[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 14 (Thursday, February 10, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H536-H566]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          REAL ID ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 75 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 418.

                              {time}  1146


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Upton (the Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, February 9, 2005, all time for general debate pursuant to 
House Resolution 71 had expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 75, no 
further general debate shall be in order.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 75, the amendment printed in part A of 
House Report 109-4 is adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment 
and shall be considered read.
  The text of H.R. 418, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 418

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``REAL ID Act of 2005''.

 TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL LAWS TO PROTECT AGAINST TERRORIST ENTRY

     SECTION 101. PREVENTING TERRORISTS FROM OBTAINING RELIEF FROM 
                   REMOVAL.

       (a) Conditions for Granting Asylum.--Section 208(b)(1) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Attorney General'' the first place 
     such term appears and inserting the following:
       ``(A) Eligibility.--The Secretary of Homeland Security or 
     the Attorney General'';
       (2) by striking ``the Attorney General'' the second and 
     third places such term appears and inserting ``the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security or the Attorney General''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Burden of proof.--
       ``(i) In general.--The burden of proof is on the applicant 
     to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the 
     meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A). To establish that the 
     applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, 
     the applicant must establish that race, religion, 
     nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 
     political opinion was or will be a central reason for 
     persecuting the applicant.
       ``(ii) Sustaining burden.--The testimony of the applicant 
     may be sufficient to sustain the applicant's burden without 
     corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier 
     of fact that the applicant's testimony is credible, is 
     persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to 
     demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining 
     whether the applicant has met the applicant's burden, the 
     trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with 
     other evidence of record. Where the trier of fact determines, 
     in the trier of fact's discretion, that the applicant should 
     provide evidence which corroborates otherwise credible 
     testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the 
     applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably 
     obtain the evidence without departing the United States. The 
     inability to obtain corroborating evidence does not excuse

[[Page H537]]

     the applicant from meeting the applicant's burden of proof.
       ``(iii) Credibility determination.--The trier of fact 
     should consider all relevant factors and may, in the trier of 
     fact's discretion, base the trier of fact's credibility 
     determination on any such factor, including the demeanor, 
     candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the 
     inherent plausibility of the applicant's or witness's 
     account, the consistency between the applicant's or witness's 
     written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not 
     made under oath), the internal consistency of each such 
     statement, the consistency of such statements with other 
     evidence of record (including the reports of the Department 
     of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or 
     falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an 
     inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of 
     the applicant's claim. There is no presumption of 
     credibility.''.
       (b) Withholding of Removal.--Section 241(b)(3) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Sustaining burden of proof; credibility 
     determinations.--In determining whether an alien has 
     demonstrated that the alien's life or freedom would be 
     threatened for a reason described in subparagraph (A), the 
     trier of fact shall determine whether the alien has sustained 
     the alien's burden of proof, and shall make credibility 
     determinations, in the manner described in clauses (ii) and 
     (iii) of section 208(b)(1)(B).''.
       (c) Other Requests for Relief From Removal.--Section 240(c) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1230(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as 
     paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Applications for relief from removal.--
       ``(A) In general.--An alien applying for relief or 
     protection from removal has the burden of proof to establish 
     that the alien--
       ``(i) satisfies the applicable eligibility requirements; 
     and
       ``(ii) with respect to any form of relief that is granted 
     in the exercise of discretion, that the alien merits a 
     favorable exercise of discretion.
       ``(B) Sustaining burden.--The applicant must comply with 
     the applicable requirements to submit information or 
     documentation in support of the applicant's application for 
     relief or protection as provided by law or by regulation or 
     in the instructions for the application form. In evaluating 
     the testimony of the applicant or other witness in support of 
     the application, the immigration judge will determine whether 
     or not the testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers 
     to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the 
     applicant has satisfied the applicant's burden of proof. In 
     determining whether the applicant has met such burden, the 
     immigration judge shall weigh the credible testimony along 
     with other evidence of record. Where the immigration judge 
     determines in the judge's discretion that the applicant 
     should provide evidence which corroborates otherwise credible 
     testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the 
     applicant demonstrates that the applicant does not have the 
     evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence without 
     departing from the United States. The inability to obtain 
     corroborating evidence does not excuse the applicant from 
     meeting the burden of proof.
       ``(C) Credibility determination.--The immigration judge 
     should consider all relevant factors and may, in the judge's 
     discretion, base the judge's credibility determination on any 
     such factor, including the demeanor, candor, or 
     responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent 
     plausibility of the applicant's or witness's account, the 
     consistency between the applicant's or witness's written and 
     oral statements (whenever made and whether or not made under 
     oath), the internal consistency of each such statement, the 
     consistency of such statements with other evidence of record 
     (including the reports of the Department of State on country 
     conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such 
     statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, 
     inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's 
     claim. There is no presumption of credibility.''.
       (d) Standard of Review for Orders of Removal.--Section 
     242(b)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1252(b)(4)) is amended by adding at the end, after 
     subparagraph (D), the following: ``No court shall reverse a 
     determination made by a trier of fact with respect to the 
     availability of corroborating evidence, as described in 
     section 208(b)(1)(B), 240(c)(4)(B), or 241(b)(3)(C), unless 
     the court finds that a reasonable trier of fact is compelled 
     to conclude that such corroborating evidence is 
     unavailable.''.
       (e) Clarification of Discretion.--Section 242(a)(2)(B) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or the Secretary of Homeland Security'' 
     after ``Attorney General'' each place such term appears; and
       (2) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``and 
     regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or action is 
     made in removal proceedings,'' after ``other provision of 
     law,''.
       (f) Removal of Caps.--Section 209 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1159) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``Service'' and inserting ``Department of 
     Homeland Security''; and
       (B) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place such term 
     appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security or the 
     Attorney General'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``Not more'' and all that follows through 
     ``asylum who--'' and inserting ``The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security or the Attorney General, in the Secretary's or the 
     Attorney General's discretion and under such regulations as 
     the Secretary or the Attorney General may prescribe, may 
     adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for 
     permanent residence the status of any alien granted asylum 
     who--''; and
       (B) in the matter following paragraph (5), by striking 
     ``Attorney General'' and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland 
     Security or the Attorney General''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``Attorney General'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney 
     General''.
       (g) Effective Dates.--
       (1) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     subsection (a) shall take effect as if enacted on March 1, 
     2003.
       (2) The amendments made by subsections (a)(3), (b), and (c) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to applications for asylum, withholding, or 
     other removal made on or after such date.
       (3) The amendment made by subsection (d) shall take effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to 
     all cases in which the final administrative removal order is 
     or was issued before, on, or after such date.
       (4) The amendments made by subsection (e) shall take effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to 
     all cases pending before any court on or after such date.
       (5) The amendments made by subsection (f) shall take effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (h) Repeal.--Section 5403 of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF 
                   BARRIERS AT BORDERS.

       Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Waiver.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the 
     authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, 
     in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to 
     ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads 
     under this section.
       ``(2) No judicial review.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, 
     administrative agency, or other entity shall have 
     jurisdiction--
       ``(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action 
     undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
       ``(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, 
     equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise 
     from any such action or decision.''.

     SEC. 103. INADMISSIBILITY DUE TO TERRORIST AND TERRORIST-
                   RELATED ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--So much of section 212(a)(3)(B)(i) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)) 
     as precedes the final sentence is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) In general.--Any alien who--

       ``(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
       ``(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable 
     ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after 
     entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
       ``(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to 
     cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist 
     activity;
       ``(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of--

       ``(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause 
     (vi)); or
       ``(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or 
     espouses terrorist activity;

       ``(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in 
     subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
       ``(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in 
     clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear 
     and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and 
     should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a 
     terrorist organization;
       ``(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or 
     persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or 
     support a terrorist organization;
       ``(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in 
     section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code) from or 
     on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training 
     was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in 
     clause (vi)); or
       ``(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is 
     inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing 
     the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 
     years,

     is inadmissible.''

[[Page H538]]

       (b) Engage in Terrorist Activity Defined.--Section 
     212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(iv) Engage in terrorist activity defined.--As used in 
     this Act, the term `engage in terrorist activity' means, in 
     an individual capacity or as a member of an organization--

       ``(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances 
     indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily 
     injury, a terrorist activity;
       ``(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
       ``(III) to gather information on potential targets for 
     terrorist activity;
       ``(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for--

       ``(aa) a terrorist activity;
       ``(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) 
     or (vi)(II); or
       ``(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause 
     (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and 
     convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not 
     reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist 
     organization;

       ``(V) to solicit any individual--

       ``(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this 
     subsection;
       ``(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described 
     in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
       ``(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization or to any 
     member of such an organization, described in clause (vi) or 
     to any member of such an organization,'' (III), unless the 
     solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence 
     that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, 
     that the organization was a terrorist organization; or

       ``(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably 
     should know, affords material support, including a safe 
     house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of 
     funds or other material financial benefit, false 
     documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, 
     biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or 
     training--

       ``(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
       ``(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably 
     should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist 
     activity;
       ``(cc) to a terrorist organization described in subclause 
     (I) or (II) of clause (vi); or
       ``(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause 
     (vi)(III), or to any member of such an organization, unless 
     the actor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence 
     that the actor did not know, and should not reasonably have 
     known, that the organization was a terrorist organization. 
     This clause shall not apply to any material support the alien 
     afforded to an organization or individual that has committed 
     terrorist activity, if the Secretary of State, after 
     consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, or the Attorney General, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, concludes in his sole unreviewable 
     disrection, that this clause should not apply.''.
       (c) Terrorist Organization Defined.--Section 
     212(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(vi) Terrorist organization defined.--As used in this 
     section, the term `terrorist organization' means an 
     organization--

       ``(I) designated under section 219;
       ``(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the 
     Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation 
     with or upon the request of the Attorney General or the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization, 
     after finding that the organization engages in the activities 
     described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or
       ``(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether 
     organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which 
     engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I) 
     through (VI) of clause (iv).''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and these amendments, and section 212(a)(3)(B) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)), as 
     amended by this section, shall apply to--
       (1) removal proceedings instituted before, on, or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) acts and conditions constituting a ground for 
     inadmissibility, excludability, deportation, or removal 
     occurring or existing before, on, or after such date.

     SEC. 104. REMOVAL OF TERRORISTS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) In general.--Section 237(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(B) Terrorist activities.--Any alien who is described in 
     subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 212(a)(3) is 
     deportable.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and the amendment, and section 237(a)(4)(B) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)), as 
     amended by such paragraph, shall apply to--
       (A) removal proceedings instituted before, on, or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (B) acts and conditions constituting a ground for 
     inadmissibility, excludability, deportation, or removal 
     occurring or existing before, on, or after such date.

     SEC. 105. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDERS OF REMOVAL.

       (a) In General.--Section 242 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``(statutory or 
     nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United 
     States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and 
     sections 1361 and 1651 of such title'' after 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law'';
       (ii) in each of subparagraphs (B) and (C), by inserting 
     ``(statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of 
     title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus 
     provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, and 
     except as provided in subparagraph (D)'' after 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Judicial review of certain legal claims.--Nothing in 
     subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this 
     Act which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be 
     construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or 
     pure questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed 
     with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this 
     section.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Claims under the united nations convention.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or 
     nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United 
     States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and 
     sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, a petition for review 
     filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with 
     this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for 
     judicial review of any cause or claim under the United 
     Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, 
     Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, except as 
     provided in subsection (e).
       ``(5) Exclusive means of review.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including 
     section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other 
     habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such 
     title, a petition for review filed with an appropriate court 
     of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole 
     and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of 
     removal entered or issued under any provision of this Act, 
     except as provided in subsection (e). For purposes of this 
     Act, in every provision that limits or eliminates judicial 
     review or jurisdiction to review, the terms `judicial review' 
     and `jurisdiction to review' include habeas corpus review 
     pursuant to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or 
     any other habeas corpus provision, sections 1361 and 1651 of 
     such title, and review pursuant to any other provision of law 
     (statutory or nonstatutory).'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (3)(B), by inserting ``pursuant to 
     subsection (f)'' after ``unless''; and
       (B) in paragraph (9), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Except as otherwise provided in this section, no court 
     shall have jurisdiction, by habeas corpus under section 2241 
     of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus 
     provision, by section 1361 or 1651 of such title, or by any 
     other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), to review 
     such an order or such questions of law or fact.''; and
       (3) in subsection (g), by inserting ``(statutory or 
     nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United 
     States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and 
     sections 1361 and 1651 of such title'' after 
     ``notwithstanding any other provision of law''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect upon the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to cases in which the final administrative 
     order of removal, deportation, or exclusion was issued 
     before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Transfer of Cases.--If an alien's case, brought under 
     section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, and challenging 
     a final administrative order of removal, deportation, or 
     exclusion, is pending in a district court on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, then the district court shall transfer 
     the case (or the part of the case that challenges the order 
     of removal, deportation, or exclusion) to the court of 
     appeals for the circuit in which a petition for review could 
     have been properly filed under section 242(b)(2) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252), as amended 
     by this section, or under section 309(c)(4)(D) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101 note). The court of appeals shall treat the 
     transferred case as if it had been filed pursuant to a 
     petition for review under such section 242, except that 
     subsection (b)(1) of such section shall not apply.
       (d) Transitional Rule Cases.--A petition for review filed 
     under former section 106(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (as in effect before its repeal by section 
     306(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1252 note)) shall be 
     treated as if it had been filed as a petition for review 
     under section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1252), as amended by this section. Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including 
     section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other 
     habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such 
     title, such petition

[[Page H539]]

     for review shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial 
     review of an order of deportation or exclusion.

    TITLE II--IMPROVED SECURITY FOR DRIVERS' LICENSES AND PERSONAL 
                          IDENTIFICATION CARDS

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Driver's license.--The term ``driver's license'' means 
     a motor vehicle operator's license, as defined in section 
     30301 of title 49, United States Code.
       (2) Identification card.--The term ``identification card'' 
     means a personal identification card, as defined in section 
     1028(d) of title 18, United States Code, issued by a State.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, 
     the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any other 
     territory or possession of the United States.

     SEC. 202. MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ISSUANCE 
                   STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

       (a) Minimum Standards for Federal Use.--
       (1) In general.--Beginning 3 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, a Federal agency may not accept, for 
     any official purpose, a driver's license or identification 
     card issued by a State to any person unless the State is 
     meeting the requirements of this section.
       (2) State certifications.--The Secretary shall determine 
     whether a State is meeting the requirements of this section 
     based on certifications made by the State to the Secretary of 
     Transportation. Such certifications shall be made at such 
     times and in such manner as the Secretary of Transportation, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may 
     prescribe by regulation.
       (b) Minimum Document Requirements.--To meet the 
     requirements of this section, a State shall include, at a 
     minimum, the following information and features on each 
     driver's license and identification card issued to a person 
     by the State:
       (1) The person's full legal name.
       (2) The person's date of birth.
       (3) The person's gender.
       (4) The person's driver's license or identification card 
     number.
       (5) A digital photograph of the person.
       (6) The person's address of principle residence.
       (7) The person's signature.
       (8) Physical security features designed to prevent 
     tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for 
     fraudulent purposes.
       (9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined 
     minimum data elements.
       (c) Minimum Issuance Standards.--
       (1) In general.--To meet the requirements of this section, 
     a State shall require, at a minimum, presentation and 
     verification of the following information before issuing a 
     driver's license or identification card to a person:
       (A) A photo identity document, except that a non-photo 
     identity document is acceptable if it includes both the 
     person's full legal name and date of birth.
       (B) Documentation showing the person's date of birth.
       (C) Proof of the person's social security account number or 
     verification that the person is not eligible for a social 
     security account number.
       (D) Documentation showing the person's name and address of 
     principal residence.
       (2) Special requirements.--
       (A) In general.--To meet the requirements of this section, 
     a State shall comply with the minimum standards of this 
     paragraph.
       (B) Evidence of lawful status.--A State shall require, 
     before issuing a driver's license or identification card to a 
     person, valid documentary evidence that the person--
       (i) is a citizen of the United States;
       (ii) is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent or 
     temporary residence in the United States;
       (iii) has conditional permanent resident status in the 
     United States;
       (iv) has an approved application for asylum in the United 
     States or has entered into the United States in refugee 
     status;
       (v) has a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa or 
     nonimmigrant visa status for entry into the United States;
       (vi) has a pending application for asylum in the United 
     States;
       (vii) has a pending or approved application for temporary 
     protected status in the United States;
       (viii) has approved deferred action status; or
       (ix) has a pending application for adjustment of status to 
     that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in 
     the United States or conditional permanent resident status in 
     the United States.
       (C) Temporary drivers' licenses and identification cards.--
       (i) In general.--If a person presents evidence under any of 
     clauses (v) through (ix) of subparagraph (B), the State may 
     only issue a temporary driver's license or temporary 
     identification card to the person.
       (ii) Expiration date.--A temporary driver's license or 
     temporary identification card issued pursuant to this 
     subparagraph shall be valid only during the period of time of 
     the applicant's authorized stay in the United States or, if 
     there is no definite end to the period of authorized stay, a 
     period of one year.
       (iii) Display of expiration date.--A temporary driver's 
     license or temporary identification card issued pursuant to 
     this subparagraph shall clearly indicate that it is temporary 
     and shall state the date on which it expires.
       (iv) Renewal.--A temporary driver's license or temporary 
     identification card issued pursuant to this subparagraph may 
     be renewed only upon presentation of valid documentary 
     evidence that the status by which the applicant qualified for 
     the temporary driver's license or temporary identification 
     card has been extended by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
       (3) Verification of documents.--To meet the requirements of 
     this section, a State shall implement the following 
     procedures:
       (A) Before issuing a driver's license or identification 
     card to a person, the State shall verify, with the issuing 
     agency, the issuance, validity, and completeness of each 
     document required to be presented by the person under 
     paragraph (1) or (2).
       (B) The State shall not accept any foreign document, other 
     than an official passport, to satisfy a requirement of 
     paragraph (1) or (2).
       (C) Not later than September 11, 2005, the State shall 
     enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security to routinely utilize the automated 
     system known as Systematic Alien Verification for 
     Entitlements, as provided for by section 404 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3009-664), to verify the legal presence status of 
     a person, other than a United States citizen, applying for a 
     driver's license or identification card.
       (d) Other Requirements.--To meet the requirements of this 
     section, a State shall adopt the following practices in the 
     issuance of drivers' licenses and identification cards:
       (1) Employ technology to capture digital images of identity 
     source documents so that the images can be retained in 
     electronic storage in a transferable format.
       (2) Retain paper copies of source documents for a minimum 
     of 7 years or images of source documents presented for a 
     minimum of 10 years.
       (3) Subject each person applying for a driver's license or 
     identification card to mandatory facial image capture.
       (4) Establish an effective procedure to confirm or verify a 
     renewing applicant's information.
       (5) Confirm with the Social Security Administration a 
     social security account number presented by a person using 
     the full social security account number. In the event that a 
     social security account number is already registered to or 
     associated with another person to which any State has issued 
     a driver's license or identification card, the State shall 
     resolve the discrepancy and take appropriate action.
       (6) Refuse to issue a driver's license or identification 
     card to a person holding a driver's license issued by another 
     State without confirmation that the person is terminating or 
     has terminated the driver's license.
       (7) Ensure the physical security of locations where 
     drivers' licenses and identification cards are produced and 
     the security of document materials and papers from which 
     drivers' licenses and identification cards are produced.
       (8) Subject all persons authorized to manufacture or 
     produce drivers' licenses and identification cards to 
     appropriate security clearance requirements.
       (9) Establish fraudulent document recognition training 
     programs for appropriate employees engaged in the issuance of 
     drivers' licenses and identification cards.
       (10) Limit the period of validity of all driver's licenses 
     and identification cards that are not temporary to a period 
     that does not exceed 8 years.

     SEC. 203. LINKING OF DATABASES.

       (a) In General.--To be eligible to receive any grant or 
     other type of financial assistance made available under this 
     title, a State shall participate in the interstate compact 
     regarding sharing of driver license data, known as the 
     ``Driver License Agreement'', in order to provide electronic 
     access by a State to information contained in the motor 
     vehicle databases of all other States.
       (b) Requirements for Information.--A State motor vehicle 
     database shall contain, at a minimum, the following 
     information:
       (1) All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and 
     identification cards issued by the State.
       (2) Motor vehicle drivers' histories, including motor 
     vehicle violations, suspensions, and points on licenses.

     SEC. 204. TRAFFICKING IN AUTHENTICATION FEATURES FOR USE IN 
                   FALSE IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS.

       Section 1028(a)(8) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``false authentication features'' and 
     inserting ``false or actual authentication features''.

     SEC. 205. GRANTS TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to a State 
     to assist the State in conforming to the minimum standards 
     set forth in this title.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary for each of the fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009 such sums as may be necessary to 
     carry out this title.

[[Page H540]]

     SEC. 206. AUTHORITY.

       (a) Participation of Secretary of Transportation and 
     States.--All authority to issue regulations, set standards, 
     and issue grants under this title shall be carried out by the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the States.
       (b) Compliance with Standards.--All authority to certify 
     compliance with standards under this title shall be carried 
     out by the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security and the States.
       (c) Extensions of Deadlines.--The Secretary may grant to a 
     State an extension of time to meet the requirements of 
     section 202(a)(1) if the State provides adequate 
     justification for noncompliance.

     SEC. 207. REPEAL.

       Section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458) is repealed.

     SEC. 208. LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to affect the 
     authorities or responsibilities of the Secretary of 
     Transportation or the States under chapter 303 of title 49, 
     United States Code.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the report. Each 
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 read, 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.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part B of 
House Report 109-4.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sessions:
       At the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 105. DELIVERY BONDS.

