Reserved.

Mr. Speaker, let me respond by saying that the gentleman is absolutely right when he states that the Chair does not rule on questions of constitutionality.

I would also like to say that on this question that is being brought forward by my friend, it is very clear to me based on statements that have been made by a wide range of constitutional scholars that what we are doing in the rules package that we are about to consider is in fact constitutional. In fact, before the Committee on Rules the very distinguished former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger said the following: ``It is simply inconceivable that a Constitution established to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare would leave the Nation unable to act in precisely the moment of greatest peril. No constitutional amendment is required to enact the proposed rule change because the Constitution as drafted permits the Congress to ensure the preservation of government.''

Let me further, Mr. Speaker, say that the Committee on Rules intends to conduct further examination of the best way for the House to assure a continuity of government during a national emergency, and it is our hope that as we proceed with this work that further discussions will take place with the members of that very distinguished panel, the Continuity Commission, which included our former colleague, Senator Simpson, and Speakers Foley and Gingrich and former minority leader Bob Michel, Leon Panetta, Kwasi Mfume, and I believe we will have a chance to proceed with this; but I think it would be very appropriate for us to proceed with consideration of the rules package that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for his fine statement and for yielding me the time to discuss this opening-day rules package.

Mr. Speaker, the House is an institution built upon its rules. Accordingly, it is very appropriate that one of the first orders of business for this 109th Congress will be to adopt a rules package which is both true to the traditions and very forward thinking in its outlook for the work of this Congress that lies ahead.

The package we have before us represents the work product of many Members. During the initial stages of compiling this rules package back in November, the Committee on Rules received 40 different proposals from both Democrats and Republicans. In addition to that, our committee staff has actively sought the input of the officers of the House, its committees and its caucuses to get their perspectives on the kinds of changes we can make to facilitate the work of the House.

All of the ideas contained in this resolution reflect the considered judgment of our colleagues and will ultimately improve our ability to carry out our constitutional responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record at this point detail on each of these changes in a section-by-section analysis.

Section-By-Section Summary of H. Res. 5, Adopting House Rules for the

109th Congress

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to say to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter) that every single Member of this institution, Democrat and Republican alike, is very concerned and focused on the integrity of this institution; and I believe that that is something which is an extraordinarily high priority for all of us. I believe that the package that we have coming before us is one which addresses many of the concerns that frankly were raised by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me say after having heard from two of my Committee on Rules colleagues that I anxiously look forward to working with them in a bipartisan way to try to proceed with the deliberations in consideration of measures of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to respond to my very good friend from Maryland by saying that I may not be as eloquent today as I was when I was in the minority, but I continue to share my very strong commitment to ensure the integrity and the behavior of Members of this institution. I also will say as my friend said, it is very clear that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, has made it clear that he is supportive of this package. I and my colleagues looked at these recommendations, all of which emerged from members and former members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I also believe that it is very possible for us to maintain the highest ethical standards and to continue to ensure, to now ensure that due process is entitled to Members of this institution as they proceed with matters before that committee.

So I believe that this package is one which should enjoy strong bipartisan support, because when it comes to matters of ethics it will address the concern and the protection of Members of both the minority and the majority, as well as this institution as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science.

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to respond to the gentleman.

Let me say we are in the midst of a discussion about ethics at this point. Obviously, it is our goal to maintain the highest ethical standards. We have a law, which is actually a criminal law, which states that it is a violation of 18 U.S. Code 607 for the solicitation of campaign contributions from Federal property.

The idea behind this change that is included in this rules package is that Members should not be required to carry two separate cell phones with them. This would allow campaign funds to be used for the purchase of a cell phone that might be used for calling your office or other official purposes. But the law which prevents the solicitation of campaign contributions from Federal property in fact is maintained and is one we that feel very strongly about.

In any Federal building whatsoever. On Federal property is what the law says. It is a violation of the law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair may reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on the motion to commit and the vote on the adoption of H. Res. 5 if the votes immediately follow a 15-minute vote, notwithstanding intervening proceedings attending the administration of the oath of office to Members-elect.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this rules package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have a great rules package that is coming before us, a rules package which I believe is deserving of bipartisan support. The reason I say it is deserving of bipartisan support is that is the word that has been used by Members on both sides of the aisle to describe exactly what we have been doing here and should be doing here.

Mr. Speaker, this package includes a number of very important provisions. It allows us to deal with the prospect of a horrendous attack on this institution, and it allows us to continue this institution's operations so the American people will understand that this institution stands even at a time of great crisis. This rules package allows for the establishment of a new permanent standing committee on homeland security, as the Speaker outlined in his opening remarks here today. I believe that is something that will allow Democrats and Republicans to spend time working on that issue.

Mr. Speaker, this is a rules package which allows for bipartisan process at the ethics committee level. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is the committee which has the responsibility of working to ensure the integrity of all of the Members of this institution. The package we have before us does just that.

I believe that the statement made by the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), is very clear. He understands that the provisions included in this package will in fact maintain the integrity of this institution. He was not going to support the earlier package; he is supporting this package. The issue of bipartisanship is important because in this package we ensure that we will not see the politicization of the ethics process which tragically we have seen in the past, because it will require bipartisanship, which all Members are talking about, if we do proceed with the investigatory process.

That is the right thing to do, and I believe this package should in fact enjoy the support of Democrats and Republicans alike because it is designed to protect this institution and its Members.

Mr. Speaker, the House is an institution built upon its rules. Accordingly, it is appropriate that one of the first orders of business of the 109th Congress will be to adopt a rules package which is both true to its traditions and forward-thinking in its outlook.

The package we have before us represents the work product of many Members. During the initial stages of compiling this package, back in November, the Rules Committee received 40 difference proposals form both Democrats and Republicans.

In addition, our committee staff has actively sought the input of the officers of the House, its committees, and its caucuses to get their perspectives on the kinds of changes we can make to facilitate the work of the House.

While not every proposal we received was incorporated into this package, I assure you that each received substantial consideration by the Speaker and the Rules Committee. And, as always, the Rules Committee will continue to review our rules and operations to see where other improvements can be made.

