A MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRUGS AND ALCOHOL. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting 

after section 294 (8 U.S.C. 1363a) the following: 

3

‘‘NOTICE AT LAND BORDER PORTS OF ENTRY REGARDING OPERATION OF A MOTOR

VEHICLE AND DRUGS AND ALCOHOL

‘‘SEC. 295. At each point where motor vehicles regularly enter a land border 

port of entry (as defined in section 287(h)(3)), the Attorney General shall post a notice that operation of a motor vehicle with a drug or alcohol in the body of the driver 

at a land border port of entry is an offense under Federal law.’’. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The first section of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended in the table of contents by inserting after the item relating 

to section 294 the following:

‘‘Sec. 295. Notice at land border ports of entry regarding operation of a motor vehicle and drugs and alcohol.’’.

SEC. 4. IMPOUNDMENT OF VEHICLE FOR REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO TEST FOR DRUG OR ALCOHOL. 

Not more than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall issue regulations authorizing an officer or employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to impound a vehicle operated at a land border 

port of entry, if— (1) the individual who operates the vehicle refuses to submit to a chemical 

or other test under section 13(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code; and 

(2) the impoundment is not inconsistent with the laws of the State in which 

the port of entry is located. 

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 2155 would make it illegal to drive a vehicle at a land border port of entry with drugs or alcohol in the body. The bill authorizes the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to perform 

a drug or alcohol test on suspected impaired drivers, deems such 

a driver to have given consent to submit to a chemical or other test 

by an INS officer, and requires the Attorney General to post notice 

of this offense and to issue regulations authorizing INS employees 

to impound vehicles of impaired drivers. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

INS inspectors working at the U.S. border ports of entry do not 

have the authority to take drunk or drugged drivers crossing the 

border into custody based on their impaired state. Impaired drivers 

crossing the border is an all too common phenomena. Currently, 

INS inspectors have to request state or local law enforcement to 

subsequently stop such drivers after they have left the border and 

must hope that state or local law enforcement will indeed stop 

them. 

H.R. 2155 gives more control over the dangerous situation to INS 

inspectors by authorizing the inspectors to take such drivers into 

custody and to test them for drugs or alcohol. It also requires the 

Attorney General to issue regulations authorizing inspectors to impound vehicles of drivers who will not submit to tests. With these 

tools, INS inspectors can prevent future deaths and injuries caused 

by drunk or drugged drivers who have crossed the border. 

HEARINGS

No hearings were held on H.R. 2155. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On September 25, 2002, the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims met in open session and ordered favorably 

4

reported the bill H.R. 2155, by a voice vote, a quorum being 

present. On October 9, 2002, the Committee met in open session 

and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2155 with amendment 

by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

1. Ms. Jackson Lee offered an amendment to require the Comptroller General to conduct a study and submit an annual report to 

Congress concerning INS inspectors exercising their authority to 

test drivers for drugs or alcohol in their bodies, including the assembling and analysis of the number of times an inspector administered drug or alcohol tests; the race, gender, and national origin 

of the driver involved; and the results of the test. The amendment 

was defeated by a rollcall vote of 7 yeas to 17 nays.

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Gekas .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Barr .............................................................................................................

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Graham ....................................................................................................... pass 

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X

Ms. Hart ............................................................................................................ X

Mr. Flake ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Frank ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Meehan ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X

Ms. Baldwin ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X

Total ................................................................................................ 7 17 1 pass 

2. Mr. Watt offered an amendment to require that the Attorney 

General’s regulations authorizing an officer of the INS to impound 

a vehicle not be inconsistent with the laws of the State in which 

the port of entry is located. The amendment passed by voice vote. 

5

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

H.R. 2155 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 3(c) of 

rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 

expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 2155, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, October 15, 2002. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2155, a bill to amend title 

18, United States Code, to make it illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a drug or alcohol in the body of the driver at a land border 

port of entry, and for other purposes. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz, who 

can be reached at 226-2860. 

Sincerely, 

DAN L. CRIPPEN, Director.

