[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 13 (Wednesday, February 9, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H453-H472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REAL ID ACT OF 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 71 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 418.
{time} 1359
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 418) to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State
driver's license and identification document security standards, to
prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States,
to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and
to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence, with
Mr. Culberson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
General debate shall not exceed 1 hour and 40 minutes, with 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; 40 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Government Reform; and 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Homeland Security.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 20 minutes of debate from
the Committee on the Judiciary.
[[Page H454]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
{time} 1400
Mr. Chairman, in December, the President signed into law legislation
intended to respond to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
Unfortunately, the legislation that was enacted failed to include
several key provisions critical to addressing vulnerabilities found in
both the 9/11 Commission Report and of the 9/11 staff report on
terrorist travel. To that end, on January 26th of this year, I
introduced H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. The bill, which now has 139
cosponsors, encompasses four of the most important border and document
security provisions that the House overwhelmingly approved as a part of
H.R. 10 last year.
The goal of the REAL ID Act is straightforward. It seeks to prevent
another 9/11-type terrorist attack by disrupting terrorist travel. The
9/11 Commission terrorist travel report stated that ``Abuse of the
immigration system and the lack of interior enforcement were
unwittingly working together to support terrorist activities.''
The report further states that ``Members of al Qaeda clearly valued
freedom of movement as critical to their ability to plan and carry out
the attacks prior to September 11th.''
Finally, the report observed, ``If terrorist travel options are
reduced, they may be forced to rely on means of interaction which can
be more easily monitored and to resort to travel documents that are
more easily detectable.''
The REAL ID Act contains four provisions aimed at disrupting
terrorist travel. First, the legislation does not, does not, try to set
States' policy for those who may or may not drive a car, but it does
address the use of a driver's license as a form of identification to a
Federal official such as an airport screener at a domestic airport.
American citizens have the right to know who is in their country,
that the people are who they say they are, and that the name on the
driver's license is the real holder's name, not some alias.
Second, this legislation will tighten our asylum system, which has
been abused by terrorists. The 9/11 Commission staff report on
terrorist travel states that ``Once the terrorists had entered the
United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here.''
Their primary method was immigration fraud.
Irresponsible judges have made asylum laws vulnerable to fraud and
abuse. We will end judge-imposed presumptions that benefit suspected
terrorists in order to stop providing a safe haven to some of the worst
people on Earth. The REAL ID Act will reduce the opportunity for
immigration fraud so that we can protect honest asylum seekers and stop
rewarding the terrorists and criminals who falsely claim persecution.
Liberal activist judges in the Ninth Circuit have been overturning
clearly established precedent and are preventing immigration judges
from denying bogus asylum applications by aliens who are clearly lying.
If criminal juries can sentence a defendant to life imprisonment or
execution based on adverse credibility determinations, certainly an
immigration judge can deny an alien asylum on this basis. It is one of
the foundations of our system of jurisprudence that juries and trial
judges should be able to decide cases on the basis of credibility or
lack of credibility of witnesses. This bill will again allow
immigration judges to deny asylum claims based on the lack of
credibility.
The bill also overturns an even more disturbing Ninth Circuit
precedent that has made it easier for terrorists to receive asylum. The
circuit has actually held that an alien can receive asylum on the basis
that his or her government believes that the alien is a terrorist.
Third, the REAL ID Act will waive Federal laws to the extent
necessary to complete gaps in the San Diego border security fence which
is still stymied 8 years after congressional authorization. Neither the
public safety nor the environment are benefiting from the current
stalemate.
Finally, the REAL ID Act contains a common-sense provision that helps
protect Americans from terrorists who have infiltrated the United
States. Currently, certain terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility
to our country are not also grounds for deportation of aliens already
here. The REAL ID Act makes aliens deportable from the United States
for terrorism-related offenses to the same extent they would be
inadmissible to the United States to begin with. The act provides that
any alien who knowingly provides funds or other material support to a
terrorist organization will be subject to immigration consequences.
The REAL ID Act will make America a safer place. It is even endorsed
by the 9/11 Families for a Secure America, an association of family
members of 9/11 victims.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, February 9, 2005.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Barton: Thank you for your letter, dated
February 8, 2005, regarding H.R. 418, the ``REAL ID Act.'' As
you noted, some of the provisions of the bill contained in
section 102 fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. I appreciate your
willingness to forgo consideration of the bill, and I
acknowledge that by agreeing to waive its consideration of
the bill, the Committee on Energy and Commerce does not waive
its jurisdiction over these provisions.
Pursuant to your request, I will include a copy of your
letter and this response in the Congressional Record during
consideration of H.R. 418 on the House floor.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, February 8, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: I understand that you will
shortly bring H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005, to the House
floor. This legislation contains provisions that fall within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Section 102 of the bill provides the Secretary of Homeland
Security with the authority to waive applicable environmental
law, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLA, for the purpose of
building roads and barriers. As you know, Rule X of the Rules
of the House of Representatives gives the Committee on Energy
and Commerce jurisdiction over these statutes.
I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before
the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not
exercise my Committee's right to a referral. By agreeing to
waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and
Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R.
418. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves
its right to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill
that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate
conference that may be convened on this or similar
legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any request
by the Energy and Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R.
418 or similar legislation.
I request that you include this letter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 418. Thank you for your
attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise, regrettably in opposition to this anti-
immigrant legislation.
Mr. Chairman, if we truly believe in all we have heard about the
importance of freedom and liberty from our President and others, then
we have no other choice but to vote down this bill which denies so much
freedom and liberty to the immigrants in our own country.
H.R. 418 includes provision after provision limiting the rights of
refugees, imposing onerous new driver's license requirements on the
States, unfunded mandates, making it easier to deport legal immigrants,
waiving all Federal laws concerning construction of barriers and fences
anywhere within the United States and denying immigrants long-standing
habeas corpus rights. This is a work of art that has to be examined
very, very carefully and very critically.
If this measure becomes law, this will close America's doors to
Cubans fleeing
[[Page H455]]
from their country, religious minorities attempting to escape religious
persecution, women fleeing from sex trafficking, rape or forced
abortions.
Unfortunately, in our history, there have been a number of examples
of this overreaction in the past. For example, during the Civil War,
General Ulysses Grant, no less, sought to expel the Jews from the
South. The aftermath of World War I brought the notorious Red scare,
and the very long remembered anti-immigrant Palmer raids from the
attorney general of that era. Of course, World War II gave us the
searing memory of the unconscionable internment of Japanese Americans.
In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, and even after the PATRIOT Act,
which did its share of violating the rights of those who were in this
country, this legislation would even further target immigrants for
crimes they have not committed and for which they are not responsible.
At some point we have to treat terrorism as a problem that requires
intelligent response, as opposed to an excuse to scapegoat immigrants.
For all these reasons, there are so many groups lined up behind the
American Civil Liberties Union to oppose the bill: immigration rights
groups, civil rights groups, civil liberty organizations, private
rights groups, labor organizations, environmental groups, Native
American rights, States' rights and international human rights groups.
So, I urge us in good conscience and serious concern over the direct
and the subtle import of this legislation, please, we cannot and should
not close ourselves off to the most vulnerable members of our society.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) be permitted to manage the bill on this side of the
floor.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is the first step back on the long road to
real homeland security. First, this bill prevents terrorists and others
from getting driver's licenses by requiring applicants to prove that
they are in the country legally. Driver's licenses can be used to board
an aircraft, open a bank account and get a job. To preserve our
security, we must deny terrorists the ability to obtain this form of
identification.
In addition, this legislation makes it harder for terrorists to
exploit our asylum system. It also requires the completion of the 14-
mile San Diego border fence, which Congress approved in 1996.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this legislation strengthens our ability to
deport terrorists. Current law makes terrorists inadmissible for
certain offenses but not deportable for those same offenses.
Congress can improve homeland security by passing this legislation.
But if the administration wants to continue to protect the lives of
Americans, it can also take immediate steps to change policies that
have encouraged illegal immigration. It should start by requesting
funding for all of the border enforcement positions that Congress
authorized last year. The President's budget only requests enough funds
for 210 new border patrol agents, even though Congress authorized 2,000
new agents.
Further, the administration must start fining employers for hiring
illegal immigrants. Last year it did not fine a single employer. The
administration also should change its policy of recognizing consular
identification cards issued by other countries. These cards are simply
not secure or reliable. They give terrorists and illegal aliens another
way to remain undetected in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, the REAL ID Act marks the beginning of an effort to
make America safer. I hope the administration will fully support us in
this effort.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that what we do today is a matter that could
have been approached in a bipartisan manner. As I look at the Members
on the floor of the House, each and every one is sincere in their
commitment to the war on terrorism. And let me applaud them for that. I
applaud the chairman of the full Committee on the Judiciary. Let me
applaud the ranking member. A number of Members who are here on the
floor are Committee on the Judiciary members. I want to applaud them
for the work that has been done on this issue.
That is why I believe that the REAL ID Act could have been addressed
in regular order, the regular order of committee hearings, the regular
order of taking testimony from governors and legislators and local
government officials. But now the REAL ID Act is an attempt to breathe
life into immigration provisions that were stripped from the Terrorism
Reform and Prevention Act. These provisions were viewed as
controversial then and they are no less controversial now.
Opposition to this legislation at this time is by no means a
reflection on anyone's commitment to the war on terrorism, but the REAL
ID Act should have been subjected to hearings and markups before being
brought to this floor.
{time} 1415
First of all, it is an unfunded mandate of almost $500 million.
Supporters of H.R. 418 are afraid that terrorists are using our
asylum laws as a means of entering and remaining in the United States.
This fear has to be put into perspective. Terrorists are statutorily
barred from asylum eligibility, and it is not apparent why they should
choose such a complicated, time-consuming method for entering and
remaining in the United States, in any event. In addition, large
numbers of advocates, religious organizations and others who understand
asylum laws and realize that there are still religious and political
persecution today, realize that this bill is misdirected.
As we stand here on the floor, the Committee on Rules is determining
whether the Nadler amendment will be admitted that responds to the
crisis we face in the asylum laws if this bill is to be passed in its
present form.
We know that the 9/11 hijackers entered and remained in the United
States as nonimmigrant visitors. Visitor visas only require a 2-minute
interview with an American Consulate office. The applicant just has to
establish that he will return to his country at the end of the
authorized period of stay. This is much easier than the steps required
for obtaining asylum.
I too want to have a kind of organized system that bars terrorists,
but putting into effect a national ID card is not what the 9/11
Commission said. In fact, they made it very clear. This legislation
will force the United States in its national database and in its
requirement standardizing ID driver's licenses and birth certificates
which puts us on that road without hearings, without oversight, and
without question of America's civil liberties.
I know that the polls and all the phone calls in Members' offices
have said we do not want illegal aliens driving cars. Well, do you want
individuals on our highways and byways that are not licensed? Are you
taking away the 10th amendment of the United States to allow them to be
able to standardize those documents? I do believe that we can
standardize them by a biometric system, but we have intruded on the
rights of States when they too can work with the Federal Government
making the system work.
I think there are valuable aspects of this bill; not using certain ID
for certain Federal purposes, which may in fact include travel. But the
overbroadness of this particular legislation, barring any laws to be
utilized in the building of a fence, eliminating environmental laws,
work laws, criminal laws is overbroad.
Lastly, I would say, we are the land of the free and the brave. We
have always welcomed those fleeing from persecution. This legislation
bars that opportunity, and I would ask my colleagues to oppose it and
for us to go back to the drawing board and work for freedom and the war
against terrorism in a bipartisan way.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H456]]
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the REAL ID
Act, and I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for
his efforts in this matter. It is very important.
This bill is about common sense. It is about protecting our borders
and making our country safer. The 9/11 Commission report revealed many
disconcerting facts, none more unnerving than the fact that all but one
of the 9/11 hijackers who were here temporarily obtained valid driver's
licenses, enabling them to travel freely about the country. That is
absurd, and the American people know it. This bill finally does
something about that absurdity. We cannot continue to let our laws be
exploited and circumvented by future terrorists to further their plans
of violence, destruction, and murder. With the REAL ID Act in place, we
can better prevent future tragic events from occurring.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass this critical piece of
legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a
distinguished member of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I am a proud
daughter of immigrants who is honored to serve my country. I consider
it a privilege to be able to give something back to this country that
has given so much opportunity to generations of immigrants over the
years.
Like millions of immigrants here today, my family came to this
country in search of the American Dream: a better life for their
children so that their children could receive a quality education, some
day own a home, and earn a fair wage.
I stand before my colleagues today angered and outraged that under
the guise of national security, the Republican Party is trying to
punish those seeking the same dreams that my parents sought. If the
Republicans and this administration really want to strengthen national
security, they should start, I would think, by providing full funding
for the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, the administration's
budget slashes funding for the COPS program by $480 million and guts
funding for local firefighters by $215 million. This leaves our first
responders without the critical resources they need.
The administration's budget also breaks the promise of putting an
additional 2,000 border patrol agents on the job in 2006 as promised in
landmark intelligence reforms passed last year and endorsed by the 9/11
Commission. Instead, the President's budget provides funding for a mere
210 agents, a 90 percent cut over the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
The truth of the matter is that Republicans are using national
security as a facade to alienate law-abiding, hard-working, and tax-
paying immigrants. There are 8 million undocumented immigrants in this
country who are cleaning our offices, caring for our children and
elderly, and picking the fruits and vegetables that we consume. Most of
these jobs most Americans do not want. Without these immigrants, our
economy would falter.
