[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 14 (Thursday, February 10, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H527-H536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 418, REAL ID ACT OF 2005

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 75 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 75

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     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. No further general debate shall be in 
     order. The bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the 
     Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment and shall be considered as read. No further 
     amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except 
     those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules. Each further amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  The rule under consideration completes the work begun by the general 
debate rule passed yesterday by the House. It provides for further 
consideration of the rule under a structured rule and provides that no 
further general debate shall be in order.
  This rule provides that the amendment printed in part A of the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be 
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole 
and that the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
for the purpose of further amendment and shall be considered as read.
  It makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the 
report and provides that these amendments may be offered only in the 
order printed in the report and only by a Member designated in the 
report. These amendments shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  Finally, this rule waives all points of order against the amendments 
printed in part B of the report and provides for one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will complete the work begun yesterday on H.R. 
418, the REAL ID Act of 2005. As a number of our colleagues have 
already made it very clear during the debate yesterday of an hour and 
40 minutes, this legislation will continue the efforts of our 
President, George W. Bush, the 9/11 Commission, and of Congress to 
ensure that America never suffers another terrorist attack like the 
tragedy of September 11, 2001.
  H.R. 418, authored by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) will improve security by focusing on four main areas: 
Number one, implementing much-needed driver's license reform, closing 
asylum loopholes, defending our borders, and strengthening our 
deportation laws.
  Implementing the driver's license reforms included in H.R. 418 will 
provide for greater security for the American people. Because of lax 
standards and loopholes in the various current State issuance 
processes, terrorists have been allowed to obtain driver's licenses, 
often multiple driver's licenses from different States, and abuse these 
false identities for illegal and harmful purposes. The September 11 
hijackers had

[[Page H528]]

within their possession at least 15 valid driver's licenses and 
numerous State-issued identification cards listing a wide variety of 
addresses.
  These terrorists were then able to exploit many of the benefits 
conferred upon them by possession of these cards, such as enabling the 
bearer to acquire other corroborating identification documents, 
transfer funds to a United States bank account, obtain access to 
Federal buildings, purchase a firearm, rent a car, or board a plane, 
just to name a few.
  By establishing minimum document and issuance standards for the 
Federal acceptance of driver's licenses, requiring applicants to prove 
that they are in the country legally, and requiring identity documents 
to expire simultaneously with the expiration of lawful entry status, 
this legislation will ensure that individuals harboring malicious 
intent or who have illegally entered or who are unlawfully present in 
the United States cannot have access to these valuable and sensitive 
documents.
  Closing the asylum loopholes identified by H.R. 418 will provide 
greater security for the American people because, as the 9/11 
Commission report noted, ``a number of terrorists . . . abused the 
asylum system.'' By strengthening judges' abilities to determine 
whether asylum seekers are truthful and credible, we will be able to 
prevent terrorists from gaming the system by applying for asylum as a 
means to avoid deportation after all other recourses for remaining in 
the United States have been denied to them. This will prevent abuses of 
the system like in the case of the ``Blind Sheik'' Abdul Rahman, who 
was able to stay in the United States and force an immigration judge to 
hold a hearing on his asylum claim only weeks before his followers 
bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.
  Defending our physical border, as provided for in the REAL ID bill, 
will also provide greater security for the American people. We know 
from the 
9/11 Commission that the hijackers had 25 contacts with consular 
officers and 43 contacts with immigration and customs authorities. As a 
result, the 9/11 Commission and Congress are recommending to take a 
number of appropriate actions that would make it more difficult for 
terrorists to enter the United States through the visa or other legal 
immigration process, and this bill will go even further towards 
attaining that goal. But closing down only the legal means by which 
they will try to infiltrate this country is not enough.
  Because increased vigilance has made entering the country through 
normal, regular channels more difficult, we must also increasingly 
prepare for the certainty that terrorists will use illegal, clandestine 
methods to enter our country and do us harm, and we must take steps now 
to close the gaps in our border security where we feel we are most 
vulnerable.
  Finally, strengthening our deportation laws as provided for by H.R. 
418 will provide greater security for the American people. Currently, 
although it seems unbelievable, not all terrorist-related grounds for 
keeping an alien out of the United States are also grounds for 
deportation. This means that terrorists and their closest advocates can 
be denied entry to the United States for their actions in support of 
terrorism, but if they are able to make it to our shores, we cannot 
deport them legally under those same actions.
  The REAL ID Act will bring some common-sense balance to this troubled 
oversight and make the law consistent by providing that all terrorist-
related offenses that make aliens inadmissible would also be grounds 
for their deportation. It would also provide that any alien 
contributing funds to a terrorist organization could also be 
deportable.
  This rule makes in order five amendments from Members from both sides 
of the aisle, including one that I have submitted to ensure that aliens 
and terrorists who are in the United States and ordered deported are 
actually deported so that they can no longer pose a threat to the 
security of American citizens.
  By supporting this rule, the House can complete its consideration of 
these five important amendments and the underlying legislation.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this fair and balanced rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for 
yielding me the customary time.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side, for the balance of 
these arguments today and during yesterday, said very frequently, and 
it was repeated again by the gentleman from Texas, that the horrible 
people that were on the airplanes that did the dastardly deed here in 
America on September 11 had, collectively, 63 driver's licenses. That 
is, without any kind of misunderstanding between the two sides, they 
had these driver's licenses, and there is no question about it.
  But one of the things that goes ignored is the fact that in the days 
before 9/11, including that day, airport review of driver's licenses 
did not occur, and, therefore, it is a total irrelevancy. They were in 
this country, some on expired visas, some with visas that had been 
approved, and probably one or two with fraudulent visas. What in the 
world did driver's licenses have to do with it?
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and H.R. 418. And once 
again we see debate limited on this legislation for no reason. The bill 
is the only item on our legislative schedule today, yet debate on this 
bill has been limited to less than 2 hours. In fact, the number of 
proposed amendments has been sharply limited as well. Only a fourth of 
the amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules will be allowed on 
the floor today, and what possible reason can the majority give for 
limiting debate in this matter? Surely, given the drastic nature of the 
changes to our asylum laws contained in H.R. 418, it is in the best 
interests of the country to hold an open debate on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, the chairman of the Committee on Rules 
sent out an announcement notifying Members, as is his responsibility, 
that all their proposed amendments to this bill were due in the 
Committee on Rules by noon on Tuesday, February 8. All Members who 
submitted their amendments, Republicans and Democrats, followed this 
rule; all Members, that is, except the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner).
  Later Tuesday afternoon, after the deadline had passed, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) submitted an extensive 18-page 
amendment that made significant changes to the bill's already 
controversial asylum sections. Members had never seen this language 
before, and of course, no subcommittee or committee had a chance to 
review it or mark it up.
  In the short time we have had to review this new language, it appears 
to be more controversial than the bill's original provisions. It 
appears to make it easier for an immigration judge to reject on asylum 
seeker based on subjective and cultural factors that are notoriously 
unreliable indicators of credibility. It also allows a person to be 
denied asylum based on any inconsistencies or falsehoods in their 
testimony, whether or not these inconsistencies are relevant to the 
person's claim.