       (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Delivery bond.--The term ``delivery bond'' means a 
     written suretyship undertaking for the surrender of an 
     individual against whom the Department of Homeland Security 
     has issued an order to show cause or a notice to appear, the 
     performance of which is guaranteed by an acceptable surety on 
     Federal bonds.
       (2) Principal.--The term ``principal'' means an individual 
     who is the subject of a bond.
       (3) Suretyship undertaking.--The term ``suretyship 
     undertaking'' means a written agreement, executed by a 
     bonding agent on behalf of a surety, which binds all parties 
     to its certain terms and conditions and which provides 
     obligations for the principal and the surety while under the 
     bond and penalties for forfeiture to ensure the obligations 
     of the principal and the surety under the agreement.
       (4) Bonding agent.--The term ``bonding agent'' means any 
     individual properly licensed, approved, and appointed by 
     power of attorney to execute or countersign surety bonds in 
     connection with any matter governed by the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act as amended (8 U.S.C. 1101, et seq.), and who 
     receives a premium for executing or countersigning such 
     surety bonds.
       (5) Surety.--The term ``surety'' means an entity, as 
     defined by, and that is in compliance with, sections 9304 
     through 9308 of title 31, United States Code, that agrees--
       (A) to guarantee the performance, where appropriate, of the 
     principal under a bond;
       (B) to perform the bond as required; and
       (C) to pay the face amount of the bond as a penalty for 
     failure to perform.
       (b) Validity, Agent not Co-Obligor, Expiration, Renewal, 
     and Cancellation of Bonds.--
       (1) Validity.--Delivery bond undertakings are valid if such 
     bonds--
       (A) state the full, correct, and proper name of the alien 
     principal;
       (B) state the amount of the bond;
       (C) are guaranteed by a surety and countersigned by an 
     agent who is properly appointed;
       (D) bond documents are properly executed; and
       (E) relevant bond documents are properly filed with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security.
       (2) Bonding agent not co-obligor, party, or guarantor in 
     individual capacity, and no refusal if acceptable surety.--
     Section 9304(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, no bonding agent of a corporate 
     surety shall be required to execute bonds as a co-obligor, 
     party, or guarantor in an individual capacity on bonds 
     provided by the corporate surety, nor shall a corporate 
     surety bond be refused if the corporate surety appears on the 
     current Treasury Department Circular 570 as a company holding 
     a certificate of authority as an acceptable surety on Federal 
     bonds and attached to the bond is a currently valid 
     instrument showing the authority of the bonding agent of the 
     surety company to execute the bond.''.
       (3) Expiration.--A delivery bond undertaking shall expire 
     at the earliest of--
       (A) 1 year from the date of issue;
       (B) at the cancellation of the bond or surrender of the 
     principal; or
       (C) immediately upon nonpayment of the renewal premium.
       (4) Renewal.--Delivery bonds may be renewed annually, with 
     payment of proper premium to the surety, if there has been no 
     breach of conditions, default, claim, or forfeiture of the 
     bond. Notwithstanding any renewal, when the alien is 
     surrendered to the Secretary of Homeland Security for 
     removal, the Secretary shall cause the bond to be canceled.
       (5) Cancellation.--Delivery bonds shall be canceled and the 
     surety exonerated--
       (A) for nonrenewal after the alien has been surrendered to 
     the Department of Homeland Security for removal;
       (B) if the surety or bonding agent provides reasonable 
     evidence that there was misrepresentation or fraud in the 
     application for the bond;
       (C) upon the death or incarceration of the principal, or 
     the inability of the surety to produce the principal for 
     medical reasons;
       (D) if the principal is detained by any law enforcement 
     agency of any State, county, city, or any politial 
     subdivision thereof;
       (E) if it can be established that the alien departed the 
     United States of America for any reason without permission of 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security, the surety, or the 
     bonding agent;
       (F) if the foreign state of which the principal is a 
     national is designated pursuant to section 244 of the Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1254a) after the bond is posted; or
       (G) if the principal is surrendered to the Department of 
     Homeland Security, removal by the surety or the bonding 
     agent.
       (6) Surrender of principal; forfeiture of bond premium.--
       (A) Surrender.--At any time, before a breach of any of the 
     bond conditions, if in the opinion of the surety or bonding 
     agent, the principal becomes a flight risk, the principal may 
     be surrendered to the Department of Homeland Security for 
     removal.
       (B) Forfeiture of bond premium.--A principal may be 
     surrendered without the return of any bond premium if the 
     principal--
       (i) changes address without notifying the surety, the 
     bonding agent, and the Secretary of Homeland Security in 
     writing prior to such change;
       (ii) hides or is concealed from a surety, a bonding agent, 
     or the Secretary;
       (iii) fails to report to the Secretary as required at least 
     annually; or
       (iv) violates the contract with the bonding agent or 
     surety, commits any act that may lead to a breach of the 
     bond, or otherwise violates any other obligation or condition 
     of the bond established by the Secretary.
       (7) Certified copy of bond and arrest warrant to accompany 
     surrender.--
       (A) In general.--A bonding agent or surety desiring to 
     surrender the principal--
       (i) shall have the right to petition the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security or any Federal court, without having to pay 
     any fees or court costs, for an arrest warrant for the arrest 
     of the principal;
       (ii) shall forthwith be provided 2 certified copies each of 
     the arrest warrant and the bond undertaking, without having 
     to pay any fees or courts costs; and
       (iii) shall have the right to pursue, apprehend, detain, 
     and surrender the principal, together with certified copies 
     of the arrest warrant and the bond undertaking, to any 
     Department of Homeland Security detention official or 
     Department detention facility or any detention facility 
     authorized to hold Federal detainees.
       (B) Effects of delivery.--Upon surrender of a principal 
     under subparagraph (A)(iii)--
       (i) the official to whom the principal is surrendered shall 
     detain the principal in custody and issue a written 
     certificate of surrender; and
       (ii) the Secretary of Homeland Security shall immediately 
     exonerate the surety from any further liability on the bond.
       (8) Form of bond.--Delivery bonds shall in all cases state 
     the following and be secured by a corporate surety that is 
     certified as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds and whose 
     name appears on the current Treasury Department Circular 570:
       ``(A) Breach of bond; procedure, forfeiture, notice.--
       ``(i) If a principal violates any conditions of the 
     delivery bond, or the principal is or becomes subject to a 
     final administrative order of deportation or removal, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall--

       ``(I) immediately issue a warrant for the principal's 
     arrest and enter that arrest warrant into the National Crime 
     Information Center (NCIC) computerized information database;
       ``(II) order the bonding agent and surety to take the 
     principal into custody and surrender the principal to any one 
     of 10 designated Department of Homeland Security `turn-in' 
     centers located nationwide in the areas of greatest need, at 
     any time of day during 15 months after mailing the arrest 
     warrant and the order to the bonding agent and the surety as 
     required by subclause (III), and immediately enter that order 
     into the

[[Page H541]]

     National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computerized 
     information database; and
       ``(III) mail 2 certified copies each of the arrest warrant 
     issued pursuant to subclause (I) and 2 certified copies each 
     of the order issued pursuant to subclause (II) to only the 
     bonding agent and surety via certified mail return receipt to 
     their last known addresses.

       ``(ii) Bonding agents and sureties shall immediately notify 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security of their changes of 
     address and/or telephone numbers.
       ``(iii) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish, 
     disseminate to bonding agents and sureties, and maintain on a 
     current basis a secure nationwide toll-free list of telephone 
     numbers of Department of Homeland Security officials, 
     including the names of such officials, that bonding agents, 
     sureties, and their employees may immediately contact at any 
     time to discuss and resolve any issue regarding any principal 
     or bond, to be known as `Points of Contact'.
       ``(iv) A bonding agent or surety shall have full and 
     complete access, free of charge, to any and all information, 
     electronic or otherwise, in the care, custody, and control of 
     the United States Government or any State or local government 
     or any subsidiary or police agency thereof regarding the 
     principal that may be helpful in complying with section 105 
     of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, by regulations subject to approval by Congress, 
     determines may be helpful in locating or surrendering the 
     principal. Beyond the principal, a bonding agent or surety 
     shall not be required to disclose any information, including 
     but not limited to the arrest warrant and order, received 
     from any governmental source, any person, firm, corporation, 
     or other entity.
       ``(v) If the principal is later arrested, detained, or 
     otherwise located outside the United States and the outlying 
     possessions of the United States (as defined in section 
     101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall--

       ``(I) immediately order that the surety is completely 
     exonerated, and the bond canceled; and
       ``(II) if the Secretary of Homeland Security has issued an 
     order under clause (i), the surety may request, by written, 
     properly filed motion, reinstatement of the bond. This 
     subclause may not be construed to prevent the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security from revoking or resetting a bond at a 
     higher amount.

       ``(vi) The bonding agent or surety must--

       ``(I) during the 15 months after the date the arrest 
     warrant and order were mailed pursuant to clause (i)(III) 
     surrender the principal one time; or
       ``(II)(aa) provide reasonable evidence that producing the 
     principal was prevented--

       ``(aaa) by the principal's illness or death;
       ``(bbb) because the principal is detained in custody in any 
     city, State, country, or any political subdivision thereof;
       ``(ccc) because the principal has left the United States or 
     its outlying possessions (as defined in section 101(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)); or
       ``(ddd) because required notice was not given to the 
     bonding agent or surety; and

       ``(bb) establish by affidavit that the inability to produce 
     the principal was not with the consent or connivance of the 
     bonding agent or surety.

       ``(vii) If compliance occurs more than 15 months but no 
     more than 18 months after the mailing of the arrest warrant 
     and order to the bonding agent and the surety required under 
     clause (i)(III), an amount equal to 25 percent of the face 
     amount of the bond shall be assessed as a penalty against the 
     surety.
       ``(viii) If compliance occurs more than 18 months but no 
     more than 21 months after the mailing of the arrest warrant 
     and order to the bonding agent and the surety required under 
     clause (i)(III), an amount equal to 50 percent of the face 
     amount of the bond shall be assessed as a penalty against the 
     surety.
       ``(ix) If compliance occurs more than 21 months but no more 
     than 24 months after the mailing of the arrest warrant and 
     order to the bonding agent and the surety required under 
     clause (i)(III), an amount equal to 75 percent of the face 
     amount of the bond shall be assessed as a penalty against the 
     surety.
       ``(x) If compliance occurs 24 months or more after the 
     mailing of the arrest warrant and order to the bonding agent 
     and the surety required under clause (i)(III), an amount 
     equal to 100 percent of the face amount of the bond shall be 
     assessed as a penalty against the surety.
       ``(xi) If any surety surrenders any principal to the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security at any time and place after 
     the period for compliance has passed, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall cause to be issued to that surety an 
     amount equal to 50 percent of the face amount of the bond: 
     Provided, however, That if that surety owes any penalties on 
     bonds to the United States, the amount that surety would 
     otherwise receive shall be offset by and applied as a credit 
     against the amount of penalties on bonds it owes the United 
     States, and then that surety shall receive the remainder of 
     the amount to which it is entitled under this subparagraph, 
     if any.
       ``(xii) All penalties assessed against a surety on a bond, 
     if any, shall be paid by the surety no more than 27 months 
     after the mailing of the arrest warrant and order to the 
     bonding agent and the surety required under clause (i)(III).
       ``(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive 
     penalties or extend the period for payment or both, if--
       ``(i) a written request is filed with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security; and
       ``(ii) the bonding agent or surety provides an affidavit 
     that diligent efforts were made to effect compliance of the 
     principal.
       ``(C) Compliance; exoneration; limitation of liability.--
       ``(i) Compliance.--A bonding agent or surety shall have the 
     absolute right to locate, apprehend, arrest, detain, and 
     surrender any principal, wherever he or she may be found, who 
     violates any of the terms and conditions of his or her bond.
       ``(ii) Exoneration.--Upon satisfying any of the 
     requirements of the bond, the surety shall be completely 
     exonerated.
       ``(iii) Limitation of liability.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the total liability on any surety 
     undertaking shall not exceed the face amount of the bond.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     shall apply to bonds and surety undertakings executed before, 
     on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 106. RELEASE OF ALIENS IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) In General.--Section 236(a)(2) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(a)(2)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) subject to such reasonable regulations as the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security may prescribe, shall permit 
     agents, servants, and employees of corporate sureties to 
     visit in person with individuals detained by the Secretary of 
     and, subject to section 241(a)(8), may release the alien on a 
     delivery bond of at least $10,000, with security approved by 
     the Secretary, and containing conditions and procedures 
     prescribed by section 105 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 and by 
     the Secretary, but the Secretary shall not release the alien 
     on or to his own recognizance unless an order of an 
     immigration judge expressly finds and states in a signed 
     order to release the alien to his own recognizance that the 
     alien is not a flight risk and is not a threat to the United 
     States''.
       (b) Repeal.--Section 286(r) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(r)) is repealed.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 107. DETENTION OF ALIENS DELIVERED BY BONDSMEN.

       (a) In General.--Section 241(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(a)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(8) Effect of production of alien by bondsman.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall take into custody any alien subject 
     to a final order of removal, and cancel any bond previously 
     posted for the alien, if the alien is produced within the 
     prescribed time limit by the obligor on the bond whether or 
     not the Department of Homeland Security accepts custody of 
     the alien. The obligor on the bond shall be deemed to have 
     substantially performed all conditions imposed by the terms 
     of the bond, and shall be released from liability on the 
     bond, if the alien is produced within such time limit.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to all immigration bonds posted before, on, 
     or after such date.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 75, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in August 2004, the bipartisan chairman of the 9/11 
Commission testified at the Select Committee on Homeland Security that 
border security combined with the routine and effective enforcement of 
immigration laws must be a top priority for Congress and the 
administration if our country can expect to secure the homeland and 
prevent another tragedy like what happened on 9/11 from happening again 
here in America.
  The 9/11 Commission report states on page 384 that ``looking back, we 
can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws, that 
is, aspects of the laws not specifically aimed at protecting against 
terrorism inevitably shaped al Qaeda's planning and opportunities.''
  There is no more basic homeland security function of our legal system 
than deporting aliens who have been afforded due process and who have 
subsequently been ordered deported by a Federal judge. Sadly, according 
to our government's best statistics, only 13 percent of the aliens 
arrested entering the country illegally and ordered deported are 
actually removed.
  As a result, people entering the country illegally with criminal or 
terrorist intent have quickly learned that, if arrested, they can be 
quickly released on their own word, and that they can be

[[Page H542]]

confident in the knowledge that they do not have to show up for their 
hearing, knowing they will likely never be deported.
  My amendment seeks to remedy this threat to our safety by clarifying 
the use of delivery bonds by the Department of Homeland Security. This 
concept is nothing new. The authority to leverage delivery bonds to 
compel attendance at Federal deportation proceedings already exists in 
Federal law. The Department simply needs guidance from Congress on how 
to best use its existing bond authority to reach the goal of 100 
percent repatriation of all aliens ordered deported, and that is 
exactly what my amendment will provide.
  Quite simply, the amendment makes certain before an alien is released 
from Department of Homeland Security detention pending an upcoming 
hearing, the Federal judge must first certify that the alien is not a 
flight risk, and more important, that he does not pose a security risk 
to the United States.
  By improving this routine and fundamental operation of our laws, my 
amendment will limit terrorists' planning and opportunities to attack 
Americans here at home, and to begin fulfilling what the 9/11 
Commission identified last summer as a top priority for Congress. I ask 
that all Members of this House support my amendment and build upon the 
strong deportation reform initiatives already included in H.R. 418.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say and repeat what I have said 
many times, that immigration does not equate to terrorism. Also I have 
said just recently, this morning, that the immigration reform question 
is a bipartisan question. I also took note of the fact that if one were 
to take polling numbers, there obviously is an overwhelming impression 
that what we are addressing today is an immigration bill.
  Certainly the Sessions amendment deals more with immigration than it 
does with straight issues of terrorism, because there is no divide 
amongst the American people regarding securing the homeland.
  My concern with this legislation is procedural, but it is also a 
question of fairness. This is a serious departure from the normal 
trends that we have now expressed by the body of this Congress and that 
is the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. This in 
fact takes homeland security responsibilities and actually outsources 
them. The reason this is so challenging is that the Committee on 
Homeland Security, the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member, have not 
had a chance to review this amendment.
  This amendment has had no hearings, and here we are talking about 
giving extraordinary powers to bondsmen. This means if you are an 
immigrant undocumented in removal proceedings working with a lawyer, 
working with family members, you are then dispatching bondspersons with 
no direct immigration training to round you up and immediately bring 
you to a point of deportation where you are in the middle of a legal 
process.
  If that is considered to be, one, a recommendation of the 9/11 
Commission, I would severely and strongly disagree. Yes, individuals 
who are in line to be deported is an issue. We need more detention beds 
and more security at our borders, but we do not need to outsource to 
bondspersons, however financially opportunistic it may be, and as a 
former judge and someone who deals with these issues in my private 
practice before coming to Congress, I realize bondspersons have their 
role, but not to contract out to deal with this issue.
  I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has good intentions, 
but may I give a historical perspective, and that is of the 1850 
Fugitive Slave Act. The truly frightening part of this legislation is 
it smacks of that kind of effort. The Fugitive Slave Act gave broad, 
virtually unfettered power to agents or slave owners to seize slaves in 
the free States and return or send them to slavery in the slave States, 
obviously with little regard for their legal status in free States with 
no due process and opportunity to defend themselves. That was 1850.
  If we randomly give the opportunity to bondsmen who have no 
understanding of immigration laws, we can be assured that in a 
discriminatory fashion they will be rounding up people who look 
different and speak different languages, and we will be impacted in a 
very negative way.
  I close by saying all of us in our congressional districts hear the 
hardship cases of immigrants who are seeking legal status who have been 
in line for long times who have had terrible things happen to them 
because of the complexity of the immigration system. That speaks for 
comprehensive immigration reform, but those are the very victims, those 
sad cases, that are going to be impacted by this amendment.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment that my colleague Congressman 
Sessions has offered. This amendment would empower bail bondsman to 
enforce immigration laws by summarily rounding up and deporting people. 
It would outsource an important government immigration enforcement 
responsibility to the bail bonds industry, eliminating the few 
procedural due process rights immigrants have when challenging 
deportation. This would be a dramatic change in how we arrest and 
detain people in removal proceedings. Many people rounded up in this 
manner would turn out not to be deportable after all. They may be U.S. 
citizens; they may not be removable under the grounds charged; or they 
may be eligible for some form of relief. Yet this policy would treat 
them all as criminals.
  I am particularly disturbed by the fact that these dramatic policy 
changes have never been reviewed or examined by a Congressional 
committee. There were no hearings. No debate occurred. No scrutiny at 
all. In fact, the language of this amendment was only recently made 
available.
  Without Committee scrutiny, we would be giving bonding agents vast, 
unfettered authority to pursue, apprehend, detain and surrender 
immigrants--even when the bond is not breached. This is a certain 
recipe for misconduct, mistakes and the trampling of civil, due process 
and human rights.
  Without Committee scrutiny, we would be allowing bonding agents to 
decide when people are flight risks and to round them up and hand them 
over to DHS for deportation.
  Without Committee scrutiny we would be permitting bonds to be 
forfeited and people deported for not notifying DHS of changes of 
address prior to a move--even though DHS regulations give immigrants 10 
days after a move to notify the agency of the change.
  Without Committee scrutiny, we would be allowing bonding agents to 
have open access to all information held by the U.S. Government or any 
State or local government that may be helpful in locating or 
surrendering the person who is the subject of the bond.
  Without Committee scrutiny, we would be compelling the disclosure of 
sensitive or confidential information to a bonding agent, such as: 
medical history; criminal investigation notes, location of witnesses, 
and information on victims of domestic violence.
  I urge you to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith), a former subcommittee chairman for the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Sessions 
amendment. This amendment helps ensure that deportable aliens are 
actually removed from the United States. Incredibly, only 13 percent of 
the illegal aliens arrested and ordered deported are actually removed 
from the country. Illegal aliens trying to sneak across the borders 
realize that, even if they get caught, they likely will never be 
required to leave. Of course, this only encourages illegal immigration.
  The Sessions amendment helps correct this problem by giving the 
Department of Homeland Security guidance on the use of delivery bonds. 
Delivery bonds are already authorized under current law. This is 
nothing new. They require aliens to post a cash deposit and provide a 
written commitment they will appear in court. If the alien who posts 
bond violates any conditions of the bond, the bonding agent can take 
the alien into custody and surrender him to the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  The Sessions amendment improves the use of delivery bonds by setting 
up 10 turn-in centers around the country to help bonding agents turn 
over deportable aliens to the Department of Homeland Security. It also 
sets up a system to encourage bonding agents to

[[Page H543]]

keep looking for deportable aliens and turn them into DHS when they are 
found.
  Illegal aliens, who comprise over 20 percent of all Federal prisoners 
today, are a serious problem in the United States and pose, obviously, 
a homeland security threat. We need to make sure that aliens who are 
deported by a court of law are in fact removed from the country. The 
Sessions amendment helps make sure that happens.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the newly appointed ranking 
member of the Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, a better amendment title 
for this amendment would be The Bounty Hunter Act of 2005.
  The amendment gives bail bondsmen authority to round up illegal 
immigrants and to have them deported without any sort of hearing or due 
process rights. This amendment would not make our homeland any safer or 
keep terrorists out. Instead, it would endanger civil rights and create 
fear in the immigrant community. We should not outsource the Department 
of Homeland Security's job to a bunch of bounty hunters.
  As already has been said, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 has very 
similar language to this amendment. And for those Members who have not 
suffered from the ills of slavery and what people went through, I want 
to share and encourage you to look at this amendment very clearly 
before it comes to a vote.