Mr. Speaker, all of the ideals contained in this resolution reflect the considered judgment of our colleagues, and will ultimately improve our ability to carry out our constitutional responsibilities. While I will detail each of these changes in the section-by-section that I will place in the Record, I want to elaborate on just a few of these changes.

The gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) is the author of one important provision directing committees to review matters within their jurisdiction to ferret out duplicative government programs as part of their oversight planning at the beginning of each Congress.

There are a number of instances where we are conforming the rules to reflect current House practice, such as with the designation of leadership members of the Budget Committee and the taking of recesses in committee to allow flexibility on our schedules.

We are also making the ability to consider suspensions on Wednesdays permanent in

this Congress after our successful experiment in the 108th Congress.

The package includes important provisions to allow us to function in situations where large numbers of Members are incapacitated. The ``provisional quorum'' language includes a number of safeguards to ensure that this institution can continue to operate during times of turmoil and democracy will be preserved.

As we search for permanent solutions to the problems facing us in the post-9/11 era, this is an important step in meeting our responsibilities.

We will also eliminate the Corrections Calendar. While this was originally intended to make it easier to consider legislation making corrections to outright errors in law, it turned out to be more cumbersome than other procedures, such as consideration under suspension of the rules.

And yes, Mr. Speaker, in a change guaranteed to draw applause from my colleagues, the House rules will now allow us to make reference to the Senate and its Members, so long as those references are confined to the question under debate and avoid personality. The Senate has long had similar provisions and this new rule merely conforms our rules to theirs.

I know that my colleagues and I share the desire to maintain our traditions of dignity and decorum in proceedings, and will do so even with this rules change.

On another topic, the package makes a series of changes to our ethics rules.

We included two provisions suggested by the chairman and ranking member of the Standards Committee: (1) clarifying the rule on officially connected travel to allow a family member other than a spouse or child to travel with the member at the sponsor's expense, and (2) conforming the rules of the House to current law which allow the use of campaign funds to pay for certain official expenses, such as a cellphone.

We also included provision suggested by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) to conform the rules of the House to current law with regard to the 90-day pre-election limit on franked mail.

The package also includes two other provisions addressing our ethics rules. The first gives Members the same rights to choose their counsel before the Ethics Committee that they would enjoy if they were a respondent in a court case.

The second change addresses an inequity in the Standards Committee process requiring an investigative subcommittee if the chairman and ranking member don't act within 45 days. This change restores the presumption of innocence in our process.

As important as each of those changes are, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most important change in this resolution will be the creation of a new standing Committee on Homeland Security.

It represents a far-reaching and critically important part of our overall strategic effort to protect the American people. The 9/11 Commission unanimously called for this action. They saw the need, and we believe most Members do, too.

Over the past 3 years, the Congress has asked the American people to accept change in countless ways. We have mandated change at the Federal, State, and local levels. We have asked for change from our allies and forced change upon our enemies.

And we saw the need for change over 2 years ago, and we responded, first with the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and then with the formation of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. Their final report, a thorough and complete study of homeland security jurisdiction as it relates to House rules, was transmitted to my committee at the end of last year.

These measures made it clear to me and many other Members that steps need to be taken to further ensure the safety of the American people. The Rules Committee thoroughly reviewed the Select Committee's report and recommended a comprehensive and thoughtful reform effort that mirrors the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission: the formation of a permanent Committee on Homeland Security.

This change in House rule X, which governs the committee and their legislative jurisdictions, is delicately crafted architecture. It draws to the new committee only jurisdiction directly related to our defense against terrorism. Thus, it creates a primary committee while recognizing the other legitimate oversight roles of existing committees. It acknowledges the expertise and experience residing in other committees and leaves with them jurisdiction that may have a homeland security implication but not a direct policy relationship.

The House must have one central point where we, as national legislators, sort out the critical questions of securing our homeland without sacrificing our free society or a stable economy.

However, we envision a system of ``purposeful redundancy.'' By that we mean more than one level of oversight and an atmosphere in which the competition of ideas is encouraged.

With this jurisdiction and the legislative history that I will place in the Record, the Department of Homeland Security will have more certainty as to which committee has the primary responsibility for homeland security. At the same time, the American people will live with the assurance that we are working to prevent anything from falling through the cracks.

Mr. Speaker, the new committee will have jurisdiction over: (1) Overall homeland security policy; (2) the organization and administration of the Department of Homeland Security; and (3) functions of the Department of Homeland Security relating to border and port security (except immigration policy and non-border enforcement), customs (except customs revenue), the integration, analysis, and dissemination of homeland security information, domestic preparedness for and collective response to terrorism, research and development, and transportation security.

By approving this resolution, the House will do what the Speaker and the 9/11 Commission has asked it to do: consolidate jurisdiction of the House in one committee. This committee will be dedicated to setting national homeland security policy and to effectively overseeing that the Department of Homeland Security carries out its mission.

Mr. Speaker, in making these changes, I want to note several points for the record.

First, referrals to the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the 108th Congress will not be considered a precedent for referrals in the 109th Congress.

Second, at the request of Mr. Thomas, I am placing a document into the Record regarding understandings between the Department of Treasury and the Department of Homeland Security.

Third, because the Department continues to evolve, references to a department, agency, bureau, office, or subdivision include a reference to successor entities to the extent that the successor engages in homeland security activities now conducted by the department, agency, bureau, office, or subdivision referred to in the legislative history.

For example, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred the Office of Domestic Preparedness to the Department of Homeland Security, to ``have the primary responsibility within the executive branch of Government for preparedness of the U.S. for acts of terrorism.'' Subsequently, its name has been changed by the Department to ``Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP)'' although its mission stays the same.

Finally, I welcome questions from my colleagues about jurisdictional matters related to this change. However, I want to caution all Members that referrals are solely within the Speaker's power, and, in my answers, I will not infringe upon the power.

Once again, I appreciate the input from all of you regarding the 109th rules package, and I feel that with your assistance, we will make the rules of the House stronger and make for a safer country.

Mr. Speaker, I am inserting for the Record the following legislative history regarding the changes made by this resolution to Rule X, along with supporting materials.

Legislative History To Accompany Changes to Rule X

rule x and the committee on homeland security

Legislative history

Overall homeland security policy--The jurisdiction of the

Committee on Homeland Security over ``overall homeland

security policy'' is to be interpreted on a government-wide

or multi-agency basis similar to the Committee on Government

Reform's jurisdiction over ``overall economy, efficiency, and

management of government operations and activities. . . .''