Enclosure

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 2155—A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to make 

it illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a drug or alcohol in 

the body of the driver at a land border port of entry, and for 

other purposes. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2155 would have no significant cost to the Federal Government. Enacting the bill could affect direct spending and revenues, but CBO estimates that any imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 01:16 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR754.XXX HR754
6

pact on direct spending and revenues would not be significant. H.R. 

2155 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 

defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of State, local, or tribal governments. 

H.R. 2155 would make it a Federal crime to operate a motor vehicle at a United States land border port of entry while under the 

influence of drugs or alcohol. Because the bill would establish a 

new Federal crime, the Government would be able to pursue cases 

that it otherwise would not be able to prosecute. However, we expect H.R. 2155 would apply to a relatively small number of offenders, so any increase in costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, 

or prison operations would not be significant. Any such costs would 

be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 2155 could 

be subject to criminal fines, the Federal Government might collect 

additional fines if the legislation is enacted. Collections of such 

fines are recorded in the budget as revenues, which are deposited 

in the Crime Victims Fund and later spent. CBO expects that any 

additional revenues and direct spending would not be significant 

because of the relatively small number of cases involved. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. This estimate was approved by Peter 

H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Sec. 1. Making it Illegal to Operate a Motor Vehicle with a Drug 

or Alcohol in the Body of the Driver at Land Border Ports of 

Entry. 

Section 1 amends title 18 of the United States Code to make 

driving at a land border port of entry with drugs or alcohol in the 

body a Federal offense and deems a driver to have given consent 

to submit to a drug or alcohol test by an INS officer. If the individual refuses to submit to such a test, section 1 of the bill requires 

the Attorney General to notify the driver’s state of jurisdiction of 

the driver’s refusal to submit to a test. If a driver is convicted of 

driving at a land border port of entry under the influence of drugs 

or alcohol, the Attorney General is also required to notify the driver’s state of jurisdiction of such conviction. 

Sec. 2. Authorizing Officers and Employees of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service to Conduct Tests for a Drug or Alcohol. 

Section 2 authorizes INS employees inspecting drivers at land 

border ports of entry to require impaired drivers to submit to a 

drug or alcohol test if inspectors have reasonable grounds to believe 

a driver is impaired or if the officer arrests a driver for operating 

a vehicle while impaired. 

7

Sec. 3. Requiring Notice at Land Border Ports of Entry Regarding 

Operation of a Motor Vehicle and Drugs and Alcohol. 

Section 3 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to require 

the Attorney General to post a notice at each land border port of 

entry that operating a motor vehicle with drugs or alcohol in the 

body at a land border port of entry is a Federal offense. 

Sec. 4. Impoundment of Vehicle for Refusal to Submit to Test for 

Drug or Alcohol. 

Section 4 requires the Attorney General to issue regulations, 

within 180 days from date of enactment of H.R. 2155, authorizing 

INS officers to impound a vehicle operated at a land border port 

of entry if the driver refuses to submit to a drug or alcohol test and 

if the impoundment is not inconsistent with the laws of the state 

in which the port of entry is located. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italics 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman):

SECTION 13 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

§ 13. Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction 

(a)(1) Whoever within or upon any of the places now existing 

or hereafter reserved or acquired as provided in section 7 of this 

title, or on, above, or below any portion of the territorial sea of the 

United States not within the jurisdiction of any State, Commonwealth, territory, possession, or district is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of 

Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the 

jurisdiction of the State, Territory, Possession, or District in which 

such place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time of 

such act or omission, shall be guilty of a like offense and subject 

to a like punishment.

(2) Whoever with a drug or alcohol in his or her body operates 

a motor vehicle at a land border port of entry in a manner that is 

punishable, because of the presence of the drug or alcohol, if committed within the jurisdiction of the State in which that land border 

port of entry is located (under the laws of that State in force at the 

time of the act) shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like 

punishment. 

(3) Any individual who operates a motor vehicle at a land border port of entry is deemed to have given consent to submit to a 

chemical or other test of the blood, breath, or urine of the driver by 

an officer or employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service authorized under section 287(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(h)) for the purpose of determining the presVerDate 0ct 09 2002 01:16 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR754.XXX HR754
8

ence or concentration of a drug or alcohol in such blood, breath, or 

urine. 