                              {time}  1030

  I continue to harp on the fact that it does not protect children who 
are here and in need of asylum consideration. It does not protect women 
who are in forced slavery and prostitution and are raped. It does not 
protect them at all with reference to any asylum claims. And it places 
in the hands of one judge the judging of their credibility.
  The other thing ignored is the difficulty that the criteria set forth 
in H.R. 418 present to asylum seekers, legitimate asylum seekers, to 
collect information regarding their birth records. In the district that 
I represent, more than a quarter of the work done in the district 
offices involves immigration, and one of the things that we find it 
difficult to accomplish is to have the people in a timely manner who 
are seeking status and naturalization in this country collect their 
birth records and records of a variety of things in their communities 
that simply are not there and are unavailable, and therefore their 
claims are delayed repeatedly.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad amendment, and Members should have more

[[Page H529]]

time to study it. What is worse is that Members today will not even 
have the opportunity to vote up or down on it. This rule makes it a 
part of H.R. 418. It is called ``self-executing.'' It sounds like a 
cute way of circumventing the democratic process to me.
  Stifling free speech is downright un-American. One cannot fail to see 
the irony here. Right this minute our troops are in harm's way to 
further democracy in a far-off country, while democracy here in the 
halls of Congress is being shoved out the door. When the opportunity 
for a free debate is squelched, America loses, democracy loses. There 
is nothing to be gained by limiting ideas; and that is what we have 
here today, the limiting of the ideas of the majority. They should not 
and it is wrong for them to shut the American people out.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 418 also allows the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to waive all laws necessary for the construction of the San Diego 
border wall. None of us are of a mind to believe that the completion of 
the 3-mile gap in that wall should not be undertaken. But giving the 
Secretary the power to override all Federal laws that interfere with 
this project sets a horrible precedent. These laws exist for a reason, 
be it to ensure the safety of the environment or to safeguard important 
cultural artifacts.
  Mr. Speaker, how many more laws will we override in the name of 
homeland security? None of us would argue that we should not do 
everything to protect the homeland, but rightly we should not argue to 
ignore the laws that also protect us in this homeland.
  The data collection envisioned by H.R. 418 troubles me a lot. In this 
age of diminished personal privacy, this bill throws around terms such 
as ``mandatory facial image capture,'' and ``electronic storage of 
identity source documents,'' without fully explaining, and it is not 
explained; and I ask anybody to explain it on the majority side, 
certainly for the American public, explaining fully how all this 
captured data will be used and by whom.
  I represent a district that, like America, is comprised of 
immigrants. Many of the people of the 23rd Congressional District of 
Florida came to America as asylum seekers themselves. They came from 
places where notorious persecution and violation of human rights 
occurred, like Haiti and Cuba; and they have worked hard, as many 
immigrants in this country who sought asylum, to create a new life for 
themselves and their families. Whether they came 5 years ago or 50 
years ago, they know others like them will continue to come to our 
shores fleeing persecution and desperation, seeking hope, protection 
and the promise of a better future.
  We have a moral responsibility to help them make it. It has not been 
lessened any more after 9/11 than it was before. The immigrants who 
founded this country had that moral responsibility, and throughout our 
history we have waxed and waned with reference to that moral 
responsibility.
  Last night, I watched the so-called ``fair and balanced'' Fox 
programming, and on that programming it happened that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) was one of the guests. He made 
a sterling presentation. He did not falter in any of his principles 
with reference to this matter, and he went forward in a dignified 
manner to answer the questions asked.
  He did say, I believe, and he has not said that this measure is 
something that he does not think will help secure the homeland, as my 
colleague from Texas has just said. But let me quote the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) from last night. He said, ``The key 
to protecting our homeland is enforcing the immigration laws.'' Let me 
repeat the quote: ``The key to protecting our homeland is enforcing the 
immigration laws.''
  Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) knows that 
President Bush has proposed a budget that, rather than fulfilling what 
we said would protect our homeland by having 2,000 border patrol 
persons and an added number, 800, INS, or BICE, their new name, to 
their rolls so that we could enforce the immigration laws, what do we 
get in the proposed budget? Two hundred border patrol guards and 143 
personnel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  What I am saying is let us put our emphasis where it ought to be, and 
let us not divert ourselves in this manner, and certainly let us not 
continue to shut all of those organizations, from the Governors 
Association all the way back across the board that are opposed to this 
law, let us not shut them out from having an opportunity to present 
themselves at a hearing.
  Let us not shut out the people here in the House of Representatives, 
some 41 who are newly here who have no idea what we did with reference 
to this matter last year and have not had time in order to be able to 
review it, sufficient to be able to make arguments on behalf of their 
constituencies in a satisfactory manner. Let us not shut out the 
American public by continuing to not allow for open debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and H.R. 418. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the rule and this ill-conceived legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do understand that not everybody is in agreement about 
what we are doing today, but for the Members that are paying attention, 
the 9/11 Terrorist Travel Report of the National Commission on 
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, known as the 9/11 Commission, 
said on page 43, and I would like to quote this: ``September 11: As the 
hijackers boarded four flights, American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, 
and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175, at least six hijackers used 
U.S. identification documents obtained and acquired in the previous 
months, three of which were fraudulently obtained in Northern 
Virginia.''
  Mr. Speaker, we would have to really not respect this 9/11 Commission 
if we were not going to follow up on the work that they did. That is 
why we are here today. We are here for the best reason, for the 
security of this great Nation and the wonderful people who care and 
entrust upon the United States Congress the ability to make sure we do 
all that we can to avoid attacks in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I rise also in support of 
the Sessions amendment. But I also would like to take this time to make 
a few comments about why I will be voting against the bill.
  With the utmost sincerity and a deep conviction, I am quite confident 
that this bill, if you vote for it, you will be voting for a national 
ID card. I know some will argue against that and they say this is 
voluntary, but it really cannot be voluntary. If a State opts out, 
nobody is going to accept their driver's license. So this is not 
voluntary.
  As a matter of fact, even the House Republican Conference, which sent 
a statement around with some points about this bill, said ``the Federal 
Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates 
and sources of identification such as driver's licenses.''
  This is nationalization of all identification. It will be the 
confirmation of the notion that we will be carrying our papers.
  As a matter of fact, I think it might be worse than just carrying our 
papers and showing our papers, because in this bill there are no 
limitations as to the information that may be placed on this 
identification card. There are minimum standards, but no maximum 
limitations.
  The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can add anything 
it wants. So if they would like to put on our driver's license that you 
belong to a pro-gun group, it may well become mandatory, because there 
may be an administration some day that might like to have that 
information.
  But there is no limitation as far as biometrics and there is no 
limitation as far as radio frequency identification. That technology is 
already available and being used on our passports. This means that you 
do not have to show your papers. All you have to do is walk by somebody 
that has a radio frequency ability to read your passport or read your 
driver's license. There is no limitation as to what they can put on 
these documents.