Surgical addresses of homeland security policy in sundry

areas of jurisdiction occupied by other committees would not

be referred to the Committee on Homeland Security on the

basis of ``overall'' homeland security policy jurisdiction.

For example, the Committee on Homeland Security shall have

jurisdiction over a bill coordinating the homeland security

efforts by all of the critical infrastructure protection

sectors. Jurisdiction over a bill addressing the protection

of a particular sector would lie with the committee otherwise

having jurisdiction over that sector.

Organization and administration of the Department of

Homeland Security--The jurisdiction of the Committee on

Homeland Security would apply only to organizational or

administrative aspects of the Department where another

committee's jurisdiction did not clearly apply. The

Committee's jurisdiction is to be confined to organizational

and administrative efforts and would not apply to

programmatic efforts within the Department of Homeland

Security within the jurisdiction of other committees.

Homeland Security Oversight--This would vest the Committee

on Homeland Security with oversight jurisdiction over the

homeland security community of the United States. Nothing in

this clause shall be construed as prohibiting or otherwise

restricting the authority of any other committee to study and

review homeland security activities to the extent that such

activity directly affects a matter otherwise within the

jurisdiction of that committee.

Individual committee concerns

Agriculture--The jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland

Security over ``border and port security'' shall be limited

to agricultural importation and entry inspection activities

of the Department of Homeland Security under section 421 of

the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Committee on

Agriculture shall retain jurisdiction over animal and

plant disease policy including the authority reserved to

the Department of Agriculture to regulate policy under

section 421 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the

Animal Health Protection Act, the Plant Protection Act,

the Plant Quarantine Act, and the Agriculture Quarantine

Inspection User Fee Account. The Committee on Agriculture

shall retain jurisdiction over the agricultural research

and diagnosis mission at the Plum Island Animal Disease

Center.

Armed Services--The Committee on Armed Services shall

retain jurisdiction over warfighting, the military defense of

the United States, and other military activities, including

any military response to terrorism, pursuant to section 876

of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Energy and Commerce--The Committee on Homeland Security

shall have jurisdiction over measures that address the

Department of Homeland Security's activities for domestic

preparedness and collective response to terrorism. The words

``to terrorism'' require a direct relation to terrorism. The

Committee on Homeland Security's jurisdiction over

``collective response to terrorism'' means that it shall

receive referrals of bills addressing the Department of

Homeland Security's responsibilities for, and assistance to,

first responders as a whole. The Committee on Energy and

Commerce (and other relevant committees) shall retain their

jurisdiction over bills addressing the separate entities that

comprise the first responders. For example, the Committee on

Energy and Commerce shall retain its jurisdiction over a bill

directing the Department of Health and Human Services to

train emergency medical personnel.

Financial Services--The Committee on Financial Services

shall retain jurisdiction over the National Flood Insurance

Program and Emergency Food and Shelter Program of FEMA, and

the Defense Production Act. The Committee on Financial

Services shall retain its jurisdiction over the anti-money

laundering, terrorist financing, and anti-counterfeiting

activities within the Department of the Treasury and the

financial regulators.

Government Reform--The Committee on Homeland Security shall

have jurisdiction over ``the organization and administration

of the Department of Homeland Security.'' The Committee on

Government Reform shall retain jurisdiction over federal

civil service, the overall economy, efficiency, and

management of government operations and activities, including

Federal procurement, and federal paperwork reduction. The

Committee on Government Reform shall retain jurisdiction over

government-wide information management efforts including the

Federal Information Security Management Act. The Committee on

Homeland Security shall have jurisdiction over integration,

analysis, and dissemination of homeland security

information by the Department of Homeland Security, and

the Committee on Government Reform shall retain

jurisdiction over measures addressing public information

and records generally including the Privacy Act and the

Freedom of Information Act. The Committee on Government

Reform shall have jurisdiction over the policy

coordination responsibilities of the Office of

Counternarcotics Enforcement.

Intelligence--The Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence shall retain jurisdiction over the intelligence

and intelligence-related activities of all departments and

agencies of the Federal Government, including the Office of

the Director of National Intelligence and the National

Counterterrorism Center as defined in the Intelligence Reform

and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

Judiciary--The Committee on the Judiciary shall retain

jurisdiction over immigration policy and non-border

enforceme4tn of the immigration laws. Its jurisdiction over

immigration policy shall include matters such as the

immigration and naturalization process, numbers of aliens

(including immigrants and non-immigrants) allowed,

classifications and lengths of allowable stay, the

adjudication of immigration petitions and the requirements

for the same, the domestic adjudication of immigration

petitions and applications submitted to the Department of

Labor or the Department of Homeland Security and setting

policy with regard to visa issuance and acceptance. Its

jurisdiction over non-border enforcement shall be limited to

those aspects of immigration enforcement not associated with

the immediate entry of individuals into the country,

including those aspects of the Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement. The Committee on Homeland Security shall

have jurisdiction over border and port security including the

immigration responsibilities of inspectors at ports of entry

and the border patrol. As used in the new Rule X(1)(l)(9) and

this legislative history, the word ``immigration'' shall be

construed to include ``naturalization'' and no substantive

change is intended by the new rule's not containing the word

``naturalization.''

Science--The Committee on Science shall retain some

jurisdiction over the research and development activities of

the Department of Homeland Security as such matters are

incidental to the Committee on Science's

existing jurisdiction (except where those activities are in

the jurisdiction of another committee).

Transportation and Infrastructure--The Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure shall retain jurisdiction

over the Coast Guard. However, the Committee on Homeland

Security has jurisdiction over port security, and some Coast

Guard responsibilities in that area will fall within the

jurisdiction of both committees. Jurisdiction over emergency

preparedness will be split between the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on

Homeland Security. The Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure shall retain its jurisdiction under clause

1(r)(2) over ``federal management of emergencies and

natural disasters.'' This means that the committee retains

its general jurisdiction over the emergency preparedness

and response operations of the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA). Bills addressing FEMA's general

preparation for disaster from any cause shall be referred

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The

Committee on Homeland Security shall have jurisdiction

over the Department of Homeland Security's

responsibilities with regard to emergency preparedness

only as they relate to acts of terrorism. Thus, the

Committee on Homeland Security shall have jurisdiction

over the responsibilities of the Office for Domestic

Preparedness, in accordance with section 430 of the

Homeland Security Act of 2002.

