Citizens and Legal Immigration Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side, for the balance of these arguments today and during yesterday, said very frequently, and it was repeated again by the gentleman from Texas, that the horrible people that were on the airplanes that did the dastardly deed here in America on September 11 had, collectively, 63 driver's licenses. That is, without any kind of misunderstanding between the two sides, they had these driver's licenses, and there is no question about it.

But one of the things that goes ignored is the fact that in the days before 9/11, including that day, airport review of driver's licenses did not occur, and, therefore, it is a total irrelevancy. They were in this country, some on expired visas, some with visas that had been approved, and probably one or two with fraudulent visas. What in the world did driver's licenses have to do with it?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and H.R. 418. And once again we see debate limited on this legislation for no reason. The bill is the only item on our legislative schedule today, yet debate on this bill has been limited to less than 2 hours. In fact, the number of proposed amendments has been sharply limited as well. Only a fourth of the amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules will be allowed on the floor today, and what possible reason can the majority give for limiting debate in this matter? Surely, given the drastic nature of the changes to our asylum laws contained in H.R. 418, it is in the best interests of the country to hold an open debate on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, the chairman of the Committee on Rules sent out an announcement notifying Members, as is his responsibility, that all their proposed amendments to this bill were due in the Committee on Rules by noon on Tuesday, February 8. All Members who submitted their amendments, Republicans and Democrats, followed this rule; all Members, that is, except the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner).

Later Tuesday afternoon, after the deadline had passed, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) submitted an extensive 18-page amendment that made significant changes to the bill's already controversial asylum sections. Members had never seen this language before, and of course, no subcommittee or committee had a chance to review it or mark it up.

In the short time we have had to review this new language, it appears to be more controversial than the bill's original provisions. It appears to make it easier for an immigration judge to reject on asylum seeker based on subjective and cultural factors that are notoriously unreliable indicators of credibility. It also allows a person to be denied asylum based on any inconsistencies or falsehoods in their testimony, whether or not these inconsistencies are relevant to the person's claim.

I continue to harp on the fact that it does not protect children who are here and in need of asylum consideration. It does not protect women who are in forced slavery and prostitution and are raped. It does not protect them at all with reference to any asylum claims. And it places in the hands of one judge the judging of their credibility.

The other thing ignored is the difficulty that the criteria set forth in H.R. 418 present to asylum seekers, legitimate asylum seekers, to collect information regarding their birth records. In the district that I represent, more than a quarter of the work done in the district offices involves immigration, and one of the things that we find it difficult to accomplish is to have the people in a timely manner who are seeking status and naturalization in this country collect their birth records and records of a variety of things in their communities that simply are not there and are unavailable, and therefore their claims are delayed repeatedly.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad amendment, and Members should have more

time to study it. What is worse is that Members today will not even have the opportunity to vote up or down on it. This rule makes it a part of H.R. 418. It is called ``self-executing.'' It sounds like a cute way of circumventing the democratic process to me.

Stifling free speech is downright un-American. One cannot fail to see the irony here. Right this minute our troops are in harm's way to further democracy in a far-off country, while democracy here in the halls of Congress is being shoved out the door. When the opportunity for a free debate is squelched, America loses, democracy loses. There is nothing to be gained by limiting ideas; and that is what we have here today, the limiting of the ideas of the majority. They should not and it is wrong for them to shut the American people out.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 418 also allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all laws necessary for the construction of the San Diego border wall. None of us are of a mind to believe that the completion of the 3-mile gap in that wall should not be undertaken. But giving the Secretary the power to override all Federal laws that interfere with this project sets a horrible precedent. These laws exist for a reason, be it to ensure the safety of the environment or to safeguard important cultural artifacts.

Mr. Speaker, how many more laws will we override in the name of homeland security? None of us would argue that we should not do everything to protect the homeland, but rightly we should not argue to ignore the laws that also protect us in this homeland.