(4) If an individual refuses to submit to such a test after being 

advised by the officer or employee that the refusal will result in notification under this paragraph, the Attorney General shall give notice of the refusal to— (A) the State or foreign state that issued the license permitting the individual to operate a motor vehicle; or 

(B) if the individual has no such license, the State or foreign state in which the individual is a resident. 

(5) The Attorney General shall give notice of a conviction of an 

individual under this section for operation of a motor vehicle at a 

land border port of entry with a drug or alcohol in the body of the 

individual, to— (A) the State or foreign state that issued the license permitting the individual to operate a motor vehicle; or 

(B) if the individual has no such license, the State or foreign state in which the individual is a resident. 

(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘land border port 

of entry’’ means any land border port of entry (as defined in section 

287(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1357(h)(3))) that was not reserved or acquired as provided in section 

7 of this title.

* * * * * * *

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

* * * * * * *

TITLE II—IMMIGRATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 9—MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 281. Nonimmigrant visa fees. 

* * * * * * *

Sec. 295. Notice at land border ports of entry regarding operation of a motor vehicle and drugs and alcohol.

* * * * * * *

TITLE II—IMMIGRATION 

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 9—MISCELLANEOUS

* * * * * * *

POWERS OF IMMIGRATION OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

SEC. 287. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h)(1) If an officer or employee of the Service authorized under 

regulations prescribed by the Attorney General is inspecting a driver 

9

at a land border port of entry and has reasonable grounds to believe 

that, because of alcohol in the body of the driver, operation of a 

motor vehicle by the driver is an offense under section 13 of title 18, 

United States Code, the officer or employee may require the driver 

to submit to a test of the breath of the driver to determine the presence or concentration of the alcohol. 

(2) If an officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General arrests a driver under 

this section for operation of a motor vehicle in violation of section 

13 of title 18, United States Code, because of a drug or alcohol in 

the body of the driver, the officer or employee may require the driver 

to submit to a chemical or other test to determine the presence or 

concentration of the drug or alcohol in the blood, breath, or urine 

of the driver. 

(3) For purposes of this subsection: 

(A) The term ‘‘driver’’ means an individual who is operating a motor vehicle at a land border port of entry. 

(B) The term ‘‘land border port of entry’’ means any immigration checkpoint operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service at a land border between a State (as that 

term is used in section 13 of title 18, United States Code) and 

a foreign state. 

* * * * * * *

NOTICE AT LAND BORDER PORTS OF ENTRY REGARDING OPERATION OF

A MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRUGS AND ALCOHOL

SEC. 295. At each point where motor vehicles regularly enter a 

land border port of entry (as defined in section 287(h)(3)), the Attorney General shall post a notice that operation of a motor vehicle 

with a drug or alcohol in the body of the driver at a land border 

port of entry is an offense under Federal law.

* * * * * * *

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:25 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. A 

working quorum is present. The first item on the agenda today is 

H.R. 2155. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 

Mr. Gekas, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security, and Claims for a motion. 

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Border Security, and Claims reports favorably the bill H.R. 2155 

and moves its favorable recommendation to the full House. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, H.R. 2155 will be 

considered as read and open for amendment at any point. 

10

[The bill, H.R. 2155, follows:]


I2155A.eps
11


I2155B.eps
12


I2155C.eps
13


I2155D.eps
14


I2155E.eps
15


I2155F.eps
16

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, to strike the last word. 

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2155 authorizes INS inspectors 

at the border to take drunk or drugged drivers into custody based 

on their impaired state. Currently, border inspectors do not have 

the authority to do so other than as private citizens making citizen 

arrests. Typically inspectors now have no alternative than to wave 

impaired drivers through the port of entry with the hope that the 

driver will not do any harm. 

This bill, H.R. 2155, makes it a crime for a person to operate a 

motor vehicle at a land border port of entry in an impaired manner 

because of the presence of drugs or alcohol. The bill deems any 

such driver to have given consent to submit to a chemical test by 

the INS to determine the presence or concentration of a drug or alcohol in the driver’s body. If an individual refuses to submit to such 

a test after the INS advises the driver that the refusal will result 

in notification to the driver’s State or foreign state of jurisdiction, 

the bill requires the Attorney General to notify the driver’s State 

or a foreign state of the driver’s refusal to submit to the test. 