                              {time}  1200

  Let us give the Department of Homeland Security the 2,000 employees 
that we authorized for border security, not 2,000 bounty hunters. This 
is not a reality program. People will not be watching it on TV. We are 
turning over the Department of Homeland Security's enforcement 
responsibility to bounty hunters, people who have no training 
whatsoever, who absolutely can and possibly will infringe on civil 
rights of the people of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage absolute opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very 
strong support of the bill, H.R. 418, and also the very fine amendment 
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  I spoke on the floor last December in opposition to the conference 
report on the intelligence bill because it lacked the provisions that 
we are actually debating here today. I commend the leadership of, 
certainly, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for bringing this amendment to 
our attention and adding it to the bill. I am very pleased that they 
made good on their promise that we would be here today providing for 
the provisions that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
had.
  No issue is more important to this Congress than securing our borders 
and protecting our homeland, and I guarantee it is very important to 
our constituents.
  When I was in the Florida senate, I headed up the Homeland Security 
Committee shortly after 9/11, and many of the provisions that are in 
this bill we actually included when we took on the driver's license 
issue, making the driver's licenses only last as long as the person was 
legally in the country. I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the House leadership for making good on 
their promise and enacting the recommendations made by the 9/11 
Commission.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill and certainly for the 
amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), which just quite 
honestly makes common sense in that Members' constituents back home 
will very easily understand and say, Why was this not done a long time 
ago?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me make a point that I think should be very clear. This 
legislation will not just impact those who are undocumented. This 
legislation will impact those immigrants who have legal status. In the 
process of reviewing or revising that status, they too become part of 
the large webbed fishnet of hauling people in by people who are 
inexperienced in this area.
  So I would offer to my colleagues that this is random, it is 
reckless, and it needs a bipartisan look and oversight committee 
assessment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment that I have comes as a result of my paying attention 
to not only the 9/11 Commission, but also my service to the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security in the prior Congress. It was very 
obvious to members of the committee, as we heard testimony, including 
from the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Inspector General 
report from the Department of Justice where they recognized the 
deficiencies that they had, where a person who had gone through an 
entire process in front of a Federal judge was ordered removed and yet 
only 13 percent of those were removed from the country.
  We have a problem. We have a problem that was enumerated in the 9/11 
Commission report. We are utilizing the techniques that are not only 
available in the law, but also that many courts utilize today, Federal 
courts as well as city and State courts across the United States. We 
need to make sure that people who have gone through a hearing have been 
given the opportunity to make sure that they can present their case, 
but then have been ordered deported do so.
  The United States and, I think, Members of this Congress need to make 
sure that the things which we do, we give the tools to implement those 
necessary ways to enforce the laws of the United States to be done; for 
those who have been ordered to be deported and have not done so, we are 
giving them a better tool kit. That is why the Sessions amendment is 
being offered.
  I support this, and I hope the members will vote ``aye'' on the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  First of all, let me also refer my colleagues to the 9/11 Commission 
report. What it said is that there were certain systems that needed 
improving or were broken. They suggested no such solution that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has offered.
  We need to strengthen the Department of Homeland Security to be able 
to do its job, but more importantly, we need to be able to build those 
detention beds, thousands, if we will, to be able to have those that 
might be dangerous placed in detention locations.
  This amendment does not solve that problem at all. The arresting and 
gathering up of those who might be deported, clearly with no place to 
go, makes a bigger and worse problem than we might have.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider this not well directed and ask 
them to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the manager on the Democratic side 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment was brought to our attention yesterday 
evening, and at first blush, this is a shocking correlative point to be 
made and a comparison to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, in which 
agents were given the broad powers to return freed slaves in free 
States and return them back to slavery.
  What we are doing here with bail bondsmen is giving them the ability 
to enforce immigration laws by summarily rounding up and deporting 
people and also gaining access to incredible private and secret 
material in data files.
  And I just wanted to briefly ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) what inspired him to add this to a bill that we already had a 
considerable number of problems about and have never had any hearings 
on a provision such as this.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H544]]

  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for asking.
  The impetus behind this is, these are aliens who have been ordered 
deported by a Federal judge as a result of a hearing, who do not show 
up. They have had their day in court. The process is through. They have 
been ordered deported, and only 13 percent actually are deported.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I need my friend to know that they are in 
the process of having the claim heard. It has not been terminated or it 
is not all over. But we are arguing the substance.
  What I was trying to figure out is, what inspired the gentleman at 
this late point in the proceedings, since we had hearings last year, we 
had no hearings this year, and we just found out about this yesterday.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Upton). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 109-4.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Castle

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Castle:
       In section 204 of the bill, before ``Section'' insert ``(a) 
     Criminal Penalty.--''.
       At the end of section 204 of the bill, insert the 
     following:
       (b) Use of False Driver's License at Airports.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter, into the 
     appropriate aviation security screening database, appropriate 
     information regarding any person convicted of using a false 
     driver's license at an airport (as such term is defined in 
     section 40102 of title 49, United States Code).
       (2) False defined.--In this subsection, the term ``false'' 
     has the same meaning such term has under section 1028(d) of 
     title 18, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 75, the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a simple amendment to the very thorough 
legislation before us today. The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) dedication to fixing gaps in our security is 
commendable, and I am proud to join him in strengthening Federal 
identity requirements, protecting those who need political asylum, and 
improving our border security.
  The 9/11 Commission identified gates for boarding airplanes is the 
last opportunity for our screeners to use sources of identification to 
ensure that people are who they say they are, and frankly, obviously, 
to check whether they are terrorists. To improve this process, Congress 
tasked the Department of Homeland Security with the goal of developing 
and building upon the aviation watch lists that our screeners commonly 
rely upon today.
  My amendment is intended to enhance the information contained in 
Homeland Security's aviation security screening databases and to ensure 
that our security is not compromised through the use of falsified 
driver's licenses.
  Specifically, the amendment would require Homeland Security to enter 
into the appropriate database any person convicted of using a false 
driver's license in attempting to board an airplane. Currently, 
aviation screeners at the Transportation Security Administration 
immediately detain individuals suspected of presenting false driver's 
licenses and then turn them over to the custody of either the 
Department of Justice or local authorities. The criminal justice system 
is then responsible for determining whether the suspect is guilty or 
innocent.
  Under the present system, if convicted, this person is sentenced to 
federally mandated punishment, but the Department of Homeland Security 
is not required to put their name on a watch list.
  My amendment would go a step further in protecting our Nation by also 
requiring the Department to enter a violator into one of its national 
aviation screening databases. Improving the quantity and quality of 
information contained in these passenger-screening databases is 
essential to enhancing our ability to identify potential threats and 
prevent terrorists from gaining access to our airliners.
  When a person is convicted of trying to deceive security to get on an 
airplane, there is serious cause for alarm. My amendment would ensure 
that those convicted of using a false driver's license in attempting to 
board an airplane would be red-flagged for airport screeners.
  The amendment does not impact persons who use false driver's licenses 
for other purposes. It allows the criminal justice system to run its 
course, and it is focused solely on the last line of defense before 
terrorists board an airplane. It is a simple, cost-effective way to 
enhance the Department of Homeland Security's ability to track 
potential high-risk passengers.
  Again, I appreciate the opportunity to offer a small but important 
step in improving our security databases. My amendment would ensure 
that those convicted of using a false driver's license in attempting to 
board an airplane are red-flagged for airport screeners.
  The people screening passengers at the gates do their best to make 
sure terrorists are not getting on these planes. Congress should do 
everything in our power to make their job easier.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, clearly this amendment has 
good intentions, and I think it is important to note that the amendment 
would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into an 
aviation security database the name and other information about people 
who have been convicted of using a false driver's license for the 
purpose of boarding an airplane. The objective of this amendment is to 
enhance our ability to track and detect potential security threats, and 
as I indicated, I support the objective. I think it is a good idea to 
require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to have 
information in his database about people who have been convicted of 
using a false driver's license.
  But as they all say, the devil is in the details. Again, the same 
predicament or affliction that impacted the amendment of the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) impacts this. Where is the hearing? Where is 
the oversight? Where is the impact that will occur? Do these also 
include individuals who mistakenly have such a driver's license, if 
that may be the case, and where is the basis for it?
  I was just looking at a letter from Commissioner Hamilton, who talked 
about controversial provisions that everyone suggests came out of the 
9/11 Commission, and what he said very carefully was that these are, in 
fact, recommendations. As the intelligence bill did in the last session 
with enormous vetting, hearings, oversight, conference committees at 
the later stage, it almost became a hearing, none of these amendments 
have been given the kind of vetting that one would know that these are 
valuable and that the details have been worked out as to how we utilize 
the database or who gets into the database if, by chance, the 
utilization was a mistake even though they violated the law.

                              {time}  1215

  So you create this enormous database that has those who potentially 
would do us harm, but others, unfortunately, that got themselves into 
the criminal justice system. We hope, however, that this amendment will 
send notice to those who might try to use any false document in trying 
to get on an airplane for the potential damage it may do.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that my colleague 
Congressman Castle has offered. This amendment would require the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into an aviation security 
database the

[[Page H545]]

name and other information about people who have been convicted of 
using a false driver's license for the purpose of boarding an airplane.
  The objective of this amendment is to enhance our ability to track 
and detect potential security threats. I support this objective, and I 
think it is a good idea to require the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to have information in his data bases about people who have been 
convicted of using a false driver's license. As they say, however, 
``the devil is in the details.'' I would like a hearing and a markup on 
this amendment before deciding whether it should be enacted. I urge you 
to vote against the Castle amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, because I think 
the gentlewoman from Texas has made some very valid points that need to 
be discussed.
  One thing that is important and what we have done here is to 
understand that there has to be a conviction in this situation by a 
court of law before it can be entered into a database of the 
Transportation Security Administration. That is very important. It 
gives all the protection of what could happen there. We thought a lot 
about that because it was a matter of some concern. So a mere 
allegation or something that proves not to be true would never be 
entered into the database. I wanted to make that point.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Castle amendment is a sensible amendment to the 
base bill, and I thank the gentleman from Delaware for offering it. 
People who present a false driver's license to the Transportation 
Security Administration are turned over to the proper authorities, but 
for some reason that is beyond me we do not add these people to our 
flight watch list. It blows me away that we do not already utilize this 
commonsense practice.
  Improving the information contained in passenger screening databases 
will enhance our ability to identify potential terrorists from gaining 
access to airlines. We have taken some important steps to improve our 
security at airports, but we need to do more.
  This amendment enhances our last line of defense by tracking 
potential high-risk passengers without interfering with the rights of 
everyday travelers. It just makes so much good sense, and I hope that 
we adopt it quickly.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the clarification offered by the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle). I would inquire of the author of the 
amendment, one question: In your research, did we determine that DHS, 
new as it is, is not doing that? That is the first question.
  On the second, let me have the gentleman restate it again. Because 
one of the concerns I have on the Select Committee on Homeland Security 
and watching, for example, TSA formulate itself and work to train 
certainly very professional employees, but the training does not 
necessarily lend itself to maybe the keenness of eye to see that false 
document. We obviously have to improve.
  I was concerned as to whether or not it is the spotting of someone, 
saying you have a false driver's license, or can you restate that it is 
actually going through a judicial system with a conviction, determining 
that is what you ultimately did?
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her good 
questions and for yielding.
  We are not sure at this point whether they include that information 
or not at TSA, because simply they have databases and we do not know 
necessarily what is in their databases, and I do not blame them at all. 
They are not prone to reveal all of that. It is our judgment they 
should be doing this. We hope that they would be doing it. We do not 
know if they are for sure or not. I cannot confirm or deny that, 
because we simply do not know the answer to that particular question.
  I would imagine, and I am putting myself in their position and I am 
not an expert on this, but if you are there and are in the security 
forces there, you are obviously trained in document recognition to some 
great degree. Some are better probably than others at this.
  Obviously, if one has a database, it is obviously much more of a 
clear signal that this person needs to be looked at because they tried 
to do this before. That is the reason we feel it should be added into 
the database as it goes on.
  I do not think this is going to change actually the way they look at 
licenses presently in the first instance or even in second instance. It 
is just a trigger mark as other things might be in terms of potential 
risks.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me 
pointedly ask the gentleman, you speak specifically to a judicial 
conviction going through, as opposed to being tapped and saying, you 
are carrying a false driver's license.
  Mr. CASTLE. Yes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The gentleman is talking about actually 
trial and conviction?
  Mr. CASTLE. If the gentlewoman will yield further, it speaks very 
specifically to trial and conviction.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time and I 
would simply say the comment on this is that I appreciate the 
distinguished gentleman from Delaware being open with his response.
  One of the concerns I have is that we do not know whether DHS is 
doing this or what TSA is doing and hearings would have been 
appropriate. This is a valid issue, let us not doubt that; and, of 
course, I would hope that we would want a database to be secured.
  I do have to raise red flags on making sure it is not random, making 
sure there is a conviction, and in knowing what happens with DHS. I 
would have wanted to have hearings, but I thank the gentleman for his 
answers.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask the author of the 
amendment, would he have objected to having hearings on his amendment?
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield further, no, 
I would not have objected to having hearings. It is relatively simple. 
I do not mean to suggest it needs panels of hearings, but I never 
object to having a hearing.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
has the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Upton). The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) has the right to close.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I really do not have anything new to add to this, 
except that I think it is very important that this be done. We tried to 
make it as simple as possible with all the judicial support behind it 
which would make it clearly fair to everybody who might be involved in 
this.
  My sense is that if I were running TSA, which I am not and do not 
want to, but if I were doing so, this is certainly something that I 
would want to do; and I would hope that by passing this legislation we 
will make sure it happens now and into the future.
  Part of my motivation for this, by the way, and some other amendments 
I introduced which were not allowed on this, is I am still convinced 
that a lot of 9/11, if not the entire procedure, could have been 
avoided if we had better security measures in place on some of these 
things.
  So I think this is a very important area. While everything else in 
the 9/11 report is of huge importance, I have always felt that this 
particular area of making sure who is in this country and who is 
boarding planes or other transportation systems is vitally important. 
So I would hope we would be able to join together and pass an amendment 
like this and hopefully later the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just close by raising these points. It looks 
like we are moving quite quickly. It is the

[[Page H546]]

question of having the answers. This has good intentions, but the 
answers of what DHS is doing, the training of TSA, what kind of 
standards are used in different airports. Some TSA person might say it 
is a mistake, go back. Others might make it in essence a Federal crime 
and that person is prosecuted. So some you get in the database, others 
you do not. It is just a question of concern as to how this will work.
  Again, it is a good idea. Before I yield back my time, I would simply 
say that I would suggest that this amendment be addressed again in our 
hearings, to be able to detail out what would ultimately happen.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my 
colleague from Delaware. This amendment takes a common sense approach 
in saying that those who want to board our Nation's airplanes must show 
documentation showing their full legal identity. The REAL ID Act, which 
I strongly support, requires that these driver's licenses must meet 
tough federal standards, chief among them are the requirements that 
applicants must demonstrate their legal presence. As a member of the 
Aviation Subcommittee and as a Member from the great state of Texas, I 
strongly feel we need to put just as much of an emphasis on protecting 
the skies as we do our land borders. This amendment would simply 
require the Homeland Security Department to better track those 
attempting to conceal their identities before boarding airplanes and 
allow those officials greater authority to screen these passengers and 
detect threats before they may occur. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment and the underlying bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 109-4.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kolbe

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Kolbe:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:

      TITLE III--BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

     SEC. 301. VULNERABILITY AND THREAT ASSESSMENT.

       (a) Study.--The Under Secretary of Homeland Security for 
     Border and Transportation Security, in consultation with the 
     Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Science and 
     Technology and the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for 
     Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, shall 
     study the technology, equipment, and personnel needed to 
     address security vulnerabilities within the United States for 
     each field office of the Bureau of Customs and Border 
     Protection that has responsibility for any portion of the 
     United States borders with Canada and Mexico. The Under 
     Secretary shall conduct follow-up studies at least once every 
     5 years.
       (b) Report to Congress.--The Under Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress on the Under Secretary's findings and 
     conclusions from each study conducted under subsection (a) 
     together with legislative recommendations, as appropriate, 
     for addressing any security vulnerabilities found by the 
     study.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security 
     Directorate of Border and Transportation Security such sums 
     as may be necessary for fiscal years 2006 through 2011 to 
     carry out any such recommendations from the first study 
     conducted under subsection (a).

     SEC. 302. USE OF GROUND SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES FOR BORDER 
                   SECURITY.

       (a) Pilot Program.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Homeland 
     Security for Science and Technology, in consultation with the 
     Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and 
     Transportation Security, the Under Secretary of Homeland 
     Security for Information Analysis and Infrastructure 
     Protection, and the Secretary of Defense, shall develop a 
     pilot program to utilize, or increase the utilization of, 
     ground surveillance technologies to enhance the border 
     security of the United States. In developing the program, the 
     Under Secretary shall--
       (1) consider various current and proposed ground 
     surveillance technologies that could be utilized to enhance 
     the border security of the United States;
       (2) assess the threats to the border security of the United 
     States that could be addressed by the utilization of such 
     technologies; and
       (3) assess the feasibility and advisability of utilizing 
     such technologies to address such threats, including an 
     assessment of the technologies considered best suited to 
     address such threats.
       (b) Additional Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The pilot program shall include the 
     utilization of a variety of ground surveillance technologies 
     in a variety of topographies and areas (including both 
     populated and unpopulated areas) on both the northern and 
     southern borders of the United States in order to evaluate, 
     for a range of circumstances--
       (A) the significance of previous experiences with such 
     technologies in homeland security or critical infrastructure 
     protection for the utilization of such technologies for 
     border security;
       (B) the cost, utility, and effectiveness of such 
     technologies for border security; and
       (C) liability, safety, and privacy concerns relating to the 
     utilization of such technologies for border security.
       (2) Technologies.--The ground surveillance technologies 
     utilized in the pilot program shall include the following:
       (A) Video camera technology.
       (B) Sensor technology.
       (C) Motion detection technology.
       (c) Implementation.--The Under Secretary of Homeland 
     Security for Border and Transportation Security shall 
     implement the pilot program developed under this section.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after implementing the 
     pilot program under subsection (a), the Under Secretary shall 
     submit a report on the program to the Senate Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the House of 
     Representatives Committee on Science, the House of 
     Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, and the House 
     of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. The Under 
     Secretary shall include in the report a description of the 
     program together with such recommendations as the Under 
     Secretary finds appropriate, including recommendations for 
     terminating the program, making the program permanent, or 
     enhancing the program.

     SEC. 303. ENHANCEMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS INTEGRATION AND 
                   INFORMATION SHARING ON BORDER SECURITY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, acting through the Under Secretary of Homeland 
     Security for Border and Transportation Security, in 
     consultation with the Under Secretary of Homeland Security 
     for Science and Technology, the Under Secretary of Homeland 
     Security for Information Analysis and Infrastructure 
     Protection, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 
     Communications and Information, and other appropriate 
     Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies, shall develop and 
     implement a plan--
       (1) to improve the communications systems of the 
     departments and agencies of the Federal Government in order 
     to facilitate the integration of communications among the 
     departments and agencies of the Federal Government and State, 
     local government agencies, and Indian tribal agencies on 
     matters relating to border security; and
       (2) to enhance information sharing among the departments 
     and agencies of the Federal Government, State and local 
     government agencies, and Indian tribal agencies on such 
     matters.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after implementing the 
     plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit a copy 
     of the plan and a report on the plan, including any 
     recommendations the Secretary finds appropriate, to the 
     Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
     the House of Representatives Committee on Science, the House 
     of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, and the 
     House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 75, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself of such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee for 
indulging me with this amendment. This amendment was legislation which 
was introduced by several of us that represent border districts last 
year as a freestanding bill. It is now incorporated here in this bill, 
or parts of it at least are incorporated in this bill.
  I think it is entirely consistent with the goals of H.R. 418, because 
a key component of securing our borders is increasing technology and 
communication along the border regions. H.R. 418 is a bill about 
securing our homeland, and this amendment is a perfect complement to 
the vision of this very important legislation offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin.
  Arizona has become a doormat for illegal immigrants. They pour across 
our porous border every day. In fact, there are more apprehensions of 
illegal immigrants in Arizona than the entire rest of the border 
combined. Many portions of the Arizona border are large

[[Page H547]]

and unpopulated desolate desert areas. They are hard to patrol and 
difficult to monitor. In these areas and all along the border it is 
essential to advance ground technologies in order to officially 
understand and stop those who come through this back door to our 
Nation.
  My amendment to H.R. 418 requires the Department of Homeland 
Security, working through the field offices of the Bureau of Customs 
and Border Protection, to get the technology, the equipment and the 
personnel needed to address security of our borders. Furthermore, the 
amendment requires that the Department of Homeland Security carry out 
ground surveillance programs that will improve border security.
  While the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 designed a plan to 
enhance ground surveillance on the northern border, a similar program 
was not designed for the southern border. Improvements to ground 
technologies are absolutely essential in the large expanses of desert 
and unpopulated lands along the southern border.
  Finally, this amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security 
to improve communications and information sharing with Federal, State 
and Tribal government agencies. The various agencies with jurisdiction 
over the southern border must be able to communicate.
  This is particularly a problem in Arizona, because more than half of 
the entire border is covered by Tribal organizations, Tribal units, 
sovereign Tribal nations who are not generally covered by most of the 
Federal legislation we have on telecommunication sharing.
  Having customs agents unable to communicate with border patrol agents 
or with the policemen from the Tohono O'Odham Nation around the same 
port of entry is really quite ridiculous. This portion of the amendment 
addresses problems with the use of incompatible communications 
technologies and requires that the Department of Homeland Security 
rectify this situation.
  The amendment builds on the sentiment, it builds on the intention of 
H.R. 418, and through its enhancement of homeland security helps to 
ensure the safety and defense of our Nation. I think it will be a step, 
perhaps a small step, but one of the very important steps along our 
southern border to helping improve the technology and our ability to 
secure that southern border.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member that is opposed to the 
amendment seeking time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, although I support the 
amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis) will control the 10 minutes in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kolbe amendment. I am very 
glad to see my friend and colleague finding a good and realistic way to 
get 21st-century technology to complement the way we police and protect 
our borders.
  Like many other Democrats, I have long supported monitoring our 
borders 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I feel strongly that any plan 
for border security should include a comprehensive technology 
assessment, an analysis of high-altitude monitoring technologies for 
use with land-based systems and, importantly, full funding of the plan.
  Even with the border fence, like we have in San Diego, technology is 
still needed to assist with monitoring and the effective placement of 
human resources. There are many companies in the private sector which 
offer all kinds of ways to enhance our ability to secure the border. 
Congress has passed laws increasing personnel and technology. So what 
we need most now is an evaluation of what it will take to secure our 
borders. An assessment of technology equipment and personnel would be 
extremely helpful to all of us in making future decisions about 
additional increases.
  As we know, sensors and cameras are being used in many locations, 
including San Diego. But the Kolbe amendment represents a thoughtful 
approach: let us not just deploy equipment; let us ensure that the 
equipment works to address the gaps at our land borders.