[[Page H530]]

  This bill also allows the definition of ``terrorism'' to be re-
defined. There are no limitations.
  In many ways I understand how well intentioned this is, but to me it 
is sort of like the gun issue. Conservatives always know that you do 
not register guns, that is just terrible, because the criminals will 
not register their guns. But what are we doing with this bill? We are 
registering all the American people, and your goal is to register the 
criminals and the thugs and the terrorists.
  Well, why does a terrorist need a driver's license? They can just 
steal a car or steal an airplane or steal a bus or whatever they want 
to do. So you are registering all the American people because you are 
looking for a terrorist, and all the terrorist is going to do is avoid 
the law. But we all, the American people, will have to obey the law. If 
we do not, we go to prison.
  So I rise in strong objection to this bill. I hope there will be a 
few that will oppose H.R. 418.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the REAL ID Act is a real travesty. It has little to do 
with homeland security, and it represents just the latest in a string 
of anti-immigrant proposals so unfortunately popular with certain of 
our Republican colleagues.
  Instead of putting the safety of our families first, these are the 
same folks that would have turned our emergency room doctors into 
border patrol agents; who would have cut the funding to cities that did 
not conduct immigration raids; and who would interfere with the people 
with whom our private banking institutions could serve and encourage 
instead an underground, black market financial system.
  This same anti-immigrant fervor continues to fuel this bad bill. The 
REAL ID Act is designed to make our roads real unsafe. Undocumented 
workers will be on our roads. That is why the Austin Police Department 
believes that Texans would be safer if the law allowed all drivers to 
obtain licenses.

                              {time}  1045

  As Assistant Police Chief Rudy Landeros testified, ``In allowing the 
community the opportunity to obtain driver's licenses, they will have 
to pass a driver's test, and that will make them not only informed 
drivers, but safer drivers.''
  The Texas legislature, in a bill by former Representative Miguel 
Wise, wisely recognized that requiring all drivers to obtain licenses 
would make Texas families safer. Had it not been for the veto by 
Texas's myopic governor, this common-sense call for public safety would 
be the law in the President's home state.
  Legal immigrants could also be denied a license. Paula Waddle, an 
immigration attorney in the Rio Grande Valley, explained that her 
clients are having delays of as much as 15 months in getting their 
legal permanent residency papers because of confusion at the Department 
of Homeland Security. If these legal immigrants do not have sufficient 
paperwork to prove their legal status, they will be caught up in this 
same web of anti-immigrant fervor and denied the opportunity to obtain 
insurance and drive.
  Ironically, consideration of this bill coincides with the release 
this week by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. 
This proposal would worsen the plight of those whose conditions were 
the subject of investigation by that commission: asylum-seekers who 
already face deplorable conditions, who are often treated like common 
criminals and thrown into jail with common criminals, and who are 
subject to strip searches as well as solitary confinement. But since 
current law already bars those who presnet a secruity risk from getting 
asylum, the additional restrictions in this bill would not make us 
safer.
  We must not sacrifice our democracy in a misguided attempt to save 
it. This bill strikes the wrong balance. Anti-immigrant hysteria cannot 
be permitted to drive an agenda that makes us less safe, less healthy, 
and erodes our civil liberties while failing to address real terrorist 
threats.
  The REAL ID bill ought to be really rejected fast by this Congress.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
  Contrary to what my very good friend from Fort Lauderdale has said, 
this is a very fair and balanced rule. If we look at the amendments 
that were submitted to the Committee on Rules and those that we have 
made in order, it is fascinating.
  We made half of the amendments in order that were proposed by the 
Democrats, those were the priorities established, and 33 percent of the 
amendments made in order that were submitted by the Republicans. We 
have really turned ourselves inside out to try and accommodate the wide 
array of issues that were put forward before the Committee on Rules.
  Yesterday, we had three committees of jurisdiction share an hour and 
40 minutes of general debate, and we are going to have an opportunity 
for free-flowing debate on a wide range of issues today. And I am 
anxiously looking forward to that.
  I would like to say that one of the priorities is the passage of the 
Sessions amendment, which is very, very fair and, I believe, an 
appropriate way to deal with one of the important challenges we face.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman really 
believe that 20 minutes of debate, 10 on each side, on these 
complicated issues, is free and flowing debate? We got out early 
yesterday; we are here today. Why only 10 minutes of debate on each 
side on these complicated issues?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend 
that clearly we are debating this right now, during consideration of 
the rule. We have had Special Orders held on this issue. We had a very 
lengthy hearing in the Committee on Rules which was available for all 
of the Members; we had that streamed online. So I think that these 
issues are pretty darned transparent.
  We are trying to deal with border security. It is a very important 
part of the number one priority that we have, and that is our national 
security. I think in light of that, we are going to have an opportunity 
to consider these measures, and I want to say that I think we have some 
amendments that are very, very important that do need to be addressed.
  We did make in order the amendment by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr), my colleague, which calls for steps that would prevent the 
completion of the 3.5 mile gap in the 14-mile fence that goes along the 
border from the Pacific Ocean to the Otai Mesa in San Diego.
  I have to say that it is amazing, Mr. Speaker, to observe that it 
took a shorter period of time to win the Second World War than it has 
to complete this fence. It is a fence wherein actually the provision 
for it was signed into law by President Clinton back in 1997, and that 
was done with strong bipartisan support.
  I worked with my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter), and our colleague Mr. Ose in the last Congress, who was very 
involved in this; and I just 10 weeks ago flew with T.J. Bonner, the 
president of the National Border Patrol Council, over this gap in the 
fence. It is very clear that people have taken advantage of it.
  Now, the argument that is going to be used on the fence issue, and we 
will be bringing that up in just a little while, has to do with the 
environment. There are people who say that we need to keep all of these 
environmental constraints in place which have prevented completion of 
the fence.
  Mr. Speaker, what has happened is, we have seen the California 
Coastal Commission file a case to prevent completion of it because of 
something known as the Bell's Verio bird. This bird has chosen to nest 
on part of the fence, and for that reason, they cannot complete the 
fence, and it has allowed people to come in.
  Now, what has happened is, people have illegally fled across the 
border.

