PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 16, 2002
(Sec. 1) Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any person from operating a motor vehicle at a land border port of entry with a drug or alcohol in his or her body in violation of applicable State law. Deems any individual who operates a motor vehicle at a land border port of entry to have given consent to submit to a blood, breath, or urine test for drugs or alcohol by an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officer. Directs the Attorney General to notify an individual's State (or foreign state) of motor vehicle licensing or residence of an individual's: (1) refusal to submit to testing; and (2) conviction for violating this section.(Sec. 2) Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize an INS officer who: (1) has reasonable grounds to believe that a driver at a land border port of entry may be operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol to require the driver to submit to a breath test; and (2) arrests a driver for operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol to require the driver to submit to a blood, breath, or urine test.(Sec. 3) Requires the Attorney General to post notice at each land border port of entry that operation of a motor vehicle with a drug or alcohol in the driver's body at such port of entry is a Federal offense.(Sec. 4) Requires the Attorney General to issue regulations authorizing an INS officer to impound a vehicle operated at a land border port of entry if: (1) the driver refuses to submit to a chemical or other test; and (2) the impoundment is not inconsistent with the laws of the State in which the port of entry is located.
People & committees
Rep. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ-1] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 296 - 94 (Roll no. 465). (text: CR 10/15/2002 H7902-7903)
House roll call 465 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 296 - 94 (Roll no. 465).(text: CR 10/15/2002 H7902-7903)
House roll call 465 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7948-7949)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed until Oct. 16.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2155.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7902-7908)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 474.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 107-754.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 107-754.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2155 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2155 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2155 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2155 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.