The Attorney General is also required to notify the driver’s government of a conviction of the driver for impaired driving. 

The bill authorizes INS inspectors at land border ports of entry 

to perform chemical tests upon drivers if the INS has reasonable 

grounds to believe that a driver is dangerous because of a drug or 

alcohol in the driver’s body. 

The Attorney General is required to post a notice that operation 

of a motor vehicle with drugs or alcohol in the driver’s body at a 

land border port of entry is a Federal offense. 

Finally, the bill requires the Attorney General to issue regulations authorizing INS officers and employees to impound a vehicle 

if the driver refuses to submit to a chemical or other test. 

This bill is a long overdue solution to a dangerous problem at our 

borders. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members’

opening statements will be placed in the record at this point. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Texas. The 

clerk will report the amendment. 

[The amendment follows:]

17

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2155, offered by Ms. Jackson 

Lee of Texas: 

Page 4, after line 26, insert the following (and redesignate provisions accordingly): 

Paragraph (3)(A), Each year—. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 

thank you and the Members of the Committee. This bill certainly 

has a good foundation. I am from a border State, and what it simply does is authorizes officers, employees of the INS, to conduct 

tests for drug or alcohol consumption when they have reasonable 


A2155A.eps
18

grounds to believe such. This, of course, ensures the safety of all 

travelers and as well those very fine Border Patrol personnel that 

are working on our behalf. 

I believe the bill can be enhanced by a provision that has been 

utilized in this Committee many, many times in a bipartisan manner, and that is to ask the Comptroller of the GAO office to provide 

a study on the number of stops and the particular background of 

those who are stopped. 

This is a format that has been used many, many times to ensure 

a commitment that this Committee has made over the years. It is 

to ensure the fairness in the implementation of laws no matter 

where they are and who they are implemented against. 

I would ask my colleagues to consider this legislation—or amendment. I believe that it will strongly enhance the legislation. I commend Mr. Flake and the Chairman for their leadership on this. As 

a representative from a border State, I think that this provision 

will ensure the balance and fairness that this Committee always 

adheres to. 

With that, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. I support the amendment, and I—. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will be happy to yield. 

Mr. CONYERS. I support the amendment, and I suspect the Chairman does too. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman very much. I yield back 

my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 

Flake. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill has been a long 

time in coming. It closes a dangerous loophole that we currently 

have. Over the past 2 years, two highway patrolman in California 

were killed by drunk drivers; kids under the age of 21 who had 

gone across the border to drink and had come across, were visibly 

impaired, but were allowed to cross the border anyway and end up 

killing two officers. A highway construction worker was also killed. 

These are simply the ones that we know about. 

It simply is wrong to allow individuals, when an INS officer is 

right there, to cross the border visibly impaired and to just send 

them on. We were told by INS officials that they send them on 

through with a wing and a prayer and hope that local law enforcement officials will pick them up. 

The most important part of this is simply allowing them to put 

signs up to say that the INS has the authority and the ability to 

actually stop you if you are visibly impaired. That deterrent value 

will be significant. If individuals know that they can’t go across the 

border where drinking laws are lax or unenforced, get drunk, come 

across unimpeded, they will be a lot less likely to do so. So the deterrent value is important. 

I am committed to work with Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee 

on this amendment; however, I simply think that this amendment 

will kill the bill. This is a very important piece of legislation. We 

need to get it passed. It will save lives on the border in Arizona, 

in Texas, in California, and to encumber it with this kind of requirement—there are some problems with this. This is a Comptroller General who will be authorized to do this, but we won’t have 

19

a GAO person there at the border to determine, you know, the race 

of each person coming across. 