What we should be doing is allowing immigrants a path to citizenship
and access to driver's licenses so they become a part of our American
system. This will make our country safer, and it will strengthen our
national security.
We need comprehensive reform that supports our economy and values our
immigrants. If the REAL ID Act is passed today, it will deny driver's
licenses to those immigrants and slam the door shut on refugees seeking
asylum from blood-thirsty regimes.
America is a country built by immigrants, and we should remain a
country that is opening and welcoming to those who seek freedom. It is
a sad day when Republicans use the pretext of national security to
attack immigrants who pose no real threat to our security. Americans
deserve better, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 418.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Immigration.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 418, the Real
ID Act.
The REAL ID Act incorporates four of the 9/11 Commission
recommendations that are necessary to effectively protect our
constituents from terrorists seeking to exploit loopholes in our
immigration system. This bill will close several of those dangerous
loopholes.
In addition to providing important Federal security guidelines for
driver's licenses, the REAL ID Act also includes other important
homeland security measures, including the deportability of terrorists,
preventing terrorists from gaming the asylum system, and implementing
border security measures in San Diego.
Currently, the terrorists and their supporters can be kept out of the
United States; but as soon as they set foot into the U.S. on tourist
visas, we cannot deport them for many of the very same offenses. This
hinders our ability to protect Americans from those alien terrorists
who have infiltrated the United States. H.R. 418 makes aliens
deportable for the same terrorist-related offenses as those that would
prevent them from being admitted to the United States in the first
place.
Another deficiency in current law is based on a flawed understanding
of how terrorist organizations operate.
The Immigration and Nationality Act now reads that if an alien
provides funding or other material support to a terrorist organization,
the alien can escape deportation if they can show that he did not know
that the funds or support would further the organization's terrorist
activity; i.e., his donation did not immediately go to buying
explosives.
As Kenneth McKune, former associate coordinator for Counterterrorism
at the State Department, explained, ``Given the purposes,
organizational structure, and clandestine nature of foreign terrorist
organizations, it is highly likely that any material support to these
organizations will ultimately inure to the benefit of their criminal,
terrorist functions, regardless of whether such support was ostensibly
intended to support nonviolent, nonterrorist activities.''
Money given to terrorist organizations is fungible. Senator Diane
Feinstein has rightly stated that ``I simply do not accept that so-
called humanitarian works by terrorist groups can be kept separate from
their other operations. I think the money will ultimately go to bombs
and bullets rather than babies, or, because money is fungible, it will
free up other funds to be used on terrorist activities.''
The REAL ID Act is written so that an alien who provides funds or
other material support to a terrorist organization would be deportable
unless he did not know and should not reasonably have known that the
organization was a terrorist organization.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the support and passage of H.R. 418.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a
strong advocate for preserving the Constitution.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the supporters of this legislation are
completely correct that obviously real terrorist threats exist and we
must act forcefully to safeguard our national security. But this bill
is really three or four or five separate bills entirely, some of them
unexceptional, some of them very questionable.
Under the excuse of national security, for example, the asylum
provisions in this bill completely gut the possibility of many
legitimate victims of persecution to be granted asylum. Asylum law is
supposed to be about protecting individuals, including women and
children, from serious human rights abuses; it is not supposed to be
about seizing on any possible basis to deny a claim or return people to
persecution.
[[Page H457]]
Proponents of this bill have been making dramatic claims about
terrorists abusing the asylum system to get into this country to
perform acts of terrorism. But since 9/11, in fact, since the 1996 act,
most asylum-seekers are in jail while resolution of their cases are
pending so they cannot pose a threat. What this bill does is to change
the standards by which the judgment is made as to whether they should
get asylum; but while it is being judged, they are in jail. So this has
nothing to do with alleviating a threat to this country.
For example, one provision would change current law to require that
the applicant prove that his or her race, religion, et cetera is a
central reason instead of merely a major reason for the legitimate fear
of persecution in order to get asylum. This would force asylum
applicants to prove the state of mind of their persecutors. What is the
central reason of several different reasons? It makes it almost
impossible to grant asylum.
Now, this was not, and some of the points in the manager's amendment
were not in the bill before us last year. No one has ever seen some of
these provisions until yesterday. This provision, at least, and I am
gratified that the Committee on Rules made the amendment to be in order
by me and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to strike this section of the bill, and in
order for it to be passed tomorrow so that the Committee on the
Judiciary can properly vet this bill or the asylum provisions can be
properly looked at and we can deal with it adequately.
This section, in my judgment, would subject hundreds, maybe
thousands, of people to being tortured or abused or shot because of
their race, color, religion, creed, or opposition to a dictatorial
regime back home, because it would make it impossible for them to get
asylum. I think when this House examines this carefully, and when the
committee examines this carefully, it will come to that conclusion.
Maybe we out to change the asylum provisions, but we ought to do it
after careful consideration.
So I hope that this bill will not be passed in its current form, and
that my amendment will be passed so that we can give proper
consideration to some of these provisions that do not really aid the
national security, but do gut protection for people who need those
protections.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), our recently returned prodigal
son.
(Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support
of H.R. 418.
Twenty-six years ago, when I first came to this Chamber, we were
speaking about border security. Sixteen years ago, when I left this
Chamber, we were speaking about border security; and here we are again.
A fundamental aspect of national sovereignty is that a nation is able
to control its own borders. The nature of this requirement is of
particular importance in the post-9/11 environment in which we must all
live. In years past, when those of us on the Subcommittee on
Immigration confronted this challenge, there were traffickers and human
cargo and narcotics and the increasing problem of criminal gangs who
profit from such enterprises. Today, however, we must deal with the
additional worry that these channels of illicit commerce may also
include those who enter our country to kill innocent Americans and the
related concerns of weapons of mass destruction.
The Real ID Act, introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner), is an important step in meeting this challenge. In
conjunction with the additional border patrol positions authorized by
this body at the close of the last Congress, H.R. 418 will remove the
impediments to completing the fence along the San Diego corridor of our
southern border.
{time} 1430
I want to commend my predecessor in the Third Congressional District
in California, Mr. Doug Ose, who worked hard to remove the regulatory
obstacles to completion of the fence.
In today's post-9/11 environment, it is one component in an
integrated U.S. border security system. There is simply no excuse for
the failure to complete the remaining 3\1/2\ miles of the security
fence. The language offered by our colleague from Wisconsin would allow
us to do so.
In our system of governance, the United States Government and
specifically the Congress have given us what is tantamount to plenary
jurisdiction over immigration law. As a former attorney general in my
State, I can make the observation that in most areas of the law
enforcement, the States and local governments have primary
jurisdiction. That is not the case with immigration enforcement. As a
former President of the other party put it in a different context,
``The buck stops here.''
Although I am a committed believer in federalism, the nature of the
task and the language of Article I, section 8, are clear. While this
bill in no way preempts State law with respect to the issuance of
driver's licenses, it does entail a modest notion that the immigration
laws enacted by this body ought to mean something.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler) has indicated that the amendment has been made in order, and I
do want to acknowledge that he is the ranking minority member of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 8 minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished new member from the great State of Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, the most troubling aspect of
this bill is that related to asylum.
Today's laws for seeking asylum are the result of lessons learned
after World War II. After the war, America reflected with shame on how
this shining beacon of democracy and freedom turned its back on 1,000
Jews who fled for their lives on the ship called the St. Louis. We
turned the St. Louis away, not even allowing it to dock in America. It
is estimated that over half of those refugees eventually died.
Today, in Haiti, Cuba and other countries, thousands face death,
religious persecution, torture and property confiscation. This bill
virtually closes the door to those who might seek asylum in America.
Let us not forget the lessons of history. I urge my colleagues to
keep the doors open to those seeking justifiable refuge.
Regarding driver's licenses, the 9/11 tragedy has been referred to
here on this floor referencing the terrorists who obtained driver's
licenses. Let me remind my colleagues that this bill would not affect
that situation at all, as all of the terrorists were in this country
legally and could have obtained driver's licenses regardless of this
law.
We should heed what Florida Governor Jeb Bush said last year when he
was talking about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. He said,
``We shouldn't allow them to come into the country to begin with, but
once they're here, what do you do? Do you basically say that they are
lepers to society, that they do not exist?''
He concluded by saying, ``A policy that ignores them is a policy of
denial.'' I agree and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the REAL ID Act
and with a particular sense of gratitude toward the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who has doggedly brought this
legislation to the Hill for one reason and one reason only.
9/11 is not theoretical for me. I was here. I was on the Capitol
grounds, and
[[Page H458]]
my family during the school year lives in the Washington D.C., area,
and like millions of other families in New York and Washington, D.C.,
was imperiled.
As the 9/11 Commission Report stated, ``For terrorists, travel
documents are as important as weapons.'' On page 390 of the report they
point out that ``All but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form
of U.S. identification by fraud and that acquisition of these forms of
identification assisted them in boarding commercial flights.''
By bringing this legislation today, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) is making my family safer in this post-9/11 America, and
also closing asylum loopholes, strengthening our deportation laws. It
is time for Congress to get real and pass the REAL ID Act and make our
families and our Nation safer.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), who has been able
to determine the difference between immigration laws and laws to fight
terrorism; and also his district contains the discussed fence.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and all of those on the Republican side who are so
concerned about my district. I represent the California border between
Mexico and the United States.
This so-called fence that you want to put in my district is really a
giant public works project that does enormous harm. I wish you were
equally concerned about the 50 million gallons of sewage that flows
into my district that we should be treating. I wish you were concerned
about the legal border crossings, that take four or five hours some
days. I wish you would be concerned about my local health facilities
who treat the undocumented and refund those dollars.
But, no, you want to put a public works project in that waives all
existing environmental laws necessary to ensure the construction of
roads, barriers, cut and fills, taking down mountains. This would
result in an enormous waste of millions of Federal and State dollars
that have already been contributed to restore and protect this area in
San Diego, its historical, its cultural, its environmental resources.
Ironically, the United Nations Ramsar Convention recently bestowed
the prestigious label of ``Wetlands of International Importance'' on
this 2,500-acre national wildlife refuge and state park that you are
going to destroy.
Now, we know we have to have border security. We live right there.
You think we want to be overrun with terrorists? We know what it takes.
We know what a smart border is. And what you are suggesting is not a
smart border. For a minimal security benefit and maximum dollars spent,
you will do irreparable damage to areas along the western portion of
the U.S.-Mexico border.
This multitiered fence, road building, cut and fill, shaving down of
mountains will destroy, as I said, an environmentally sensitive area,
violate several sections of the Coastal Act and destroy acres of
sensitive habitat and wetlands and coastline.
This sensitive habitat plays a vital role in the sustainability of
the binational ecosystem. Vote down this bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the REAL ID Act,
and I thank the chairman for his courage and hard work on this vital
measure.
Over a decade ago, the ability of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind
the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to be granted asylum and to move
freely in the country should have signaled that something was terribly
wrong with our system. It did not, and 8 years later, 19 terrorists
collectively carrying a total of 63 valid U.S. driver's licenses,
boarded planes to finish Yousef's work.
It is now over 3 years since that tragic September 11th. Today, we
are considering a vital piece of legislation to address three key
failures of current security policy. First, the REAL ID Act mandates
standards to obtain driver's licenses; second, it tightens our Nation's
asylum laws, which easily allow suspected terrorists into our Nation;
and finally, it addresses the need to secure our borders.
These concepts are not rocket science. The need for these reforms has
been reiterated over and over, and in expert testimony, in anecdotal
evidence from security professionals, in scholarly research and in
evidence presented from our Nation's justice and military personnel.
But the fact of the matter is, the most compelling reason to pass this
bill is just plain old common sense.
We can not repeat enough what the
9/11 Commission said: ``For terrorists, travel documents are as
important as weapons.'' They are right. They also said, ``It is
elemental to border security to know who is coming into the country.''
Today, more than 9 million people have entered the United States
outside the legal immigration system. The security chain protecting
America is only as good as its weakest link. It does not take a
congressman or a national security expert to tell you this. Most
Americans know that despite the rhetoric we hear against this bill, as
long as we ignore the need for border security, we place them and their
families at risk.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the REAL ID Act.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Chairman, we are on the floor today because the representation
has been made to the American people and to our colleagues that this
legislation is legislation that relates and responds to the crisis in
the war on terror. We all are united in that war, but this is an
immigration bill, and I do believe we should do immigration in a
bipartisan manner.
Let me make it very clear, the 9/11 terrorists would not have been
thwarted by this legislation. In fact, all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers had
documents to enter the country legally. And under this particular
legislation, the terrorists would not have been prevented from using
these documents to obtain driver's licenses.
I think the real crux is as was quoted in the words of Governor Jeb
Bush, ``What do you do with them?'' illegal aliens who are working in
our hotels and factories, who are working every day in our States and
our cities and our counties?
The last thing, Mr. Chairman: Do we remember Bosnia and Kosovo? These
were people seeking asylum. I think we have to judge ourselves by
reason and reasonable policy. I join my colleagues in working together
to secure the homeland, but in this instance, this does not follow the
9/11 recommendations. This commission did, in fact, say that they
wanted secure documents, and identification should begin in the United
States. It did not document or indicate in which manner we should be
able to do that.