As indicated earlier, the Committee on Homeland Security's

jurisdiction over ``collective response to terrorism'' means

that it would receive referrals of bills addressing the

Department of Homeland Security's responsibilities for, and

assistance to, first responders as a whole and not over

measures addressing first responder communities individually.

The Committee on Homeland Security shall have jurisdiction

over the functions of the Department of Homeland Security

relating to transportation security, while the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure shall retain its

jurisdiction over transportation safety. In general, the

Committee on Homeland Security would have jurisdiction over

bills addressing the Transportation Security Administration

and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure would

have jurisdiction over bills addressing the various entities

within the Department of Transportation having responsibility

for transportation safety, such as the Federal Aviation

Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration. The jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland

Security does not include expenditures from trust funds under

the jurisdiction of other committees, including but not

limited to the Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway

Trust Fund, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the Federal

Buildings Fund, and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

Ways and Means--The jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways

and Means over ``customs revenue'' is intended to include

those functions contemplated in section 412(b)(2) of the

Homeland Security Act of 2002 and includes those functions as

carried out in collection districts and ports of entry and

delivery.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that what we do today is a matter that could have been approached in a bipartisan manner. As I look at the Members on the floor of the House, each and every one is sincere in their commitment to the war on terrorism. And let me applaud them for that. I applaud the chairman of the full Committee on the Judiciary. Let me applaud the ranking member. A number of Members who are here on the floor are Committee on the Judiciary members. I want to applaud them for the work that has been done on this issue.

That is why I believe that the REAL ID Act could have been addressed in regular order, the regular order of committee hearings, the regular order of taking testimony from governors and legislators and local government officials. But now the REAL ID Act is an attempt to breathe life into immigration provisions that were stripped from the Terrorism Reform and Prevention Act. These provisions were viewed as controversial then and they are no less controversial now.

Opposition to this legislation at this time is by no means a reflection on anyone's commitment to the war on terrorism, but the REAL ID Act should have been subjected to hearings and markups before being brought to this floor.

First of all, it is an unfunded mandate of almost $500 million.

Supporters of H.R. 418 are afraid that terrorists are using our asylum laws as a means of entering and remaining in the United States. This fear has to be put into perspective. Terrorists are statutorily barred from asylum eligibility, and it is not apparent why they should choose such a complicated, time-consuming method for entering and remaining in the United States, in any event. In addition, large numbers of advocates, religious organizations and others who understand asylum laws and realize that there are still religious and political persecution today, realize that this bill is misdirected.

As we stand here on the floor, the Committee on Rules is determining whether the Nadler amendment will be admitted that responds to the crisis we face in the asylum laws if this bill is to be passed in its present form.

We know that the 9/11 hijackers entered and remained in the United States as nonimmigrant visitors. Visitor visas only require a 2-minute interview with an American Consulate office. The applicant just has to establish that he will return to his country at the end of the authorized period of stay. This is much easier than the steps required for obtaining asylum.

I too want to have a kind of organized system that bars terrorists, but putting into effect a national ID card is not what the 9/11 Commission said. In fact, they made it very clear. This legislation will force the United States in its national database and in its requirement standardizing ID driver's licenses and birth certificates which puts us on that road without hearings, without oversight, and without question of America's civil liberties.

I know that the polls and all the phone calls in Members' offices have said we do not want illegal aliens driving cars. Well, do you want individuals on our highways and byways that are not licensed? Are you taking away the 10th amendment of the United States to allow them to be able to standardize those documents? I do believe that we can standardize them by a biometric system, but we have intruded on the rights of States when they too can work with the Federal Government making the system work.

I think there are valuable aspects of this bill; not using certain ID for certain Federal purposes, which may in fact include travel. But the overbroadness of this particular legislation, barring any laws to be utilized in the building of a fence, eliminating environmental laws, work laws, criminal laws is overbroad.

Lastly, I would say, we are the land of the free and the brave. We have always welcomed those fleeing from persecution. This legislation bars that opportunity, and I would ask my colleagues to oppose it and for us to go back to the drawing board and work for freedom and the war against terrorism in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a distinguished member of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a strong advocate for preserving the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has indicated that the amendment has been made in order, and I do want to acknowledge that he is the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished new member from the great State of Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), who has been able to determine the difference between immigration laws and laws to fight terrorism; and also his district contains the discussed fence.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we are on the floor today because the representation has been made to the American people and to our colleagues that this legislation is legislation that relates and responds to the crisis in the war on terror. We all are united in that war, but this is an immigration bill, and I do believe we should do immigration in a bipartisan manner.

Let me make it very clear, the 9/11 terrorists would not have been thwarted by this legislation. In fact, all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers had documents to enter the country legally. And under this particular legislation, the terrorists would not have been prevented from using these documents to obtain driver's licenses.

I think the real crux is as was quoted in the words of Governor Jeb Bush, ``What do you do with them?'' illegal aliens who are working in our hotels and factories, who are working every day in our States and our cities and our counties?

The last thing, Mr. Chairman: Do we remember Bosnia and Kosovo? These were people seeking asylum. I think we have to judge ourselves by reason and reasonable policy. I join my colleagues in working together to secure the homeland, but in this instance, this does not follow the 9/11 recommendations. This commission did, in fact, say that they wanted secure documents, and identification should begin in the United States. It did not document or indicate in which manner we should be able to do that.

I would have hoped that H.R. 620, the Security Measures Feasibility Act, which would ask the hard questions of how and what is the best vehicle in order to be able to establish these secure documents, would have been the better approach. Now we undermine the States' ability for safety and security in their own States, and we undermine the very principles of this Nation, which are to open the doors for those fleeing persecution both in terms of religious and political persecution.

What about the Cubans? What about the Haitians, the Liberians, the Sudanese, the Bosnians? What about those fleeing, as my colleague has indicated, our Jewish individuals who were fleeing persecution? I simply say that we have a better way of doing this. I wish we could do it together.

