[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.
____________________