                              {time}  1230

  Simply deploying equipment is not the answer. The solution must match 
the need. A ground surveillance program, in partnership with the remote 
aerial surveillance program, would go a long way towards achieving real 
border security.
  Unfortunately, technologies have been employed on an ad hoc basis in 
the past and are not part of an overall technology deployment plan. The 
Kolbe amendment gives us realistic hope for an overall plan for smarter 
border security.
  Technology and information-sharing is critical if our frontline 
personnel are to effectively secure our Nation's borders.
  Importantly, I remind my colleagues that these surveillance systems 
still require Border Patrol agents to apprehend illegal border crossers 
and contraband. Border Patrol agents repeatedly tell me that they are 
inadequately staffed to do their job. Funding the 9/11 bill to 
authorize levels is a critical component of securing America's borders. 
If the President will not do it, Mr. Chairman, let us make sure that 
Congress does.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe), my good friend, for introducing this amendment, but I would 
like to touch on another area that is also very, very important.
  Let me say that the Border Patrol need all the help that they can 
get. We have another serious problem that I hope that we can touch on, 
and that is what is known as the OTMs, or Other Than Mexicans.
  My district includes a portion of the McAllen Border Patrol sector. 
Last year, in the fiscal year, almost 17,000 OTMs came across through 
that Border Patrol sector, representing at least anywhere from 76 to 80 
countries coming across into the United States. This worries me about 
the security of this country.
  As I talk to the Border Patrol officials, they know one thing, that 
we do not have sufficient detention facilities. So what happens to 
them? They come across. They do not have to be picked up by the Border 
Patrol. They surrender themselves to the Border Patrol and say, I am 
from Colombia, I am from Egypt, I am from any other country; and they 
know that they do not have sufficient facilities.
  So what happens? They go and process these individuals, and they come 
in clusters from Mexico. When they come across, it takes 10, 12, 15 
Border Patrol people to come and bring them to the facilities to 
process them. It takes 2\1/2\ hours to do that. When this happens, in 
the meantime, the border is completely open, because those Border 
Patrol people were removed to process these individuals.
  What happens next? After the 2\1/2\ hours, they go and take them to 
the bus station, and they give them a little piece of paper that says, 
you are supposed to appear on the 15th of whatever month, 60 to 90 days 
from now. One of these guys just finished paying $900 to be brought 
across. Do my colleagues think he is going to come in?
  This is another issue that we need to study about.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time. And I appreciate his bringing this amendment to the floor, and I 
support it.
  It is absolutely critical that we secure our borders. Those of us who 
live in Arizona know that our borders are simply not secure. Arizona 
has become a doormat for illegal aliens. There are thousands and 
thousands that are apprehended every week and thousands more who are 
not apprehended. They slip through. The cost to Arizona is 
considerable.

[[Page H548]]

  Now, I happen to believe, along with my colleague, that we need 
comprehensive immigration reform that has to be part of our long-term 
plan. But in the interim, we certainly need to do some things, and this 
amendment goes a long way toward doing them. We need vulnerability and 
threat assessments. DHS needs to see what kind of technology, what kind 
of personnel and equipment is going to be needed.
  All of us have viewed over the past couple of years the new 
technologies in land surveillance, surface surveillance, and they are 
promising. They are things that can be done that are not being done. We 
need a good assessment and recommendations made for us to follow 
through on.
  We have aerial work that is being done; not enough, more surveillance 
is needed there. Also, this amendment calls for increased 
communications, better communications between those on the ground and 
those of us here as policymakers and those who implement the policy. We 
simply need better information to be able to have recommendations that 
we can follow up on.
  We have, obviously, limited resources at our disposal. We need to 
make sure that they are employed in the best way possible, and this 
amendment will go a long way toward ensuring that.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Arizona for bringing this 
forward, and the chairman for insisting that this bill be brought 
forward.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Kolbe amendment. I also thank my colleague, the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California, for yielding me this time and, as well, my 
colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz). Let me 
express my appreciation for his leadership, because we have spent a 
good amount of time together at the southern border.
  I have also spent a good deal of time at the northern border, both 
sides of the coast.
  Clearly, this legislation is needed with respect to improved and 
increased technology, but I would also argue that the Secure Our Border 
Act, that was offered by the Select Committee on Homeland Security 
Democrats in the last Congress, really speaks to the broader question. 
And, frankly, I wish this amendment had gone a step further; that is 
that what we do not have are the necessary Border Patrol agents and 
their training equal to the enormous responsibility that comes with 
people coming across the border and, as well, adding that to the 
technology that is part of this particular amendment. And then, of 
course, detention beds.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) is absolutely right. The 
southern border now lends itself to the doorway of terrorism because of 
this concept of OTMs, and the idea that they are given just a piece of 
paper, as he said, that says, Show up, and no one is required to show 
up; or when I say, Required, there is no pressure, no enforcement, of 
their showing up.
  So technology is certainly what we need, and I hope, as we move 
forward in the Select Committee on Homeland Security, we will, if you 
will, author bills that will give those resources to the northern and 
southern border.
  But we need to understand what the gentleman is saying. This is a 
crisis as it relates to OTMs, particularly dealing with the potential 
of using that border for terrorists to come across. Technology is one 
thing, but human participation is another; not what has been offered by 
the President's budget of 200 Border Patrol agents, but the 2,000 that 
really will help us secure the borders as necessary. This amendment 
will go a long way.
  I rise in support of the Kolbe amendment. The Kolbe amendment is one 
of the few ideas that have been proposed on the floor of the House 
during debate on HR 418 that would help secure our borders.
  We must secure our land borders and putting 21st century technology 
to work for us is the heart of the solution. Homeland Security 
Democrats support monitoring our borders 24 hours a day--7 days a week.
  While the Kolbe amendment falls short of asking for an interagency 
border security strategy, as Democrats did in the SECURE Border Act, it 
does get at the key issues of assessing technology and staffing. Now 
that Congress has passed laws increasing personnel and technology, what 
we need most is an evaluation of what it will take to secure out 
borders.
  Additionally, while sensors and cameras are currently being used, 
simple deployment isn't always the answer. The solution must address 
the problem and take into consideration the terrain. A ground 
surveillance program in partnership with the remote aerial surveillance 
program which was mandated as part of the 9/11 bill will go a long way 
towards achieving real border security. One missing area element in 
this amendment seems to be a link between the air and ground 
surveillance programs. I hope that that's addressed. We cannot afford 
to build systems in isolation.
  Lastly, while this amendment does add to the debate on border 
security, these surveillance systems still require border patrol agents 
to apprehend illegal border crossers and contraband. When Homeland 
Security Committee staff visited the southern border last year during a 
six month investigation, they found and heard Border Patrol agents tell 
them that they are inadequately staffed to monitor the expansive 
southern border.
  One border patrol support staffer explained that staffing shortages 
meant that he was responsible for simultaneously viewing 26 cameras for 
illegal crossings and notifying agents when he saw any crossings. This 
same employee was also responsible for notifying agents about buried 
sensor activations numbering from 100-150 an hour, and running computer 
checks on all detainees. It is clear that despite the fact that we have 
increased border patrol numbers, Border Patrol still lacks critical 
support staff.
  Funding Border Security is a critical component of securing America's 
borders. If the President won't do it--let's make sure that Congress 
does.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I do want to close, if there are no further speakers, and acknowledge 
that we have important work to be done here. We have highly 
professional personnel at the border, and they are doing their job, but 
we need to provide more of them. We need to fund the border security 
proposals that we have been putting forward for some time. We need to 
be sure that we fund those.
  But the other piece of that, and I am delighted that the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has brought that forward, is to be certain 
that the most sophisticated applications of that technology are used on 
the border.
  I speak to many companies in San Diego. I know that they have a great 
interest in this. They have been a part of some of these solutions in 
the past. Let us employ them; let us be sure that we are doing this in 
a comprehensive fashion.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). We must 
move forward in this area. We can do a far better job on the border 
than we have done before.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in Part B of House report 109-4.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Nadler:
       Strike section 101 of the bill (and redesignate the 
     succeeding sections of title I accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 75, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to strike section 101 of the 
bill relating to asylum seekers. Under the excuse of protecting 
national security, the asylum provisions in this bill make it much more 
difficult for legitimate victims to be granted asylum. The logic seems 
to be, if you keep out every

[[Page H549]]

asylum seeker, including legitimate victims, then the system cannot be 
abused.
  Proponents of this section make inaccurate, dramatic claims about 
terrorists who abuse the asylum system to get into the country, but the 
cases they cite are mostly pre-1996 when the law was changed. Since 
that 1996 change, asylum seekers are jailed, put in custody until a 
finding of reasonable fear of persecution is made, so they cannot pose 
a threat while they are in custody.
  Because current law already places the burden of proof on the asylum 
applicant and places the applicant in custody until he or she meets the 
initial burden of proof, a terrorist who wishes to enter the United 
States would most likely attempt to do so by a tourist visa or on 
fraudulent papers. They are not going to claim political asylum and 
then be put in jail until they can show a credible fear of persecution.
  But this bill seeks to raise the bar when people finally do get into 
court. If we pass this bill in its current form, mothers, fathers, 
children with legitimate asylum claims will be sent back to their 
persecutors with no benefit to national security.
  Current law provides that an asylum seeker must prove a reasonable 
fear of persecution by reason of race, color, creed, national origin, 
sex, or political opposition. The new provision in this bill would 
require proof that one of these factors, race, color, creed, political 
opposition, is the ``central reason'' for the legitimate fear.
  This is an almost insurmountable burden of proof since the 
persecutors rarely stop to explain their motives while they are 
committing torture, rape, and murder. The judge would be forced to look 
into the minds of the persecutor and decide what weight to give to a 
particular motive in cases of mixed motives, which they are, in order 
to prove, the burden of proof, that this is the central reason. Not one 
of the major reasons, a central reason. This is an impossible burden of 
proof with no purpose other than to deny the asylum claim.
  This section would deny a victim asylum based on an immaterial 
inconsistency or inaccuracy in a prior statement. So an applicant who, 
at the airport, perhaps without a decent understanding of English or a 
mistranslation, forgets or misspeaks the date of her high school 
graduation, or the date of her wedding or her grandchildren's births, 
even though the dates might not be significant in her culture, unlike 
in ours, would later be denied safe haven from persecution, even though 
they have nothing to do with the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of 
her claim for asylum under the law. This would be a ridiculously harsh 
outcome for an absurdly innocent mistake.
  There are other things that this section does. We did not have time 
to review it properly. It did not go before the committee. The 
provisions that were considered by the House last year was only a 2-
page provision. This became a 10-page provision 2 days ago. No one has 
had a chance to properly look through it, but we do know that it does a 
lot of other very harsh things.
  Mr. Chairman, asylum law is supposed to be about protecting 
individuals from serious abuses of human rights. It is not supposed to 
be about seizing on any possible basis to deny a claim or to return 
people to harm's way.
  This section is not about protecting our borders; it is about 
xenophobia and sending victims back to their torturers. It is, Mr. 
Chairman, in the larger sense, un-American.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with me in voting for the Nadler-Meek-
Jackson-Lee amendment to strike these provisions and keep our law 
humane and American.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I wish those 
that were arguing against the amendment read it and see what it says; 
and then I think they will be convinced that this is a commonsense 
change.
  First of all, let me say that the asylum law was designed to provide 
safe haven to those who are fleeing persecution in their homeland. It 
is not to be used as a crutch for economic migrants who are coming to 
the United States because the grass is greener on our side of the 
border.
  Now, the bill as it is currently before us takes away the cap of 
10,000 approved asylum applicants who are admitted to permanent 
residency every year. The Nadler amendment strikes that. The bill as it 
is before us states that the applicant for asylum has the burden of 
proof to prove that he or she is eligible to receive asylum in our 
country. The Nadler amendment strikes it. But every petitioner, whether 
it is a plaintiff in a lawsuit or someone who is applying for Social 
Security disability benefits, has got the burden of proof to show that 
they are entitled to the relief that they are seeking.
  This bill makes it clear that asylum applicants have to make the same 
burden of proof as others, and the Nadler amendment strikes that.
  The other thing that the Nadler amendment strikes is a detailed 
explanation of how the immigration judge is to determine the 
credibility of the applicant and the witnesses that the applicant and 
the government put before the judge. Every trier of fact in court makes 
the determination based on the credibility of witnesses. Criminal 
juries can send someone to their death or to prison for life based on 
their determination of the credibility of the witnesses, and 
immigration judges should do so also.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) says that 100 percent of the 
people who show up at the airport claiming asylum are detained. That is 
not right. Ninety percent of those people are released. Only 10 percent 
are detained past the airport. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
says that all of the statements or the instances that we raise were 
pre-1996 law change cases. I will give you two that were after that.
  Nuradin Abdi who was a Somali national stood accused of providing 
material support to al Qaeda. The government alleged that Abdi admitted 
al Qaeda member Iyman Faris and others initiated a plot to blow up a 
Columbus, Ohio, area shopping small. Mr. Abdi was granted asylum in 
1999. Later after traveling to a terrorist camp in Ethiopia, he was 
arrested when he reentered the United States, and his asylum status was 
revoked. It was revoked, as the U.S. Attorney's Office puts it, because 
with the exception of some minor biographical data, every aspect of the 
asylum application he submitted was false.
  Now, giving a judge an opportunity to deny a claim based upon a 
determination that the applicant is lying is in my bill and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) tries to strike that.
  Again, in 1999 an Egyptian national who had been granted asylum, 
despite the fact that the INS had provided classified evidence that the 
alien was a known member of a foreign terrorist organization designated 
by the Secretary of State, and according to the committee-hearing 
witness, the INS submitted a report from a New York City detective 
showing the alien's participation in a meeting with the infamous Sheik 
Omar Abdel Rahman, dedicated to planning acts of terrorism in which the 
pros and cons of hijacking an airplane were discussed. He got asylum 
too.
  Now, while it is true that many terrorists are statutorily barred 
from receiving asylum, members of terrorist organizations are 
explicitly allowed to receive asylum. Further, despite any statutory 
bar to the contrary, asylum regulations and the courts have made it 
practically impossible for the government to ferret out terrorists who 
apply.
  There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that 
government attorneys are barred from asking foreign governments about 
any evidence they may possess about the veracity of asylum claims. 
Thus, the only evidence available to the government to support an 
asylum applicant is the lack of credibility to the applicant. However, 
the ninth circuit is preventing immigration judges from denying asylum 
claims when it is clear that the alien is lying. Furthermore, the ninth 
circuit has held that an alien can receive asylum on the very basis 
that the alien's government believes he is a terrorist, even if we 
agree.
  This bill brings back sanity to the asylum laws by overturning these

[[Page H550]]

rogue precedents from the ninth circuit. And if any jury in the country 
can convict a defendant based on its determinations of credibility, 
certainly an immigration judge should be able to do the same thing.
  Vote down this amendment, and let us put some common sense into our 
asylum laws as well as giving hope and shelter to people who can 
legitimately claim and receive asylum.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Meek) for his work on this. It is credibly important.
  This is perhaps the most objectionable part of the bill.
  I rise in support of the Nadler/Meeks/Jackson-Lee Amendment to strike 
section 101 of H.R. 418 which imposes evidentiary requirements on 
asylum-seekers fleeing persecution and all immigrants who seek 
withholding of removal from deportation.
  Without a doubt, if this section passes into law, genuine bona fide 
refugees who have fled horrible persecution that qualifies them for 
protection from our government will be returned to face more terror, 
torture and death at the hands of their persecutors.
  Chairmen Sensenbrenner is using the public's fear of terrorism to 
radically change asylum law for all asylees, not just those with some 
connection to terrorism.
  Section 101 will not make us one bit safer from terrorist attack. 
Since we tightened some loopholes in asylum law in 1996, terrorists 
have not been ``abusing our asylum system'' as the proponents of this 
bill allege. Terrorists are already barred from receiving the benefit 
of asylum protection in the United States.
  Those who support placing these new insurmountable hurdles on asylum-
seekers have used examples of known terrorists to allegedly show that 
the asylum system makes us vulnerable to terrorist attack. But none of 
the people they talk about were granted asylum.
  Ramzi Yousef and Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who were both involved in 
the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, were never granted 
asylum. They filed applications for asylum that had not been 
adjudicated at the time of the bombing.
  Mir Aimal Kansi, who killed two CIA employees in 1993, was never 
granted asylum. He had an asylum application pending at the time of the 
attack.
  Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, known as ``the Brooklyn bomber'' for his 
involvement in a planned attack on the New York City subway in 1997, 
was never granted asylum. He applied for asylum but withdrew his 
application before it was reviewed.
  Ahmad Ajaj, who was involved in the first World Trade Center bombing, 
was never granted asylum His initial application for asylum was 
abandoned when he left the country, and his second application was 
denied.
  Abdel Hakim Tizegha, who was involved in the planned Millennium 
attack in 1999, was never granted asylum. His application was denied in 
1997 and his appeal was denied in 1999.
  Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, who killed two people at the El Al 
counter at Los Angeles International Airport in 2002, was never granted 
asylum. His application was denied in 1995.
  Shahawar Matin Siraj, who has been accused of plotting to bomb the 
Harold Square subway station in New York City in August 2004, was never 
granted asylum. He asserts that he entered the United States legally as 
a teen, and he later filed an application for asylum that was suspended 
upon his arrest.
  Immigrants cannot apply for asylum unless they are already in the 
United States. So it is not the fault of the asylum system that these 
terrorists, and terrorist suspects, entered the United States and 
section 101 of H.R. 418 would not have prevented their entry. In 
addition, filing an application for asylum should not be equated with 
actually receiving asylum protection and the right to remain in the 
United States that it grants. Many asylum applications are rejected, 
just as many tourist visas to enter the United States are rejected.
  For people applying for asylum in 2005, under current law, extensive 
security checks are now done through the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security 
and State Department databases. Now, expedited removal rules mandate 
detention for people arriving without proper documents, and grant DHS 
authority to detain asylum-seekers throughout the adjudication of their 
application. Expedited processing of asylum claims now exists, and 
applicants are denied work authorizations that may have been a magnet 
for false applications before asylum reform. People who are already in 
the United States, who become terrorists while they are here, must be 
identified by intelligence and law enforcement. If they are, asylum or 
any other immigration benefit will be revoked under current law.
  For that vast majority of asylum applicants who have no nexus to 
terrorism, other than being victims of it, section 101 will create 
high, new legal standards of evidence, and will severely limit judicial 
review of their cases.
  First, the bill requires that refugees prove that one of the five 
grounds for asylum protection--race, nationality, membership in a 
social group, political opinion, or religion--is the ``central reason'' 
why they were persecuted. With little access to the documents and 
witnesses they left behind when fleeing their country, they must prove 
what was in the mind of their persecutor during the persecution. This 
would require an asylum-seeker from Darfur, Sudan to prove that the 
janjaweed attacked them and ran them off their land because they were 
black, and not because the militia wanted to steal the immigrant's 
cows, for example.
  Second, the bill requires asylum-seekers to show evidence 
corroborating their testimony, and it would bar judicial review of 
decisions regarding that evidence. Yet many refugees are unable to flee 
with the people or paperwork that could back up their stories under 
evidentiary standards.
  Third, the bill allows judges to deny applications if they find 
inconsistencies between the applicant's testimony and any statement 
they have made to a U.S. official, or inconsistencies in witness and 
documentary evidence that is provided. In addition, it allows denials 
on the basis of subjective assessments of an applicant's demeanor, a 
factor that is frequently misinterpreted by U.S. judges due to cultural 
differences. Thus, a person could be denied asylum due to an immaterial 
inconsistency in the evidence they present.
  Finally, the bill strips courts from the power to review immigration 
judge's discretionary judgments in asylum and removal cases.
  Unfortunately, this bill takes a significant step in turning our 
country away from its proud history as a nation of refuge for those 
fleeing persecution.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler/Meeks/
Jackson-Lee amendment to strike section 101 of this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
  (Mr. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is very hard for me to respond 
to what the chairman just shared with us because basically if we do not 
pass this amendment of striking this 101 section, we might as well just 
take all the language in 101 and say, if you are being persecuted or if 
you are being raped as a woman or you are being abused as a child, do 
not come to America because that is basically what this amendment is 
saying.
  They were raising the bar beyond the capabilities of the individuals 
that are fleeing persecution. They are running for their lives 
literally, and many of these individuals are incarcerated. And where 
are the commercials? Where are the media reports of how lax our asylum 
laws are here in the United States? Because they are not. Where are the 
law enforcement agencies? Why are they not knocking down the doors in 
the halls of Congress saying, we really have to tighten up those asylum 
laws because they are too weak now? Where are they?
  We are following the people who have focused on this the most, the 9/
11 Commission, and what they are asking for is for us to review and 
make sure we have good asylum laws in place. We are not saying it is 
bad. We are not saying it is good. I commend my colleagues who are 
looking at this, but moving in haste and having this manager's 
amendment before the Congress and no one has seen it. All of the 
agencies, all of the religious organizations that are helping these 
individuals that we are trying to deal with now are saying that they 
support the Nadler/Meek/Jackson-Lee amendment.
  I urge the Members to please support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your comments and also the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for his leadership.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

[[Page H551]]

