PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Sep 21, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit the construction or financing of an unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage that crosses the international border between the United States and another country. Imposes a 20-year prison term for such offense.
Imposes a 10-year prison term on any person who recklessly permits the construction or use of such a tunnel or passage on land that such person owns or controls.
Doubles penalties for persons who use such a tunnel or passage to unlawfully smuggle an alien, illegal goods, controlled substances, weapons of mass destruction, or members of a terrorist organization.
Subjects to forfeiture any property involved in, or traceable to, the construction or financing of such a tunnel or passage.
Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to promulgate or amend sentencing guidelines to provide for increased penalties for persons convicted of criminal offenses related to the construction or financing of such a tunnel or passage.
People & committees
Rep. Dreier, David [R-CA-26] · 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 and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 422 - 0 (Roll no. 469). (text: CR H6862-6863)
House roll call 469 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 422 - 0 (Roll no. 469).(text: CR H6862-6863)
House roll call 469 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6894-6895)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of the debate on H.R. 4830, the Chair put the question on adoption of the bill and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Sensenbrenner demanded the yeas and nays and the chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption until later in the legislative day.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H6869)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 4830.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4830, H.R. 6094 and H.R. 6095. In each case, the bill shall be considered as read; no amendments shall be in order; and the previous question shall be considered as ordered to final passage, without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1018. (consideration: CR H6862-6869)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1018 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4830, H.R. 6094 and H.R. 6095. In each case, the bill shall be considered as read; no amendments shall be in order; and the previous question shall be considered as ordered to final passage, without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit.
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.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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.4830 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.4830 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.4830 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.4830 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.