I hope my colleagues will oppose this bill so we might do this effort in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. The REAL ID Act is an attempt to breathe life into immigration provisions that were stripped from the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. These provisions were viewed as controversial then, and they are no less controversial now. The REAL ID Act should have been subjected to hearings and markups before being brought to the floor.

The supporters of the H.R. 418 are afraid that terrorists are using our asylum laws as a means of entering and remaining in the United States. This fear has to be put into perspective. Terrorists are statutorily barred from asylum eligibility, and it is not apparent why they

would choose such a complicated, time consuming method for entering and remaining in the United States in any event.

The 9/11 hijackers entered and remained in the United States as nonimmigrant visitors. Visitors' visas only require a two-minute interview with an American Consulate Officer. The applicant just has to establish that he will return to his country at the end of the authorized period of stay. This is much easier than the steps required for obtaining asylum, which, among other things, require the applicant to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act established a study to find out the extent to which terrorists are attempting to use our asylum laws to enter and remain in the United States and what weaknesses they are exploiting. We need to wait for that information before we consider any bills on revising our asylum laws. Changes should be designed to deal specifically with weaknesses that we know are being exploited.

The approach in the REAL ID Act is to raise the bar on the burden of proof, 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. 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. It is not apparent how this would discourage terrorists from fabricating asylum claims. The only certainty is that it would make it more difficult for bona fide asylum seekers to meet their burden of proof. The unfairness of this approach is illustrated by a comment that the Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor made recently about the asylum laws of our country. She said:

The United States offers protection in the form of asylum

to individuals fleeing persecution in other nations. In most

cases, however, asylum seekers find themselves alone,

destitute and facing deportation. Asylum law is governed by a

labyrinth of statutes, regulations, and case law, but, unlike

criminal defendants, only those asylum seekers who can afford

to hire an attorney or who are fortunate enough to secure pro

bono counsel are represented.

The REAL ID Act would codify the standards that adjudicators use in making credibility findings in asylum proceedings. The codification would encourage adverse credibility findings against asylum applicants who cannot produce corroborating evidence of their account, or whose demeanor is inconsistent with an immigration judge's preconceived expectations. This can be very unfair. People fleeing persecution often lack the opportunity and the ability to secure the legal evidence needed to corroborate their claims, and demeanor is a function in some cases of cultural background rather than credibility. For instance, it is considered rude in some cultures to stare into another person's eyes during a conversation, but the failure to look someone in the eyes indicates deception in this country.

The REAL ID Act also would expand the categories of people who can be excluded or deported as a terrorist. The broad net this would create would ensnare innocent people who have made donations or been involved in some other way with organizations they did not know were terrorist organizations. The defense to removal on that basis would be to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that you did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization. This can be an impossible burden to meet. For instance, how would you prove by clear and convincing evidence that you did not notice a person who entered this room 5 minutes ago?

The REAL ID Act also includes sections on security measures for drivers' licenses and identification cards. We have already enacted legislation to improve security measures for drivers' licenses and identification cards. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act we just enacted requires the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to promulgate regulations establishing minimum standards for driver's licenses or personal identification cards issued by a State for use by Federal agencies for identification purposes. Before being published as proposed regulations, the standards would be subjected to a negotiated rule making committee that would include the affected stakeholders such as State elected officials and State motor vehicle departments. The recommendations of this committee are required to include an assessment of the benefits and the costs of the measures in the proposed regulations.

In contrast, the REAL ID Act would impose specific requirements on the States now, without giving the States and the other stakeholders an opportunity to provide input on what these requirements should be, and without an assessment of the benefits and costs of the measures. If the security measures were to prove to be impossible or too costly to implement, it would require an act of Congress to change them.

Before we can address the merits of the security measures that would be required by the REAL ID Act, we need answers to the following questions. (1) Are the States capable of establishing and implementing the security measures Mr. Sensenbrenner is proposing? For instance, his bill calls for two categories of drivers' licenses, one for citizens and permanent residents and another for aliens who have nonimmigrant status. The licenses for nonimmigrants would be tied to periods of lawful status and extensions of the status. Can the State motor vehicle departments handle this increased work load? Will the States be able to provide the training needed to evaluate the many immigration documents that reflect lawful nonimmigrant status? (2) How much would it cost to establish, implement, and maintain these security measures? We do not have unlimited resources. We cannot evaluate whether these safety measures are worth what they would cost unless we know what they would cost. (3) How long would it take to establish and implement these security measures? I have introduced a bill that would establish a study to find the answers to these questions, ``The Security Measures Feasibility Act.''

The REAL ID Act also would restrict the privilege of obtaining a driver's license to aliens who have lawful status. My Security Measures Feasibility Act would establish a study of the consequences that would result from forcing millions of undocumented aliens to drive without drivers' licenses.

Sheriff Timothy Bukowski of Kankakee, Illinois, has made an important observation on this matter. According to Sheriff Bukowski, the issuance of drivers' licenses is a safety issue, not an immigration issue. I agree with Sheriff Bukowski, a driver's license is more than just a privilege to the driver, it also is a device that the States use to make our highways safer.

Austin Assistant Chief of Police Rudy Landerso explains it this way. ``[W]e strongly believe it would be in the public interest to make available to these communities the ability to obtain a driver's license. In allowing this community the opportunity to obtain driver's licenses, they will have to study our laws and pass a driver's test that will make them not only informed drivers but safe drivers.'' I would just add that it also requires them to have insurance.

The REAL ID Act contains a provision that would provide 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 section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996, IIRIRA. To my knowledge, a waiver this broad is unprecedented. It would waive all laws, including laws protecting civil rights; laws protecting the health and safety of workers; laws, such as the Davis-Bacon Act, which are intended to ensure that construction workers on federally-funded projects are paid the prevailing wage; environmental laws; and laws respecting sacred burial grounds. It so broad that it would not just apply to the San Diego border fence that is the underlying reason for this provision. It would apply any other barrier or fence that may come about in the future. At the very least, we should have a hearing to consider the consequences of such a drastic waiver.