[[Page H531]]

We have seen that border in what is known as the Tijuana Estuary 
devastated environmentally. There is all kinds of trash in there, and 
the environmental vote, Mr. Speaker, is to vote against the Farr 
amendment in favor of completion of the fence. If we were to complete 
the fence, we would be able to improve the environmental standard at 
the border.
  Now, this issue is one of the important parts of it, but there is one 
other issue that I want to mention before I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  I introduced legislation, H.R. 100, to deal with something known as 
the Saint Cyr decision, that is included in the manager's amendment; 
and what that does, basically, the provision that we have in the 
manager's amendment will finally get to the point where the appellate 
courts are the courts of jurisdiction, and we will not see consistent 
appeals. Not many people are aware of the fact that, actually, people 
who are here illegally have an additional appellate step over American 
citizens. In the manager's amendment, we will be able to rectify that 
very, very important issue that does need to be addressed.
  This is a fair and balanced rule. It will allow us to deal with 
border security, a very important part of our national security; and I 
hope this great day will see us, at the end, pass this very important 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume before I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, which I 
will do gladly.
  I would say to the chairman that I respect very much, and I am 
speaking to the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), I respect 
very much what my good friend from California has said with reference 
to the rule, the amendments that are allowed. But I was in that same 
process as the chairman was in the Committee on Rules. Three-quarters 
of the amendments that were submitted on time pursuant to the 
chairman's correct direction to the body are not a part of the debate 
here.
  The Sensenbrenner amendment, which is rather lengthy, came late to 
the committee. It is not being voted on up or down for the reason that 
it was made a self-executing part of the rule.
  Now, the gentleman can call that fair and balanced, but let me just 
say to the chairman that there is a new section 105, and many of the 
Members are hearing this for the first time. It eliminates Federal 
court review in many conventions against torture cases, and it 
eliminates the power of the Federal appeals court judges to stay the 
removal of asylum seekers.
  I do not think any irony is lost on the chairman about the Ninth 
Circuit's ruling.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say, there was a lot of discussion as 
to whether or not we were going to make the Nadler amendment in order, 
as my friend knows. I know that that addresses the issue of asylum. We 
are going to have an opportunity for debate on that and an up-or-down 
vote on that issue.
  We clearly had to deal with a wide range of questions as we fashioned 
this rule. I will tell the gentleman that I am very proud of the fact 
that we were able to incorporate many of the ideas that my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle offered. I will tell the gentleman there 
were 10 amendments submitted by members of the minority, and six of 
those 10 amendments were, in fact, withdrawn. We made in order two of 
the four amendments that remained at the committee level.
  We had on our side 10 amendments that were submitted, and we have 
only made three of our amendments in order of the original 10 that were 
submitted. That is why I am arguing that we have, in fact, really gone 
the extra mile to ensure that the rights of the minority are respected.
  I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, before the 
chairman leaves, just one further word in that regard. I take, from the 
many times when the chairman was in the minority, his statement to 
heart; and that is that if a rule is not open, it is closed.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, did I actually 
say that?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Yes, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) said that a lot. He said that a lot.
  Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), my good friend.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, hearing the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules describe this restricted rule as fair and balanced 
reinforces the fact that when people on the right in America 
politically tell you something is fair and balanced, you had better ask 
for another deck of cards.
  The rule not only limits the amendments; and it makes sense, the 
chairman's defense makes sense if you start from the perspective that 
no amendments ought to be allowed. And then when you let in two out of 
10, or two out of six, somehow you have been generous.
  Ought not the assumption be in favor of openness, especially since 
the House has not been doing very much? Then the chairman said, Well, 
we do not have to have long debate on these things; after all, we had a 
hearing in the Committee on Rules, and it was streamed on line. Anyone 
who thinks that a hearing in the Committee on Rules that is streamed on 
line is a substitute for open and free debate in the United States 
House of Representatives, or anyone who says that, ought to remember, I 
would give just one piece of advice. No matter how pressed one feels in 
a debate, try to avoid saying something that no one is going to 
believe. It really does not help your cause.
  No one thinks that an online hearing in the Committee on Rules with a 
handful of Members in a room that has 30 seats substitutes for free and 
open debate in the House of Representatives, and particularly when you 
only give 10 minutes on a particular amendment.
  I want to talk about the amendment on asylum. We heard a lot of 
discussion last year in the election from people complaining that 
religion had been driven from the public square. Well, guess who is 
ignoring religion this year? The majority.
  The provisions on asylum have evoked overwhelming opposition from the 
various religious communities in America. I noted yesterday that the 
Commission on Interreligious Freedom set up by this Congress to protect 
religious freedom in the world put out earlier this week a report 
saying that our asylum procedures are too restrictive. And what is the 
response of the majority? To make what the Commission on Interreligious 
Freedom says is a bad situation much worse.
  I noted yesterday, in Leviticus it says, and I have looked at various 
translations, various renderings, and in every one it sometimes says 
``stranger,'' it sometimes says ``alien.'' It is clear it means people 
we would describe as immigrants. It says, Treat them as you would treat 
the native born.
  Now, I do not purport to be a religious scholar. I do not purport to 
be an expert in religious interpretation, but I am puzzled. Can we turn 
Leviticus on and off that way? I mean, often I have heard Leviticus 
quoted as justification for measures that are critical of homosexuals. 
Do you not have to take it as a package? I mean, if you are going to 
use Leviticus to disadvantage homosexuals, do you not have to use it to 
be nice to immigrants? Is it not true that what is Leviticus for the 
goose is Leviticus for the gander?
  Again, I acknowledge I am not a theological expert, so I will turn to 
some who are. I got a copy yesterday from the Interfaith Statement. 
``The REAL ID act,'' it says, ``threatens the ability of victims of 
persecution to find safe haven in the United States,'' signed by a 
variety of Jewish and Catholic and Protestant groups, the Jesuit 
Religious Service, the Episcopal Migration Ministries, the Church World 
Service, the Jubilee Campaign, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee 
Service.
  Mr. Speaker, because I do not think that religion ought to be driven 
from the public square on an issue on which there is such an 
overwhelming religious consensus, I will offer a statement condemning 
this bill and its asylum provisions be inserted here.