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The asylum provisions in H.R. 418 are vitally important to protect 
our constituents from child molesters, rapists, murderers, and other 
criminals, as well as terrorists seeking asylum in our country.
  I believe that we must keep the asylum open and honest for those who 
have a good-faith claim to asylum. However, we must also protect our 
constituents from aliens who seek to abuse our asylum processes and do 
harm to our citizens. For instance, because he was free after applying 
for asylum, Mir Aimal Kansi was able to murder two CIA employees at CIA 
headquarters. Ramzi Yousef took advantage of the freedom he gained by 
applying for asylum to mastermind the first World Trade Center attack 
which killed six and injured 1,000 in the amendment author's district.
  The asylum provisions in H.R. 418 do not prevent aliens from seeking 
asylum. Those who truly have been persecuted for religious or political 
grounds will be allowed to present their cases just as they are able to 
now. These provisions merely overturn Ninth Circuit Court decisions 
saying that immigration judges cannot use inconsistencies in an alien's 
statement to determine if he or she is being untruthful.
  The bill also says that an asylum applicant may be asked to 
corroborate his claim with evidence, if such evidence can be obtained 
without leaving the United States. One of the goals of this bill is to 
ensure that our asylum system is consistent with our judicial system. 
If a judge or criminal jury can sentence a criminal defendant to life 
in prison or even execution because they did not believe the 
defendant's story, certainly an immigration judge can deny an asylum 
claim to an alien for the same basis.
  When an American goes to court to settle a dispute, he bears the 
burden of proof to prove his claim. Requiring the asylum claimant to 
bear the burden of proof is consistent, both with our justice system 
and with international law.
  Permitting the judge to require an asylum claimant to produce 
corroborating evidence he has or can obtain without leaving the United 
States is just common sense. If a claimant says, for example, that he 
fled his country because he received a threatening letter from a 
government official, the judge would be remiss if he failed to ask to 
see the letter or at least inquire about what happened to the letter.
  The asylum protections in the REAL ID Act are vitally important to 
ensuring the honesty of the asylum system, as well as the security of 
our Nation and its citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, H.R. 418, and 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). I thank him for protecting so 
many of our constitutional rights.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that the asylum laws, as I was reminded by 
my good and dear colleague from Florida, started in World War II when 
we were reminded of the ugly scene of turning away the St. Louis, the 
1,000 Jews who were fleeing persecution.
  Let me just suggest that we do have an opportunity to review this 
issue and make it right, but I can tell you that Commissioner Kean and 
Commissioner Hamilton indicated that in advocating that these are 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; these are not recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission. There is no proof or facts that terrorists have 
been able to pull one over on us in large numbers.
  It is very important to let the Comptroller General's study go 
forward that evaluates the extent to which weaknesses in the United 
States' asylum system have been or could be exploited by terrorists. We 
need to understand this.
  I do not expect that the report will show that that is happening. It 
is extremely important that we realize that the 9/11 hijackers entered 
and remained in the United States as nonimmigrant visitors. They were 
not individuals who sought asylum.
  Let me correct my good friends about the 1993 bombing. These 
individuals sought asylum, but they were denied asylum. There is not a 
crisis here; but what is a crisis is when you turn people away from our 
shores who have come here downtrodden, who are seeking asylum because 
of religious persecution, because of mutilation of women, because of 
enormous child abuse or potentially child soldiers, and you turn them 
away because they do not look like you and because, in fact, they 
cannot make their case.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider opposing this amendment.
  I rise in support of the amendment that I have offered with my 
colleagues Representatives Nadler and Meek. It would strike section 101 
of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, which is entitled, ``Preventing 
Terrorists From Obtaining Relief From Removal.'' Notwithstanding that 
title, the provisions in section 101 codify evidentiary standards for 
asylum proceedings. The supporters of section 101 believe that 
terrorists are gaming our asylum system to enter and remain in the 
United States.
  It is not clear that terrorists actually are gaming our asylum 
system. Section 5403 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study to 
evaluate the extent to which weaknesses in the United States asylum 
system have been or could be exploited by terrorists. We need to wait 
until this study is completed before we rewrite our asylum laws. We 
cannot correct weaknesses that have not been identified yet.
  I do not expect that report to show that terrorists are gaming our 
asylum system. The 9/11 hijackers entered and remained in the United 
States as nonimmigrant visitors. Visitors' visas are easy to get. It 
only requires a 2-minute interview with an American Consulate Officer 
to get a visitor's visa. The applicant just has to establish that he 
will return to his country at the end of the authorized period of stay. 
Moreover, it would be naive to think that terrorist organizations do 
not have ready access to fraudulent entry documents. In contrast, it is 
difficult and time consuming to enter the United States as an asylum 
applicant. The terrorist choosing this method would have to present 
himself at a border and then prove in expedited removal proceedings 
that he has a credible fear of persecution on account of race, 
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 
political opinion. The section 101 provisions would not come into play 
during expedited removal proceedings in any event. They would not apply 
until the alien is before an immigration judge at an asylum hearing, 
and by then he has already entered the country.
  The approach taken by the REAL ID Act is to raise the bar on the 
burden of proof for everyone who applies for asylum, which would result 
in a denial of relief to bona fide asylum seekers without any assurance 
that the changes would discourage terrorists from seeking asylum. In 
fact, terrorist organizations are in a much better position to 
fabricate evidence of persecution than the typical bona fide asylum 
applicant who has fled his country in fear for his life without any 
thought of meeting evidentiary standards at an asylum hearing.
  For instance, in addition to showing that the alleged persecution 
would be ``on account of' one of the enumerated grounds, the applicant 
would have to establish that the persecution was or will be ``a central 
reason for persecuting the applicant.'' In effect, the asylum applicant 
would have to establish what was in the mind of the persecutor.
  Section 101 has a subsection entitled, ``Credibility 
Determinations.'' It states that the trier of fact should consider all 
relevant factors. This is fine, unnecessary but fine. Then it provides 
that the trier of fact has the discretion of basing a credibility 
determination on any relevant factor, and it specifies relevant factors 
that can be the sole basis for a credibility determination. Near the 
end it mentions inconsistencies and inaccuracies or falsehoods in 
statements, ``without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, 
or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim.'' In other 
words, it permits an immigration judge to make an adverse credibility 
finding in asylum proceedings on the basis of an inconsistency, 
inaccuracy, or falsehood that has no relevance to the asylum 
applicant's persecution claim. What has this got to do with preventing 
terrorists from obtaining relief from removal?
  I urge you to vote for this amendment to strike section 101.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close and will 
close after the gentleman yields his time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page H552]]

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler amendment and 
ask Members, especially on my side of the aisle, to join us in striking 
section 101.
  Section 101 purports to reform asylum--but it does not. Under the 
pretext that it mitigates terrorists' access to the United States, the 
provision actually does a grave injustice and disservice to the 
persecuted, such as religious believers, and all others who have a 
well-founded fear of persecution and who seek asylum in our country.
  Section 101 imposes onerous new requirements on the persecuted, 
including those who have been traumatized by rape, torture, 
trafficking, and religious hate and persecution, to prove the 
persecutor's motive. Read the language. You have got to prove that 
persecution was a central reason you left and why you are seeking 
asylum.
  I would remind my colleagues that I have been in Congress 25 years. 
Dictatorships and authoritarian regimes never persecute. It is always 
some other pretext, whether it be the People's Republic of China, 
Vietnam, Cuba. When it was Romania many years back, there was always a 
false reason. Slander against the Soviet state was used over and over 
again, never because you were Jewish or Christian or because you were 
an evangelical or some other reason. They always have a pretext.
  I can guarantee if this is enacted into law that real asylum seekers 
will be denied, and then the piling on just begins to start.
  How many Members have met persecuted people, traumatized people who 
are coming to our borders? They get their stories wrong. According to 
this language, if they have any inconsistency, even if it is not 
germane to the issue at hand, if they get a date wrong, how many 
Members have forgotten their wife's birthday, date or year? We all make 
mistakes. Get one of those things wrong and the trier of facts can 
exclude you based on that single situation.

                              {time}  1300

  This is an ugly provision. I say with respect to my friend and 
colleague from Wisconsin, I am against terrorism. 9/11 hurt people in 
my district. They were hurt big time.
  This is an ugly provision, Mr. Speaker. It has not had, in my view, 
the kind of hearing needed in terms of the consequences that it will 
impose upon true asylum seekers. I hope Members will vote against this.
  I have authored 3 Torture Victims Relief laws to help torture 
victims. I meet with a lot of torture victims. They forget; they have 
been traumatized. You forget something pursuant to these new 
requirements and you are a goner. You are being deported back to that 
country of origin where you have been persecuted.
  Please vote against Section 101. Vote for the Nadler amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I grant myself the remainder of the time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey and other 
speakers have made excellent points, but I want to make one different 
point.
  This amendment, rather this section which we are trying to eliminate, 
is not focused on terrorism. It does not focus on terrorism. It does 
not focus on terrorists. All it does is put up additional bars to all 
asylum seekers, legitimate victims or otherwise. It has nothing to do 
with terrorism, does not claim to focus on terrorism. Does not do 
anything to distinguish between a terrorist and a legitimate victim of 
persecution or anybody else.
  It simply sets the bar for all claimants at an unrealistically high 
level and ought to be defeated, and the amendment therefore ought to be 
passed for that reason.
  I yield back.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, contrary to what my distinguished friend from New 
Jersey says, there are no onerous new requirements to meet the standard 
for asylum. Page 2 of the managers amendment incorporated in the bill 
says the applicant has to establish that he is a refugee within the 
meaning of this section. The applicant must establish that race, 
religion, nationality, membership in a particular cultural group or 
political opinion was or will be a central reason for persecuting the 
applicant.
  Now, that means that all of the Jewish people who were turned away on 
the St. Louis prior to the Second World War would have qualified 
because they were being persecuted in Nazi Germany because of their 
religion.
  People who have been engaged in what was used to be called anti-
Soviet activities in the former Soviet Union, that was a political 
opinion, they would have been eligible for asylum.
  And the comments that the gentleman from New Jersey makes about 
torture are simply not true. This bill does not impact the obligations 
of the United States under the convention to prevent torture by 
prohibiting the deportation of people to countries that torture them.
  Now, simply what is stated is that the burden of proof is on the 
applicant, just like it ought to be, like it is on our constituents who 
apply for Social Security disability. And it sets up standards for 
determining the credibility of the witness. If the witness comes and 
says, Gee, I made a mistake because I forgot the birth date and admits 
to that mistake, that certainly is exonerating evidence.
  Vote down the amendment. All of these arguments are a red herring.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, during the debate of the REAL ID Act of 
2005, of which I am a co-sponsor, I was unavoidably detained and 
unfortunately missed the opportunity to vote on the amendment offered 
by Representative Jerrold Nadler. If I would have been present, I would 
have voted a resounding ``no'' against this amendment. The Nadler 
amendment would have stricken the provision in the REAL ID Act that 
tightens and improves our asylum system, which has been abused by 
terrorists with deadly consequences. The REAL ID Act will protect the 
American people by allowing immigration judges to determine witness 
credibility in asylum cases and ensuring that all terrorism-related 
grounds for inadmissibility are also grounds for deportation. In 
summary, as a co-sponsor of this bill, I believe that all of the 
provisions in the REAL ID Act are essential in protecting our citizens 
from future terrorist plots and I would have voted ``no'' on the Nadler 
Amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Nadler 
amendment, which would strip the asylum reforms from the ``REAL ID 
Act.''
  The asylum provisions in the REAL ID Act are essential. The 9/11 
Commission specifically noted that ``a number of terrorists . . . 
abused the asylum system.''
  Just last year, a Pakistani national who had applied for asylum was 
caught while planning to blow up a subway station during the Republican 
Convention in New York City.
  Under a 9th Circuit decision, a judge can determine that an asylum 
applicant is lying and still be required to grant the applicant 
admission.
  The DOJ Inspector General reported that it was common for asylum 
applicants to make claims that they were falsely accused of being 
terrorists. In this situation, even if the judge believes that the 
applicant is lying and is a terrorist, the judge may still be required 
to approve the application.
  The REAL ID Act reverses this 9th Circuit decision and makes it 
harder for terrorists to exploit our asylum system. It allows 
immigration judges--like judges in most other courts--to determine 
whether the asylum seeker is telling the truth.
  Judges in ordinary criminal courts of law are routinely allowed to 
determine whether they believe a defendant is lying. Yet, under current 
law, immigration judges cannot make this common sense determination.
  The REAL ID Act is essential in stopping asylum abuse. This amendment 
would strike the asylum reform provisions and make it easier for 
suspected terrorists to receive asylum.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H553]]

the gentleman from New York will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment Number 
5 printed in part B the House report 109-4.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Farr

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B, Amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-4 
     offered by Mr. Farr.
       Strike section 102 of the bill.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 75, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment is simple and straightforward. It strikes Section 102, 
which is entitled the ``Waiver of Laws Necessary for the Improvement of 
Barriers and Borders'' from the bill. I think the provision is trying 
to fix a process that is not broken.
  I offer this amendment to strike Section 102, not to stop 
construction of the remaining 3 miles of the border fence, but to 
preserve the rule of law that this country was founded on.
  I want my colleagues to listen. I want to make this very clear. The 
breadth of this provision is unprecedented. The border fence in San 
Diego is under construction right now. Of the 14 miles authorized to be 
constructed, more than 9 miles of triple fence have been completed. 
Only two sections have not been finished. In order to finish the fence, 
the Customs and Border Patrol has proposed to fill a canyon known as 
Smugglers Gulch with over 2 million cubic yards of dirt. The triple 
fence would then be extended across the filled gulch.
  In February 2004, the Coastal Commission of California determined 
that the Customs and Border Patrol had not demonstrated, among other 
things, that the project was consistent to ``maximize'' to the extent 
practicable with the policies of the California Coastal Management 
program, the State program approved under the Federal Coastal Zone 
Management Act.
  The Coastal Zone Management Act requires Federal agency activity 
within and outside the coastal zone that affects any land use, water or 
other natural resources in the coastal zone to be carried out in a 
manner that is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the 
policies of an approved State management program.
  However, as stringent as these requirements are, if a Federal court 
finds a Federal activity to be inconsistent with an improved State 
program, the Secretary determines that the compliance is unlikely to be 
achieved through mediation, the President may exempt from compliance 
the activity if the President determines that the activity is in the 
paramount interest of the United States.
  All the authority needed to build the barrier fence already exists in 
law. We can use laws and process that we have to get this fence built. 
There is no need for a blanket waiver to get any barrier constructed.
  On October 26 of 2004 the Coastal Commission staff met with the 
Customs and Border Patrol/Homeland Security. In that meeting the 
Customs and Border Patrol explained why they did not believe additional 
comments, other than those that had already been agreed upon, were 
necessary to bring the project into compliance with the applicable 
coastal policies. Customs and Border Patrol maintained that it still 
wanted to continue to work with the Coastal Commission on measures they 
had agreed to, and the Coastal Commission indicated their continued 
willingness to work with them, despite the overall disagreement with 
some of the project components such as the Smugglers Gulch fill.
  Coastal Commission informed Customs that in order to complete the 
Federal consistency review process, they would have to write a letter 
outlining their position. However, the Coastal Commission has not 
received any letter.
  So why are we trying to fix something that is working through the 
established process of law? I ask because the reach of this amendment 
is actually the border fence in San Diego.
  The proposed section 102 gives an unprecedented waiver and power to 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, not only for the border fence in 
San Diego but for any, any area. If enacted, the new 102 section would 
provide the Secretary of Homeland Security not only with the authority 
to waive all laws he determines necessary to ensure the expeditious 
construction of barriers and roads, but the requirement that the 
Secretary do so.
  As I mentioned, there is no evidence that such an extraordinary 
rejection of the rule of law is necessary in the first instance.
  Current law allows the DHS Secretary to waive the National 
Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act at the barrier, 
and this same provision was allowed to the Attorney General prior to 
the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
  This provision has never, to date, been used in San Diego nor am I 
aware at any other time the authority has been used on the barrier 
fence. So the remedies are there; they are in the law.
  We forget in this debate that Mexico is the number one trading 
partner of California. It is the busiest border in the world for the 
legitimate transfer of people and commerce, and it is in the city and 
County of San Diego, and neither of those jurisdictions has asked for 
this draconian waiver. Neither has the State of California.
  Why would the Government of the United States of America, at a time 
when we are advocating the support and enforcement of law, why would 
the government now want to forbid the use of our own law to finish the 
fence? Not even the importance of securing the border can justify 
placing a government official above the law.
  As I mentioned, my colleagues ought to be wary of what is proposed 
here. It grants authority to waive all laws notwithstanding any other 
provision of the law. This section also says, notwithstanding any other 
provision of the law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear a claim, 
to order any relief.
  How can we celebrate elections in Iraq and the honor of law when we 
in Congress are now asking that we waive all laws?
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 418 and I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  This bill is a misguided attempt to implement immigration reform 
under the guise of Homeland Security. This bill turns its back on a 
core principle that distinguishes America from other nations; that of 
being a safe haven for the tired, poor, and weak. The three specific 
policies that the bill addresses--the border fence, asylum provisions 
and driver's licenses standards--should have been vetted through the 
Committee process. Instead, this legislation has been rushed through 
the process--without hearings, without debate, and with very little 
input from the minority side of the aisle. This bill is being debated 
simply for politics instead of going through a legitimate legislative 
process, a fact that should be of concern to every Member, Republican 
and Democrat alike.
  Today I will offer an amendment. My amendment is simple and straight 
forward. It strikes section 102 from the ``REAL ID Act of 2005''. The 
proposed provision is trying to fIx a process that isn't broken. 
Section 102 gives an unprecedented waiver and power to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security. If passed, the Secretary has the sole discretion to 
wave all laws in order to expedite the construction of barriers and 
roads. There is no evidence that such an extraordinary rejection of the 
rule of law is necessary in the first instance. Current law already 
allows the DHS Secretary to waive the National Environmental Policy Act 
and the Endangered Species Act for the fence construction, the same 
exemption authorization that was allowed the Attorney General prior to 
creation of DHS. I look forward to the debate on my amendment.
  As I stated before, H.R. 418 is not a good bill and even more 
troubling is that we had no hearings or committee debate on it. We need 
frank and productive dialogue about the state of our immigration system 
and this bill does nothing to open up the discussion that this country 
needs to have. I do not support illegal immigration, but I do support 
the people who have come to our country and played by the rules in 
order to obtain their citizenship status. Not only do we have a 
responsibility and a proud history of protecting those who seek

[[Page H554]]

asylum in our country, which this bill is trying to thwart, we have a 
responsibility to legal immigrants who are contributing to our society 
to reduce the lengthy backlog to citizenship. Just earlier this week in 
meeting with some Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services 
employees, I was not surprised to learn that workers who were hired to 
help eliminate the backlog four years ago have been asked to stay on 
for another year. I do not often hear of temporary employees that are 
necessary for five years. I also learned that one of the reasons for 
the bureaucracy that legal immigrants experience is due to the 
antiquated state of technology the Bureau uses. As you can see, these 
are legitimate concerns about our immigration system that H.R. 418 does 
not address because it is a bill that has been brought up for political 
reasons, not legitimate policy reasons. The Republican Leadership of 
this Congress would do well to heed the President's comments to begin a 
dialogue on how to improve our immigration processes, and strengthen 
our national security, unlike the current legislation brought before us 
today.
  The effects of the REAL ID Act are not only bad for domestic 
politics, they are destructive for the peace process in the Middle 
East. The Act states: ``An alien who is an officer, official, 
representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization 
is considered, for purposes of this Act, to be engaged in a terrorist 
activity.'' In the first place, the United States already has a formal, 
congressionally approved mechanism for designating foreign terrorist 
organizations and imposing sanctions on them. The PLO is not on the 
U.S. list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This sneaky, backdoor 
attempt to override the responsibility of the State Department and the 
will of Congress is an incredibly stupid way to execute U.S. diplomacy.
  Second, we are now on the cusp of a historic moment in the Middle 
East peace process. The administration has promised that they will be 
actively engaged in the Middle East peace process. I find it hard to 
believe that they can be ``actively'' engaged in the peace process if 
the President will not be able to invite newly elected President 
Mahmoud Abbas to his Texas ranch, Camp David or any other location 
within the United States. President Abbas appears to be making 
considerable efforts in brokering peace, and the United States should 
be supporting his efforts. The effects of this provision will be a 
diplomatic nightmare and damage the United States's ability to be a 
fair broker in the peace process. This provision is an embarrassment to 
United States diplomacy--it is highly counterproductive to peace 
negotiations.
  Furthermore, I have concerns with the national driver's license 
standards in this bill. Current law already addresses this issue, but 
the regulations have been implemented since this bill was passed only 
10 weeks ago. National driver's license standards in this bill create 
an unfunded mandate for States. Under this bill, at least 10 States 
would be forced to make significant changes to their systems, despite 
the fact that security standards can be attained without the 
interference this bill creates. State control of the licensing and 
identification process is crucial to maintaining public safety, 
bolstering security, reducing fraud, keeping costs of car insurance 
down and protecting privacy and Federal standards for such documents 
should be limited to those enumerated in the intelligence Reform Act of 
2004.
  Additionally, the proponents of this bill do not want you to know 
that H.R. 418 would not have prevented 9/11 hijackers from obtaining a 
driver's license or ID. The breach of our security was a result of the 
hijackers having been issued legal visas to come to the United States, 
which many of them used to apply for driver's licenses and 
identification cards. Does H.R. 418 seek to address the root of the 
problem here? No, obviously not. Again, this bill is political 
posturing under the guise of national security.
  Instead of debating H.R. 418, the House of Representatives should be 
focused on ensuring the successful enactment of the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and working on comprehensively 
reforming our immigration system so that immigration is legal, safe, 
orderly, and reflective of the needs of American families, businesses, 
and national security.
  Leadership should be ashamed to have brought a bill like this that 
will affect our environment, our citizens, and people from all around 
the world to the Floor in such a manner. I can not support the process 
nor the actual policy this bill proposes and I urge my colleagues vote 
no on H.R. 418.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to find out, if the 
gentleman knows, has this ever occurred in the history of Federal 
legislation before that for a given instance all laws, local, State, 
national, will be waived all at one time for one specific purpose?
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, it has never been done before, waiving all 
labor laws, all contract laws, all small business laws, all laws 
relating to sacred places. It is a broad sweep, just a total repeal of 
all of those laws or a waiver of all those laws.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which continues 
to have endless litigation against plugging the hole in the fence south 
of San Diego. We were able to win World War II quicker than we were 
able to complete this fence. I think that shows why this amendment is a 
bad one.
  I want to tell the membership the short story that illustrates why 
the fence has to be completed.
  In early January, I sent two of my staff personally to inspect this 
area. On the day they visited the Imperial Beach Station at the Border 
Patrol, they asked to see a demonstration of the AFIS fingerprint 
system used to identify criminal aliens among those caught across the 
border. A man picked at random from a holding area of high-risk 
detainees, who had been apprehended the night before, was selected for 
fingerprint check.
  Within 15 minutes the system returned a rap sheet that was 17 pages 
long. Crimes he committed across three different States included 
abusing his spouse, raping his daughter and multiple counts of theft. 
This man was apprehended not far from Smuggler's Gulch and came through 
the area where the fence is not complete. The Border Patrol says he is 
typical of the one in three aliens they apprehend coming through the 3-
mile unfenced area along the beach.
  This person is a criminal, and membership of the California 
delegation complained about the cost of California incarcerating 
criminal aliens. We can cut down that cost and incarcerate fewer 
criminal aliens by plugging the hole in this fence and keeping them 
south of the border.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, many on this side of the aisle also support 
strong border protection. I certainly do, and I support the fence. This 
is not an argument, however, about whether to build a fence. It is 
about what process should be used, and this process is dead wrong.
  Rather than reaching out to the governor of California, a leader in 
the party on the other side of the aisle, to reach compromise on this 
issue, the author of this bill has crafted language that will usurp all 
of Governor Schwarzenneger's power regarding the border fence. To take 
the radical steps of eliminating all State and local powers, let alone 
Federal, and rolling back all judicial review is the height of 
irresponsible legislating.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill sets the dangerous precedent of policing a 
single Federal official, elected by no one, above all laws, and shields 
him from accountability, and the reach is beyond the San Diego border. 
According to the language in this legislation, it is all areas along 
and in the vicinity of our international borders with both Mexico and 
Canada.
  This is the wrong way to do it. We need to do the right thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter), the Chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services and one of the biggest supporters of Governor Schwarzenegger.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  We started this fence about 20 years ago. We started it by building 
the first

[[Page H555]]

steel fence across that 14-mile segment between the coastal hills of 
San Diego County and the Pacific Ocean. We did that because drug trucks 
were running that border at the rate of about 300 per month.