The data collection envisioned by H.R. 418 troubles me a lot. In this age of diminished personal privacy, this bill throws around terms such as ``mandatory facial image capture,'' and ``electronic storage of identity source documents,'' without fully explaining, and it is not explained; and I ask anybody to explain it on the majority side, certainly for the American public, explaining fully how all this captured data will be used and by whom.

I represent a district that, like America, is comprised of immigrants. Many of the people of the 23rd Congressional District of Florida came to America as asylum seekers themselves. They came from places where notorious persecution and violation of human rights occurred, like Haiti and Cuba; and they have worked hard, as many immigrants in this country who sought asylum, to create a new life for themselves and their families. Whether they came 5 years ago or 50 years ago, they know others like them will continue to come to our shores fleeing persecution and desperation, seeking hope, protection and the promise of a better future.

We have a moral responsibility to help them make it. It has not been lessened any more after 9/11 than it was before. The immigrants who founded this country had that moral responsibility, and throughout our history we have waxed and waned with reference to that moral responsibility.

Last night, I watched the so-called ``fair and balanced'' Fox programming, and on that programming it happened that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) was one of the guests. He made a sterling presentation. He did not falter in any of his principles with reference to this matter, and he went forward in a dignified manner to answer the questions asked.

He did say, I believe, and he has not said that this measure is something that he does not think will help secure the homeland, as my colleague from Texas has just said. But let me quote the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) from last night. He said, ``The key to protecting our homeland is enforcing the immigration laws.'' Let me repeat the quote: ``The key to protecting our homeland is enforcing the immigration laws.''

Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) knows that President Bush has proposed a budget that, rather than fulfilling what we said would protect our homeland by having 2,000 border patrol persons and an added number, 800, INS, or BICE, their new name, to their rolls so that we could enforce the immigration laws, what do we get in the proposed budget? Two hundred border patrol guards and 143 personnel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

What I am saying is let us put our emphasis where it ought to be, and let us not divert ourselves in this manner, and certainly let us not continue to shut all of those organizations, from the Governors Association all the way back across the board that are opposed to this law, let us not shut them out from having an opportunity to present themselves at a hearing.

Let us not shut out the people here in the House of Representatives, some 41 who are newly here who have no idea what we did with reference to this matter last year and have not had time in order to be able to review it, sufficient to be able to make arguments on behalf of their constituencies in a satisfactory manner. Let us not shut out the American public by continuing to not allow for open debate.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and H.R. 418. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and this ill-conceived legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, which I will do gladly.

I would say to the chairman that I respect very much, and I am speaking to the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), I respect very much what my good friend from California has said with reference to the rule, the amendments that are allowed. But I was in that same process as the chairman was in the Committee on Rules. Three-quarters of the amendments that were submitted on time pursuant to the chairman's correct direction to the body are not a part of the debate here.

The Sensenbrenner amendment, which is rather lengthy, came late to the committee. It is not being voted on up or down for the reason that it was made a self-executing part of the rule.

Now, the gentleman can call that fair and balanced, but let me just say to the chairman that there is a new section 105, and many of the Members are hearing this for the first time. It eliminates Federal court review in many conventions against torture cases, and it eliminates the power of the Federal appeals court judges to stay the removal of asylum seekers.

I do not think any irony is lost on the chairman about the Ninth Circuit's ruling.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, before the chairman leaves, just one further word in that regard. I take, from the many times when the chairman was in the minority, his statement to heart; and that is that if a rule is not open, it is closed.

Yes, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) said that a lot. He said that a lot.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has cited the 9/ 11 Commission. After 9/11, shortly thereafter, I wrote to President Bush and introduced legislation that would set the precursor to what ultimately became the Department of Homeland Security of this House of Representatives.

During that period of time, I did not have the courtesy of a response from the White House, and the White House opposed setting up inside the administration a Cabinet-level homeland security official. Ultimately, they came around. Tim Roemer, a former colleague of ours who did serve on the 9/11 Commission, and myself and others filed the original legislation leading to the development of the 9/11 independent commission.

And my colleague has cited that commission frequently, but I defy him on the subject of border security, page 186, to tell me anywhere where it says anything about driver's licenses.