[[Page H532]]

 REAL ID Act Threatens Ability of Victims of Persecution To Find Safe 
                       Haven in the United States

       As representatives of various faith traditions, we are 
     deeply concerned that the REAL ID Act, legislation proposed 
     by Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), would make asylum 
     a more remote possibility for hundreds of persons who need 
     protection. We understand that safeguarding our national 
     security is an urgent issue, and we support measures that 
     honor that concern. We also subscribe to core beliefs which 
     require that we provide safety to victims of persecution, 
     particularly those who have no recourse to the projection 
     that democratic societies traditionally provide. Restricting 
     access to asylum beyond current practice and does not serve 
     the cause of national security and, moreover, erodes a sacred 
     and legal responsibility to give safety to those whose only 
     protection comes from asylum.
       Each of our traditions has witnessed the suffering of 
     persons whose beliefs often place them in jeopardy and 
     possibly in mortal danger. As American-based faith 
     communities, we have cherished the ability of asylum seekers 
     to find safety in communities around our nation. We are, 
     therefore, saddened by a further erosion of our asylum system 
     under the pretext of national security. We urge Members of 
     Congress to reject the notion that all asylees are 
     prospective terrorists and that the current system needs to 
     be made more restrictive.
       The belief that we must receive persons who have been 
     rejected and persecuted because of their ideas and religious 
     practices is anchored in both our histories and sacred texts. 
     We have contributed over the years to supporting and 
     enriching practices which embrace hospitality as not only a 
     religious but an American value. We also appreciate the need 
     to prevent terrorism from violating both our freedom and 
     safety. We believe that hospitality to the stranger--
     particularly one who has been persecuted--and security are 
     compatible national goals. We, therefore, reject legislation 
     that subverts hospitality in the name of security.
       The current asylum system includes rigorous safeguards 
     against terrorists abusing the asylum system. The changes 
     proposed by the REAL ID Act raise a false issue in further 
     victimizing legitimate asylum seekers. Requiring unreasonable 
     levels of evidence to prove an asylum claim, placing a 
     greater burden on asylum seekers to convince reviewers of the 
     key motivation of their accusers, and allowing subjective 
     considerations to guide the review process all send a 
     chilling message to those who desperately seek the safety and 
     protection which they have a right to expect of our great 
     nation.
       We have all seen how fear can pervert justice. We believe 
     that the religious traditions which we embrace calls us to 
     oppose a narrowing of the door to asylum by some of the 
     world's most at-risk persons. We are committed to resisting a 
     fear driven agenda which violates our faith-based principles.

     Anti-Defamation League
     B'nai B'rith International
     Church World Service
     Episcopal Migration Ministries
     HIAS and Council Migration Service of Philadelphia
     Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
     Institute on Religion and Public Policy
     Jesuit Refugee Service
     Jewish Council for Public Affairs
     Jewish Labor Committee
     Jubilee Campaign
     Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
     Midland Alliances
     Midland Association of Churches
     Midland Ministerial Alliance
     National Council of Jewish Women
     Project for International Religious Liberty
     Religoius Freedom Coalition
     Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring
     World Relief