                              {time}  1315

  We had about 10 people being murdered each year, along with numerous 
robberies and rapes, to such a high degree that the best-selling book, 
``Lines and Shadows'' by Joseph Wambaugh, was written depicting this 
``no man's land,'' where nobody wanted to be after dark. So we built 
that first line, which was the steel fence right on the border.
  We then built the second fence, that is, the second tier of the so-
called triple fence, after we passed a law signed by President Bill 
Clinton in 1996. And it was President Clinton who signed the bill 
waiving the Endangered Species Act and waiving NEPA because he thought 
it was so important that we have security at this, the most porous 
smugglers' corridor in the United States of America.
  Now, I can just tell you, as a guy who has worked on this thing from 
the start, my staff went out and found those 79,000 steel landing mats 
to build this fence. If the extremists had discovered this fence before 
we got the first 12 miles built, that would not be built. We stopped 
those 300 drug trucks a month, stopped them dead. We eliminated the 10 
murders a year, mostly of undocumented workers. We eliminated the 
hundreds of rapes of the people who were coming through there because 
we built that fence.
  If the extremists had had their way, they would have gone to a 
sympathetic Federal court, tied us up in lawsuits and we would not have 
had the fence.
  The Secretary of the Navy has written us a letter saying that 
completion of this project will enhance the security of our naval 
installations by reducing the potential threat environment created by 
an unsecured border. A few miles north of this gap in the fence is the 
biggest naval installation on the West Coast. Through this gap have 
come and been apprehended people from nations that sponsor terrorists, 
nations like North Korea, nations like Syria.
  This is a security issue. And for people to say this is an 
environmental issue, this is the state of play right now, all these 
trails you see have been hammered into that ecosystem by the smugglers. 
None of my colleagues have been out there trying to stop them. They 
have hammered these trails by the hundreds into the ecosystem, hammered 
it into the marshlands and the estuary lands.
  Good biologists say it will take hundreds of years for these areas to 
be restored, not by actions of the Border Patrol or by our security 
apparatus, but by the smugglers who come across this particular gap in 
the fence.
  We need to secure this gap. The Secretary of the Navy recognizes 
that, President Clinton recognized that and gave an unprecedented 
waiver. We need to complete the border fence.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr) has 3 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond, first, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  He is right, there is in existing law the authorization to waive 
those issues. It has never been used. It has never been used. This 
waives all laws, labor laws, every kind of law. This is a draconian 
approach to try to get the job done.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Farr amendment. This 
bill gives the Secretary unprecedented authority to waive all laws to 
finish the construction of the security barrier. This bill denies due 
process to anyone challenging the Secretary's decision by prohibiting 
judicial review of the Secretary's waivers.
  These provisions would undermine the Federal trust responsibility to 
Indian nations by allowing waivers of Federal requirements of providing 
tribal notification that are specifically designed to protect Native 
American burial grounds, religious shrines, and cultural and historical 
sites.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Farr amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham), another big supporter of Governor 
Schwarzenegger.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) talked about, in 1990, when he came to me while I was still in 
the military asking me about landing mats to put up for the border. He 
and I have actually been down there welding to get that up.
  Why? Why would we do that?
  Take this floor, if this was a farmer's field and you had a single 
strand of wire that was lying on the ground, that is what separated the 
United States and Mexico. We had truckloads of drugs coming across in a 
100-mile sector that we could not stop. In 1 year, there were a number 
of rapes and a number of murders by the coyotes and people on the U.S. 
side of people trying to get across. When my colleague arranged to put 
up that fence, it stopped all of it.
  Now, there are all kinds of ways in which you can stop something here 
in this body. We can have hearings and say we are going to do this or 
that, but with the fence area, these 7 miles, another way is to waive 
the environmental things.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) also showed that President 
Clinton did this. If we do not do this, my colleagues, we will not get 
it done.
  And it will help security. Documents that we have captured from al 
Qaeda show that they consider the border vulnerable, with cells in 
Mexico itself. And so it is not just sealing off the border for 
security, but it is other things too.
  In San Diego, in California, we have about 800,000 illegals in K-
through-12 education. Use half of that, use 400,000. That is $2 billion 
a year out of California. That does not account for the $1.5 million a 
day for the school lunch. Now, I cannot stop those kids. I have been in 
those schools. There is no way I would take that lunch away from those 
critters. But we need to secure our border to stop the flow coming in.
  If we know, with the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), who is there legally, it is much easier to tell who is 
there illegally. So I ask my colleagues to give this support because we 
really need to complete this.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) has 
2\1/4\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to nobody my concern that this 
bill has regarding the environment, but that is not the point. We have 
already had our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Duncan), 
talk about how we passed specific legislation signed by President 
Clinton that suspended the Endangered Species Act. What we are talking 
about here is far beyond this. It is talking about suspending all laws, 
health, safety, immigration, payment for private property. All laws, 
not the environment.
  My colleagues would be creating not a couple of miles of exception to 
finish a fence, but you would be creating a zone 7,514 miles long under 
the terms of this bill, 5,500 in Canada, almost 2,000 with the border 
of Mexico, where all laws are suspended in the vicinity of the barrier. 
My colleagues have no idea how much land they are exempting from 
compensation.
  Mr. Chairman, there are only 11,751 people who have been privileged 
to serve in this Chamber. I do not think any of them have ever been 
asked to vote on anything more irresponsible. It is a terrible 
precedent, unnecessary, and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), a close adviser of Governor 
Schwarzenegger and the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time,

[[Page H556]]

and let me just say what it is that got us here. I have listened to the 
arguments propounded by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  We are here because, as the chairman of the Judiciary said, it has 
taken longer to complete this fence than it did to win the Second World 
War. The problem that we have is, there needs to be recognition that 
the environmentally sound vote is to complete this fence.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) held up a poster. If you 
look at where the fence has been completed, it is pristine, it is 
clean, it looks great, and it is securing our borders. If you look at 
that 3\1/2\-mile gap, you see all kinds of trash and devastation and 
you, of course, exacerbate the pressure with the flow of people coming 
into this country illegally, creating a wide range of problems.
  We came this close, when we had strong support, 257 Members of this 
body in the last Congress who voted for the Ose amendment that should 
have been included in the 9/11 Committee's recommendation in the 
conference agreement that we had. The other body prevented us when we 
were working in the conference to bring it back here. We had 
indications from Democrats and Republicans alike that if we brought 
this measure up we could have strong support of it.
  It is imperative, it is imperative that we complete this fence. 
Smugglers Gulch is an area which is, I believe, posing a very serious 
threat to our stability in this country and in California. So I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Farr amendment and cast the environmentally 
sound vote, which is a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, no person in our country should be given 
unfettered authority, unfettered discretion to waive any or all laws, 
for whatever the purpose.
  Take this situation. In order to expedite construction of this fence, 
the Department of Homeland Security could select a contractor without 
competitive bidding, use undocumented workers, violate child labor 
laws, pay the workers less than the minimum wage, exempt contractors 
from Federal and State withholding; workers could be forced to put in 
18-hour-days without overtime pay, in unsafe conditions, and be 
transported in trucks used for hazardous cargo; and allow the Secretary 
discretion to have these workers construct fences and roads through 
private property.
  That is wrong. You can build a fence, but you do not have to violate 
all those laws.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have heard a lot of talk here today, and I submit that this is not 
the answer, to emasculate all the laws. I would bet that if the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham), myself and any other interested party sat down, one 
meeting with all the interested parties, we could resolve this. But 
that is not the way they want to proceed.
  This was not a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. This is 
essentially emasculating all laws to get an environmental project 
completed. And emasculating all laws is not the way to do it.
  This amendment is a good amendment because it does not allow my 
colleagues to emasculate all laws. What it allows us to do is to let 
this process work. And with the pressure that has been brought here 
today, we can get that fence built. The opposition on this side is not 
against the fence, it is against emasculating all the laws of the land 
in order to get there. So I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a memorandum of the 
Congressional Research Service, dated February 7, 2005, regarding the 
REAL ID Act.


                               Congressional Research Service,

                                                 February 7, 2005.


                               memorandum

     To: House Committee on Homeland Security, Attention: Sue 
         Ramanathan; and House Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Attention: Kristin Wells.
     From: Stephen R. Vina and Todd Tatelman, Legislative 
         Attorneys, American Law Division.
     Subject: Legal Analysis of Sec. 102 of H.R. 418, Waiver of 
         Laws Necessary for Improvement of Barriers at Borders.
       Pursuant to your request on February 3, this memorandum 
     analyzes section 102 of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. Section 
     102, captioned ``Waiver of Laws Necessary for Improvement of 
     Barriers at Borders,'' provides the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security with authority to waive all laws he deems necessary 
     for the expeditious construction of the barriers authorized 
     to be constructed by Sec. 102 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) 
     (P.L. 104-208, Div. C, codified at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103 note) 
     and removes judicial review from such waiver decisions. 
     Specifically, this memorandum discusses the extent to which 
     Congress has passed laws that provide waivers comparable to 
     Sec. 102 of H.R. 418 and outlines some of the legal issues 
     that could potentially arise if Sec. 102 is passed in its 
     current form. In view of the short time frame for response, 
     the following analysis is necessarily brief and we refer you 
     to CRS Report RS 22026, Border Security: Fences Along the 
     U.S. International Border for background information on 
     Sec. 102 of IIRIRA and the border fence.

                           H.R. 418, Sec. 102

       Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend Sec. 102(c) of IIRIRA 
     to read as follows:
       (c) Waiver.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the 
     authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, 
     in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to 
     ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads 
     under this section.
       (2) No judicial review.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall 
     have jurisdiction--
       (A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action 
     undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
       (B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, 
     equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise 
     from any such action or decision.

                           Waiver provisions

       If enacted, the new Sec. 102 would provide the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security with not only the authority to waive all 
     laws he determines necessary to ensure the expeditious 
     construction of the barriers and roads under Sec. 102 of 
     IIRIRA, but the requirement that the Secretary do so. This 
     provision could provide the Secretary with broader waiver 
     authority than what is currently in Sec. 102( c) of IIRIRA. 
     This authority would apparently include laws other than the 
     Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy 
     Act, but may not include a waiver of protections established 
     in the Constitution. All laws waived, however, must be 
     determined by the Secretary to be necessary to ensure 
     expeditious construction of the barriers and roads. The 
     waiver authority provided by this amendment would also seem 
     to apply to all the barriers that may be constructed under 
     the authority of Sec. 102 of IIRIRA (i.e., barriers 
     constructed in the vicinity of the border and the barrier 
     that is to be constructed near the San Diego area).
       Congress commonly waives preexisting laws, though the 
     process necessary to complete the waiver and the number of 
     laws waived vary considerably from provision to provision. 
     Even more common is the use of the phrase, ``notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law.'' While the use of a broad 
     ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' infrequently 
     governs interpretation, such directives seem facially 
     preclusive, and some courts have determined that 
     ``notwithstanding'' language may serve to explicitly preempt 
     the application of other laws. Other courts, however, have 
     held that such provisions are generally not dispositive in 
     determining the preemptive effect of a statute.
       After a review of federal law, primarily through electronic 
     database searches and consultations with various CRS experts, 
     we were unable to locate a waiver provision identical to that 
     of Sec. 102 of H.R. 418--i.e., a provision that contains 
     ``notwithstanding language,'' provides a secretary of an 
     executive agency the authority to waive all laws 
     such secretary determines necessary, and directs the 
     secretary to waive such laws. Much more common, it 
     appears, are waiver provisions that (1) exempt an action 
     from other requirements contained in the Act that 
     authorizes the action, (2) specifically delineate the laws 
     to be waived, or (3) waive a grouping of similar laws. The 
     most analogous provisions that we located appear to be, at 
     least on their face, the following:
       43 U.S.C. Sec. 1652(c): Allows the Secretary of the 
     Interior and other Federal officers and agencies the 
     authority to waive any procedural requirements of law or 
     regulation which they deem desirable for authorizations that 
     are necessary for or related to the construction, operation, 
     and maintenance of the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline system 
     (e.g., rights-of-way, permits, and leases).
       25 U.S.C. Sec. 3406: Allows the Secretaries of the 
     Interior, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, 
     notwithstanding any other law, to waive any statutory 
     requirement, regulation, policy, or procedure promulgated by 
     their agency that is identified by a tribal government as 
     necessary to implement a submitted tribal plan under the 
     Indian Employment, Training and Related Services 
     Demonstration Act of 1992, as amended.

[[Page H557]]

       20 U.S.C. Sec. 7426: Provides almost identical waiver 
     language to that of 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3406, but for plans 
     submitted by tribal governments for the integration of 
     education and related services provided to Indian students.
       There are many other provisions that arguably grant broad 
     waiver authority similar to that of Sec. 102, but contain 
     qualifications or reporting requirements that seem to limit 
     their breadth. For example, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 2008 allows the 
     President to waive provisions of federal law he deems 
     necessary in the national interest to facilitate the 
     construction or operation of crude oil transportation 
     systems, but such waivers must be submitted to Congress, and 
     Congress must pass a joint resolution before the President 
     can act on the waivers. As mentioned above and as the 
     examples we have set forth arguably demonstrate, the breadth 
     of waiver authority granted by Sec. 102 of H.R. 418 does not 
     appear to be common in the federal law searched.

                       Judicial review provisions

       By including the language ``no court,'' Sec. 102(c)(2) of 
     H.R. 418 appears to preclude judicial review of a Secretary's 
     decision to waive provisions of law by both federal and state 
     courts. The preclusion of judicial review in state court and 
     of state claims appears buttressed by the fact that 
     Sec. 102(c) is explicitly intended to preclude judicial 
     review of nonstatutory laws--a term which would seem to imply 
     the inclusion of state constitutional and common law claims. 
     It is generally accepted that Article III of the United 
     States Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate 
     the jurisdiction, procedures, and remedies available in 
     federal courts. However, what remains uncertain is whether 
     Congress's authority, pursuant to Article III, extends to the 
     jurisdiction, procedures, and remedies of state courts. In 
     addition, it remains uncertain to what extent Congress has 
     Article III authority to prevent courts, state or federal, 
     from addressing and remedying issues arising under the United 
     States Constitution.
       With respect to Congress's ability to control the 
     jurisdiction of state courts, the Supreme Court has ruled 
     that subject to a congressional provision to the contrary, 
     state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over all the 
     classes of cases and controversies enumerated in Article III, 
     except for suits between States, suits in which either the 
     United States or a foreign state is a party, and those 
     considered within the traditional jurisdiction of admiralty 
     law. Thus, it appears possible to argue that Congress has a 
     plenary power to allocate jurisdiction between the state and 
     federal courts. In other words, if, for example, Congress can 
     make jurisdiction over an area of law exclusively federal, 
     thereby depriving state courts of any ability to hear the 
     claim, it appears that Congress may also be able to remove a 
     cause of action from state courts without concurrently 
     granting jurisdiction to the federal courts.
       State courts, however, are often considered to be 
     independent and autonomous from the federal court system. 
     This independent status has led some scholars to argue that 
     because the Constitution appears to reserve to the states the 
     authority to control the jurisdiction of their own courts, 
     Congress's ``only means of allocating jurisdiction is through 
     control of the federal court's jurisdiction.'' The argument 
     that state courts are autonomous can be derived, in part, 
     from the Supreme Court's doctrine with respect to its ability 
     to review decisions from state courts. While the Court has 
     the authority to review a decision of a state's highest 
     court, it has repeatedly held that it will not do so if 
     the decision rests upon adequate and independent state 
     grounds. This rule is arguably designed to protect a 
     state's interest in developing and applying its own laws. 
     Thus, it would appear that an argument can be made that 
     Congress does not possess the authority to regulate the 
     jurisdiction of state courts directly. It may be the case, 
     however, that Congress's ability to control the 
     jurisdiction of the federal courts indirectly effects and 
     alters the jurisdiction of the state courts, which would 
     appear to preserve their autonomous status.
       Turning to Congress's ability to remove jurisdiction with 
     respect to claims arising under the Constitution, it appears 
     that Supreme Court precedent requires that at least some 
     forum be provided for the redress of constitutional rights. 
     While it appears that the Supreme Court has not directly 
     addressed whether there needs to be a judicial forum to 
     vindicate all constitutional rights, it appears that the 
     Court has taken to noting constitutional reservations about 
     legislative denials for jurisdiction for judicial review of 
     constitutional issues, as well as construction of statutes 
     that purport to limit the Court's jurisdiction. At least one 
     justice, however, has indicated that there have been 
     particular cases, such as political question cases, where all 
     constitutional review is in effect precluded.
       Nevertheless, the Court has generally found a requirement 
     that effective judicial remedies be present. For example, in 
     cases involving particular rights, such as the availability 
     of effective remedies for Fifth Amendment takings, the Court 
     has held that ``the compensation remedy is required by the 
     Constitution.'' In addition, lower federal courts appear to 
     have held that, in most cases, some forum must be provided 
     for the vindication of constitutional rights. Cases such as 
     these would seem to provide a basis for the Court to find 
     that parties seeking to vindicate other particular rights 
     must have a judicial forum for such challenges; therefore, 
     the Court may construe the provisions of H.R. 418 in a manner 
     that preserves this right.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, I have to ask, Who should 
be in charge of counterterrorism policy? Should it be the California 
Coastal Commission or should it be the Department of Homeland Security? 
That is the crux of this argument.
  Now, environmental groups have successfully fought the completion of 
this fence over the years, claiming that it would have a serious impact 
on everything from the San Diego fairy shrimp to the San Diego button 
celery, all that in this 3.5 mile strip of desert along the border.
  Does anyone think we can secure the border and save the button celery 
by putting up a fence to stop people from trampling on it? Yes, we can. 
Can we protect ourselves from al Qaeda operatives who have joined 
forces with alien smuggling rings like MS 13 in order to enter the 
United States through our porous southern border by stopping them from 
squishing the fairy shrimp as they slip through the gap in the fence? 
Yes, we can. It is a win-win.
  In the interest of national security, we need to defeat this 
amendment.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague 
from Monterey for so clearly laying out the reasons that waiving all 
laws is a travesty of American governing principles.
  I will focus on the issue driving this extreme language--completing 
the 3\1/2\ miles of border fencing, including the ocean section in my 
district.
  A member stated that tens of thousands of illegal immigrants enter 
there and are chased all over the sensitive wetlands destroying them 
anyway. His facts were true 10 years ago. They are not today.
  In 1993, the Border Patrol apprehended 165,000 people in this 
section. In 2003, the number had dropped 94 percent--to 10,000.
  How many illegal entrants get past the Border Patrol today? They tell 
us 1,000 a year--three people per day. And that is with a fence you or 
I could easily walk around or through.
  What should we do?
  Finish building a secondary fence with the proposed level of 
environmental destruction.
  Compromise has occurred, and plans exist for alternative road 
alignment. Appoint a task force to meet and reach consensus by a 
deadline.
  One issue remains--a one-half mile wide river bed called Smuggler's 
Gulch--leading to internationally recognized wetlands restored at the 
cost of tens of millions of dollars.
  The proposal lops off two adjacent mesas to dump 2 million tons of 
dirt into the gap to a height of 165 feet!--as high as two of the new 
giant airbuses stacked on top of one another!
  It would cost $40 million just to move the dirt--money better spent 
purchasing high grade technology and funding the President's proposed 
increase of Border Patrol agents.
  I urge you to support the Farr amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to express my concern over a 
provision in H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005. Section 102 of this Act 
states that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority 
to waive, and shall waive, all laws necessary to ensure expeditious 
construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the U.S. border 
in areas of high illegal entry. The provision also bars judicial review 
of any claim arising from the construction of barriers and roads at 
borders.
  I understand that this provision is intended to apply primarily to 
the fence along the border near San Diego. The construction of that 
fence is critical to our national security and has been delayed for far 
too long and I think it is imperative that it be constructed as soon as 
possible.
  However, I believe the provision currently contained in this bill is 
far too sweeping. It should not be necessary to waive all laws and 
judicial review relating to the construction of roads and barriers 
along the border in order to complete the fence near San Diego.
  I hope that as the bill moves forward we can find a solution that 
will lead to the swift construction of this fence without sweeping away 
important laws.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H558]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order: Amendment No. 4 printed in part B, 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and amendment No. 5 
printed in part B, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 4 printed in part B of House Report 109-
4, offered by the gentleman New York (Mr. Nadler), on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 236, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 28]