I would have hoped that H.R. 620, the Security Measures Feasibility
Act, which would ask the hard questions of how and what is the best
vehicle in order to be able to establish these secure documents, would
have been the better approach. Now we undermine the States' ability for
safety and security in their own States, and we undermine the very
principles of this Nation, which are to open the doors for those
fleeing persecution both in terms of religious and political
persecution.
What about the Cubans? What about the Haitians, the Liberians, the
Sudanese, the Bosnians? What about those fleeing, as my colleague has
indicated, our Jewish individuals who were fleeing persecution? I
simply say that we have a better way of doing this. I wish we could do
it together.
I hope my colleagues will oppose this bill so we might do this effort
in a bipartisan manner.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. The
REAL ID Act is an attempt to breathe life into immigration provisions
that were stripped from the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act. These provisions were viewed as controversial then, and
they are no less controversial now. The REAL ID Act should have been
subjected to hearings and markups before being brought to the floor.
The supporters of the H.R. 418 are afraid that terrorists are using
our asylum laws as a means of entering and remaining in the United
States. This fear has to be put into perspective. Terrorists are
statutorily barred from asylum eligibility, and it is not apparent why
they
[[Page H459]]
would choose such a complicated, time consuming method for entering and
remaining in the United States in any event.
The 9/11 hijackers entered and remained in the United States as
nonimmigrant visitors. Visitors' visas only require a two-minute
interview with an American Consulate Officer. The applicant just has to
establish that he will return to his country at the end of the
authorized period of stay. This is much easier than the steps required
for obtaining asylum, which, among other things, require the applicant
to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act established a
study to find out the extent to which terrorists are attempting to use
our asylum laws to enter and remain in the United States and what
weaknesses they are exploiting. We need to wait for that information
before we consider any bills on revising our asylum laws. Changes
should be designed to deal specifically with weaknesses that we know
are being exploited.
The approach in the REAL ID Act is to raise the bar on the burden of
proof, which would result in a denial of relief to bona fide asylum
seekers without any assurance that the changes would discourage
terrorists from seeking asylum. For instance, in addition to showing
that the alleged persecution would be ``on account of'' one of the
enumerated grounds, the applicant would have to establish that the
persecution was or will be ``a central reason for persecuting the
applicant.'' In effect, the asylum applicant would have to establish
what was in the mind of the persecutor. It is not apparent how this
would discourage terrorists from fabricating asylum claims. The only
certainty is that it would make it more difficult for bona fide asylum
seekers to meet their burden of proof. The unfairness of this approach
is illustrated by a comment that the Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor made
recently about the asylum laws of our country. She said:
The United States offers protection in the form of asylum
to individuals fleeing persecution in other nations. In most
cases, however, asylum seekers find themselves alone,
destitute and facing deportation. Asylum law is governed by a
labyrinth of statutes, regulations, and case law, but, unlike
criminal defendants, only those asylum seekers who can afford
to hire an attorney or who are fortunate enough to secure pro
bono counsel are represented.
The REAL ID Act would codify the standards that adjudicators use in
making credibility findings in asylum proceedings. The codification
would encourage adverse credibility findings against asylum applicants
who cannot produce corroborating evidence of their account, or whose
demeanor is inconsistent with an immigration judge's preconceived
expectations. This can be very unfair. People fleeing persecution often
lack the opportunity and the ability to secure the legal evidence
needed to corroborate their claims, and demeanor is a function in some
cases of cultural background rather than credibility. For instance, it
is considered rude in some cultures to stare into another person's eyes
during a conversation, but the failure to look someone in the eyes
indicates deception in this country.
The REAL ID Act also would expand the categories of people who can be
excluded or deported as a terrorist. The broad net this would create
would ensnare innocent people who have made donations or been involved
in some other way with organizations they did not know were terrorist
organizations. The defense to removal on that basis would be to
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that you did not know, and
should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist
organization. This can be an impossible burden to meet. For instance,
how would you prove by clear and convincing evidence that you did not
notice a person who entered this room 5 minutes ago?
The REAL ID Act also includes sections on security measures for
drivers' licenses and identification cards. We have already enacted
legislation to improve security measures for drivers' licenses and
identification cards. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act we just enacted requires the Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to promulgate
regulations establishing minimum standards for driver's licenses or
personal identification cards issued by a State for use by Federal
agencies for identification purposes. Before being published as
proposed regulations, the standards would be subjected to a negotiated
rule making committee that would include the affected stakeholders such
as State elected officials and State motor vehicle departments. The
recommendations of this committee are required to include an assessment
of the benefits and the costs of the measures in the proposed
regulations.
In contrast, the REAL ID Act would impose specific requirements on
the States now, without giving the States and the other stakeholders an
opportunity to provide input on what these requirements should be, and
without an assessment of the benefits and costs of the measures. If the
security measures were to prove to be impossible or too costly to
implement, it would require an act of Congress to change them.
Before we can address the merits of the security measures that would
be required by the REAL ID Act, we need answers to the following
questions. (1) Are the States capable of establishing and implementing
the security measures Mr. Sensenbrenner is proposing? For instance, his
bill calls for two categories of drivers' licenses, one for citizens
and permanent residents and another for aliens who have nonimmigrant
status. The licenses for nonimmigrants would be tied to periods of
lawful status and extensions of the status. Can the State motor vehicle
departments handle this increased work load? Will the States be able to
provide the training needed to evaluate the many immigration documents
that reflect lawful nonimmigrant status? (2) How much would it cost to
establish, implement, and maintain these security measures? We do not
have unlimited resources. We cannot evaluate whether these safety
measures are worth what they would cost unless we know what they would
cost. (3) How long would it take to establish and implement these
security measures? I have introduced a bill that would establish a
study to find the answers to these questions, ``The Security Measures
Feasibility Act.''
The REAL ID Act also would restrict the privilege of obtaining a
driver's license to aliens who have lawful status. My Security Measures
Feasibility Act would establish a study of the consequences that would
result from forcing millions of undocumented aliens to drive without
drivers' licenses.
Sheriff Timothy Bukowski of Kankakee, Illinois, has made an important
observation on this matter. According to Sheriff Bukowski, the issuance
of drivers' licenses is a safety issue, not an immigration issue. I
agree with Sheriff Bukowski, a driver's license is more than just a
privilege to the driver, it also is a device that the States use to
make our highways safer.
Austin Assistant Chief of Police Rudy Landerso explains it this way.
``[W]e strongly believe it would be in the public interest to make
available to these communities the ability to obtain a driver's
license. In allowing this community the opportunity to obtain driver's
licenses, they will have to study our laws and pass a driver's test
that will make them not only informed drivers but safe drivers.'' I
would just add that it also requires them to have insurance.
The REAL ID Act contains a provision that would provide the Secretary
of Homeland Security with authority to waive all laws he deems
necessary for the expeditious construction of the barriers authorized
to be constructed by section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996, IIRIRA. To my knowledge, a
waiver this broad is unprecedented. It would waive all laws, including
laws protecting civil rights; laws protecting the health and safety of
workers; laws, such as the Davis-Bacon Act, which are intended to
ensure that construction workers on federally-funded projects are paid
the prevailing wage; environmental laws; and laws respecting sacred
burial grounds. It so broad that it would not just apply to the San
Diego border fence that is the underlying reason for this provision. It
would apply any other barrier or fence that may come about in the
future. At the very least, we should have a hearing to consider the
consequences of such a drastic waiver.
I am concerned also by the piecemeal approach that the REAL ID Act is
taking to immigration reform. We need comprehensive immigration reform,
not fixes for a few specific problems. This view is shared by our
colleagues on the Senate side. Senator John McCain has expressed the
need to have comprehensive immigration reform. I have heard that he
will be working on comprehensive immigration legislation with Senator
Edward Kennedy. We can do the same thing in the House of
Representatives. I invite my colleagues who are supporting the REAL ID
Act to work with me on comprehensive immigration reform. In the
meantime, however, passage of this piece-meal, ill-advised bill would
be a step backwards. I urge you to vote against it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) has expired.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me
time. I thank the chairman for leading on this most important issue.
On September 11, our Nation suffered the most horrible attack ever on
American soil at the hands of those with a deep-seated, enduring hatred
for freedom. Since that day, we have made
[[Page H460]]
great strides in improving our Nation's security, but several gaps
leave our Nation vulnerable to attacks, just like those we suffered
that day.
The REAL ID bill would close loopholes and make Americans more
secure. The situation in California where a State environmental
commission is blocking a national security barrier from being finished
must be remedied. A 3-mile gap remains in a fence which would prevent
people from crossing over our southern border in an area that is home
to a military base. Half a million people are caught there each year
trying to get across, and that does not include those who get on
through. They are their own environmental problem as well.
The REAL ID bill would give the Secretary of Homeland Security the
authority he needs to ensure that our national security is not
compromised for dubious environmental concerns.
Our asylum system presently welcomes fraud by those who seek to do
our Nation harm. The REAL ID bill would allow our immigration judges to
use common sense to protect Americans while still providing a safe
harbor for those who truly need refuge in our country.
It is outrageous that we can keep people out of this country based
upon terrorist links, but the minute they are in this country, we
cannot deport them. The REAL ID bill would fix this problem, which
poses a great danger to our citizens.
Perhaps most importantly, our Nation's security will remain at risk
so long as we give validity to those who are in our Nation illegally in
the form of State driver's licenses and other ID's. Driver's licenses
in our country are de facto ID cards. They allow people to blend in,
move freely, rent apartments, go to work, board airplanes. If States do
not require some valid form of U.S. Government-issued ID to get a
driver's license, any person could walk in off the street and claim to
be a legal alien in search of a license, and be granted one.
To say that this is not an issue of national security is beyond the
limits of reasonability. The REAL ID bill would ensure those to whom we
issue government IDs and driver's licenses are in the U.S. legally and
make it more likely that those to whom we issue ID's do not intend to
harm Americans. We must close these loopholes.
I thank the chairman and I ask the Congress to act.
{time} 1445
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Chairman, several speakers on the other side said that if this
bill was law at the time of 9/11, it would not have made any difference
on what ID the terrorists used to get on the planes. That is flat out
wrong.
What the bill say is that anyone who is admitted to this country on a
temporary visa will have their driver's license expire as to the date
of their visa.
Now, Mohammed Atta, who is the ring leader of 9/11 murderers, entered
the United States on a 6-month visa. That visa expired on July 9, 2001.
He got a driver's license from the State of Florida on May 5, 2001.
That was a 6-year driver's license. Had this bill been in effect at the
time, that driver's license would have expired on July 9, and he would
not have been able to use that driver's license to get on a plane
because it was an expired ID. Read the bill.
Secondly, relative to the asylum issue, what this bill does is two
things. First of all, it says the burden of proof is on the applicant
for asylum to prove that they qualify. What is wrong with that? The
burden of proof is on anybody who is the plaintiff or an applicant in
any type of proceeding. They have got to prove that they are entitled
to the relief that they are requesting, and I will just read from page
3 of the bill.
In General. The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that
the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of the law. To establish
that the applicant is a refugee, the applicant must establish that
race, religion, nationality or membership in a particular social group
or political opinion was or will be the central reason for persecuting
the applicant.
So nobody, nobody who falls under that definition will be denied
asylum under this bill.
Secondly, it says that in sustaining the burden, it allows the trier
of fact, the immigration judge in this case, to determine the
credibility of the witnesses. Now, the trier of the fact, whether it is
a judge or a jury in any other legal proceeding, bases determinations
on the credibility of the witnesses as to what verdict is reached.
Without this bill, a person can come before an immigration judge, be
determined by that judge that they are lying through their teeth, and
still get asylum. That is just flat out wrong, and it is a distortion
of the type of jurisprudence that we have had where court proceedings
are supposed to determine exactly what the truth is.
There is no one who is lying through their teeth that should be able
to get relief from the courts, and I would just point out that this
bill would give immigration judges the tool to get at the Blind Sheik
who wanted to blow up landmarks in New York, the man who plotted and
executed the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, the man who
shot up the entrance to the CIA headquarters in northern Virginia, and
the man who shot up the El Al counter at Los Angeles International
Airport. Every one of these non-9/11 terrorists who tried to kill or
did kill honest, law-abiding Americans was an asylum applicant. We
ought to give our judges the opportunity to tell these people no and to
pass the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate by this committee has
expired. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas rise?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, do I have time for a
unanimous consent request?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may make a unanimous consent
request.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Solis) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to submit my statement
for the Record on this particular issue in opposition to the REAL ID
Act.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition of the REAL ID Act.
H.R. 418 is mean-spirited legislation that threatens our national
security by depriving law enforcement officials of critical information
on many adults who are physically present in the United States. The
driver's license REAL ID Act will also impose additional requirements
on states, without providing funding, and interfere with what is
inherently a state responsibility. The REAL ID Act will also raise
insurmountable hurdles for refugees seeking asylum.
This bill will negatively affect women refugees seeking asylum from
honor killings, rape and sex trafficking, since most women cannot
provide direct proof of torture. I do not understand how supporters of
this bill can turn their backs on victims of sex trafficking in the
name of protecting homeland security.
