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 has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Community Protection Act of 2006 - Title I: Dangerous Alien Detention Act of 2006 - (Sec. 101) Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit indefinite detention of specified dangerous aliens under orders of removal who cannot be removed, subject to review every six months. States that habeas corpus review of such provisions shall be available only in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) detain an alien subject to an administrative final order of removal who has been granted a stay of removal during the pendency of such stay; and (2) parole an alien ordered removed and provide that such alien not be detained unless removal becomes foreseeable or the alien violates parole conditions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires that a detention review process be established for aliens under order of removal who have effected an entry and are cooperating with removal.
(Sec. 102) Authorizes indefinite detention of an inadmissible alien until such alien is subject to an administrative final order of removal. States that habeas corpus review of such provision shall be available only in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Title II: Criminal Alien Removal Act - (Sec. 201) Provides for expedited removal of aliens removable on criminal grounds.
Title III: Alien Gang Removal Act of 2006 - (Sec. 301) Makes an alien inadmissible for U.S. entry if: (1) such alien has been deported for criminal street gang participation; or (2) the consular officer or the Secretary knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that such alien is a member of a criminal street gang seeking U.S. entry in furtherance of gang-related crimes or activities or is a member of a designated criminal street gang.
Defines: (1) criminal street gang; and (2) gang crime.
Makes an alien deportable who: (1) is a street gang member convicted of committing or attempting to commit a gang crime; or (2) is determined by the Secretary to be a member of a designated criminal street gang.
Authorizes the Attorney General to designate a group or association as a criminal street gang. Requires the Attorney General to provide specified congressional leaders with prior notice of, and the factual basis for, such designation.
Provides for revocation of such designation by: (1) an Act of Congress; (2) the Attorney General's review based upon changed circumstances or national security; or (3) judicial appeal or petition to the Attorney General by a gang or association so designated.
(Sec. 302) Requires mandatory detention of aliens subject to removal based upon criminal street gang membership.
(Sec. 303) Makes such aliens ineligible for asylum and protection from removal to certain countries.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · R–WI
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: 328 - 95 (Roll no. 465). (text: CR H6869-6872)
House roll call 465 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 328 - 95 (Roll no. 465).(text: CR H6869-6872)
House roll call 465 · Individual votesOn motion to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 225 - 195 (Roll no. 464).
House roll call 464 · Individual votesMr. Sensenbrenner moved to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair
Mr. Gutierrez appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was then put on sustaining the ruling of the chair.
Mr. Sensenbrenner raised a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions. Mr. Sensenbrenner stated that the provisions of the instructions were not germane to the bill. Sustained by the Chair.
Point of order sustained against the motion to recommit with instructions.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Gutierrez motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment inserting a new section entitled Provision of Additional Resources to Apprehend Criminal Aliens.
Mr. Gutierrez moved to recommit with instructions to Judiciary. (consideration: CR H6876; text: CR H6876)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H6876)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 6094.
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 H6869-6879)
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.6094 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.6094 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.6094 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.6094 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.