                               AYES--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     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
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--236

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bass
     Carter
     Eshoo
     Feeney
     Green, Gene
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Oxley
     Pickering
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Stupak


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1355

  Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, and Messrs. REYNOLDS, 
SODREL, NEUGEBAUER, TOM DAVIS of Virginia, FORD, BACHUS, TANNER, 
MURPHY, and BRADY of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 28 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Farr

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 5 printed in Part B of House Report 109-
4 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 243, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 29]

                               AYES--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     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
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey

[[Page H559]]


     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     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
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--243

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     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
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     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
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Carter
     Eshoo
     Feeney
     Green, Gene
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Oxley
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Stupak
     Weiner


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1405

  Mr. MURTHA and Mr. SHAYS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the importance of 
having standardized drivers' licenses and identification cards. This 
should be done on a bipartisan basis, however. The REAL ID Act was not 
bipartisan, and it was moved too quickly through the legislative 
process. It was passed without any Committee hearings or markups.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I cannot in good conscience vote 
for the REAL ID Act, H.R. 418 because, despite the intention of the 
bill's sponsors to strengthen our borders, it has the opposite effect, 
by making homeland security and an effective war against terrorism more 
difficult with unnecessary provisions aimed at legitimate asylum 
seekers. Moreover, I am guided in my judgment about this bill by the 
opposition of the National Governors Association and the National 
Council of State Legislatures.
  This bill tightens asylum laws in a way that inhibits, rather than 
enhances our national security. Currently individuals who participate 
in terrorist activity are not allowed to gain asylum status in this 
country. Terrorists have not been able to use the current asylum system 
to gain entry into the country, thus the tightening of these laws only 
makes gaining asylum status more difficult for those legitimately 
seeking asylum. Provisions such as requiring applicants to prove the 
``central reason'' for their persecution or allowing judges to require 
applicants to produce corroborating evidence are unnecessary.
  While national security must be our top priority, immigration policy 
should not create unnecessary requirements for legitimate asylum 
seekers who are arguably our best allies in the fight against 
international terrorism. The asylum provisions of this bill will not 
enhance our security or our standing in the world.
  I also have concerns that the bill allows and directs the Secretary 
of Homeland Security to waive all laws which he or she deems necessary 
to complete the construction of barriers along any and all U.S. 
borders. Some have argued that this provision is needed to ensure the 
construction of a fence along three and a half miles of the U.S.-Mexico 
border near San Diego. However, the language of the bill is not limited 
to the construction of a fence in this location. Instead, it instructs 
the Secretary to waive all laws for all U.S. borders; this includes the 
U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S.-Canada border, and maybe even the border 
between Alaska and Russia. The bill also removes any judicial review of 
the waiving of these laws.
  This would give far too much unchecked authority to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security and does not provide the protection of judicial 
review of this authority.
  There are two amendments, one offered by my colleagues Mr. Nadler and 
Mr. Meeks, and the other offered by Mr. Farr, which would strike 
portions of the bill that do not address our national security 
regarding the asylum system and our borders. However, in light of their 
failure, I am left no option but to vote against this bill.
  I find the driver's license standards established in this bill to be 
unnecessary as well, as they already exist in current law. Last fall's 
Intelligence bill, which I supported, included a provision which 
already implements the 9/11 Commission Report's recommendations to 
create national minimum standards for driver's licenses. This provision 
allowed for States to participate with the Department of Transportation 
and the Department of Homeland Security in a rulemaking process.
  H.R. 418 repeals these provisions and replaces them with standards 
established without State input. The issuance of driver's licenses has 
always been within State jurisdiction. Even with the measures passed in 
the Intelligence bill, States will largely be organizing and conducting 
the implementation of these standards. Their participation in 
establishing and implementing driver's license standards is essential 
for these provisions to be successful. This bill simply ignores State 
involvement altogether in these standards.
  Though the bill does provide grants for the costs of implementing 
these standards, with the current fiscal climate, many States fear they 
will be left with the burden of paying a portion of these costs. Most 
States are faced with the same fiscal crisis that the Federal 
Government is currently experiencing. Creating an unfunded mandate for 
States is unfair, especially when they are excluded from the rulemaking 
process.
  There are portions in this bill which I believe are beneficial to our 
national security. For instance, I am pleased the amendment offered by 
Mr. Sessions passed by a voice vote, as it will strengthen our ability 
to ensure the deportation of individuals who are illegally present in 
the United States.
  Unfortunately, the egregious measures in the bill far outweigh the 
beneficial provisions. Thus, I must vote against this bill and hope 
that the Senate will remove the portions of this bill which are 
unnecessary and attack the balance of power in our country.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 418, 
the REAL ID Act of 2005. This bill includes provisions that are 
essential to preventing terrorists and other criminals from obtaining 
fraudulent identification and provides security at our borders.
  Last year, Congress passed legislation based on the recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission but failed to address vital national security 
and homeland security issues. This Legislation addresses theses issues 
and further secures our Nation in a post 9/11 world.
  H.R. 418 requires States to implement new minimum regulations for 
State drivers' license

[[Page H560]]

and identification document security standards that must be met within 
3 years. It also establishes a process to enable States to use an 
existing Department of Transportation communication system to confirm 
that drivers' licenses presented are genuine and validly issued to the 
person who is carrying them. The 19 terrorists who attacked America on 
9/11 had obtained over 63 valid forms of identification between them to 
breach our homeland security. Improving document security is necessary 
to counter threats from foreign terrorism.
  This legislation also takes important steps regarding asylum reform. 
It prevents terrorists and scam artists from abusing our asylum system 
and gives immigration judges the tools they need to undercut asylum 
fraud before it happens.
  Most importantly, H.R. 418 is critical to the continued construction 
of the Southwest border fence in San Diego. Despite efforts by the 
Federal Government and the border patrol, California's Coastal 
Commission has objected to and stopped the final phase of fence 
construction. Completion of the fence will reduce the number of illegal 
crossings, and will allow the Border Patrol to re-deploy manpower and 
resources to other problem areas in San Diego. Completion of the 3-mile 
gap in the fence, known as ``Smugglers Gulch,'' would be a strong step 
toward securing our border.
  Mr. Chairman, I made a promise to my constituents to continue to 
fight for security enhancements to curb illegal immigration and secure 
our borders. This legislation is essential to national security and I 
urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 418.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today's bill would not be nearly as 
flawed or controversial if it had the benefit of going through the 
committee process. Unfortunately, we are faced with costly legislation 
that overturns States rights and does little to address the problems of 
our immigration system or to protect Americans from another terrorist 
attack.
  Instead, this bill places enormous regulatory and financial burdens 
on State governments and makes Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) 
employees de facto immigration officers. This policy promises to be 
ineffective as there are approximately 70 different kinds of 
immigration related documents issued by the Federal Government. This 
bill will not deter illegal immigration; it will probably mean illegal 
immigrants will drive without licenses.
  In addition, in order to complete three miles of a border fence near 
San Diego, Section 102 of this bill suspends all laws, from public 
health and labor to the environment and property compensation. In fact, 
all barriers and roads along 7,514 miles of U.S. borders would be 
exempt from all laws. One person in the Department of Homeland Security 
would be above the law without any judicial appeal or remedy. This is 
unprecedented. Some of the environmental laws waived would include the 
Noise Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the Farmland Protection Policy 
Act, and the Bald Eagle Act. In addition to being bad public policy, 
this exemption is unnecessary, as most of these laws have security 
exemptions already written into them.
  This legislation will not make us safer or reduce illegal 
immigration. In the end, it is hard to imagine a more dangerous 
precedent.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 418 the 
REAL ID Act, because, contrary to its sponsors' claims, this bill will 
not improve our country's security. Instead, it will weaken law 
enforcement's ability to do its job, and make driving on our roads more 
dangerous. In addition, this bill eliminates critical provisions in the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act passed by Congress in 
2004. Finally, the REAL ID Act makes it much more difficult for 
immigrants who are fleeing persecution to gain refuge in the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, while there are many good reasons to oppose this bill, 
as I previously outlined, I will focus on the driver's license 
provision and the asylum provision.
  Barring undocumented immigrants from accessing driver's licenses is a 
dangerous proposal. Withholding driver's licenses from these 
individuals will not fix our broken immigration system. It will only 
make us less safe by having unlicensed and uninsured drivers on our 
roads. The American Automobile Association (AAA) Foundation for Traffic 
Safety report entitled, ``Unlicensed to Kill,'' found that unlicensed 
drivers are almost five times more likely to be in fatal car accidents 
than are validly licensed drivers. Clearly, our goal should be to have 
more, not fewer, licensed drivers.
  Denying licenses to undocumented immigrants will also hurt our 
national security by depriving law enforcement officials of critical 
information on millions of adults who are in the United States. 
Licensed individuals are registered, photographed and in some states 
fingerprinted. This information is then entered into a database 
accessible to local and state law enforcement, FBI personnel and 
immigration officers, helping law enforcement to separate otherwise law 
abiding individuals from terrorist or criminals. In fact, because many 
of the 9/11 hijackers did have a driver's license, the records kept by 
state departments of motor vehicles were invaluable after 9/11 in 
tracking where the terrorist had been and with whom they had 
associated. This information was used to prosecute many individuals who 
would not have been discovered otherwise. Passage of the REAL ID Act 
will mean that law enforcement will be less able to find people who may 
be security threats, and will have less information with which to 
prevent and solve crimes.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that we must be proactive in the 
defense of our nation by identifying weaknesses in our security systems 
and making appropriate changes that will protect us from a terrorist 
attack. For this reason, Congress and the President charged the 9/11 
Commission to study our intelligence failures and make recommendations 
that would improve our systems. Those recommendations were, enacted 
into law with the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 just three months ago. The intelligence reform 
bill required states to establish stringent standards for the issuance 
of driver's licenses and identification cards. Among the new standards 
are requirements that licenses contain digital photographs, employ 
machine readable technology and contain security features to prevent 
tampering, counterfeiting or duplication. Currently, effective and 
workable federal standards that will strengthen driver's license 
security are in the process of being implemented. The REAL ID Act will 
dismantle the safeguards Congress just enacted. Congress and the 
President should instead be focused on implementing the provisions of 
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act such as, adding 
10,000 new border patrol agents, 40,000 new detention beds, and 4,000 
immigration and customs investigators.
  Furthermore, the asylum provisions in the REAL ID Act do nothing to 
enhance our nation's security. Instead, the REAL ID Act serves only to 
deny people who are fleeing religious persecution, torture and other 
horrors the ability to escape into safety. Given the fact that an 
asylum seeker is immediately held in detention before his claim is 
processed, a terrorist would not risk claiming asylum to enter our 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, REAL ID Act is a real bad idea for America. This bill 
will make our roads more dangerous, inhibit the work of law 
enforcement, and undermine the homeland security measures enacted in 
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill and instead focus on implementing the 
counter-terrorism provisions enacted into law just a few months ago.
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to speak in 
support of the REAL ID Act. It is clear that in order to secure our 
country from terrorists we need to reform the requirements and 
standards for driver's licenses. A valid driver's license is like a 
hall pass that allows terrorists to easily roam throughout the United 
States.
  Indeed 19 terrorists did just that with dozens of legal driver's 
licenses and identification cards. The hijackers used these IDs to rent 
cars and apartments, open bank accounts, take flying lessons, and 
otherwise blend into American society while they planned their attacks. 
Those terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans and yet this gap still 
remains open.
  In every State, the driver's license (and its counterpart, the State 
ID card) is the primary document used to establish identity and proof 
of legal residence. Making driver's licenses accessible to illegal 
aliens gives them the means to pass themselves off as legal residents 
of the United States. Additionally, the REAL ID Act does not create a 
national ID card.
  In addition to establishing standards for the issuance of licenses, 
H.R. 418 includes provisions to prevent terrorists from gaming our 
asylum system. Court decisions in recent years have so distorted the 
asylum process that terrorists are now able to claim asylum 
specifically because they are terrorists. This legislation represents a 
critical first step toward gaining control over our borders and 
protecting American lives. These are common-sense measures that should 
be implemented immediately.
  Terrorism may have no borders, but we can certainly make it more 
difficult for terrorists to cross ours. Having a uniform policy that 
relies on common sense will do more to keep America open and free than 
having a policy that relies on hope.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 418.
  Although I support the goals of this legislation, H.R. 418 
unfortunately contains too many misguided provisions. Last year, I 
voted to pass the 9/11 Commission's bipartisan recommendations to 
reform identification standards and beef up security on our nation's 
border. This legislation would repeal that new law before it has a 
chance to work. Had the provisions of H.R. 418 been in place prior to 
September 11, 2001, they would not have stopped

[[Page H561]]

a single one of the 19 terrorists. H.R. 418 would force virtually every 
adult in the United States to go to the DMV to get a new driver's 
license, and with 14,000 local jurisdictions in this country currently 
issuing identification, it would be impossible to impose a single 
standard within in the three-year limit in the bill. I will also vote 
to remove provisions in the bill allowing the DHS Secretary to waive 
laws currently on the books. Finally, many of my constituents have 
expressed concerns to me that H.R. 418 would create a national ID 
system that would lead to intrusive government action like a gun 
registry and gun control on targeted groups. For these reasons, I will 
vote ``no'' on H.R. 418.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, on September 11th, the terrorists didn't 
just use box cutters and airplanes to attack America, they used our own 
laws against us to help them murder thousands of people. H.R. 418, the 
REAL ID Act, will fix these loopholes in current law and also take 
steps to close gaping holes in our land borders, which are the first 
line of defense against terrorist infiltration, not just for the border 
states, but also for my home state of Wyoming and the rest of the 
nation.
  We all know how the 9/11 terrorists manipulated our asylum laws to 
stay in our country, and utilized lax drivers' license standards to 
help them carry out their plans. We know that human traffickers 
continue to take advantage of the gaps in our borders, helping 
terrorist and criminal aliens gain entry into our country. Yet some 
still question the need to turn this invaluable knowledge into 
meaningful action.
  As an original cosponsor of the REAL ID Act, I ask my colleagues to 
look beyond the false rhetoric that has clouded this debate and realize 
what is really at stake--the safety and security of our nation. I 
refuse to gamble with the lives of American citizens, rolling the dice 
on flawed policies that have already failed to protect us against 
terrorism.
  Today we have the opportunity--and more importantly, the 
responsibility--to pass this legislation and make the terrorist 
handbook obsolete.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I'm starting to wonder if the Republican 
Majority was listening to the President when he called for the United 
States to act as a beacon of freedom for the world. For our first 
substantive legislation of the year, they would make it nearly 
impossible for victims of torture and religious persecution to seek 
refuge in the U.S. and they would get us ever closer to establishing a 
national ID.
  We all accept that sometimes freedom must be sacrificed for security, 
but the 9/11 Commission itself said that these big brother, anti-
immigrant provisions do nothing to enhance national security.
  This bill makes changes to the asylum process and state drivers 
licenses, presumably to address the widely-reported anecdote that the 
first World Trade Center bombers abused the asylum system and had a 
total of 63 drivers licenses. However, you have to question the motives 
of the supporters of this bill when the asylum system was already 
strengthened ten years ago and the 63 drivers licenses are simply an 
urban legend. The 9/11 Commission found that the hijackers actually had 
13, and this bill would not have prevented any of them from being 
issued.
  So without making the country safer, we're going to deny refugees and 
victims of torture, rape, and other atrocities safe haven in this 
supposed beacon of freedom. I guess the asylum system, which is the 
most rigorous immigration process in this country, resulting in 30,000 
denials last year, is not good enough for the immigrant-bashers. If 
this bill were to become law, an asylum applicant would have to provide 
documentary evidence of persecution. I hope that residents of the 
Darfur region of Sudan remember to grab their personal files as their 
villages are being burned, because under this law, the presumption of 
credibility would go to the torturers and rapists.
  The bill would also retroactively make legal donations, even 
donations made decades ago, grounds for deportation of green-card 
holders who have lived here for decades if the organization to which a 
donation was made was later added to a government terrorist list.
  The last section of the bill then goes after American citizens. The 
sponsors know that nobody would support a national ID, so they're just 
going to turn your drivers license into one without telling you. It'll 
look the same, but if this bill became law, all states would have to 
share all drivers license information in a national database, including 
identifying information, drivers' histories, and motor vehicle 
violations.
  On behalf of the oppressed people of this world who actually believed 
President Bush when he said the U.S. would stand with them, and on 
behalf of Americans who don't confuse secret databases with security, I 
will vote No on this bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the underlying 
legislation, known as the ``REAL ID Act'' H.R. 418. There is no greater 
responsibility placed upon myself and my colleagues than providing for 
a safe and secure homeland for America's citizens. We must and can do 
better to secure our borders, this legislation takes necessary and 
reasonable steps toward that goal.
  I strongly support this legislation because it will close current 
loopholes in our laws that terrorists have been taking advantage of to 
gain entry and have free reign within our borders. Every measure within 
the REAL ID Act is present because it closes a loophole a terrorist has 
used previously. For example, the September 11th the hijackers had 
within their possession at least 15 valid drivers licenses and numerous 
state issued identity cards with a large variety of addresses allowing 
them to get on U.S. airliners. This legislation includes a number of 
common sense measures aiming to establish minimum document and issuance 
standards for federal acceptance of drivers' licenses and state-issued 
personal identification cards and would require applicants to provide 
proof they are in the country legally. Additionally, this measure would 
require identity documents to expire at the same time as the expiration 
of lawful entry status which will prevent individuals who have 
illegally entered or are unlawfully present in the United States from 
having valid identification documents.
  The REAL ID Act will also strengthen and clarify our process for 
granting immigrants asylum within our borders. While America has always 
been and always will be a safe harbor for those being persecuted by 
tyrannical governments we must be vigilant to ensure those individuals 
are not taking advantage of America's generosity and good will. Our 
first responsibility is to protect the American people and we cannot 
put on blinders to expect that everyone who seeks asylum does so in 
good faith. This legislation closes one of the most egregious loopholes 
that currently exists--the REAL ID Act would prevent liberal judges 
from granting asylum to aliens on the basis that their governments 
believe they are terrorists. It is only reasonable that our laws do not 
force our country to provide safe harbor to those individuals that are 
being sought out by their governments due to their terrorist ties.
  I have given just a few examples of why this legislation is so 
important to further our ability to strengthen our border security and 
increase our ability to remove illegal aliens from our country. There 
are numerous other provisions within this bill that work toward those 
goals as well. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me today in 
voting in support of this important border security legislation because 
it will help better defend our homeland.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 418, 
the REAL ID Act. Not only has the House failed to consider the sweeping 
changes in this bill through the thoughtful and deliberative committee 
process, we have failed our duty to the American people to ensure that 
this bill will not have unintended consequences.
  You may ask, ``Dingell, what unintended consequences? Doesn't this 
bill just keep the bad guys from harming us again?''
  Well, my friends, read the fine print.
  Look at Section 102 of the bill. That section allows the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to waive ANY and ALL federal, state, or local law 
that the Secretary determines should be waived to ensure the 
construction of physical barriers and roads to deter illegal border 
crossings.
  It would also allow waiver of laws to knock down existing structures 
or other obstacles.
  It would give power to the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive 
any public health law such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean 
Water Act, as well as transportation safety, hazardous materials 
transportation and road construction standards.
  In addition, it would grant DHS unchecked authority to abrogate 
criminal law, child labor laws, laws that protect workers, civil rights 
laws, ethics laws for clean contracting and procurement policy.
  It goes even further. No procedures for using this authority are 
established, and judicial review by federal or state courts is 
expressly prohibited. It even appears there would be NO judicial review 
concerning the taking of private property.
  The breadth of this provision is unprecedented and must not stand.
  Now let's look at Section 101. This section requires that in certain 
asylum claims, applicants must prove that their race, religion, 
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political 
opinion ``was or will be a central reason'' for their persecution.
  In effect, this will bar many legitimate refugees who have fled 
brutal human rights abuses, including torture, rape, and other horrific 
violence, from receiving asylum.
  This section creates new burdens on those seeking asylum, including a 
corroborating evidence test, empowering an immigration officer or 
immigration judge to deny asylum to a refugee because he believes, in 
his discretion, that the refugee should have somehow been able to 
obtain a particular document when fleeing her country.