Finally, I am particularly disappointed that the authors of this bill
have ignored real security threats. Like the need to upgrade the safety
of our chemical and nuclear plants. Instead they have introduced a
sweeping new law that allows the Department of Homeland Security to
unilaterally strip away civil rights, labor, health and environmental
laws to build a border fence. This will be done without any recourse
for the average American citizen impacted by the construction. This
doesn't make our country safer, it just takes away the liberties that
make America a model for the world.
I strongly urge all Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 418.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will
control 20 minutes of debate from the Committee on Government Reform.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 418. I want to thank my colleague
from Wisconsin for his leadership and tireless efforts to secure our
Nation's borders.
Last year, the Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act, enacting into law many of the recommendations made by
the 9/11 Commission.
Unfortunately, not all of the recommendations were included in the
[[Page H461]]
first round of legislation, which is why we are here today. The
gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and I committed to
working together to make sure that one of the first orders of business
considered by the House in the 109th Congress would be to address some
of the recommendations in our jurisdictions that the Congress failed to
address last year.
I want to use my time today to discuss the provisions contained in
H.R. 418 that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Government Reform which I chair: security measures for Federal
acceptance of state-issued driver's licenses and personal
identification cards, commonly referred to as identity security.
Last year's 9/11 Commission report identified a number of gaps and
weaknesses in our Nation's intelligence and homeland security systems,
providing recommendations for Congress to consider in fixing these
problems. One of the most pressing recommendations proposed by the
commission and one that fell within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Government Reform appears on page 390 of the 9/11 Commission report.
It is the following:
Secure identification should begin in the United States.
The Federal Government should set standards for the issuance
of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as
driver's licenses. Fraud in identity documents is no longer
just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable
facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of
identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people
are who they say they are and to check whether they are
terrorists.
For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. The 9/
11 hijackers relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents. We know
that the 19 hijackers held 63 driver's licenses or ID cards.
Based upon guidelines proposed by State motor vehicle administrators
and adopted by a number of States throughout the country, our committee
worked with other interested stakeholders to craft legislation that
would establish minimum standards to be accepted of state-issued
identification that could be used for Federal purposes. These important
provisions were overwhelmingly passed by the House as part of H.R. 10
and heralded by the 9/11 victims' families.
Unfortunately, the House-passed provisions critical to strengthening
identity security were dropped from the bill in conference. Instead,
language was included that would set up a general framework for a
Federal role in this area, but the language was filled with so many
loopholes and opt-out clauses for States that it really only made
matters worse.
We find ourselves here today to correct these mistakes and to again
enact meaningful reform. H.R. 418 provides the Congress with this
opportunity.
Our approach is very straightforward. Our legislation would set forth
minimum document and issuance standards for Federal acceptance of
driver's licenses and state-issued personal identification cards. The
legislation would provide 3 years for States to come into compliance
with these standards if their driver's licenses are to be recognized
for Federal Government purposes and their documents as proof of an
individual's identity.
As the 9/11 Commission concluded, fraud in identity documents is no
longer just a problem of theft. As we continue to strengthen our
intelligence function to better identify and track terrorists, those
individuals will be forced to find ways to conceal their identity in
order to avoid detection.
We know that the 9/11 hijackers used the United States as their
staging area for training and preparation in the year prior to the
attacks, traveling into and out of and around the country with little
fear of capture. In fact, several of the hijackers lived less than 15
miles away from this building while making final preparations for their
attack. We are dedicated to making sure we do not provide such a
hospitable environment in the future.
As chairman of the committee that oversees federalism issues, I am
mindful of concerns about the Federal Government imposing burdens on
States, so-called unfunded mandates. My response is threefold. One is
that this is a national security issue that requires a unified national
response rather than 50 separate responses. Secondly, the legislation
authorizes grants to States to conform to the minimum standards set
forth in the act. Third, I am confident that these minimum standards
will not be a heavy lift for a majority of the States in our Nation. It
is the handful of States that continue to have lax security standards
more than 3 years after 9/11 that may have the most work to do.
It is crucial that we do everything we can to enhance the security of
the American people, and this important legislation takes a significant
step in frustrating terrorists' attempts to integrate into our society.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 418 and strengthen identity
security.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I will be managing this bill; but before my
opening remarks, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman), and we are fortunate that the ranking
member of the full committee has come on to the floor.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to
me.
I rise today to raise serious concerns with some of the provisions in
H.R. 418 that have not been thoroughly considered, in large part
because the bill was not considered by our committee.
No matter what our views are on immigration, States' rights or a
national ID, my colleagues should carefully review the driver's license
requirements of H.R. 418. Simply stated, the bill imposes costly new
requirements on States that simply cannot be achieved in 3 years
allotted by the bill; and while States may attempt to comply, the
bill's unreasonable deadlines and inadequate funding will create
confusion and frustrate the public.
Congress previously recognized that States should play an integral
role in implementing new driver's license standards. That is why the 9/
11 legislation that we passed just 2 months ago directed the Department
of Homeland Security to consult with the States first and then issue
appropriate regulations. H.R. 418 repeals this sound regulatory
approach and leaves the States without a voice.
One of the biggest problem areas is that the bill requires State
departments of motor vehicles to verify the issuance, validity, and
completeness of birth certificates with issuing agencies. Currently,
birth certificates are not issued or maintained in a uniform manner.
States, counties, cities and localities all across the country issue
birth certificates. In fact, experts estimate that up to 14,000
jurisdictions within the United States currently issue birth
certificates. Many of these jurisdictions do not have automated records
but keep paper copies at the local courthouse. Even if they were to
begin automated records of new births, they would still need to
automate millions of preexisting birth certificates.
H.R. 418 also requires States to verify the issuance, validity and
completeness of various other documents with various Federal agencies
that do not yet have fully automated systems in place.
These requirements will be expensive and time-consuming. Ultimately
the databases will be built that will allow States to conduct rapid
verification of these birth certificates and other documents; but in
most States and localities, they do not currently exist, and the
experts say it will take a whole lot longer than 3 years to create
them.
That is why the bill is opposed by the States. It is opposed by the
National Governors Association, the National Conference of State
Legislatures and even the DMV trade association, the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
The best timeline estimate from State DMVs is that will take 10 to 12
years for all of the required automation to occur. Yet H.R. 418
requires verification within just 3 years.
In the meantime, what will happen? States will not be able to issue
same-day driver's licenses, the public will be frustrated, and homeland
security will not be advanced.
In addition to the unworkable nature of the driver's license
provisions in this bill, I want to raise my deep concern about section
102 of this legislation. This section provides the Secretary of
Homeland Security the authority to waive any law for the purposes of
building immigration barriers along
[[Page H462]]
the border. I do not understand why we need to provide the
administration with unilateral authority to waive labor laws, State and
local laws, environmental laws, tax codes and criminal laws.
{time} 1500
This does not apply just in San Diego. It applies throughout the
Nation.
I am sad to say this bill presents a dangerous new precedent. The
Federal Government has never before had unilateral authority to waive
child labor laws, civil rights laws, and environmental laws. For
Republican Members who want to rein in the unchecked authority of the
Federal Government, they might want to carefully examine this
provision, which expands it enormously. I urge my colleagues to oppose
the legislation.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), a former
Secretary of State of the State of Michigan, which issues driver's
licenses in Michigan, and someone who has been very helpful in crafting
this bill.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia for yielding me this time, and I rise today in very, very
strong support of the identification reforms that are in this
legislation. These reforms, in my opinion, are extremely necessary to
help us better protect our identity documents and to secure our
borders.
This legislation will help America to better protect our Nation from
those who wish to do us harm. No longer will we allow terrorists free
access to state-issued identity documents as a way to use the tools of
our freedom against us. No longer will we stand idly by and watch
terrorists harm our homeland.
State-issued driver's licenses and State identification cards are the
most widely used form of identification in the Nation. It is the
backbone, quite frankly, of our identity. It provides legitimacy to any
person who holds this form of identification. Driver's licenses are
used in everyday instances, such as boarding an airplane or enrolling
in a flight school.
Does that sound familiar? Well, it should. Because according to the
9/11 Commission Report, all but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some
form of U.S. identification documents, some by fraud. All but one of
the hijackers used a state-issued driver's license on that horrific
day.
Even more frightening is the fact that a regular driver's license is
your passport to obtain a commercial driver's license, from which then,
of course, you can then try to obtain a hazardous materials license, an
endorsement on your commercial driver's license. It is bad enough to
think about giving terrorists access to our roadways and our aircraft,
but it is unthinkable to give them access to 40,000 gallons of liquid
propane, as an example.
This legislation also closes a loophole which has allowed illegal
aliens to get access to our driver's licenses. Our message on this
issue is clear: if you are not in this country legally, then you will
not be given legal sanctions on our roads. If you are in America on a
visa, you will be issued a driver's license; but it will expire on the
same day as your visa.
Muhammed Atta, as has been said, came to America on a 6-month visa,
but he was issued a 6-year Florida driver's license. I struggled with
this issue, as the chairman had said. In my former role as the
Secretary of State in Michigan, where I served as the chief motor
vehicle administrator, I was forced to issue drivers' licenses to
illegal aliens. Unfortunately, Michigan is one of the States that
continues this practice. It has become a State of choice for illegals
to obtain a license. We must stop this practice.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I sympathize with the gentlewoman from Michigan that she cannot get
her State to do what she believes is the right thing for her State to
do. I caution those from the States that the Federal Government is not
the place to get the States to take appropriate action. Watch out when
you open up that can of worms.
Mr. Chairman, the ink is not just damp; it is wet on perhaps the most
important legislation we passed in the last half century, the
bipartisan national security or 9/11 law; and H.R. 418, H.R. 368 come
along right after to overturn the law.
Why is this bill here? To hear some who have preceded me, you would
think the 9/11 Commission just left this out. What were they thinking?
What they were thinking is that this is a Federal Republic, and they
tried to deal with the fact that we were dealing with a State function
and that the Federal Government was moving in on a State function that
we have had nothing to do with before. That is difficult to do.
So what did they say we should do? The 9/11 bill required just the
kind of thoughtful rulemaking process that this issue needs to keep us
from stepping all over each other and getting into needless controversy
so that you bring people to the table and get a workable compromise.
Under the process in the bill, the States must be at the table.
Remember, those are the entities that are mandated to carry out these
procedures. This is an unfunded mandate, so they must pay for these
procedures. So you say, let us bring you in. You are in disagreement,
some of you are like Michigan, some are like other States, but let us
sit down and figure it out. If you cannot, then we will have to work
out a compromise in the Department of Homeland Security.
I thought that is the way we did things in this country, Mr.
Chairman. I thought that the other side of the aisle extols federalism
all the time; yes, even in hard times; and, yes, even when you are
dealing with hard issues like terrorism.
So what is happening now? The Select Committee on Homeland Security,
and I am on the committee, is establishing a committee that includes
State officials, representatives of State driver's license agencies,
and of course officials from the Department of Homeland Security so
that the Federal Government is at the table big foot, big time, not to
worry, we are covered, we are final here. So why shut the States out
all together? Why not listen to the 9/11 Commission and say let us try
to reconcile as much as this before we fly off the handle?
The issue is not about what to do. Let us concede, Mr. Chairman,
straight up that something must be done. That is the procedure provided
for in the 9/11 bill passed just 2 months ago. We must do something.
What to do; how to do it. The bill lays out how to do it. By September
2005, this committee, under the aegis of the Department of Homeland
Security, will provide recommendations, a detailed assessment of the
costs and the benefits of its proposals.
By June 2006, a proposed regulation based on the committee's
recommendations, with such changes as should occur by December 2006,
the Federal agencies will accept only new licenses that conform with
these minimum standards.
What is wrong with that procedure? What is wrong with that procedure?
It is difficult to find fault with that kind of careful procedure in a
Federal republic, especially when you consider the supremacy clause and
that the Congress of the United States can overturn regulations. So
what are you afraid of, since in fact the ball stops when it comes to a
matter of national security with the Federal Government?
Why are we trying to shut the States out? Why are those who speak up
for the States whenever it suits their fancy putting down the States
now? I do not agree with everything that is happening in the States; I
just do not believe we should pass a piece of regulation that says you
are not in this, except you better pay for it and you better do what it
takes to enforce it within 3 years, although experts tell us it will
take a dozen years for them to even begin to get through competently
what it is we are asking them to do.
What is mandated is a negotiated rulemaking process that incorporates
the practical issues that nobody in this Congress knows anything about,
the issues that the States pass. It is a reckless bill. It would
literally undo the 9/11 legislation and mandate on this issue.
I am asking that we come to an agreement before we vote down our own
States on how to proceed, regardless of where you stand. Experts are
telling us that it will be a dozen years before the States begin to
even come
[[Page H463]]
into mild conformance with this bill, and yet there will be hearings by
the Members who are on this very floor criticizing the States and
calling them before them to explain why illegals are still getting
licenses in their States. How dare they do what we knew they could do
in the first place.
So I hope you will keep the States at the negotiating table and join
the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State
Legislatures in rejecting these bills and retaining the far more
thoughtful rulemaking process Congress has just passed as part of the
historic 9/11 Intelligence Reform legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time on
each side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Tom Davis) has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Before I recognize the next chairman, I wish to respond to the
gentlewoman's question of why are we doing this. We are doing this
because the 9/11 Commission Report asked that we do it. They made it a
priority. We are doing it because our committee, the committee the
gentlewoman sits on, the one I chair, authorized this last year and the
House overwhelmingly passed this last year.