I would just implore the Members here to understand how important this bill is and how important that it is that it go on 

unencumbered by amendments like this. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I would. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you. I want to assure you that were this 

amendment accepted, that it wouldn’t go—the bill—it wouldn’t endanger the bill at all. I mean, everybody is for this proposition. It 

is a safety valve which cautions everybody to do the thing right, 

and I can assure you that there are no forces that come to my mind 

that would oppose a bill of this importance because of this provision. The gentleman should sleep more soundly in his bed at night 

knowing that there are no opponents to this provision. 

Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, there is a larger problem here. 

The amendment requires the GAO to conduct this study, but there 

is no baseline information which this study—these numbers can be 

checked against. So essentially you are just collecting this information for the sake of collecting it with no baseline numbers. 

Now, if you say you are going to get baseline numbers, that 

means that everyone who crosses a border port of entry would have 

to be stopped by an INS official to see what race or gender they 

were in order to have baseline numbers that these numbers could 

be checked against. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield? I would just like to assure him that we shouldn’t try to be the people that are conducting 

the report. I mean, the experts will handle this, Mr. Flake. There 

is no reason for us to think that we are going to impede the flow 

of traffic or create some unusual sensational problem. It just 

doesn’t work this way. Your fear, I assure the gentleman, is without foundation. 

Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, this amendment also fails to 

provide procedures for the GAO to collect information. Is GAO 

going to stand at the border and simply count the number of individuals that come across? What are we to gain from that? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FLAKE. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to thank the gentleman for his concerns. I want to refresh the Committee’s recollection to know that 

we have passed these studies on numerous occasions. Particularly, 

we did it just recently in the visa waiver program with no opposition. This will not burden or impose a negative on the enforcement 

which the distinguished gentleman is seeking. It simply will provide additional data. 

We have always respected the ability of the GAO, the Comptroller General of the United States, to be able to do an independent study, and in fact I think the gentleman requested that 

the language be changed from the INS Commissioner, which I was 

glad to do. 

So I think this study has been utilized previously, to no detriment to the legislation that we have passed, and I would ask him 

to consider the potential compromise—. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

20

Mr. CONYERS. I rise to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. I will yield to Mr. Flake if he wanted to continue 

his thought. 

Mr. FLAKE. I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Now, we are at the end of the session, a few 

more days, an innocuous amendment to an important bill. What 

would endanger this bill is that it would go on the suspension calendar and fail to get the one-third votes, Mr. Flake. Therein is the 

problem, and that is what I and you and the Ranking Subcommittee Member ought to be doing to try to make sure the important bill gets through. 

Let us not take this moment to create, seriatim, four different 

reasons that you don’t like the provision. I guess we could be 

around here all day. You could think of one after another after another. 

Hopefully not, the Chairman says. But all I am saying is that the 

way to endanger this bill is to knock out the amendment and then 

put it on suspension. You know the procedure. 

Mr. FLAKE. If the gentleman will yield, my problem is having an 

amendment that, as we have just mentioned, is meaningless and 

simply encumbers the bill. We had a situation where, as I mentioned, there are no baseline numbers which this information can 

be checked against, and if we are blind that somehow we are going 

to seek to obtain baseline numbers, then that is a big problem. It 

would impose a huge cost that is not already there and it would 

certainly endanger the bill at that point. 

So what I am saying is that this is important legislation. Lives 

are being lost at the border because people are coming across impaired. I think those on the floor of the House of Representatives 

will take that into account and understand that the important part 

of this legislation is to allow the INS to have that authority and 

that these other measures are secondary. 

Thank you for yielding. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, we create a base by starting this study. I 

mean, pace lines don’t appear like magic out of the thin air. You 

have got to start somewhere, sir, and that is what we are doing is 

starting. 

Now, as I counted, that is the fifth reason that you have offered 

against this amendment. And, you know, you may be—have you 

considered the position that I have suggested to you, that opposing 

the amendment could endanger your bill, which I think we all support in the Committee? 

Mr. FLAKE. Yes. I am considering that. I am also considering how 

it might be endangered if we accept the amendment. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, you need two-thirds on the floor under a suspension. 

Mr. FLAKE. That is what I understand. 

Mr. CONYERS. That means one-third of the Members could kill 

the bill. 

Mr. FLAKE. I understand that. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, don’t you want to pass the bill? 