  Mr. Speaker, the asylum provisions make it much harder for people to 
get asylum. We will have 20 minutes to debate this issue. It would take 
me half of that time to read the full list of signers.
  Last week, we were visited, those of us on the Democratic side, by a 
representative of the Catholic bishops, who asked us specifically to 
oppose this bill and particularly to condemn the asylum provisions. I 
do not think there has been any showing that asylumees have been 
terrorists.
  But, in any case, I do want to stress, those of you who have said we 
have insufficiently paid attention to religious values, Mr. Speaker, I 
urge them not to turn their back on the religious community now and not 
to give the religious communities, a broad range of them, 10 minutes in 
which we can make the case that this bill violates biblical injunctions 
about aliens and undercuts our mission to be a haven for the 
religiously persecuted.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule for 
consideration of amendments to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act.
  The manager's amendment, which will self-execute upon adoption of 
this resolution, makes technical changes to the bill as well as making 
a number of substantive improvements. One such modification will be to 
remove the annual cap on the number of aliens granted asylum who can 
become permanent residents each year. The current cap of 10,000 has 
resulted in a multi-year backlog that has caused unnecessary hardship 
to aliens already found to have been fleeing persecution. Hardly an 
anti-refugee provision.
  The manager's amendment also extends the bill's provisions regarding 
the credibility determinations of immigration judges in asylum 
proceedings to apply to other requests for relief from removal before 
immigration judges.
  Lastly, it includes the text of H.R. 100, introduced by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), to limit criminal aliens to one bite of 
the apple in contesting their removal orders. I strongly support all 
these changes and believe they improve the underlying legislation.
  Regrettably, at the request of the Committee on Government Reform, 
the manager's amendment also removes two provisions that I believe 
address important issues with regard to temporary licenses. One 
provision clarified the need to clearly mark temporary driver's 
licenses that States remain authorized to issue people who cannot meet 
the identity standards as set by this bill.
  The other provision provided the Secretary of DHS with the ability to 
intervene, but only in the interest of national security, to reduce the 
incredible diversity in form and appearance of driver's licenses issued 
by the States. Today there are over 350 valid driver's license designs 
issued by the 50 States. And we all know it is very difficult for 
security officials at airports to tell the real ID cards from the 
counterfeit ones.
  I understand why the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform 
believes these two provisions should not be included at this time; 
however, it is my hope that as this legislation continues to move 
through the legislative process, we may revisit these two provisions. 
Both are widely supported and improve the overall bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman talks about section 102 of 
the bill, which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the ability to 
waive all laws that might get in the way of building the fence; and he 
talks about environmental laws, and he talks about endangered species. 
Well, that is all well and good, but the radicalism and the 
irresponsibility of the majority is shown by how this is drafted.
  This does not refer to environmental laws. This does not refer to 
endangered species. This says the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
have the authority to waive all laws in his sole discretion that he 
determines necessary.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security can tell the contractors, if 
anybody gets in your way, shoot them. Shoot them. The laws against men 
are waived. Laws against anything are waived. It makes him a total 
dictator. Then to make sure that the Secretary can be a total dictator 
in contravention of the Constitution, in contravention of all our laws, 
it then says, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any clause or 
claim arising from any decision the Secretary takes or to order any 
compensatory declarative injunctive, equitable or any other relief for 
damages alleged to have been suffered.
  So someone can be shot because the Secretary says shoot anybody that 
gets in the way by accident or deliberately and the courts cannot 
review whether

[[Page H533]]

the Secretary had the authority, whether this is constitutional.
  Last year we had certain court-stripping legislation before us to say 
that the court shall have no jurisdiction to hear a claim against the 
constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
  One other thing, I got up on this floor and I said, this is going to 
become boiler plate language in bills, and here it is. It did not even 
mention it. Boiler plate language.
  ``No court shall review any action the Secretary may take.''
  I thought the Republican Party stood for limited government. This 
says the Secretary is absolute dictator, as absolute as Stalin. What 
kind of language is this?
  Regardless of the merits of this bill, regardless of the merits of 
this provision in general, this is disgraceful.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule, and I rise in favor of the 
Sessions amendment. The amendment makes certain that before an alien is 
released from DHS detention on his own recognizance pending an upcoming 
hearing, the immigration judge first certify that the alien is not a 
flight risk and, more importantly, that he does not pose a security 
risk to the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the different views that we hear in the 
well of this House. I understand full well Dr. Franklin's admonition 
about the challenge confronting those who seek security and yet also 
wish to preserve liberty.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we are here on the floor visiting 
this issue today is, as the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules pointed out, while our founders believed that all men were 
created equal, now we have the arcanities and absurdities of certain 
judicial procedures that allow illegal aliens to enjoy more legal 
privacy in some cases than do American citizens. We need redress.
  I listened with great interest to my friends who came to the floor 
recently discovering States rights with reference to this legislation, 
and I believe that to be a hopeful sign. I listened with great interest 
to other friends who came to offer scriptural and spiritual entreaties 
in this debate, and I welcome that as well. But, Mr. Speaker, here is 
the fundamental question we confront. In the wake of 9/11, in the wake 
of clear and demonstrable evidence that there are those who come to 
this Nation with the intent of harming and killing Americans, who are 
bent on the destruction of our Nation and our system of government, at 
long last this body should take the steps necessary to preserve our 
security and our liberty. Border security is national security.
  There has been lament expressed from the other side that we are 
moving too quickly. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I came to this well in a 
previous Congress lamenting the fact that at the behest of the other 
body we remove these important provisions from a piece of legislation 
passed at the end of the last session of Congress.
  Incrementalism in wartime is unacceptable. There is a clear and 
present danger. We must respond.
  Pass the rule. Pass the Sessions amendment. Pass the underlying 
legislation. Let us preserve and protect our Union and our way of life.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, section 101, the asylum provisions, are flawed. Existing 
law exempts and prohibits terrorists or threats to national security or 
those who the government can prove through secret evidence are threats 
to national security from getting asylum. That is existing law. This 
self-executing rule, which allows amendments which have never been 
considered by any committee or heard through hearing or markup, do 
several dangerous things.
  Section 101 encourages asylum officers and immigration judges to deny 
an asylum claim simply because the applicant was able to recall or 
recount information later in the process that she did not mention when 
she was initially encountered by immigration officers. The amendment 
included in the rule would expand that to include consistency on 
matters that are entirely relevant to the basis of the claim for 
asylum.
  It would mean that a woman who has been subjected to gang rape by 
government armed forces in her country who is too afraid or ashamed to 
tell the fact to the armed male immigration officer she first 
encounters at the airport in the United States could, if she tells the 
story later on in the process, be denied asylum simply because she was 
too afraid or too ashamed to tell the story to the first person she 
encountered.
  Now, under the amendment, this woman could be denied asylum because 
she cannot recall facts that are irrelevant to establishing her need 
from protection, her high school graduation date, for example.
  In a system where we rely on translations and statements taken from 
people in crisis, this is a very change in the law.
  It is a fundamental challenge to the whole concept of the immigration 
judge considering all things coming into the record. The one thing I 
know is if section 101 becomes law, people with a well-founded fear of 
persecution, as a result of these changes, will be denied asylum, there 
will be no effort whatsoever to enhance our efforts to protect this 
country against terrorism, but we will have struck a fundamental blow 
against a tradition which I think is very important to maintain in this 
country and that is that we are a haven for refugees from persecution 
for political, ethnic, religious, gender reasons.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Even more troubling is a fact discussed in a report released this 
week by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Often 
Immigration Judges determine that an applicant is not credible because 
their statement at the airport was inconsistent with later statements 
because later statements included more detail. The problem with that 
logic is that when an asylum applicant is interviewed in inspections, 
the interview stops at the moment that the person establishes a fear of 
persecution. They are not invited to provide more detail until a later 
credible fear interview. In other words, the applicant isn't the reason 
the details are not included. This bill would codify this preposterous 
failure of the Immigration Judges' logic in these cases.
  Section 101 also would encourage asylum officers and immigration 
judges to deny an asylum claim because of perceived problems with an 
applicant's demeanor. This would mean that a woman subjected to 
persecution by the Taliban who has been taught that she should not make 
eye contact with a man could be denied asylum simply because she did 
not make eye contact with the male immigration officer interviewing 
her.
  Furthermore, it is quite common for torture survivors suffering from 
post-traumatic stress to exhibit characteristics in their demeanor such 
as lack of eye contact, the inability to recall simple details that to 
an untrained person may appear to be symptoms of lying. For example, 
Fauyiza Kassindja, a young Togolese woman who fled female genital 
mutilation (FGM), would have been denied asylum under this standard 
with little chance of getting that determination reversed on appeal. 
Under current law, the Board of Immigration Appeals rightly reversed 
the Immigration Judge's credibility finding in her case, and that 
decision has helped protect other women fleeing FGM.
  Section 101 would encourage asylum officers and immigration judges to 
deny an asylum claim when the applicant cannot provide corroborating 
evidence of their claims if the officer, in his unreviewable 
discretion, believes that the applicant should be able to provide such 
evidence.
  This disproportionately harms applicants who are detained and/or lack 
counsel. Relatedly, H.R. 418 would constrain judicial review of a 
denial of asylum based on an applicant's failure to provide 
corroborating evidence.
  Section 101 would require some asylum applicants to prove not only 
that they are refugees, but also prove their persecutors' central 
Reason.
  The additional burden on asylum applicants created by this provision 
is impermissible under the international law, including the U.N. 
Convention on Refugees to which the United States is a signatory. To 
meet the standard set forth in the Convention, it is sufficient to show 
persecution is motivated in part by one of the prohibited grounds. 
Asking a refugee or asylum applicant to parse his persecutor's 
motivations so finely as to distill the ``central Reason'' or ``central 
reason'' is asking asylum