I am concerned also by the piecemeal approach that the REAL ID Act is taking to immigration reform. We need comprehensive immigration reform, not fixes for a few specific problems. This view is shared by our colleagues on the Senate side. Senator John McCain has expressed the need to have comprehensive immigration reform. I have heard that he will be working on comprehensive immigration legislation with Senator Edward Kennedy. We can do the same thing in the House of Representatives. I invite my colleagues who are supporting the REAL ID Act to work with me on comprehensive immigration reform. In the meantime, however, passage of this piece-meal, ill-advised bill would be a step backwards. I urge you to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, do I have time for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 418. I want to thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his leadership and tireless efforts to secure our Nation's borders.

Last year, the Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, enacting into law many of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission.

Unfortunately, not all of the recommendations were included in the

first round of legislation, which is why we are here today. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and I committed to working together to make sure that one of the first orders of business considered by the House in the 109th Congress would be to address some of the recommendations in our jurisdictions that the Congress failed to address last year.

I want to use my time today to discuss the provisions contained in H.R. 418 that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform which I chair: security measures for Federal acceptance of state-issued driver's licenses and personal identification cards, commonly referred to as identity security.

Last year's 9/11 Commission report identified a number of gaps and weaknesses in our Nation's intelligence and homeland security systems, providing recommendations for Congress to consider in fixing these problems. One of the most pressing recommendations proposed by the commission and one that fell within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform appears on page 390 of the 9/11 Commission report. It is the following:

Secure identification should begin in the United States.

The Federal Government should set standards for the issuance

of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as

driver's licenses. Fraud in identity documents is no longer

just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable

facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of

identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people

are who they say they are and to check whether they are

terrorists.

For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. The 9/ 11 hijackers relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents. We know that the 19 hijackers held 63 driver's licenses or ID cards.

Based upon guidelines proposed by State motor vehicle administrators and adopted by a number of States throughout the country, our committee worked with other interested stakeholders to craft legislation that would establish minimum standards to be accepted of state-issued identification that could be used for Federal purposes. These important provisions were overwhelmingly passed by the House as part of H.R. 10 and heralded by the 9/11 victims' families.

Unfortunately, the House-passed provisions critical to strengthening identity security were dropped from the bill in conference. Instead, language was included that would set up a general framework for a Federal role in this area, but the language was filled with so many loopholes and opt-out clauses for States that it really only made matters worse.

We find ourselves here today to correct these mistakes and to again enact meaningful reform. H.R. 418 provides the Congress with this opportunity.

Our approach is very straightforward. Our legislation would set forth minimum document and issuance standards for Federal acceptance of driver's licenses and state-issued personal identification cards. The legislation would provide 3 years for States to come into compliance with these standards if their driver's licenses are to be recognized for Federal Government purposes and their documents as proof of an individual's identity.

As the 9/11 Commission concluded, fraud in identity documents is no longer just a problem of theft. As we continue to strengthen our intelligence function to better identify and track terrorists, those individuals will be forced to find ways to conceal their identity in order to avoid detection.

We know that the 9/11 hijackers used the United States as their staging area for training and preparation in the year prior to the attacks, traveling into and out of and around the country with little fear of capture. In fact, several of the hijackers lived less than 15 miles away from this building while making final preparations for their attack. We are dedicated to making sure we do not provide such a hospitable environment in the future.

As chairman of the committee that oversees federalism issues, I am mindful of concerns about the Federal Government imposing burdens on States, so-called unfunded mandates. My response is threefold. One is that this is a national security issue that requires a unified national response rather than 50 separate responses. Secondly, the legislation authorizes grants to States to conform to the minimum standards set forth in the act. Third, I am confident that these minimum standards will not be a heavy lift for a majority of the States in our Nation. It is the handful of States that continue to have lax security standards more than 3 years after 9/11 that may have the most work to do.

It is crucial that we do everything we can to enhance the security of the American people, and this important legislation takes a significant step in frustrating terrorists' attempts to integrate into our society. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 418 and strengthen identity security.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), a former Secretary of State of the State of Michigan, which issues driver's licenses in Michigan, and someone who has been very helpful in crafting this bill.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before I recognize the next chairman, I wish to respond to the gentlewoman's question of why are we doing this. We are doing this because the 9/11 Commission Report asked that we do it. They made it a priority. We are doing it because our committee, the committee the gentlewoman sits on, the one I chair, authorized this last year and the House overwhelmingly passed this last year.

The 9/11 victims' families have a letter that also requests this. And we are doing it because when I get on an airplane and somebody shows an ID to get on the airplane, I would like to know they are who they say they are. I think every other American would like to have that assurance in safety as well.

And by the way, we do not tell the States what to do. They can issue a license to whoever they want to issue a license to. But if they want to use that State license for Federal purposes, like getting on an airplane, they are going to have to be able to show that the people are who they said they were.

Also, Mr. Chairman, we worked with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators in crafting this legislation, and 3 years is ample time.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record, the letter of the victims' families, which I just referred to:

9/11 Families for a

Secure America,

New York, NY, October 19, 2004.

Hon. Tom Davis,

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Davis: 9/11 Families for a Secure America,

comprised of the families of hundreds of the victims of the

September 11 terrorist attacks, are writing to express the

support of our members for the provisions in H.R. 10, the 9/

11 Recommendations Implementation Act, to establish minimum

document and issuance standards for federal acceptance of

state-issued driver's licenses and birth certificates. As the

Conference Committee on the intelligence reform bills begins

to consider the identity management security provisions

contained in S. 2845 and H.R. 10, we plead with the conferees

to remember our murdered loved ones and adopt the language of

the House-passed bill.

These provisions would go a long way toward closing the

loopholes that allowed 19 terrorists--all of whom had

violated our immigration laws in one way or another--to

obtain sixty-three authentic state driver's licenses, which

allowed them to live here unnoticed while they honed their

plot to murder our loved ones. To us, who have suffered

horrific grief, loss and rage, it is beyond belief that even

one Member of Congress would oppose a law that will stop the

next Mohammed Atta from obtaining the ``valid ID'' that will

allow him to board an airplane.

The state-issued driver's license has become the preferred

identification document in America. It allows the holder to

cash a check, rent a car or truck, board an airplane,

purchase a firearm, enter a federal or state building,

register to vote, and obtain other federally-issued

documents. Despite the vast benefits simple possession of a

driver's license now confers on its holder, it is one of the

easiest documents to obtain, whether by citizen or illegal

alien, friend or enemy.

