[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 15, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E243-E244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          REAL ID ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 10, 2005

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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.

  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 
make 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 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 regard 
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 all together 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.

[[Page E244]]

  Unfortunately, the egregious measures in the bill far out weigh 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.

                          ____________________