PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Sep 14, 2000
Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act, with respect to sentences for bringing in and harboring certain aliens for commercial gain to: (1) establish a two-year minimum sentence for a person who smuggles into, or transports or harbors an illegal alien in the United States; (2) establish a one-year minimum sentence for aiding or abetting such crimes; (3) increase the maximum sentence to 25 years for such crimes resulting in serious bodily injury or jeopardy to human life; (4) establish a 20-year minimum sentence for such crimes resulting in a person's death, and (5) double and quintuple such sentences for second and third convictions, respectively.States that such sentences shall not apply to a person who renders life-threatening emergency assistance to an alien in the United States.Amends Federal criminal law to subject such crimes committed by an armed person to enhanced penalties.
People & committees
Rep. Rogan, James E. [R-CA-27] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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 voice vote. (text: CR H8694)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8694)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 238.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8694-8697)
Mr. Rogan moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 505.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-850.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-850.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E13)
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.238 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.238 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.238 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.238 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.