Recognizing this fact, the 9/11 Commission recommended

that, ``The federal government should set standards for the

issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification,

such as drivers licenses.'' We commend the House for taking

the necessary and appropriate action on this important issue.

Supporters of the Senate position have argued that a

negotiated rulemaking process is the appropriate action to

take in order to establish minimum standards. We could not

disagree more strongly, knowing that inevitably the final

rules will lack any teeth. The standards included in H.R. 10

come directly from the State Administrators of these programs

and from law enforcement, developed since the terrorist

attacks on our nation and founded on long-standing principles

and best practices.

We believe it is perfectly appropriate for Congress to

establish baseline standards and give authority to the

Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of

Transportation to work with the States and issue regulations

on how individual States can come into compliance. This is

particularly true because experience in many States has shown

that implementation of these standards involve minuscule

financial costs. Also, states' rights issues are in no way

infringed since H.R. 10 only affects federal non-recognition

for federal purposes of licenses from nonconforming states.

Congress has promised us repeatedly that they would honor

our loved ones who were murdered three years ago by enacting

reforms to ensure that Americans will never again face the

same horror. The House provisions on identity management

security are vital in this effort, and we urge you to oppose

the Senate language, which will protect a status quo that

aided the murderers who tore apart our families on September

11, 2001.

In the names of our dead and ourselves we ask you: how much

longer will you permit terrorists to obtain drivers'

licenses? For what reasons can you possibly oppose such an

essential law?

And to those of you who are opposed: are you prepared to

accept the responsibility for the next 9/11 terrorists who

utilize US-issued drivers licenses?

Sincerely,

Peter Gadiel & Jan Gadiel, Parents of James, age 23, WTC,

North Tower 103rd Floor.

Al Regenhard, Det. Sgt. (retired) NYPD, Parents of

firefighter Christian Regenhard.

Joan Molinaro, Mother of Firefighter Carl Molinaro, age 32.

Grace Godshalk, Mother of William R. Godshalk, age 35, WTC,

South Tower, 89th Floor.

Colette Lafuente, Wife of Juan Lafuente, WTC visitor.

Wil Sekzer, Detective Sergeant (Retired) NYPD, Father of

Jason, age 31, WTC, North Tower, 105th floor.

Bruce DeCell (NYPD, Retired), Father in law of Mark

Petrocelli, age 29, WTC, North Tower, 105th floor.

Lynn Faulkner, Husband of Wendy Faulkner, South Tower.

Bill Doyle, Father of Joseph, age 24, WTC, North Tower.

April Gallop, Pentagon Survivor.

Diana Stewart, Only wife of Michael Stewart.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the deputy whip, who has been so active on this issue, and introduced the first legislation in this House that would have tied visa expiration to a driver's license date.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I note on page 390 of the 9/11 Commission Report, it recommends secure identification should begin in the United States. The Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) on this issue as we move forward.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the former mayor of Dayton and chairman of our Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just sum up and say this does not require anything from the States as far as driver's licenses go. States do not have to do anything under this for their driver's licenses. They can issue driver's licenses to whomever they want. But if they intend to use those

licenses for Federal purposes, we have a right to say what the criteria should be and under those circumstances, they are going to have to show legal presence. It is not anti-immigrant. In fact, this allows the States to issue two different sets: one for illegal immigrants, one for everyone else. It takes the national security issue away from the argument there.

Finally, the opt-out provisions in the current legislation that was passed just a few months ago are disastrous. We were worse with the 9/ 11 response that passed this Congress than we were without it. This rectifies that. It closes that loophole.

Out of respect for the victims, the families, the work of the 9/11 Commission, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the newly appointed ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

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. 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. 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.)

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.

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

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. 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?

I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.

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.

The gentleman is talking about actually trial and conviction?

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. Speaker, I would like to address the ethics-related provisions that are in this package at the insistence of the Committee on Rules. I had the honor of serving as ranking member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the last Congress. It was an honor to serve with the gentleman from Colorado (Chairman Hefley), as he always managed to chair the committee in a completely bipartisan manner.

The headlines in this morning's paper say ``GOP Abandons Ethics Changes.'' It turns out that the headline is at best only half right. It is true that the most outrageous ethics undermining provision has been deleted from the rules package, but other provisions, provisions that would make major changes in the way the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct handles enforcements of the rules, they remain.

There should be no misunderstanding that these provisions that remain would seriously undermine the ethics process in the House, both because of the changes they would make in committee procedures, but, and equally important, because of the partisan way in which they are being adopted. If there is to be a meaningful, viable ethics process in the House, it must be a genuinely bipartisan process. That

point should be self-evident. How could there be a legitimate ethics process that is operated on a partisan basis? And to have a bipartisan process, it is absolutely essential that any major changes in the rules be made on a truly bipartisan basis. What is more, because of the importance and the sensitive nature of the ethics rules, it is also essential that any proposed changes be considered in a thoughtful, considered, and open way, with all Members being given the opportunity for input, Democrats and Republicans.

Until today, the House recognized these fundamental points. Until today, the House has not attempted to make major changes in the ethics rules or the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct procedures in a slapdash way, with literally only hours of consideration, and on a party line vote.

It will probably come as no surprise that the materials issued by the Committee on Rules that attempt to justify these amendments are based entirely on misstatements of the current rules. For example, under the benign sounding heading, ``Restore Presumption of Innocence,'' the Committee on Rules memorandum states, ``Currently, if the chairman and ranking minority member take no action on a properly filed complaint within 45 days, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee.'' Fine. But that statement is incomplete and, therefore, misleading.

The rules that have been in effect since 1997 clearly provide that at any time that a complaint is before the chairman and ranking member for consideration, either one of them may place the complaint on the committee's agenda and when either one of them does that, an investigative committee cannot be established without a majority vote of the committee.

Another example, Mr. Speaker. Under the heading ``Due Process for Members,'' the Committee on Rules memorandum states that, ``Under the current rule, the chairman and ranking member or the committee may take action against a Member without a complaint, notice, or the opportunity to be heard.''

