[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]]



                          ____________________