[[Page H534]]

seekers to read the minds of their persecutors. This additional burden 
will lead ineluctably to denials of legitimate asylum claims, sending 
helpless applicants back to face more persecution and potentially 
death.
  The proponents of section 101 assert that we must enact this section 
in order to prevent terrorists from gaining asylum. My friends who are 
the authors of this provision are in error, however, in this assertion.
  I have been informed by my staff that while several persons with 
terrorist connections have applied for asylum over the years, the 
Department of Homeland Security has not found a single terrorist has 
ever been granted asylum in the United States. This is because, first, 
current law appropriately makes terrorists ineligible for asylum, and 
second, the standard for granting asylum is already so high that 
applicants are subjected to intense scrutiny before a decision on their 
claims is made.
  While the United States has not, as far as the Department of Homeland 
Security knows, ever granted asylum to a terrorist, there was, indeed, 
a problem more than a decade ago whereby persons could apply for asylum 
and then be paroled into the United States while their claims were 
pending. That is no longer possible today. A person who applies for 
asylum today is held in detention until an investigation is made on the 
credibility of their claim and on whether they pose a security risk to 
the United States.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the consequences for asylum seekers to 
enactment of section 101 could be catastrophic. The new standards could 
make it far more difficult for legitimate asylum seekers to prove their 
claims. After all, would an asylum officer in 1938 have found Jews' 
claims of being thrown into the death camps and ovens of Nazi Germany 
credible? Would the victims of the Nazi death camps have been able to 
present corroboration of the specific facts asserting their claims? If 
a Bosnian woman who has faced rape at the hands of government agents as 
a systematic form of persecution is ashamed or afraid to relate her 
rapes in her initial interviews, should that be an automatic ground to 
find her not credible?
  It is unclear what really motivated the drafters of H.R. 418 to put 
section 101 into this measure. Two things are clear, however: the 
provision has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, and it was not 
recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Let me repeat that, because 
yesterday a Member of the majority claimed this bill was simply 
enacting recommendations of the Commission. The chairman and vice 
chairman of the 9/11 Commission have clearly and specifically rejected 
that these asylum provisions are supported by their recommendations.
  We should consider changes to our asylum laws in a sober and 
reflective manner after hearings, subcommittee consideration, and full 
committee consideration. Neither section 101 of H.R. 418 nor any of the 
other provisions of this bill had a single hearing or markup.
  I urge my colleagues to stand against this rule and if the rule is 
not defeated, I implore you to support the amendment that will be 
offered later today to strike Section 101 in its entirety.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the rule and in support of the 
underlying bill, the REAL ID Act.
  This is probably one of the most important bills that we will have to 
vote on in the 109th Congress. The bill obviously will strengthen our 
borders, improve the rule of law, and protect our national security. It 
builds upon the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. These are 
things they have talked about and had recommended, and it begins to 
respond to the pleas of the many families who lost loved ones on that 
terrible day.
  It implements much needed driver's license reform. Now, driver's 
licenses have become the primary ID in the United States. It enables 
individuals to go get other identity documents, to transfer funds to 
U.S. bank accounts, obtain access to Federal buildings and other 
vulnerable facilities, purchase a firearm, rent a car, board a plane, 
et cetera. So lax standards and loopholes in the current issue process 
allow terrorists to obtain driver's licenses, often multiple licenses 
from different States, and abuse the license for identification 
purposes. The REAL ID Act corrects this.
  Identification documents are the last opportunity to ensure that the 
people are who they say they are and to check whether they are 
terrorists.
  The REAL ID Act would require applicants to provide proof that they 
are in this country legally. Currently, 11 States do not have such a 
requirement, meaning the majority of States have already recognized the 
need for tighter requirements and standards, but unnecessary and 
dangerous gaps still exist in this system. So that is why we need this. 
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has cited the 9/
11 Commission. After 9/11, shortly thereafter, I wrote to President 
Bush and introduced legislation that would set the precursor to what 
ultimately became the Department of Homeland Security of this House of 
Representatives.
  During that period of time, I did not have the courtesy of a response 
from the White House, and the White House opposed setting up inside the 
administration a Cabinet-level homeland security official. Ultimately, 
they came around. Tim Roemer, a former colleague of ours who did serve 
on the 9/11 Commission, and myself and others filed the original 
legislation leading to the development of the 9/11 independent 
commission.