They talk about creating an interagency center to target illegal entry and human traffickers; imposing tighter controls on student visas; taking legal action to prevent terrorists from coming into the United States and to remove those already here; further increasing the number of immigration agents to FBI joint terrorism task forces; activating a special court to enable the use of classified evidence. And I could go on and on and on in the Clark working group and the 9/11 report, and not one word, not one word regarding any driver's licenses.

People that are going to do harm in this Nation are not going to do anything other than everything that is fraudulent. But what we need to know is that there are a variety of people who are significantly opposed to this legislation. The AFL-CIO, the American Jewish Committee, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Catholic Charities USA, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Irish American Unity conference, Gun Owners of America, the American Conservative Union, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of La Raza, the Federation of Filipino American Association, the Service Employees Union; and there is a list that goes up to 121 organizations that have been shut out because there were no hearings and no opportunity for them to have been heard, other than through the limited debate.

We should stop this business of closing our opportunities and open up the rules. I oppose this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 75 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

The rule under consideration completes the work begun by the general debate rule passed yesterday by the House. It provides for further consideration of the rule under a structured rule and provides that no further general debate shall be in order.

This rule provides that the amendment printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and that the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment and shall be considered as read.

It makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the report and provides that these amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the report and only by a Member designated in the report. These amendments shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, this rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part B of the report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, this rule will complete the work begun yesterday on H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005. As a number of our colleagues have already made it very clear during the debate yesterday of an hour and 40 minutes, this legislation will continue the efforts of our President, George W. Bush, the 9/11 Commission, and of Congress to ensure that America never suffers another terrorist attack like the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

H.R. 418, authored by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) will improve security by focusing on four main areas: Number one, implementing much-needed driver's license reform, closing asylum loopholes, defending our borders, and strengthening our deportation laws.

Implementing the driver's license reforms included in H.R. 418 will provide for greater security for the American people. Because of lax standards and loopholes in the various current State issuance processes, terrorists have been allowed to obtain driver's licenses, often multiple driver's licenses from different States, and abuse these false identities for illegal and harmful purposes. The September 11 hijackers had

within their possession at least 15 valid driver's licenses and numerous State-issued identification cards listing a wide variety of addresses.

These terrorists were then able to exploit many of the benefits conferred upon them by possession of these cards, such as enabling the bearer to acquire other corroborating identification documents, transfer funds to a United States bank account, obtain access to Federal buildings, purchase a firearm, rent a car, or board a plane, just to name a few.

By establishing minimum document and issuance standards for the Federal acceptance of driver's licenses, requiring applicants to prove that they are in the country legally, and requiring identity documents to expire simultaneously with the expiration of lawful entry status, this legislation will ensure that individuals harboring malicious intent or who have illegally entered or who are unlawfully present in the United States cannot have access to these valuable and sensitive documents.

Closing the asylum loopholes identified by H.R. 418 will provide greater security for the American people because, as the 9/11 Commission report noted, ``a number of terrorists . . . abused the asylum system.'' By strengthening judges' abilities to determine whether asylum seekers are truthful and credible, we will be able to prevent terrorists from gaming the system by applying for asylum as a means to avoid deportation after all other recourses for remaining in the United States have been denied to them. This will prevent abuses of the system like in the case of the ``Blind Sheik'' Abdul Rahman, who was able to stay in the United States and force an immigration judge to hold a hearing on his asylum claim only weeks before his followers bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

Defending our physical border, as provided for in the REAL ID bill, will also provide greater security for the American people. We know from the 9/11 Commission that the hijackers had 25 contacts with consular officers and 43 contacts with immigration and customs authorities. As a result, the 9/11 Commission and Congress are recommending to take a number of appropriate actions that would make it more difficult for terrorists to enter the United States through the visa or other legal immigration process, and this bill will go even further towards attaining that goal. But closing down only the legal means by which they will try to infiltrate this country is not enough.