The 9/11 victims' families have a letter that also requests this. And
we are doing it because when I get on an airplane and somebody shows an
ID to get on the airplane, I would like to know they are who they say
they are. I think every other American would like to have that
assurance in safety as well.
And by the way, we do not tell the States what to do. They can issue
a license to whoever they want to issue a license to. But if they want
to use that State license for Federal purposes, like getting on an
airplane, they are going to have to be able to show that the people are
who they said they were.
Also, Mr. Chairman, we worked with the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators in crafting this legislation, and 3 years is
ample time.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record, the letter of the victims'
families, which I just referred to:
9/11 Families for a
Secure America,
New York, NY, October 19, 2004.
Hon. Tom Davis,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Davis: 9/11 Families for a Secure America,
comprised of the families of hundreds of the victims of the
September 11 terrorist attacks, are writing to express the
support of our members for the provisions in H.R. 10, the 9/
11 Recommendations Implementation Act, to establish minimum
document and issuance standards for federal acceptance of
state-issued driver's licenses and birth certificates. As the
Conference Committee on the intelligence reform bills begins
to consider the identity management security provisions
contained in S. 2845 and H.R. 10, we plead with the conferees
to remember our murdered loved ones and adopt the language of
the House-passed bill.
These provisions would go a long way toward closing the
loopholes that allowed 19 terrorists--all of whom had
violated our immigration laws in one way or another--to
obtain sixty-three authentic state driver's licenses, which
allowed them to live here unnoticed while they honed their
plot to murder our loved ones. To us, who have suffered
horrific grief, loss and rage, it is beyond belief that even
one Member of Congress would oppose a law that will stop the
next Mohammed Atta from obtaining the ``valid ID'' that will
allow him to board an airplane.
The state-issued driver's license has become the preferred
identification document in America. It allows the holder to
cash a check, rent a car or truck, board an airplane,
purchase a firearm, enter a federal or state building,
register to vote, and obtain other federally-issued
documents. Despite the vast benefits simple possession of a
driver's license now confers on its holder, it is one of the
easiest documents to obtain, whether by citizen or illegal
alien, friend or enemy.
Recognizing this fact, the 9/11 Commission recommended
that, ``The federal government should set standards for the
issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification,
such as drivers licenses.'' We commend the House for taking
the necessary and appropriate action on this important issue.
Supporters of the Senate position have argued that a
negotiated rulemaking process is the appropriate action to
take in order to establish minimum standards. We could not
disagree more strongly, knowing that inevitably the final
rules will lack any teeth. The standards included in H.R. 10
come directly from the State Administrators of these programs
and from law enforcement, developed since the terrorist
attacks on our nation and founded on long-standing principles
and best practices.
We believe it is perfectly appropriate for Congress to
establish baseline standards and give authority to the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of
Transportation to work with the States and issue regulations
on how individual States can come into compliance. This is
particularly true because experience in many States has shown
that implementation of these standards involve minuscule
financial costs. Also, states' rights issues are in no way
infringed since H.R. 10 only affects federal non-recognition
for federal purposes of licenses from nonconforming states.
Congress has promised us repeatedly that they would honor
our loved ones who were murdered three years ago by enacting
reforms to ensure that Americans will never again face the
same horror. The House provisions on identity management
security are vital in this effort, and we urge you to oppose
the Senate language, which will protect a status quo that
aided the murderers who tore apart our families on September
11, 2001.
In the names of our dead and ourselves we ask you: how much
longer will you permit terrorists to obtain drivers'
licenses? For what reasons can you possibly oppose such an
essential law?
And to those of you who are opposed: are you prepared to
accept the responsibility for the next 9/11 terrorists who
utilize US-issued drivers licenses?
Sincerely,
Peter Gadiel & Jan Gadiel, Parents of James, age 23, WTC,
North Tower 103rd Floor.
Al Regenhard, Det. Sgt. (retired) NYPD, Parents of
firefighter Christian Regenhard.
Joan Molinaro, Mother of Firefighter Carl Molinaro, age 32.
Grace Godshalk, Mother of William R. Godshalk, age 35, WTC,
South Tower, 89th Floor.
Colette Lafuente, Wife of Juan Lafuente, WTC visitor.
Wil Sekzer, Detective Sergeant (Retired) NYPD, Father of
Jason, age 31, WTC, North Tower, 105th floor.
Bruce DeCell (NYPD, Retired), Father in law of Mark
Petrocelli, age 29, WTC, North Tower, 105th floor.
Lynn Faulkner, Husband of Wendy Faulkner, South Tower.
Bill Doyle, Father of Joseph, age 24, WTC, North Tower.
April Gallop, Pentagon Survivor.
Diana Stewart, Only wife of Michael Stewart.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Cantor), the deputy whip, who has been so active on this issue, and
introduced the first legislation in this House that would have tied
visa expiration to a driver's license date.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the chairman and the
Committee on Government Reform for reporting out this bill that is so
important that this Congress take action on and take action on now.
Of course we need to do this. Of course we need to pass the REAL ID
Act. Because as the chairman just said, certainly all of us who board
planes want to know that there is some integrity to our ID system in
this country and that terrorists are not boarding planes by the use of
a state-issued identification card. This is not conjecture. This is
what happened on 9/11. This is what the 9/11 Commission suggested that
we take action on, and this is what we are here doing today.
As the chairman suggested, I am proud to say that in 2003 Virginia,
under the leadership of former Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, acted to
close this dangerous loophole. The General Assembly passed and the
Governor signed into law a provision which requires the minimum
standard, which says that anyone applying for a license in Virginia
must have legal status in this country; that they must have a visa; and
that the license that would be issued would coterminate with the
termination or expiration of that visa.
This is just common sense. Why do we want terrorists to have a
license issued by a State to go and board our airplanes and commandeer
those airplanes into a building? It is time for Congress to act, to
provide and mandate a minimum standard for States when they issue State
IDs, including driver's licenses, to require that individuals who have
that privilege be here in this country legally.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for
his leadership on this, and I urge passage of the REAL ID Act.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to make a point of correction. What we
[[Page H464]]
are doing today is not mandated by the 9/11 Commission, nor is it
mandated by the law we passed. It is contrary to the law we passed. It
is mandated by the fact that we held up the law we passed and it was
promised to two chairmen.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in opposition to the so-called REAL ID Act of 2005.
Mr. Chairman, while I have enormous respect for the gentleman from
Virginia, the chairman of the full committee, I must take exception to
the assertions that have been made by a lot of speakers here today that
somehow this bill will prevent or would have prevented the 9/11 attacks
from occurring. I just want to point out that regardless of the number
of licenses that the terrorists held on September 11, they were all
obtained because those individuals were in the country legally on
student visas. And student visa holders in the future, even after this
act is passed, will still have the opportunity to get licenses. So that
argument is indeed bogus.
But I want to talk about the most egregious parts of this bill. Under
this bill, it would allow the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security to nullify all of our laws while fulfilling his
responsibilities under the scope of this act. And putting aside the
schizophrenic immigration policy we have heard from the Republican
Party, you have a President that wants to have open borders and
basically amnesty to allow open borders for low-wage workers to come
in, and then you have a Republican House that is saying that all those
coming in must not have licenses. They must be pedestrians.
{time} 1515
Mr. Chairman, under this act, what this means for American citizens
is, our civil rights laws will be set aside under this bill. Our
nondiscrimination laws will be set aside under this bill. Our health
and safety laws will be set aside under this bill. Our environmental
laws will not apply under this bill. And child labor laws will not
apply under this bill. Most troubling of all, the public bidding laws
of this country will not apply under this bill for this project.
Right now on the committee that I serve with the esteemed chairman,
we are investing no-bid contracts that were given to Halliburton. We
have millions of dollars in overcharges to the United States taxpayer,
we have bribery charges, and we are doing all kinds of investigation on
that no-bid.
There is no reason that the civil rights laws and the public bidding
laws should be set aside. If that were not the most extreme example,
they have removed any opportunity for judicial review under this act.
There will be no review of the Secretary's action in setting aside all
of those laws, no recourse.
It is ironic, Mr. Chairman, that while we have our soldiers in
uniform protecting democracy, we are giving it away under this bill.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I note on page 390 of the 9/11 Commission Report, it recommends
secure identification should begin in the United States. The Federal
Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates
and sources of identification such as driver's licenses.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, our committee chairman is exactly
right; we can go to page 384 in the 9/11 Commission Report. And I
encourage all of my constituents to do this, look at this: ``For
terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.'' And what is
the number one travel document? It is a driver's license. It is a huge
gaping hole that we have. That is why it is imperative that we pass the
REAL ID Act today and we set a national standard.
Maybe that is just too much common sense for some of my friends that
do not want us to do that, but if someone is going to use a travel
document as a driver's license and use it as a way to circumvent our
laws and harm our citizens, then it is imperative that we close that
loophole. Having standards that all the States would follow is a great
way to close that loophole.
I would encourage my colleagues to support the REAL ID Act.
I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) for his good
work on this issue, and I encourage our constituents to read this
report and see the importance of the actions that we are taking today.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to say to the chairman that I could not agree more that
the 9/11 Commission mandated secure identification standards by the
Federal Government, and that is exactly what the 9/11 bill provides
after rulemaking with the States at the table. What is being proposed
is a unilateral process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Grijalva).
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
418. I am deeply concerned about several aspects of this proposed
legislation. This legislation, if passed, would be a terrible setback
with regards to three critical areas: defending the people of the
United States from terrorism, due process for immigrants, and
environmental protection. The bill would undo security provisions that
were passed just last year under the Intelligence Reform Act.
Families of September 11th victims stated the impact of this
legislation will not make us safer from terrorism. Instead, it would
prevent people from fleeing persecution, from obtaining relief, making
our highways more dangerous and undermine our security.
Section 102 of this bill would eliminate Homeland Security and border
patrol's responsibility to inform and involve communities in proposed
construction projects along the entire U.S. border and the requirement
to consider less harmful alternatives to proposed actions.
This would allow Homeland Security to operate in secrecy in
critically important areas such as Cabeza Prieta and Buenos Aires
National Wildlife Refuge and Organ Pipe National Monument that are all
in my district. Many of our most precious wildlife depend upon
protected public lands along U.S. borderlands for migration corridors
between countries.
In addition, this section would waive laws requiring consultations
with Native nations regarding activities on tribal lands, grave sites
or archaeological and sacred sites.
Finally, in a rush to deport anyone, H.R. 418 would deny due process
for immigrants and asylum seekers. This is un-American. It is against
what we stand for, and it is against what we are asking the world to
replicate in democracy across this Earth.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support for
the REAL ID Act, particularly its provisions calling for stronger
standards for obtaining driver's licenses. Page 47 of the 9/11
Commission Report, ``Without freedom of movement, terrorists cannot
plan, conduct surveillance, hold meetings, train for their mission or
execute an attack.''
Others have argued that the proposal involves an unprecedented
preemption of State authority regarding the issuance and production of
driver's licenses. This is untrue. Let me be clear: We are not
preempting State authority in this area. What we are doing is
establishing minimum standards for Federal acceptance of such
documents. This is consistent with actions taken by individual States.
Today, Nevada and New Mexico do not accept as proof of identity a
State-issued driver's license or identification card from States that
do not meet their standards.
The federalism issue is one of extreme importance, and that is
exactly why the language has been crafted as it has. Driver's licenses
have become the primary form of identification in the United States.
They permit people to apply for other forms of identification, transfer
funds to bank accounts, obtain access to Federal buildings, purchase
firearms and board airplanes.
The majority of the States have recognized the privilege that a
license brings and have set high standards for obtaining them. However,
10 States, including my State of North Carolina,
[[Page H465]]
issue valid driver's licenses and identification cards without
requiring proof of legal status. That is scary.
According to the 9/11 Commission Report, these travel documents are
just as important as weapons are to terrorists.
The REAL ID Act would require that Federal agencies accept only
driver's licenses and State-issued identification cards from States
that prove the legal status of applicants. The bill would also require
States to review the legality of existing license holders upon renewal
or replacement. The bill does not seek to set State policy for who may
or who may not drive a car. It aims to set rigorous standards for what
may be used as a form of ID to a Federal official.
As I have stated before, I am a strong advocate of States' rights.
However, if certain States act irresponsibly and place the national
security of the rest of the country at risk, then Congress must get
involved. We must do what it takes to make America safe.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my good friend alluded to the support of the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, and I include for the
Record their letter indicating that they oppose both bills that are
before us.
National Governors Association, and American Association
of Motor Vehicle Administrators,
February 8, 2005.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas DeLay,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker, Representative DeLay and Representative
Pelosi: We write to express our opposition to Title II of
H.R. 418, the ``Improved Security For Driver's Licenses and
Personal Identification Cards'' provision, and H.R. 368, the
``Driver's License Security and Modernization Act''. While
Governors and motor vehicle administrators share your concern
for increasing the security and integrity of the driver's
license and State identification processes, we firmly believe
that the driver's license and ID card provisions of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
offer the best course for meeting those goals.
The ``Driver's Licenses and Personal Identification Cards''
provision in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 provides a
workable framework for developing meaningful standards to
increase reliability and security of driver's licenses and ID
cards. This framework calls for input from State elected
officials and motor vehicle administrators in the regulatory
process, protects State eligibility criteria, and retains the
flexibility necessary to incorporate best practices from
around the States. We have begun to work with the U.S.