This statement clearly implies that the committee may determine that a Member has committed a violation or impose a sanction without the Member having such rights, and that suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is flatly wrong. The rules are replete with the rights for Members who are accused of any violation.

When you turn to the actual text of the ``due process'' amendments, you find that what these amendments are concerned with is not committee actions that impose sanctions or determine violations, but instead on committee letters or statements that ``reference the official conduct of a Member.'' It may be well that the rules should provide certain rights to a Member whose conduct is going to be discussed in a letter or statement that the committee issues publicly, but what should those rights be? They should be determined through a deliberative, fair, bipartisan process.

But one specific right that this proposed rule provides to those Members is the right to demand an immediate trial in front of an adjudicatory subcommittee of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. But in the circumstances that the rule addresses, that trial would take place before the committee has conducted any formal investigation of the matter. No committee that is serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in that circumstance. So the effect of this amendment would be that whenever any alleged misconduct is brought to the committee's attention, the committee may be forced to choose between either launching a formal investigation of the matter or dismissing it entirely. Both of these rule changes lack careful consideration and, more seriously, are brought to us today through a partisan process.

I'd like to address the ethics-related provisions that are in this package at the insistence of the Rules Committee. I had the honor of serving as ranking member of the Ethics Committee in the last Congress, and I also served on the committee for 6 years during another time of controversy in the late 1980s. It was an honor to serve during the last 2 years with Chairman Hefley, as he always managed the committee in a completely bipartisan manner.

A headline in this morning's newspaper says, ``GOP abandons ethics changes.'' It turns out that the headline is at best only half right. It's true that the most outrageous ethics-undermining provision has been deleted from the rules package, but other provisions--provisions that would make major changes in the way the Ethics Committee handles enforcement of the rules--remain.

There should be no misunderstanding that these provisions that remain would seriously undermine the ethics process in the House, both because of the changes they would make in committee procedures, and, equally important, because of the partisan way in which they would be adopted.

If there is to be a meaningful, viable ethics process in the House, it must be a genuinely bipartisan process. That point should be self- evident--how could there be a legitimate ethics process that is operated on a partisan basis? And to have a bipartisan process, it's absolutely essential that any major changes in the rules be made on a truly bipartisan basis. What's more, because of the importance, and the sensitive nature of the ethics rules, it's also essential that any proposed changes be considered in a thoughtful, considered, and open way, with all Members being given the opportunity for input--Democrats and Republicans.

Until today, the House recognized these fundamental points. Until today, the House has not attempted to make major changes in the ethics rules or the Ethics Committee procedures in a slapdash way, with literally only hours of consideration, and on a party-line vote.

It will probably come as no surprise that the materials issued by the Rules Committee that attempt to justify these amendments are based entirely on misstatements of the current rules. For example, under the benign-sounding heading, ``Restore Presumption of Innocence,'' the Rules Committee memorandum states, and I quote:

``Currently, if the chairman and ranking minority member take no action on a properly filed complaint within 45 days, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee.''

That statement is incomplete--and therefore misleading. The rules that have been in effect since 1997 clearly provide that at any time that a complaint is before the chairman and ranking member for consideration, either one of them may place the complaint on the committee's agenda, and when either one of them does that, an investigative subcommittee cannot be established without a majority vote of the committee.

Another example: under the heading, ``Due Process for Members,'' the Rules Committee memorandum states that, and I quote:

``Under the current rule, the chairman and ranking member, or the committee, may take action against a Member without a complaint, notice, or the opportunity to be heard.''

This statement clearly implies that the committee may determine that a Member has committed a violation or impose a sanction without the Member having such rights, and that suggestion is flatly wrong. The rules are replete with rights for Members who are accused of any violation, and because of the bipartisan makeup of the committee, Members are typically accorded rights well beyond those required by the rules.

When you turn to the actual text of the ``due process'' amendments, you find that what these amendments are concerned with is not committee actions that impose sanctions or determine violations, but instead committee letters or statements that ``reference the official conduct of a Member.'' It may well be that the rules should provide certain rights to a Member whose conduct is going to be discussed in a letter or statement that the committee issues publicly, but what should those rights be?

They should be determined through a deliberative, fair, bipartisan process. But one specific right that this proposed rule provides to those Members is the right to demand an immediate trial in front of an adjudicatory subcommittee of the Ethics Committee. But in the circumstances that the rule addresses, that trial would take place before the committee has conducted any formal investigation of the matter. No committee that is serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in that circumstance. So the effect of this amendment would be that whenever any alleged misconduct is brought to the committee's attention, the committee may be forced to choose between either launching a formal investigation of the matter, or dismissing it entirely. There would be no chance for an expedited resolution of the case, even in those instances in which the committee believes it already has all the basic facts, and the conduct involved probably does not warrant a formal sanction. Both of these rule changes lack careful consideration and, more seriously, are brought to us today through a partisan process.

But the proposed amendment that raises even more concern is the one that provides for automatic dismissal of any complaint that

is not acted upon within a period as short as 45 days. When the House last considered Ethics Committee procedures, in 1997, it rejected, on a bipartisan vote, an amendment that would have required the automatic dismissal of any complaint that is not acted upon within 180 days.

The reason that amendment was rejected is that it was recognized that such a time limit would encourage deadlock on the committee, and partisanship among the committee members. Under a time limit, if one side or the other is uncomfortable about dealing with a particular complaint, those Members don't have to discuss it or otherwise try to deal with it--by their just doing nothing, the complaint will disappear. Yet now this provision for automatic dismissal has reappeared, and this time it has a far shorter time frame for committee consideration than the nearly identical provision that the House soundly rejected in 1997.

I want to close by asking all Members, including all Members of the leadership on both sides of the Aisle, to give some serious consideration--not just today, but in the weeks and months ahead--to whether you genuinely want to have a meaningful ethics process in the House, and what we as Members, individually and collectively, have to do in order for such a process to exist. As I said at the outset, for this process to exist, it has to be a truly bipartisan one, and it has to be treated with seriousness and respect. It has to be recognized that the basic purpose of the process is to consider and address legitimate ethics concerns, and if Members are successful in using the process for partisan, political purposes, it is going to fail. The approval of these amendments would seriously undermine the process and, for that reason alone, this rules package should be defeated.