[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.
____________________