Because increased vigilance has made entering the country through normal, regular channels more difficult, we must also increasingly prepare for the certainty that terrorists will use illegal, clandestine methods to enter our country and do us harm, and we must take steps now to close the gaps in our border security where we feel we are most vulnerable.

Finally, strengthening our deportation laws as provided for by H.R. 418 will provide greater security for the American people. Currently, although it seems unbelievable, not all terrorist-related grounds for keeping an alien out of the United States are also grounds for deportation. This means that terrorists and their closest advocates can be denied entry to the United States for their actions in support of terrorism, but if they are able to make it to our shores, we cannot deport them legally under those same actions.

The REAL ID Act will bring some common-sense balance to this troubled oversight and make the law consistent by providing that all terrorist- related offenses that make aliens inadmissible would also be grounds for their deportation. It would also provide that any alien contributing funds to a terrorist organization could also be deportable.

This rule makes in order five amendments from Members from both sides of the aisle, including one that I have submitted to ensure that aliens and terrorists who are in the United States and ordered deported are actually deported so that they can no longer pose a threat to the security of American citizens.

By supporting this rule, the House can complete its consideration of these five important amendments and the underlying legislation.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this fair and balanced rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do understand that not everybody is in agreement about what we are doing today, but for the Members that are paying attention, the 9/11 Terrorist Travel Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, known as the 9/11 Commission, said on page 43, and I would like to quote this: ``September 11: As the hijackers boarded four flights, American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175, at least six hijackers used U.S. identification documents obtained and acquired in the previous months, three of which were fraudulently obtained in Northern Virginia.''

Mr. Speaker, we would have to really not respect this 9/11 Commission if we were not going to follow up on the work that they did. That is why we are here today. We are here for the best reason, for the security of this great Nation and the wonderful people who care and entrust upon the United States Congress the ability to make sure we do all that we can to avoid attacks in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that at this time I do not have additional speakers.

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

This rule makes in order five amendments for Members of both sides of the aisle, including one that I have submitted to ensure that aliens and terrorists are not in the United States illegally, and if they are, we are going to deport them.

I think that this is a good bill, a good rule; and I support H.R. 418. We need to implement much-needed driver's license reform. We need to close asylum loopholes. We need to defend our borders, and we are going to strengthen our deportation laws. And I encourage all of my colleagues to support the underlying legislation in this rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman really believe that 20 minutes of debate, 10 on each side, on these complicated issues, is free and flowing debate? We got out early yesterday; we are here today. Why only 10 minutes of debate on each side on these complicated issues?

Mr. Speaker, hearing the chairman of the Committee on Rules describe this restricted rule as fair and balanced reinforces the fact that when people on the right in America politically tell you something is fair and balanced, you had better ask for another deck of cards.

The rule not only limits the amendments; and it makes sense, the chairman's defense makes sense if you start from the perspective that no amendments ought to be allowed. And then when you let in two out of 10, or two out of six, somehow you have been generous.

Ought not the assumption be in favor of openness, especially since the House has not been doing very much? Then the chairman said, Well, we do not have to have long debate on these things; after all, we had a hearing in the Committee on Rules, and it was streamed on line. Anyone who thinks that a hearing in the Committee on Rules that is streamed on line is a substitute for open and free debate in the United States House of Representatives, or anyone who says that, ought to remember, I would give just one piece of advice. No matter how pressed one feels in a debate, try to avoid saying something that no one is going to believe. It really does not help your cause.

No one thinks that an online hearing in the Committee on Rules with a handful of Members in a room that has 30 seats substitutes for free and open debate in the House of Representatives, and particularly when you only give 10 minutes on a particular amendment.

I want to talk about the amendment on asylum. We heard a lot of discussion last year in the election from people complaining that religion had been driven from the public square. Well, guess who is ignoring religion this year? The majority.

The provisions on asylum have evoked overwhelming opposition from the various religious communities in America. I noted yesterday that the Commission on Interreligious Freedom set up by this Congress to protect religious freedom in the world put out earlier this week a report saying that our asylum procedures are too restrictive. And what is the response of the majority? To make what the Commission on Interreligious Freedom says is a bad situation much worse.