Department of Transportation to develop the minimum
standards, which must be completed in 18 months pursuant to
the Intelligence Reform Act.
We commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Davis for
their commitment to driver's license integrity; however, both
H.R. 418 and H.R. 368 would impose technological standards
and verification procedures on States, many of which are
beyond the current capacity of even the Federal government.
Moreover, the cost of implementing such standards and
verification procedures for the 220 million driver's licenses
issued by States represents a massive unfunded Federal
mandate.
Our States have made great strides since the September 11,
2001 terrorists attacks to enhance the security processes and
requirements for receiving a valid driver's license and ID
card. The framework in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004
will allow us to work cooperatively with the Federal
government to develop and implement achievable standards to
prevent document fraud and other illegal activity related to
the issuance of driver's licenses and ID cards.
We urge you to allow the provisions in the Intelligence
Reform Act of 2004 to work. Governors and motor vehicle
administrators are committed to this process because it will
allow us to develop mutually agreed-upon standards that can
truly help create a more secure America.
Sincerely,
Raymond C. Scheppach,
Executive Director, National Governors Association.
Linda R. Lewis,
President and CEO, American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this bill is
that it is an immigration bill posing as an identification bill.
Instead of listening to what the States told us needed to be done to
make driver's licenses more secure, what we have done is to basically
make State motor vehicle employees unwitting immigration agents. It
does little to improve homeland security, and it is certain to prove
overwhelming and ineffective.
Now, I support what the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis)
is trying to do to improve the integrity of driver's licenses, but I
find it curious that the leadership of the House has chosen to largely
ignore the multiple references in the 9/11 Commission Report to the
value of on-card biometric technology in improving the integrity of
identification cards. The problem is that these digital images are not
sufficient. Matching the image with the face is more prone to error
than the technology that would use biometric data. Two fingerprints
transformed into numeric algorithm, that works.
What we have here does not work. I think we are going to find the
States letting us know that. Unfortunately, it will be too late. We
will miss an opportunity.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working
with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) on this issue as we move
forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays), the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, welcome to the world of Mohammed Atta: Legal
visa to come in, 6 months; driver's license from Florida, 6 years.
Like many in this Chamber, I was a strong supporter of the
intelligence reform legislation passed last year, but when I voted for
it, I believed we needed to go further in several areas, including
strengthening driver's license guidelines.
In my home State of Connecticut, we take strong steps to ensure the
integrity of our identification cards, but we are not perfect. To
receive a driver's license in Connecticut, you must prove you are a
legal resident of the State, and you are not a legal resident of the
State if you are not legally present in the United States, period.
This is common sense to me. Driver's licenses are verifiable forms of
identification in the United States. Providing such identification
cards to people who are illegally present in our country presents
serious concerns.
The problem, however, is that not all States maintain this high
standard. That means that someone who is illegally present in the
United States and takes advantage of a weak law in another State can
obtain a driver's license and use the document to identify him or
herself in the State of Connecticut. They can also use that document to
access Federal buildings, rent a vehicle or get on a plane.
Tightening access to State-issued identification cards is an
important and necessary improvement for our homeland security. Many
Members have raised concerns about the impact of driver's license
provisions in H.R. 418 in our home States. Connecticut Governor Jodi
Rell stated, ``In my view, if a noncitizen is lawfully in this country,
he or she should be able to obtain a driver's license for the time
frame in which he is lawfully allowed to be here. Conversely, if
someone is in this country illegally, he or she should not be able to
obtain a driver's license in Connecticut or any other State.''
I could not agree more with her. Frankly, most of our constituents
could not agree more with her.
Let me raise one other point about this legislation and commend the
chairman for including this provision. A legally present visitor to the
United States can obtain a driver's license in Connecticut, as he can
in other States. However, in Connecticut we issue licenses for 6 years
at a time. In that time, visitors can leave and come back, whether
legally or illegally, an untold number of times. During subsequent
visits, this person can continue to use the license for whatever
purpose he or she wants. This is wrong. Frankly, it is stupid.
Requiring a temporary ID for persons temporarily in our country is a
no-brainer. I do not think Mohammed Atta would like it, but, I do not
care what he wants.
{time} 1530
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I
[[Page H466]]
do want everybody to know what we are voting on here. We oppose this
bill. We favor the 9/11 intelligence bill passed 2 months ago. That
requires that driver's licenses be issued under Federal standards; that
is Federal law. After the States have had an opportunity to have some
input, the final would be a Federal bill. The only difference between
us and those on the other side is they want to keep the States out of
the process all together.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gonzalez).
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 418. The
first thing is America will not sleep any more securely with the
passage of this piece of legislation, as well intended as it may be,
because I am not going to question the motives of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle. But why do a useless thing? Why would the
State legislatures, why would the State Governors, why would every
Latino advocacy group come against this? Why would the National Council
of Bishops here in the States come out against this? It is for various
reasons. But they all acknowledge that there is not a conspiracy going
on here to thwart the efforts at security by these groups. No one would
accuse these individuals of that, because this does not do anything. It
only burdens the State and does not get us anywhere.
But more importantly, and I really believe this, this is an anti-
immigrant bill in the guise of some sort of security consideration,
which it does not further.
And so we ask, who are these immigrants? I have a simple answer for
all of us. Look in the mirror. That is who we are talking about. We all
got here one way or another, some earlier than others. We are all
immigrants. What this bill is really about is not bad people coming
into this country to do bad things to this country. It is about
preventing good people coming into this country to do good things.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the former mayor of
Dayton and chairman of our Subcommittee on Technology, Information
Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on
this most important issue affecting our country. I am a cosponsor of
the REAL ID Act that calls for necessary reforms in our driver's
license processes to make it harder for terrorists to obtain driver's
license to use them for acts of violence in our country.
Driver's licenses can be used by terrorists to enter buildings,
obtain other forms of identification, and board flights. The loopholes
that currently exist in issuing driver's licenses have to be closed to
stop those who would use driver's licenses as a tool in committing
terrorist acts on our own soil.
In fact, as we have heard, we know that many of the hijackers who
attacked our Nation on September 11 possessed valid driver's licenses
and many other state-issued identity cards.
The REAL ID Act would require applicants to prove that they are in
this country legally. The debate here somewhat surprises me because I
bet if you asked the American people if in order to get a driver's
license, if you have to prove that you are in this country legally,
overwhelmingly I believe the people in this country would believe that
not only is it the right thing to do but they would be surprised to
find out that it is not already a requirement.
The 9/11 commission stated that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers
acquired some form of U.S. identification, and that for terrorists
travel documents are as important as weapons. And their recommendation
stated secure identification should begin in the United States. The
Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth
certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses.
Last year as we heard the steady beat to implement the 9/11
Commission recommendations, certainly, their recommendation that the
Federal Government have standards for driver's licenses is something
that we ought to enact, and I support this bill.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman has 2 minutes
remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the last 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy
in permitting me to speak on this, and I agree with her very strongly.
Make no mistake, our side of the aisle is supportive of this
legislation. We want to work with the State and local authorities first
to do it right. These are the people who feel these concerns every bit
as strongly as Members of Congress. In fact, they are on the line every
day providing for the safety and security of our constituents in a much
more immediate sense than we are. Do not be afraid to work with them.
But with all due respect to the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia, I have one other provision that deeply offends me as a former
elected official, as a Member of this body and somebody who believes in
checks and balances.
I look at section 102. I wish that it were buried in the legislation,
but it is not. It is right here in the beginning. If this provision,
the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at
the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could
give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards,
using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through
the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the
process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And
under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen
could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review.
Now, bear in mind you are giving this authority to the head of
Homeland Security, hardly a paragon of sensitivity and efficiency.
Anybody who stands in those lines week after week or watches the
bizarre color-coded warning system knows that that is hardly the
exemplar.
Security at the borders is important; and if somebody has a problem
with building a security fence, by all means, Congress should deal with
it. But as far as I know, no committee has been called upon to do that
yet. There are important waiver provisions that are available. But
waiving all laws for construction is an inappropriate decision. And
with all due respect, it is a dangerous precedent that anybody on
either side of the aisle should be deeply offended by.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reject the statement made a minute
ago that this is an anti-immigration bill. I support the Sensenbrenner
bill. I think security is a national issue. But to suggest that this is
an anti-immigrant bill is, in my opinion, wrong. We support legal
immigration into this country. It is what has made this country so
great. But we also need to take care of security.
If you want to come in on a visa, you want to come in to be a
citizen, support it. But if you are here illegally, it is wrong.
Each year I have one family, just last year, the father survived. The
wife died. He lost a child to illegal immigrants. I wish that was the
only case. Each year we have several of these. Illegal immigrants
driving and causing accidents, and people say, well, they are here;
they have got to go to work. Well, they will go to work if we can get
them to be legal. But not if they are here illegally. If they are in
this country illegally, they need to go out and come back legally with
a visa or proper method.
And that is why I support the Sensenbrenner bill, to make sure we do
not have metricula cards, we do not have driver's licenses to illegals,
and that the driver's license has a clip to ensure that it is proper by
the Federal Government.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Let me just sum up and say this does not require anything from the
States as far as driver's licenses go. States do not have to do
anything under this for their driver's licenses. They can issue
driver's licenses to whomever they want. But if they intend to use
those
[[Page H467]]
licenses for Federal purposes, we have a right to say what the criteria
should be and under those circumstances, they are going to have to show
legal presence. It is not anti-immigrant. In fact, this allows the
States to issue two different sets: one for illegal immigrants, one for
everyone else. It takes the national security issue away from the
argument there.
Finally, the opt-out provisions in the current legislation that was
passed just a few months ago are disastrous. We were worse with the 9/
11 response that passed this Congress than we were without it. This
rectifies that. It closes that loophole.
Out of respect for the victims, the families, the work of the 9/11
Commission, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) each will control 10 minutes
of debate from the Committee on Homeland Security.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am happy to join this debate as the chairman of the Committee on
Homeland Security and welcome the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson), my ranking member.
We are here because each day thousands of people illegally enter the
United States. They know where to cross. They know how to get a
driver's license. And if they are caught, they even know how to rig our
legal system to stay in the country nonetheless. What has been the
result of this broken system?
On January 25, 1993, Mir Aimal Kansi stood at the entrance of the
Central Intelligence Agency and gunned down five people. A month later
Ramzi Yousef masterminded the first bombing of the World Trade Center.
Both men were in the country because they were awaiting the outcome of
their asylum applications. This legislation will fix that loophole.
On September 11, 2001, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the
19 hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks carried between
them 13 U.S. driver's licenses and 21 state-issued ID cards. Several of
these hijackers had overstayed their visas, and they were unlawfully in
this country. But their driver's licenses permitted them to board those
airplanes nonetheless. This bill fixes that problem.
The laws that we are operating under today allow terrorists to enter
our country and to plan and carry out attacks in the United States. The
reality is that this homeland security vulnerability is being exploited
by terrorists and criminal aliens every day. H.R. 418 makes necessary
changes to ensure that terrorists do not obtain identification, as did
the 9/11 hijackers, that will permit them to board airplanes or access
Federal facilities or easily travel within the United States.
The most literal security gap that this bill addresses is the 3-mile
hole in the San Diego border fence. Recent press accounts have reported
that al Qaeda operatives have joined forces with human smuggling rings
in order to enter the United States. As we now know, the 9/11 hijackers
were interviewed 25 times by U.S. consular officers; they had 43
contacts with Immigration and Customs authorities. But because of
administration and congressional initiatives requiring the screening of
all foreign nationals entering the United States, terrorists will be
forced to resort to crossing our borders illegally. The border security
fence, therefore, which thus far has been mired in bureaucratic delays,
is part of our national security efforts and must be completed now.
For decades the border between San Diego and Mexico has been the
preferred corridor for entry into the United States by unknown or
undocumented persons. With highly populated cities both north and south
of the border as well as relatively quick access to national
transportation hubs such as LAX, it is the perfect place for aliens to
slip across the border and gain quick access to U.S. communities and
transportation networks. The important infrastructure assets in the
area, including in particular the largest naval base on the west coast
of the United States and the busiest seaport in the United States,
makes securing this area even more important.
From September through November, 2004, the border patrol apprehended
over 23,000 individuals with criminal records including 84 wanted for
murder and 151 wanted for sexual assault. In 2004 border patrol agents
arrested almost 1.2 million illegal aliens with 11.6 percent of those
apprehended in the San Diego sector alone, despite the fact that the
San Diego sector is roughly 1 percent of our border area. Over the past
2 years, the three border patrol stations responsible for patrol of the
existing 14 miles of border fence in the San Diego sector have
apprehended approximately 200 special interest aliens annually from
countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey.
Completion of this fence will not only reduce the number of illegal
crossings in the area but will also allow the Border Patrol to redeploy
manpower and redirect precious resources to other important homeland
security missions along the border. And like the other border fence
areas, the San Diego sector can expect to see a reduction in crime,
including murder, as well.