                              {time}  1115

  And my colleague has cited that commission frequently, but I defy him 
on the subject of border security, page 186, to tell me anywhere where 
it says anything about driver's licenses.
  They talk about creating an interagency center to target illegal 
entry and human traffickers; imposing tighter controls on student 
visas; taking legal action to prevent terrorists from coming into the 
United States and to remove those already here; further increasing the 
number of immigration agents to FBI joint terrorism task forces; 
activating a special court to enable the use of classified evidence. 
And I could go on and on and on in the Clark working group and the 9/11 
report, and not one word, not one word regarding any driver's licenses.
  People that are going to do harm in this Nation are not going to do 
anything other than everything that is fraudulent. But what we need to 
know is that there are a variety of people who are significantly 
opposed to this legislation. The AFL-CIO, the American Jewish 
Committee, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 
Catholic Charities USA, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Irish 
American Unity conference, Gun Owners of America, the American 
Conservative Union, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the National 
Association of Latino Elected Officials, the National Conference of 
State Legislatures, the Council of La Raza, the Federation of Filipino 
American Association, the Service Employees Union; and there is a list 
that goes up to 121 organizations that have been shut out because there 
were no hearings and no opportunity for them to have been heard, other 
than through the limited debate.
  We should stop this business of closing our opportunities and open up 
the rules. I oppose this rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to address a number of numbers here. This is a 
little bit about numbers, and one of them is that 121 organizations 
that we heard about, as if they were the ones that should obstruct the 
safety of 282 million Americans whose lives are at risk.
  Another number, 19 terrorist hijackers, 19. Nineteen of them with 63, 
another number, 63 valid driver's licenses in their possession. Any one 
of those driver's licenses got them anything they needed to do in 
America, full rights of citizenship for that matter, and get on board 
any airplane.
  And another number, 3,000 dead Americans. And what have we done to 
close the door? Anything?
  Have we even said ``no'' to the 121 organizations that say, Leave the 
door wide open, keep us at risk because somehow or another there is 
some kind of tone here that we object to?
  We think something is in your heart. We need to close this door.
  And what have we done? We have made it harder for terrorists to get 
on

[[Page H535]]

airplanes with razor blades. We spent millions of dollars on metal 
detectors and millions of dollars expanding TSA and putting Federal 
employees in place, and we put millions of people in long lines waiting 
to get through.
  So it is a little harder for them; they have to stand in line with 
the rest of us. Stand in line with the rest of us where I stand, where 
I see a 75-year-old lady going through a spread-eagle search while the 
young Middle Eastern male waltzes through with a smirk on his face, and 
we cannot close that door.
  This bill does some of that, not all of that, but it will be the 
first thing that will keep the 19-type terrorist hijackers off our 
airplanes, keep them out of our airplanes, out of our automobiles and 
provide a measure of safety and security for the American people.
  It is not enough, but it is the barest of common sense, and it must 
move through this Congress, and it must move through this Congress 
right now, today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) that at this time I do not have additional 
speakers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Florida's 
time has expired. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This rule makes in order five amendments for Members of both sides of 
the aisle, including one that I have submitted to ensure that aliens 
and terrorists are not in the United States illegally, and if they are, 
we are going to deport them.
  I think that this is a good bill, a good rule; and I support H.R. 
418. We need to implement much-needed driver's license reform. We need 
to close asylum loopholes. We need to defend our borders, and we are 
going to strengthen our deportation laws. And I encourage all of my 
colleagues to support the underlying legislation in this rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor today to 
speak in favor of reforming our system for asylum and against the move 
to strike the necessary reforms incorporated in H.R. 418. It has been 
suggested throughout out this debate yesterday and today that because 
there is no specific recommendation made by the 9-11 commission to 
reform our asylum system that we in Congress should do nothing to fix 
it.
  That in my opinion is insane. My colleagues and friends on the other 
side of the isle suggest we stick our heads in the sand and ignore one 
of the tools used by terrorists to gain access to and remain in our 
country.
  Make no mistake, the 9-11 commission report does specifically state 
that our asylum system was and is used by terrorists to carry out their 
schemes to kill Americans.
  Let me quote from the report and its accompanying statements:
  The report states, speaking of the first Trade Center bombing, ``. . 
.Ramazi Yousef, who had also entered with fraudulent documents but 
claimed political asylum and was admitted. It quickly became clear that 
Yousef had been a central player in the attack. He had fled to Pakistan 
immediately after the bombing and would remain at large for nearly two 
years.''
  Later in the report it talks about the outdated immigration benefits 
system, ``. . .when Doris Meissner became INS Commissioner in 1993, she 
found . . . the asylum and other benefits systems did not effectively 
deter fraudulent applicants.
  Finally, ``Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 
hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the 
United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition.'' 
``this could be accomplished . . . by applying for asylum after 
entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit 
(such as claiming asylum) sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the 
country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to 
conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive 
funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United 
States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.''
  So, if I am to understand my friends on the other side, we are to 
ignore the problem of asylum abuse and do nothing.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 198, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 27]

                               YEAS--228

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall

[[Page H536]]


     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Carter
     Eshoo
     Feeney
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Radanovich
     Stupak

                              {time}  1146

  Messrs. BLUMENAUER, KANJORSKI, OBEY, RANGEL, and TIERNEY changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. TANCREDO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________