Mr. FLAKE. I do, very much; but I want to pass a bill that actually gets to the problem, and it doesn’t contain measures that are 

21

secondary. That is the important thing. And I am told that this will 

encumber the bill even further and make it less likely that it will 

pass on suspension if we include—. Mr. CONYERS. Okay, let me try—this is my last shot, Mr. Flake. 

Do you know any Senator can kill any bill? 

Mr. FLAKE. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. What I am trying to guarantee you is the fact that 

that would not happen even if—despite my wisdom about how little 

likelihood you would have in obtaining two-thirds of the vote. I will 

assure you that nobody would do that on the other side. Does that 

make you feel more comfortable? 

Sure it does. Okay. I yield back my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment 

offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The noes appear to have it. 

Mr. CONYERS. A recorded vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. rollcall is requested. Those in favor 

of agreeing to the Jackson Lee amendment will, as your names are 

called, answer aye; those opposed, no. And the clerk will call the 

roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Gekas. 

Mr. GEKAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gekas, no. 

Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, no. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, no. 

Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. 

Mr. Barr. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon. 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. 

Mr. Graham. 

Mr. GRAHAM. Pass. 

The CLERK. Mr. Graham, pass. 

Mr. Bachus. 

Mr. BACHUS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus, no. 

Mr. Hostettler. 

22

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, no. 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, no. 

Mr. Keller. 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. 

Mr. Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, no. 

Ms. Hart. 

Ms. HART. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Hart, no. 

Mr. Flake. 

Mr. FLAKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. 

Mr. Pence. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, no. 

Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. 

Mr. Frank. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, aye. 

Ms. Lofgren. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. 

Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. 

Mr. Meehan. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan, aye. 

Mr. Delahunt. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, aye. 

Ms. Baldwin. 

23

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Members in the Chamber wish to 

cast or change their votes? 

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. JENKINS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 

Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If there are no further Members who 

wish to cast or change their vote, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 17 ayes—I am sorry—7 

ayes and 17 nays and 1 pass. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment is not agreed 

to. 

Are there further amendments? The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

[The amendment follows:]

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2155 offered by Mr. Watt. On 

page 6, section 4, line 10, insert the following after ‘‘vehicle′′: 

Paren, ‘‘not inconsistent with the laws of the State into which the 

operator seeks entry.’’. Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina 

is recognized for 5 minutes. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WATT. Yes, I will. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I believe that this is a constructive 

amendment because it makes clear that there is not a Federal law 

relative to driving while impaired, and it is the State law that the 

entrant into the United States is entering into. So I would hope 

that this amendment would be adopted. 

Mr. WATT. I couldn’t have said it more eloquently myself, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agree—yes, the 

gentleman from Arizona. 

Mr. FLAKE. No. I will just say I am fine with that as well. 


A2155B.eps
24

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Watt. 

Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the amendment 

is agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

Mr. FLAKE. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. FLAKE. I just wanted to point out, it has just been pointed 

out to me that a GAO study does not require a statute. And so 

those who feel that a GAO study is warranted are more than able 

to make that request at any time, without statute. So if that is 

truly the concern, I would hope that that would not impair the bill 

from moving forward, the defeat of the Jackson Lee amendment. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FLAKE. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I wish the gentleman had cooperated with another Member, who as you well know, worked with you through the 

process of the Subcommittee. The amendment stands as a request. 

I would be happy for you to ask for a reconsideration for the 

amendment to pass, and I would be happy for you to—I would be 

happy to suggest that we only narrow it to four or five areas so 

that we can have a pilot program and have this amendment reformed to that extent. And then I would be glad to be supportive 

of this legislation. 

At this point—. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chairman will suggest that 

there is time between the Committee and the floor to deal with 

that. 