Of the 14 miles authorized by Congress several times, 9 miles of the
triple fence have been completed. But only in Washington would people
construct a fence with a big hole in it. The final 3\1/2\ miles has
been held up due to bureaucratic red tape and lawsuits. The border
patrol has worked to alleviate the environmental concerns that have
been raised. In fact, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and
Wildlife Service concluded in July, 2003, that construction of the
fence ``is not likely to jeopardize'' the continued existence of any
relevant endangered species in the area. Furthermore, not completing
the fence will continue to cause other environmental damage in the area
due to large numbers of persons crossing illegally through this area
and subsequent pursuit by the border patrol, as well as large amounts
of trash and refuse left in the wake of smugglers and illegal crossers.
As chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and a California
resident, I am extremely concerned by the roadblocks that different
bureaucratic groups have used to justify thwarting this important
project. For example, in September of 2003, the San Diego Border Patrol
requested entry to a section of county-owned land located in the 3\1/2\
mile section in dispute and located about 300 feet from the U.S.-
Mexican border in order to, first, improve the road for safety of the
border patrol agents; and, two, take soil samples in order to address
environmental concerns pertaining to construction of the fence.
{time} 1545
But the San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation denied
access, saying there was no authority to enter upon the land.
After months of negotiation, I have been told that the issue was
finally resolved, but this clearly demonstrates that Federal action is
necessary to ensure that the fence is completed and that border
security remains a priority. The time for delay and bureaucratic
obstruction is over. We must complete this fence, and we must pass H.R.
418.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican majority claims that this bill is an
effort to prevent terrorists from entering the United States, not an
effort to play partisan politics over immigration reform. I would like
to take them at their word, but if this bill really were about keeping
terrorists out of the country, why is the Republican majority not
talking about the real threats of terrorists' entry? Why is the
Republican majority not concerned about the complete lack of an
interagency border security plan? And why does the President's budget
not fully fund the mandates in the 9/11 intelligence bill, which we
passed and he signed a few short months ago? Why sign a bill if you
have no intention of actually funding the items in the bill?
Mr. Chairman, just one example: The President's budget only provides
for 210
[[Page H468]]
new border patrol agents, even though the 9/11 intelligence bill
authorized up to 2,000. We have caught at least one suspected terrorist
who illegally waded across the Rio Grande. Why is the Republican
majority not talking about the failure of this administration to ensure
that our frontline officers are able to check suspicious individuals
against a comprehensive terrorist watch list?
More than 3 years after 9/11, why are more of our frontline personnel
using obsolete name-checking systems, that have trouble telling the
difference between ``bin Laden'' and ``Lyndon?'' Is this real security?
Does this make America safer?
This bill wholly fails to address these and other critical gaps in
our border security. The bill focuses on people already in the United
States instead of keeping terrorists out.
The one aspect of this bill that seems directed at keeping people out
of the United States is section 102. I understand this section
originated from a desire to complete approximately 3 miles of a 14-mile
fence along the border near San Diego. Let me be clear: I am not
against building a fence, but I do not think a fence will keep
terrorists out of America.
Homeland security expert Stephen Flynn, who is a retired commander of
the U.S. Coast Guard, and Jeane Kirkpatrick, Senior Fellow in National
Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, testified before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that ``Great powers have been
building great walls throughout history. The Great Wall of China and
the Berlin Wall went up at considerable expense and treasure and
ultimately failed to block or contain the forces they purported to
obstruct.''
Mr. Flynn says that efforts by the United States to ``protect'' the
southwest border, including installing a fence between San Diego and
Tijuana, are similarly fated to fail.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that this is not a good bill, and we are
completely in opposition to it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the passage of H.R. 418. Many of
these protections that are contained in this legislation are long
overdue. They are necessary to protect our homeland.
In particular, I am supportive of the provisions that deal with
enhancing our driver's licenses by providing for some uniformity in the
standards used to issue those driver's licenses and for finishing the
border fence in southern California. We ought not to let some vague
problem of the environment keep us from finishing this important part
of our border security. But that is one step in the process of border
security.
I am serious about the problem of border security. I represent a
district that has more apprehensions of illegal immigrants than any
other district on the southern border, in fact, more apprehensions than
all the other districts combined.
As someone working hard for a long time to help secure our border, I
can confidently say the most effective and efficient way to deal with
this is to have comprehensive immigration reform. The President of the
United States has recognized this. We need to create an avenue for
those not crossing for malicious reasons to be funneled through the
ports-of-entry along the border. That will allow us to deal with the
real problem.
Mr. Chairman, I urge us to support H.R. 418, and then turn our
attention to comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom, a federally mandated
bipartisan commission, released a comprehensive report documenting the
mistreatment of asylees in America. For those seeking asylum, we strip-
search them and then we thrown them in jail with criminals.
As we debate this bill, thousands of people seeking safety from
persecution are in jail with criminals in the United States. They are
here fleeing from torture, from rape; some are here seeking freedom
because they have been denied the opportunity to practice their
religion, say Christianity, in a place where religion is not permitted.
But when they get here, we lock them up. And today we are considering a
bill that will make it harder for those fleeing oppression, trying to
find safe haven in our Nation.
This bill does nothing to make us safer. In fact, we have heard
references to those who came prior to the first World Trade Center
bombing. We made changes in the law subsequent to that. That fix has
already been done. We do not need to do what is before us today.
So it is surprising we are not addressing today the shocking findings
of the Commission Report.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say something else. This bill, despite the
protestations, is in fact creating a de facto national ID card. It
establishes one type of ID that most Americans will carry. All our
information will be held in databases linked together and readymade for
use by the Federal Government. How much will they really know about
each and every one of you?
This is not just about immigrants, this is about all Americans; and I
think we need a national conversation about whether we want that form
of big brother.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate be
extended for 1 additional minute, to be divided equally between
majority and minority.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. McCaul).
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of the REAL ID Act.
As the former Chief of Counterterrorism in the U.S. Department of
Justice for the Western District of Texas, I had jurisdiction over the
Mexican-Texas border. I dealt, firsthand really, with the day-to-day
threats our Nation faces, and asked the question, Why are we not doing
more to secure our borders?
Many of those intent on doing our Nation harm claim political asylum
as their Trojan horse to gain access to our borders. Individuals like
the 1993 World Trade Center bomber, Ramzi Yousef, claimed political
asylum and was ordered to appear at a hearing. Yet Yousef, like a
majority of those given notices, failed to show up at the hearings.
This bill will make it easier to deport suspected terrorists.
Terrorists have taken advantage of other holes in our laws. The 19
hijackers on September 11th had fraudulently obtained dozens of
American visas, passports and driver's licenses, documents used to open
bank accounts, establish residency and, yes, to fly airplanes.
This border security legislation provides the safety measure that to
obtain a driver's license, the person must simply prove they have a
legal right to remain in our Nation.
For the safety and security of our Nation, our families and our
freedom, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. The 9/11 Commission
recommended it. We owe it to the victims of the national tragedy to
pass this legislation.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of the
Democratic Caucus,
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, as one of the conferees on the
intelligence reform law enacted last December, I want to remind Members
that it contained 43 sections and 100 pages of immigration-related
provisions. These tough, but smart new measures enacted just 2 months
ago include, among others, adding thousands of additional border patrol
agents, Immigration and Customs investigators and detention beds,
criminalizing the smuggling of immigrants and establishing tough
minimum standards for driver's licenses, just as the 9/11 Commission
recommended.
Now we need to implement and fully fund these tough measures to
ensure our Nation's safety. Unfortunately, the President's budget chose
not to fund the 2,000 new border patrol agents or 8,000 additional
detention beds that
[[Page H469]]
were called for in the intelligence reform bill. So much for being
tough.
H.R. 418 would further undermine these tough measures by repealing
several of these provisions. The bill would repeal a GAO study to
ascertain any vulnerability in the current asylum system and replace it
with new burdens that would be impossible for many true asylum seekers
to meet.
Proponents of this legislation have misled us by suggesting that
different terrorists have received asylum. No terrorist has ever been
granted asylum in the United States.
We further ensured that terrorists would not be granted asylum with
the administrative changes of 1995 and the expedited removal system
done legislatively in 1996. Now we detain anyone seeking asylum that
arrives at our border without documents.
But asylum encourages citizens of other countries to fight for
positive change in their own country, without risking U.S. military
lives. If their life is endangered, they should have a chance to seek
asylum in the United States. Unfortunately, the legislation before us
would make that nearly impossible.
Finally, if a person is a terrorist, I do not want to deport them so
they have another chance at doing harm to the United States. I want to
detain them, prosecute them, imprison them to the fullest extent of the
law.
The bill would repeal the tough minimum standards for driver's
licenses called for by the 9/11 Commission and included in the
intelligence reform law with provisions that federalize all driver's
licenses, take away States' rights, place huge unfunded mandates on the
States, without advancing the paramount objective of making State-
issued identity documents more secure and verifiable. That is why the
National Conference of State Legislatures strongly opposes this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, if you truly want to implement tough yet smart measures
to ensure our Nation's security, vote down this legislation, and let us
fully fund and implement the tough and smart provisions that were
included in the intelligence reform bill.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), someone who has significant knowledge
about border patrol agents.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, as the only Member of Congress with a background in
immigration and experience in actually defending our Nation's borders,
and after being here for 8 years in the House, I am profoundly
disappointed at how much we talk about this issue and how little we do
when it comes to immigration.
Prior to coming to Congress, I served for 26\1/2\ years in the United
States Border Patrol, so I know firsthand about the effort to protect
our borders and how to keep America secure. Since coming to Congress, I
have heard a lot about how we need to crack down on illegal immigration
in this country, but have seen very little action when it comes to
providing adequate funding for the kinds of programs that I know work
in dealing with the problem of illegal immigration.
{time} 1600
For instance, just this week, with the release of the President's
budget, as my colleague mentioned, last August we were tough on the
issue of immigration by saying we wanted 10,000 new border patrol
agents and we wanted to create 40,000 new detention beds. The
administration in their budget wants to hire 210 border patrol agents.
They are silent on the issue of detention.
The administration also has proposed zeroing out very important
programs to communities that deal with undocumented aliens, programs
like the State Criminal Alien Assistance program, the State Prosecutors
program, all zeroed out in this budget.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I am going to oppose this legislation is
because I am sick and tired of coming here and talking, talking about
the issue. I am sick and tired of hearing arguments on who is going to
do what. Just last Monday, I was with some of my former colleagues at a
port of entry in El Paso, and they were asking me what kind of
immigration reform would come out of this effort. Regrettably, Mr.
Chairman, I told them, look, we said we were going to fund 10,000
agents; we got 210. That is why I am going to vote against this
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Let us have a
real and earnest debate on what needs to be done to protect this
country.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the
time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I have been watching this debate all morning, and I am really
concerned about what is happening here on the floor of the House of
Representatives. I have never heard so much misstatement of fact about
a piece of legislation that is very important.
The problem is, this legislation never had a hearing in committee,
never had public review. We have never looked at the language; I doubt
that any Members have read the bill in its entirety. That is not what
this House is all about, because this law is a very, very serious law,
and it is going to affect people's lives.
I have heard statements here on the floor that the recommendations in
this bill are in the 9/11 Commission. Let me give an example. Section
102, which deals with the border fence, the commission never even
mentioned the border fence. Why? Because it is not a problem. We have
been building it. What we have run into is a couple of environmental
snags. So what does this bill do? It says okay, waive all that. Waive
the law. This is a precedent that has never been done before in the
United States Congress. Waive all laws, whether those laws pertain to
Indian burial grounds, whether they are labor laws, discrimination
laws, small business laws, environmental laws. We will just waive them.
And guess what, no court, as it says, ``no court shall have
jurisdiction.''
What kind of a measure is this? Do we just run into problems and we
come to the floor of Congress and say, just get rid of the law? Here is
a country that celebrated the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, a
country that celebrated the elections in Iraq so people will have the
rule of law; and then when we have the rule of law, we just waive it.
There was no request from the State of California for this bill.
Mexico, our biggest trade partner, nothing like this; and what we are
saying to the world is, do not worry, we are just going to cram through
everything and forget the law.
This is wrong, and I am going to have an amendment on the floor
tomorrow to repeal it. I hope everyone votes for it.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Farr), during the last debate I invited him to
come down and look at the 7-mile area in that fence, because it is a
problem. I am looking forward to working with him, because if you are
an environmentalist, it is hard pan. I mean, it has totally destroyed
the plants, the animals, the lizards, and it is like a venturi tube.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) first came to me in 1990
and asked where we could get landing mat, and we put that up. Why?
Because the number of rapes of Mexicans who were coming across, the
number of drugs that were coming across. There is one strand of wire on
the ground where you could just drive from one field to another with a
loaded truck, and it has stopped a lot of that.
Does the fence stop illegal immigration? No. But it sure frees up a
lot of the border patrol and makes it easier for them, and that 7 miles
is like a venturi tube and it forces our border patrol into that area.
I agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), and I am going to
work with anybody over there, especially him, because he does have the
expertise and he is a good friend. I agree with him that the
President's budget does not include the funding. But no Clinton budget
ever passed either, and we are going to add that; and with the help of
my friend, we are going to add the funding for those new border patrol.
[[Page H470]]
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my good friend from
Texas (Mr. Reyes), who is an expert, and we all value his input, we are
going to do immigration reform in this Congress. We are looking forward
to working with him on immigration reform. But what we are here today
about is border security, border security and closing loopholes.
I just want to thank both sides of the aisle for the thoughtful way
that they have conducted this debate. I want to thank the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Tom Davis) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox)
for their hard work in getting this bill to the floor so early in the
new session.