[[Page H562]]

  Mr. Chairman, I understand that we must protect our borders, but we 
must still allow those decent freedom loving people fleeing their 
countries to be able to continue to seek asylum.
  I would also note that Sec. 103 specifically identifies officers, 
officials, representatives or spokesmen of the Palestinian Liberation 
Organization as terrorists, thus not able to enter the United States. 
Mr. Speaker, this would mean that Palestinian Authority President 
Mahmoud Abbas would be barred from the United States. Given the great 
progress we have seen in the Middle East in the past week and that the 
Bush Administration is in the process of setting up meetings with Dr. 
Abbas in Washington, it hardly seems wise to pass a bill barring the 
newly elected President of the Palestinian Authority from the country.
  Finally, I note that I have concerns about this bill and its 
unintended consequences on the Second Amendment rights of gun owning 
Americans like myself.
  Section 203 calls for the linking of databases and creates a floor 
for the requirements of what can be included in the database. However, 
this legislation fails to create a ceiling. What could stop a State 
from requiring databases to contain information about gun licenses 
issued and gun ownership records?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this broad overreaching 
legislation. Let's have hearings. Let's have real deliberation and 
debate. I will vote against this legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL ID 
Act. This legislation was crafted under the guise of protecting our 
borders and improving homeland security. However, it would make it more 
difficult for victims of persecution to obtain asylum impose expensive 
mandates on the States, and authorize the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to waive any and all laws to construct barriers at our 
international borders--none of which will make this country any safer 
from terrorists. This legislation would also effectively undo the 
important immigration and security reforms passed by the 108th 
Congress, putting us at greater risk for future attacks.
  The 9/11 Commission's immigration-related recommendations focused on 
targeting terrorist travel through reliable identification systems and 
effective, integrated information sharing. Instead, this legislation 
seeks to change immigration laws broadly and in ways unrelated to 
essential intelligence reform.
  This legislation would expand the authority for expedited alien 
removal without further hearing or review, impose stringent 
restrictions on asylum seekers hoping to be given an interview with an 
asylum officer, and require unreasonable standards of proof for aliens 
seeking asylum. None of the 9/11 hijackers sought or were granted 
asylum; rather, they were granted legal visas to enter the United 
States using fraudulent documents overseas. Furthermore, current law 
explicitly bars terrorists or members of terrorist organizations from 
gaining asylum, and asylum-seekers already undergo thorough background 
checks through the FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, and 
Department of State databases. The onerous restrictions offered by H.R. 
418 would keep highly-vulnerable victims of heinous crimes from 
escaping their persecutors, and they do not address the real 
vulnerabilities in our immigration system.
  A report released this week by the United States Commission on 
International Religious Freedom underscores the dangerous impact these 
so-called reforms would have on our asylum process. According to the 
commission, the current expedited removal process in the U.S. places 
victims of persecution at great risk for further trauma, while the 
severity of conditions and deprivation imposed on asylum seekers was 
``shocking.'' Rather than address this serious situation in the ways 
recommended by the commission, today this Congress would force even 
more innocent asylum seekers into expedited removal or send them back 
to their persecutors without an opportunity to appeal their case to an 
immigration judge.
  H.R. 418 would also impose statutory requirements for State-issued 
driver's licenses and repeal the important identification security 
measures enacted by the bipartisan Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act. Rather than permit local, State, and Federal officials 
to work together to create minimum security standards for driver's 
licenses and identification cards as authorized by Congress last year, 
H.R. 418 would mandate statutory standards for States and require them 
to share personal information on all licensed drivers in a massive 
national database.
  H.R. 418 would dismantle the carefully crafted immigration and 
security reforms enacted by Congress last year in the Intelligence 
Reform bill. That law will toughen our border security by adding 10,000 
new border patrol agents over the next 5 years, strengthening visa 
application requirements, and adding 4,000 new immigration and customs 
investigators. It fortifies identification security while allowing the 
State officials charged with making those changes to be a part of the 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, this law implemented key 9/11 Commission 
recommendations without jeopardizing our legal immigration system or 
the ability of legitimate asylum seekers to escape persecution. Our 
country was founded on the principle of immigration, and we must not 
close our doors to those who lawfully seek to share in the freedom and 
democracy that Americans have always held dear. The Congress must do 
everything in its power to protect our citizens and our borders. H.R. 
418, however, does not achieve those important goals, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. 
This bill is an expansion of the Patriot Act intended to punish 
immigrants without making America any safer.
  Any time a bill is brought to the floor with no hearings, no 
committee markup, and few opportunities for amendments, it indicates 
that its sponsors are trying to protect it from scrutiny.
  That's certainly the case here. Indeed a close look at this bill 
shows that its true purpose is not to make America safer, but to 
advance an agenda of ending America's tradition of welcoming and 
protecting the rights of immigrants.
  This bill is about much more than driver's licenses. It upends the 
process of granting asylum to individuals and families who have 
suffered torture or persecution in other countries. It expands the 
PATRIOT Act to allow more deportations for people with no connection to 
terrorism.
  No one doubts the need to review standards for issuing driver's 
licenses. That is why Congress worked on a bipartisan basis to 
implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  The recently enacted 9/11 bill established minimum Federal standards 
to ensure the integrity of drivers' licenses issuance and verification. 
The regulations are in the process of being developed, with the input 
of the state agencies that issue driver's licenses. Enacting a new bill 
that prescribes eligibility for driver's licenses would delay and 
disrupt the implementation of the 9/11 bill's standards even before 
they have been put in place.
  The strongest reason to approach this issue thoughtfully is that the 
process of applying for driver's licenses brings new people into 
government databases, which can be cross-referenced with FBI and 
terrorist watch lists. The only reason we had any information about the 
9/11 hijackers, their whereabouts, and their connections to others, is 
because we could track information from driver's license databases. 
Shutting off this flow of information is not a smart or effective way 
to combat terrorism.
  This bill is only the latest example of how this Congress has ignored 
regular order to rush a partisan bill to the floor with little 
deliberation or debate. I oppose this process and this bill.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
418, the REAL ID Act. As a member of the Congressional Immigration 
Reform Caucus, I join with my colleagues to raise attention to the 
serious flaws in our immigration system which leave our Nation exposed 
to potential threats.
  The 9/11 Commission made several recommendations which were not 
enacted as part of the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (Public 
Law 108-458), including provisions to strengthen identification 
document standards and to secure our borders. The commission 
specifically recommended that the Federal government should set 
standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of 
identification such as driver's licenses. In addition, the commission 
recommended the Department of Homeland Security's, DHS, completion of a 
biometric entry-exit screening system and the improvement of U.S. 
border security standards for travel and border crossing.
  I was disappointed that the conference committee on the intelligence 
reform bill opted to remove the immigration-related provisions approved 
by the House during its consideration of H.R. 10 last fall. I commend 
House leadership for honoring the commitment made to Chairman 
Sensenbrenner to allow the consideration of the bill we have before us 
today.
  We have a real opportunity to adopt meaningful reforms to improve our 
immigration system. H.R. 418 establishes strict proof of identity for 
all applicants for State-issued driver's licenses and identification 
documents. This bill serves to protect the integrity of our immigration 
laws by requiring States, in effect, to confirm lawful immigration 
status or disclose the lack of confirming identification on the face of 
cards issued.
  H.R. 418 also makes aliens deportable for terrorism-related offenses 
to the same extent that they would be inadmissible for the same 
grounds. If nothing else, our immigration system must prevent potential 
terrorists from entering the United States. We would not be exercising 
our responsibility to protect national security if we were to allow our 
immigration

[[Page H563]]

system to be exploited by those malevolent individuals who seek to 
destroy Americans and our way of life.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many flaws in our immigration system which 
need to be fixed. H.R. 418 does not address them all, but it does 
represent a good step forward in discouraging lawbreaking by those who 
would choose to exploit our welcoming nature. As a cosponsor of the 
REAL ID Act, I urge my colleagues to improve our Nation's security and 
strengthen our immigration laws by voting for H.R. 418.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of h.r. 418, the 
REAL ID Act.
  I supported the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act last 
December. That legislation helped to streamline the intelligence 
community and tightened some asylum rules that allowed potential 
terrorists to remain in our country. That was a good bill, but it did 
not go far enough. So I am pleased that the House is debating H.R. 
418--A bill that I believe will continue to strengthen our borders, 
further improve identification standards, and close even more asylum 
loopholes.
  We know that Mohamed Atta and his gang of terrorists exploited weak 
identification rules, and, as stated in the 9/11 Commission Report, 
``All but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of 
identification document, some by fraud.'' H.R. 418 will require that 
Federal agencies only accept licenses and State-issued ID cards when 
States have determined that the holder is lawfully present in the 
country. The bill will also require that temporary visitors to our 
country receive only temporary identification, and that this 
identification expire when the terms of the visit expire. Mr. Chairman, 
this only makes sense.
  I am also pleased that this bill further reforms our asylum system, a 
system that has unfortunately been ripe for corruption for years. We 
are also addressing the San Diego border fence issue and will ensure 
the expeditious completion of the border fence. Further, the bill makes 
aliens deportable for terrorism-related offenses. Incredibly, current 
law provided that not all terrorism-related grounds for keeping an 
alien out of the country are also grounds for deportion. This bill 
closes that loophole.
  The simple fact is that we need to secure our borders. Today's bill 
is another step toward this effort and I believe it will make our 
country safer. I urge my colleagues to support the REAL ID Act.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition of this bill.
  It does nothing to make America safer. It is simply anti-immigrant 
legislation placed under the mask of homeland security.
  The bill will prevent States from giving licenses to undocumented 
immigrants. It will not prevent terrorists from obtaining 
identification forms. All of the 9/11 hijackers were in this country 
legally.
  In fact, allowing immigrants to have licenses actually improves 
homeland security by allowing our government to track who is in our 
borders.
  This bill will also raise insurmountable hurdles for refugees seeking 
asylum and will deport victims of persecution into the hands of their 
persecutors.
  Proponents of this provision claim that we need to tighten asylum 
laws, yet, they cannot pinpoint a single terrorist given asylum in the 
United States.
  This bill will also require the completion of a fence on the Mexican 
border, waiving environmental laws in California. This fence is a 
complete waste of money and resources. People will go over it, under it 
and around it to enter our country.
  Our immigration system is a broken system that needs to be fixed. We 
need reform that provides hardworking people of good character with a 
real path towards citizenship.
  But this bill is simply a Band-Aid on the problem that will not 
provide lasting reform.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, on September 11, we were attacked 
by terrorists who took advantage of weaknesses in our border security. 
After infiltrating our country, the terrorists were able to conceal 
their real identities, and thereby plot their attacks without fear of 
being apprehended. If we, as a Congress, want to seriously address the 
problem of terrorism, then we must address the issue of border 
security.
  For this reason, I rise to express my support for the REAL ID Act. 
This bill contains urgent border security reforms that were not 
addressed in the Intelligence Reform Bill that President Bush signed 
into law in December.
  Foremost in this bill are provisions that would prevent terrorists 
from obtaining a United States driver's license. Without a license, 
potential terrorists will have a much harder time opening a bank 
account, traveling, and conducting other business necessary to plot an 
attack.
  I think we all understand that preserving freedom is not an easy 
process. Freedom is a difficult journey filled with enemies who will 
try to destroy it if they are left unchecked. For this reason, I 
strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the REAL ID Act.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 418, the 
REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who 
may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. 
While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will 
do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real 
vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, 
this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed 
border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is 
uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.
  What is wrong with this bill?
  The REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that 
States include certain minimum identification standards on driver's 
licenses. It contains no limits on the government's power to impose 
additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit.
  Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. 
However, any State that opts out will automatically make non-persons 
out of its citizens. The citizens of that State will be unable to have 
any dealings with the Federal Government because their ID will not be 
accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, 
in the eyes of the Federal Government they will cease to exist. It is 
absurd to call this voluntary.
  Republican Party talking points on this bill, which claim that this 
is not a national ID card, nevertheless endorse the idea that ``the 
Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth 
certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses.'' 
So they admit that they want a national ID but at the same time pretend 
that this is not a national ID.
  This bill establishes a massive, centrally coordinated database of 
highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their 
name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and 
physical and possibly other characteristics. What is even more 
disturbing is that, by mandating that states participate in the Drivers 
License Agreement, this bill creates a massive database of sensitive 
information on American citizens that will be shared with Canada and 
Mexico.
  This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our 
constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines ``terrorism'' in 
broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and 
anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is 
in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such 
information in the database as information about a person's exercise of 
first amendment rights or about a person's appearance on a registry of 
firearms owners.

  This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to expand required information on driver's licenses, 
potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, 
fingerprints, DNA information, and even radio frequency identification, 
RFID, radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID 
would mean that the Federal Government, as well as the governments of 
Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all time of the 
day and night.
  There are no limits on what happens to the database of sensitive 
information on Americans once it leaves the United States for Canada 
and Mexico--or perhaps other countries. Who is to stop a corrupt 
foreign government official from selling or giving this information to 
human traffickers or even terrorists? Will this uncertainty make us 
feel safer?
  What will all of this mean for us? When this new program is 
implemented, every time we are required to show our driver's license we 
will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be 
handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric 
information, information which is connected to a national and 
international database.
  H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national 
security posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. 
Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here 
illegally are ``deportable.'' But it does nothing to mandate 
deportation.
  Although Congress funded an additional 2,000 border guards last year, 
the administration has announced that it will only ask for an 
additional 210 guards. Why are we not pursuing these avenues as a way 
of safeguarding our country? Why are we punishing Americans by taking 
away their freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who 
would enter our country illegally?
  H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It 
punishes law abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418 
offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a 
gigantic step toward making America a police state.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the REAL ID Act of 2005.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 418. The proponents of this dangerous and divisive bill

[[Page H564]]

have mischaracterized and misrepresented it as a measure that focuses 
on national security. This could not be further from the truth.
  I would urge my colleagues today to listen beyond the harsh rhetoric 
and to closely examine this legislation. Because further study will 
reveal that H.R. 418 is really nothing more than a bill designed to 
bash immigrants and punish refugees.
  H.R. 418 ignores our Nation's proud history of protecting those 
fleeing brutal human rights abuses, torture and persecution. It would 
force our country to turn its back on women, children, and victims of 
religious persecution. The bill would create insurmountable hurdles for 
legitimate asylum-seekers and slam the door shut on refugees who have 
fled brutal human rights abuses. That is not America.
  H.R. 418 also ignores the reality that there are an estimated 10 
million or more undocumented immigrants living in our country. This 
bill would do nothing to prevent undocumented migration to the United 
States. If anything, this bill will only further compound the flaws in 
our Nation's immigrations laws. And it would make the job of protecting 
our homeland even more challenging.
  H.R. 418 will make the vital job of law enforcement to arrest 
criminals and root out potential terrorists almost impossible. In 
short, immigration enforcement will continue to expend their valuable, 
but limited, resources and energy in pursuing hardworking busboys and 
nannies, instead of bad actors who mean us real harm. Immigration 
officers represent our frontline forces in protecting our homeland. 
Let's not make their jobs even more demanding. Let's give them the 
policies, the resources and the tools they need to succeed.
  Mr. Chairman, imagine your neighbors, the families who live across 
the street, the men and women who join us at church--all of the hard 
working people who share the roads with us. Now imagine these hundreds 
of thousands, perhaps millions of people, driving without a license, 
without car insurance or registration. Such a policy will wreak havoc 
on our streets and highways. It also will do nothing to address our 
broken immigration system. It will just force hard working people 
further into the shadows and create an increased demand for the black 
market of fake identity documents.
  I agree that Congress must examine how to improve enforcement of 
immigration law, but we first must create laws that are enforceable and 
in step with reality.
  Let me close by saying this. I am not alone in my strong opposition 
to this misguided and mean-spirited legislation. Also opposing the bill 
are the National Governor's Association, the National Council of State 
Legislatures, many other national, State and local organizations, 
security and immigration policy experts, immigration attorneys, more 
than 100 religious organizations, Hispanic and Asian organizations, the 
U.N. Commissioner for Refugees, the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees 
International Union and other labor unions. The list goes on and on, 
and I consider myself very good company.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. The 
only thing ``real'' about the REAL ID Act is that it is real bad for 
America.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly oppose H.R. 418, 
the REAL ID Act. This bill merely recycles the anti-immigrant and 
refugee provisions that did not make it into the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 passed and signed into law late 
last year. H.R. 418 does not improve our national security.
  H.R. 418 would repeal some of the bipartisan provisions that were set 
forth in the Intelligence Reform Act, including increasing the number 
of new border patrol agents, strengthening visa application 
requirements, and allowing security experts at Department of Homeland 
Security to establish strict new minimum standards for driver's 
licenses.
  I am particularly concerned with section 101, which would have the 
effect of preventing legitimate asylum seekers from obtaining relief in 
the United States. The REAL ID Act would require asylum applicants to 
prove that their persecutors' ``central motive'' for harming or wishing 
to harm them was race, religion, nationality, membership in a 
particular social group, or political opinion. Applicants may be denied 
based on any inconsistencies or inaccuracies in their stories.
  We must remember those who flee brutal human rights abuses, however, 
often escape from situations that do not allow them to gather any of 
the documentation necessary to present ``corroborating evidence.'' An 
escapee from the Darfur region cannot go back and ``track'' evidence of 
their persecution without facing threatening life situation.
  Moreover, the REAL ID Act would implement a national standard for 
driver's licenses, requiring all States to overhaul their procedures 
and to meet Federal standards within 3 years. Setting a national 
standard for driver's licenses infringes on States' rights and sends 
another unfunded mandate to the States.
  The border and fence security provision in this bill will neither 
deter nor detect the many non-citizens who continue to enter the U.S., 
while granting the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security power 
to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is ``necessary for the 
expeditious construction'' of the border barriers. Under this waiver, 
the DHS would be free to construct anywhere along our borders without 
legal limitation, liability, or oversight.
  Furthermore, this provision will allow DHS to destroy endangered 
habits and species, as well as archaeological sites containing 7,000-
year-old Native American artifacts when constructing the additional 
fencing.
  H.R. 418 does not address the greater problems of our current broken 
immigration system. In order to fix our immigration problems, we need a 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). There being no further amendments, 
the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bass) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 418) to 
establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license 
and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists 
from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-
related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure 
expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence, pursuant to 
House Resolution 75, he reported the bill, as amended pursuant to that 
rule, back to the House with further sundry amendments adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Reyes

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. REYES. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Reyes of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 418 to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of section 203, add the following:
       (c) Restrictions on Information Contained in Database.--A 
     State motor vehicle database may not include any information 
     about a person's exercise of rights guaranteed under the 
     first, second, or 14th amendment to the Constitution of the 
     United States.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Reyes) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit provides for 
restrictions on the information contained in the national database. 
This bill as it stands requires that the database shall contain at a 
minimum all information contained on the driver's licenses as well as 
driving history. This would create no limit as to what other 
information may eventually be incorporated in the database. This motion 
would simply protect the privacy rights of Americans from a national ID 
database in this bill.
  In particular, this amendment guarantees that the database cannot 
become a centralized storage place for sensitive personal information 
on nearly every American about whether they own guns, what guns they 
own and whether they have purchased any guns. This could be the 
national gun registry that we have all feared for years.
  This motion to recommit would also bar information on the exercise of 
first

[[Page H565]]

amendment and fourteenth amendment rights from being included in the 
driver's license database. We should not have a government database of 
political activities of law-abiding citizens.
  As Bob Barr, our former colleague, said in the Washington Times last 
year in opposition to nearly identical provisions, ``You know something 
is askew when we second amendment conservatives keep finding common 
cause with the American Civil Liberties Union.''
  Groups strongly opposed include the Gun Owners of America, the ACLU, 
the Republican Liberty Caucus, the League of United Latin Americans 
Citizens, the American Conservative Union, and the Privacy Rights 
Clearinghouse.
  Our constituents have set aside partisan concerns in recognition of 
the dangerous consequences, unintended consequences, of passing this 
misguided legislation. This bill would establish a National Interstate 
Computer Database to track the personal information of every single 
American, laying the foundation, I believe, for a national ID system.
  Moreover, H.R. 418 places privacy limitations on the use of 
centralized data. It does not even prohibit the Federal Government from 
sharing personal information with other people, companies, and foreign 
governments.
  This system, I believe, is ripe for abuse, Mr. Speaker. By forcing 
State governments to maintain and share files on almost every adult in 
the Nation, this bill will truly usher in the era of Big Brother. The 
database could be used to track Americans' movements, store information 
on political activities, and even store information on gun ownership.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that the rest of my colleagues are not fooled by 
H.R. 418. This is nothing less than a bureaucratic back door to a 
national ID system.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not require the States 
to do anything or not do anything. It has been very clear from the 
beginning of the debate on this legislation. What the bill does is it 
says that a driver's license has to meet certain standards if it is to 
be acceptable for Federal ID purposes, such as getting on an airplane.
  What the motion to recommit does is force the States to do something, 
or not do something; and that goes directly against the notion of 
federalism that is contained in this bill and which was drafted by the 
Committee on Government Reform.
  The first vote that we had yesterday on this legislation was on 
whether we should waive the law relative to unfunded mandates. The vote 
on that was 228 ``aye'' to 191 ``no.'' The author of this motion to 
recommit, as well as the 190 who joined him in saying that we should 
not waive the unfunded mandate law, is now asking the States to have 
another unfunded mandate.
  I would urge all of the 191 who voted ``no'' on the Jackson-Lee 
objection to consideration of the rule to bring this up to join me in 
voting ``no'' on this motion to recommit, together with the 228 who 
voted the right way yesterday.
  Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit; vote ``aye'' on passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of final passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195, 
noes 229, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 30]

                               AYES--195

     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
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Holden
     Holt
     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
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     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

                               NOES--229

     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
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     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
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     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)

[[Page H566]]



                             NOT VOTING--9

     Carter
     Eshoo
     Feeney
     Green, Gene
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Stupak


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The Acting SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass) (during the vote). Members 
are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1432

  So the motion to recommit with instruction was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 261, 
nays 161, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 31]

                               YEAS--261

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

                               NAYS--161

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     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
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bartlett (MD)
     Carter
     Eshoo
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Green, Gene
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Stupak


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1441

  Mrs. DAVIS of California changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I missed the vote on final passage of H.R. 
418. Had I been able, I would have cast a vote in the affirmative as I 
am a strong proponent of the legislation and the goals it sets to 
achieve in reforming immigration policy in our country.

                          ____________________