Mr. FLAKE. I am glad to work with the gentlelady on that. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FLAKE. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would he be agreeable if the Chair of the Committee, the Ranking Member, the Subcommittee chair and the 

Ranking Subcommittee person join together to make such a request 

to GAO? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Pardon me? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair will be happy to sign the 

request to the GAO. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Excuse me. Is it possible—I appreciate the 

distinguished Ranking Member, but it is also possible to include in 

that discussion the possibility of accepting language that narrows 

it to four or five areas and have that language inside so it be a 

pilot. It wouldn’t be everywhere. And then we would have an opportunity to have—. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman from Arizona will 

yield, I don’t think this is the place to negotiate out the text of letters to the GAO. If there are going to be letters sent to the GAO, 

we can deal with that later. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No. I was talking about language in the 

amendment—in the bill. 

25

Mr. FLAKE. I would be glad to work with the gentlelady and distinguished minority leader on this, and yield back. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further amendments? If 

not, the Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum. The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 2155 favorably, as 

amended. 

Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the motion to 

report favorably is agreed to. Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the House in the form of a single amendment 

in the nature of a substitute incorporating the amendment adopted 

here today. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes, and all 

Members will be given 2 days as provided by House rules in which 

to submit additional dissenting, supplemental, or minority views. 

(27)

DISSENTING VIEWS

We are concerned that this well intentioned legislation merely recodifies powers that border inspectors currently have, unnecessarily adds to the already burdensome job of border inspectors, and 

has the potential to be improperly used to target persons on the 

basis of race or national origin. 

Border inspectors already have the authority to arrest persons 

under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the border. 18 U.S.C. section 13 (the Assimilative Crimes Act) currently incorporates State 

criminal law into Federal law, for issues where there is no applicable Federal criminal law, in places in Federal jurisdiction such as 

military bases and, no doubt, ports of entry. Therefore, a criminal 

offense such as DUI under State law is already a Federal criminal 

offense in a Federal area (areas not in State jurisdictions). 

Further, this law would extend the authority of border inspectors 

beyond State law by incorporating non-criminal sanctions (e.g., suspension of licenses for failure to agree to a drug test) into Federal 

law. It also would extend the admittedly broad authority the INS 

currently has at the border to conduct searches, to blood, breath or 

urine testing. At a time when their workload is heavy and the lines 

and waits for border traffic are already causing huge burdens to 

border economies, this legislation will impose new duties, unrelated 

to terrorism, on immigration inspectors at the border. Essentially, 

H.R. 2155 is enlisting INS officers to enforce State law. 

Finally, in our view, it is critical to include in the legislation provisions to monitor whether law enforcement uses their new authority in a discriminatory, and thus illegal, manner. During both the 

Subcommittee markup and the full Committee markup of this legislation, after being assured that the Majority would work with the 

Minority on concerns with the legislation, we offered an amendment that would require the General Accounting Office to conduct 

an annual study concerning the exercise of the new authorities by 

officers and employees of the INS. The study would assemble and 

analyze the number of times the officers exercised this authority, 

the race, gender, and national origin of the driver involved, and the 

results of the exercise of this new authority. The amendment further directed the General Accounting Office to submit a report to 

Congress no later than March 31 of each year. 

It is important to include this amendment as part of the bill because the legislation raises the potential for abuse of authority to 

stop and detain individuals at the border. The amendment would 

ensure that the new authorities granted the officers and employees 

of the INS to test for the use of alcohol and drugs by a driver at 

the border is carried out in a efficient, fair, and equitable manner 

without targeting any group of people. Most importantly, through 

the collection of data, the amendment by its very nature would 

curb any tendency toward abuse. Unfortunately, the Majority reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 01:16 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR754.XXX HR754
28

fused to accept the amendment arguing that the measure would 

place an extreme burden on the officers carrying out the provisions 

of the amendment. No such burden in fact would occur since the 

study would be conducted by the GAO after the border inspectors 

actions were completed. 

The majority’s refusal to include the amendment also was surprising in light of the fact that the majority and the minority have 

worked together in the past to prevent the heinous practice of racial profiling from raising its head. During consideration of H.R. 

3767, the Permanent Visa Waiver Program Act (P.L. 106–396), bipartisan action was taken to include language in section 206 and 

207 of the bill to ensure that race, gender or disability would not 

be considered as criteria for the calculation of visa refusal rates. 

The measure further enacted reporting requirements on the Secretary of State to ensure that this provision was followed. 

We therefore oppose this legislation.

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE.

Æ