Of all of the issues being debated before us today, the controversy I
find most confusing is the section regarding the standardization of
driver's licenses. After all, Mr. Chairman, the war on terror is not
being fought in a vacuum.
There was a time, to be sure, when identification fraud was a matter
of concern principally to bouncers and bartenders, but that was before
September 11, 2001. Since that day, Mr. Chairman, ID fraud has
represented a clear and present danger to the national security of the
United States, plain and simple. Without standards for the issuance or
content of driver's licenses, the American people are needlessly put at
risk. As long as America boasts the civilized world's most open laws
concerning immigration and mobility while remaining its greatest
terrorist target, we must ensure that people coming in and out of our
country are not here to do our people harm.
When someone enters this country and can get a driver's license, he
can board a plane, open a bank account, and get a job. If he plans to
do these things not to make a better life for himself, but with the
express intent of killing Americans, and that treachery could be curbed
simply by reforming the way we issue driver's licenses, how can we not?
The REAL ID Act requires that applicants for driver's licenses prove
that they are in the United States legally, very simple, and that a
foreign traveler's license expires with his visa.
These are hardly Draconian measures, Mr. Chairman, nor are the
sections of the bill that strengthen our deportation and asylum
processes. These processes are not just loopholes; they are gaping,
yawning chasms in the law waiting to be exploited. They are risks,
threats even, to the security of our homeland and to our success in the
war on terror. The reforms in the REAL ID Act are overdue, no less an
authority than the 9/11 Commission itself says so.
So I just urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation to
further help ensure that such events as three Septembers ago never
again scar our homeland.
Announcement by The Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). When proceeding in the Committee of
the Whole under an order of the House that establishes time limits on
general debate, the Committee of the Whole may not alter that order,
even by unanimous consent.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a statement for the
Record from the Americans for Tax Reform.
February 9, 2005.
Our nation's immigration and border control policies cry
out for reform. While our best border control officers should
be preventing the next terrorist incursion into our country,
they are instead hunting down willing workers. The attacks of
September 11th called for new and updated thinking in all
areas of federal law enforcement, and immigration reform has
been a glaring omission.
America's immigration system must be reformed in a
responsible, welcoming, adult manner along the lines laid out
by President Bush. Willing workers should be matched with
willing employers, citizenship and residency applications
must be streamlined, and the focus must shift to protecting
the nation from terrorists.
Border security has been increased since 9/11, and should
continue to be so. The latest technology must be used to make
sure America's border is free of terrorist incursions. In
order to let the border guard do their job of defending
America, the President supports giving foreign laborers guest
worker cards, ``to match willing workers with willing
employers.''
President Bush is opposed to amnesty for illegal
immigrants. He also does not want to give foreigners in the
guest worker program any advantage over those who are trying
to become citizens through normal, due process channels.
Congress should support President Bush's common-sense plan
to reform and strengthen America's broken immigration system
even as border security is addressed today in the House of
Representatives.
Grover Norquist,
President.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, when we shut our doors to the world we
shut the door of democracy. President Bush wants the United States to
be a leader in promoting freedom around the world, but we fail at home
when we deny freedoms to those who desire the American dream. H.R. 418
fails to reform our system. Instead, it weakens our democracy.
If you vote for this bill you are saying we don't care if you have
been persecuted because of your religion or beaten because of your
gender. Stay in your own country. You are not entitled to our freedoms.
If you vote for this legislation you are saying that the United
States doesn't care about federal or state laws as long as it means
being able to close our border. Who cares if building a wall on our
border endangers our environment? Out of 2,000 plus miles along our
border with Mexico, you are saying that finishing 3 miles of that
fenced area in Southern California is so important that we should throw
out the principles of our democracy and let one man have the power to
waive any laws that he wants without any oversight. Are you sure that
this is a democratic country?
Mr. Chairman, shutting out people around the world from our democracy
and throwing away the ideals of freedom that we hold so dear is no to
way to be an example for the world. We need immigration reform but this
legislation is not the right answer. I urge my colleagues to join me in
opposing this legislation.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support of
H.R. 418. Chairman Sensenbrenner has presented for the consideration of
the House a commonsense bill that will disrupt travel of would-be
terrorists who would seek to do us harm right here in America. When
enacted, these provisions will be yet another set of effective tools to
help prevent another September 11-type attack.
All of these provisions are derived from provisions of the House-
passed version of H.R. 10, the 9-11 Recommendations Implementation Act
of 2004. During the conference with the other body on what became the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the
provisions contained in H.R. 418 were either dropped in their entirety
or modified so substantially as to virtually defeat the fundamental
purpose of the provision.
A majority of the conferees on the part of the House very reluctantly
agreed in order to get a conference agreement on the fundamental reform
of the Nation's intelligence community. We are all original cosponsors
of H.R. 418. As chairman of the conference, I thought that these
provisions made sense then and they make sense now and should be
enacted.
The core provisions of H.R. 418 establish a set of fundamental
standards that state-issued identification cards, including driver's
license, must meet to be recognized for Federal identification
purposes, such as entering a Federal building. The bill provides the
various States with 3 years to make any necessary modifications to
their identification cards, if they so chose. The bill provides the
Secretary of Homeland Security with discretion to extend the deadline
for good cause upon application by an individual state. The bill does
not impede the authority of individual states to determine who may
operate a motor vehicle or who may be issued a State personal
identification card for non-Federal purposes.
Some argue that the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004 already addresses this issue adequately. I simply disagree. The
enacted provision requires a negotiated rulemaking process, without any
absolute certitude that the negotiations on the proposed consensus
regulations will be concluded by the date specified in the act. No hard
date for implementation of these fundamental standards is specified.
H.R. 418 also restores the authority of an immigration judge to make
a determination whether to grant or deny an individual application for
asylum. At its core, the provision makes explicit the judge's authority
to assess the creditability of the assertions of oppression being made
by the applicant, just as judges and juries do each day with respect to
criminal defendants. As some assert, H.R. 418 does not require the
asylum applicant to produce documentary evidence in order to be granted
asylum. It grants an immigration judge the authority to request the
applicant to provide evidence to support the applicant's oral testimony
and that of witnesses' supporting the applicant. H.R. 418 clearly
states that the applicant is not required to provide documentary
evidence if ``the applicant does not have the evidence or cannot obtain
the evidence without departing the United States.''
[[Page H471]]
H.R. 418 includes a provision specifying that offenses which
currently provide grounds to deny a would-be terrorist entry into the
United States are also grounds for the deportation of such persons, if
they have somehow managed to enter the country illegally. Today, that
is not the case. This glaring gap in the law must be closed.
Finally, H.R. 418 provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with
authority to waive environmental laws, so that the border fence running
14 miles east from the Pacific Ocean at San Diego may finally be
completed. Authorized by Congress in 1996, it has yet to be completed
because of on-going environmental litigation. It is time to complete
this much needed barrier to help secure one of the most used corridors
for illegal entry, which is adjacent to the numerous facilities of the
United States Navy and Marine Corps in San Diego.
Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership and
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 418.
Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner
for his tireless efforts and leadership in getting the REAL ID Act to
the floor and for championing national security issues and the crisis
we face today with our Nation's border security. I would also like to
thank my colleagues in the Southern California delegation for their
efforts and for helping to protect not only their districts, but also
the Nation's borders as well.
San Diego Border Fence: For too long our Nation has been playing
chicken with our national security by ignoring the need to take a
comprehensive approach to border security issues, particularly as they
pertain to the Mexican border. The Mexican border has long been a
porous and unguarded route for anyone wishing to sneak into the United
States to inflict harm on our Nation and our citizens, including
terrorists.
In particular, the San Diego sector covers an area of more than 7,000
square miles and 66 miles of international border with Mexico. Beyond
that section of the border are the Mexican cities of Tijuana and
Tecate, which boasts a combined population of more than 2 million
people. This area of the border has been a heavily traveled route for
illegal immigrants and potential terrorists due to the major cities and
transportation hubs, such as LAX airport in Los Angeles. This area
alone accounts for nearly 50 percent of national apprehensions of
illegal immigrants nationwide.
A significant number of illegal immigrants that have been apprehended
in this area can be directly attributed to the San Diego fence that was
constructed a few years ago. The San Diego fence is a project that was
started several years ago, but a 3.5-mile section of the fence was not
completed due to environmental concerns. The portions of the San Diego
fence that have been built have proven to be successful and are
credited with significant declines in attempted border crossings in
that area. The existing fence needs improvements and must be extended
3.5 miles to its originally planned length.
This legislation puts those priorities front and center by granting
the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to waive all Federal
laws in order to complete the fence. In addition, this bill will
increase the funding to improve the existing fence with a 3-tiered
fence system and complete the original designed length. While
environmental issues plays an appropriate role in our Nations'
policies, the environmental and national security impacts of having
illegal immigrants trample this portion of the border is greater than
the concerns regarding building and completing the fence. Lastly,
recent press accounts have reported that Al Qaeda operatives have
joined forces with alien smuggling rings in order to enter the United
States, particularly through the southern border with Mexico. The time
to act on the San Diego border fence is now.
Drivers' License: REAL ID Act also bolsters stronger security
standards for the issuance of drivers' licenses to aliens. This bill
will establish requirements that help prove lawful presence in the
United States prior to issuing a license to individuals. In addition,
it is critical that all states must comply to eliminate weak links in
the domestic identity security. We have all seen the failures of cards
such as the Matriculate Consular cards and the widespread fraud that
can take place. This bill requires tough physical security requirements
to reduce counterfeiting and to ensure state compliance with such
standards. Lastly, drivers' licenses that are issued in compliance with
the new regulations will expire when an alien's visa expires to
alleviate any confusion or ability for terrorists to maintain a false/
fake drivers license while their visa has expired. Connecting the two
forms of identification will ensure that law enforcement officers and
federal agents will be on notice when a visa expires and will not be
fooled by a separate and fake state ID that has not expired.
Asylum Provisions: Finally, the REAL ID Act will tighten the asylum
system that has been abused and gamed by terrorists for years. This
bill allows judges to determine a witnesses' credibility in their
asylum cases. Without this change, judges have no discretion in
determining the credibility of witnesses testifying that they are being
persecuted. Judge's hands have been tied over the years and must just
grant asylum in every case where persecution has been raised and have
not been able to go beyond that point. This has allowed terrorists who
have been persecuted in their home country for being terrorists to seek
shelter in the United States. Currently, this argument cannot be used
against them and is not grounds for deportation.
This bill gives the power to refuse terrorists entry to the United
States and allows terrorists to be deported back to their home country.
Terrorists have long been abusing our system in order to gain entry.
This bill provides a list of long-accepted commonsense factors that an
immigration judge can consider in assessing credibility, such as the
demeanor, candor, responsiveness and consistency of an asylum applicant
or other witness. It is essential for judges to be able to determine
asylum cases based on the credibility or lack of credibility of
witnesses.
Again, I would to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his efforts in
getting this bill to the floor and I strongly urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of this bill because these reforms are necessary to our
national security.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 418,
the REAL ID Act of 2005. First, I would like to thank Chairman
Sensenbrenner and the Judiciary Committee for their leadership on this
bill, and for their dedication to securing our borders and protecting
Americans from terrorists.
My objective throughout debate over H.R. 10 was to get a bill that
fully addressed all of our nation's security concerns. That means not
only reforming how we gather and use intelligence, but also how we
fight terrorism at home. I believe that the final bill that came to the
floor fell short. That's why I voted against it.
However, the REAL ID Act implements crucial provisions that were
dropped from H.R. 10 and fixes several glaring holes in our border
security. One of the most important provisions in this legislation asks
states to work with the Department of Homeland Security to establish
and use standards for drivers' licenses.
Many states already have licenses that are difficult to counterfeit.
Other states don't have stringent safeguards.
Some have argued that this bill creates a national ID. It doesn't. I
would oppose any bill that did so. This bill simply requires states to
make it harder for someone like Muhammad Atta to get a driver's
license, and to use that license to carry out terror plans.
As the 9/11 Commission noted: ``All but one of the 9/11 hijackers
acquired some form of U.S. identification document, some by fraud.''
Increased ID security will make it more difficult for terrorists to
obtain documents through fraud and conceal their identity. Deterring
terrorists from receiving state issued IDs will make it more likely
that they will be detected by law enforcement.
This bill also tightens our asylum system--a system that has been
abused by terrorists with deadly consequences--by allowing judges to
determine whether asylum seekers are truthful.
Additionally, the bill will protect the American people by ensuring
that grounds for keeping a terrorist out of the country are also
grounds for deportation. Incredibly, we have legal justification to
prevent an individual from entering the country if they have known
terrorist ties, however, under current U.S. law once they set foot
inside the border we cannot deport them. This hinders our ability to
protect Americans from foreign terrorists who have infiltrated the
United States.
I think all Americans--and those of us on both sides of the aisle--
can agree that the 9/11 Commission identified a number of improvements
that will help upgrade our intelligence and enhance America's security.
This bill provides common sense provisions to help prevent another 9/
11-type attack by protecting our borders and disrupting terrorist
travel in the United States. I urge members to vote in favor of the
REAL ID Act.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired. Under
the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McCaul) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, The Acting Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 418)
to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's
license and identification document security standards, to prevent
terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify
terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to
ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence, had come
to no resolution thereon.
[[Page H472]]
____________________