I noted yesterday, in Leviticus it says, and I have looked at various translations, various renderings, and in every one it sometimes says ``stranger,'' it sometimes says ``alien.'' It is clear it means people we would describe as immigrants. It says, Treat them as you would treat the native born.

Now, I do not purport to be a religious scholar. I do not purport to be an expert in religious interpretation, but I am puzzled. Can we turn Leviticus on and off that way? I mean, often I have heard Leviticus quoted as justification for measures that are critical of homosexuals. Do you not have to take it as a package? I mean, if you are going to use Leviticus to disadvantage homosexuals, do you not have to use it to be nice to immigrants? Is it not true that what is Leviticus for the goose is Leviticus for the gander?

Again, I acknowledge I am not a theological expert, so I will turn to some who are. I got a copy yesterday from the Interfaith Statement. ``The REAL ID act,'' it says, ``threatens the ability of victims of persecution to find safe haven in the United States,'' signed by a variety of Jewish and Catholic and Protestant groups, the Jesuit Religious Service, the Episcopal Migration Ministries, the Church World Service, the Jubilee Campaign, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

Mr. Speaker, because I do not think that religion ought to be driven from the public square on an issue on which there is such an overwhelming religious consensus, I will offer a statement condemning this bill and its asylum provisions be inserted here.

REAL ID Act Threatens Ability of Victims of Persecution To Find Safe

Haven in the United States

As representatives of various faith traditions, we are

deeply concerned that the REAL ID Act, legislation proposed

by Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), would make asylum

a more remote possibility for hundreds of persons who need

protection. We understand that safeguarding our national

security is an urgent issue, and we support measures that

honor that concern. We also subscribe to core beliefs which

require that we provide safety to victims of persecution,

particularly those who have no recourse to the projection

that democratic societies traditionally provide. Restricting

access to asylum beyond current practice and does not serve

the cause of national security and, moreover, erodes a sacred

and legal responsibility to give safety to those whose only

protection comes from asylum.

Each of our traditions has witnessed the suffering of

persons whose beliefs often place them in jeopardy and

possibly in mortal danger. As American-based faith

communities, we have cherished the ability of asylum seekers

to find safety in communities around our nation. We are,

therefore, saddened by a further erosion of our asylum system

under the pretext of national security. We urge Members of

Congress to reject the notion that all asylees are

prospective terrorists and that the current system needs to

be made more restrictive.

The belief that we must receive persons who have been

rejected and persecuted because of their ideas and religious

practices is anchored in both our histories and sacred texts.

We have contributed over the years to supporting and

enriching practices which embrace hospitality as not only a

religious but an American value. We also appreciate the need

to prevent terrorism from violating both our freedom and

safety. We believe that hospitality to the stranger--

particularly one who has been persecuted--and security are

compatible national goals. We, therefore, reject legislation

that subverts hospitality in the name of security.

The current asylum system includes rigorous safeguards

against terrorists abusing the asylum system. The changes

proposed by the REAL ID Act raise a false issue in further

victimizing legitimate asylum seekers. Requiring unreasonable

levels of evidence to prove an asylum claim, placing a

greater burden on asylum seekers to convince reviewers of the

key motivation of their accusers, and allowing subjective

considerations to guide the review process all send a

chilling message to those who desperately seek the safety and

protection which they have a right to expect of our great

nation.

We have all seen how fear can pervert justice. We believe

that the religious traditions which we embrace calls us to

oppose a narrowing of the door to asylum by some of the

world's most at-risk persons. We are committed to resisting a

fear driven agenda which violates our faith-based principles.

Anti-Defamation League

B'nai B'rith International

Church World Service

Episcopal Migration Ministries

HIAS and Council Migration Service of Philadelphia

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

Institute on Religion and Public Policy

Jesuit Refugee Service

Jewish Council for Public Affairs

Jewish Labor Committee

Jubilee Campaign

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service

Midland Alliances

Midland Association of Churches

Midland Ministerial Alliance

National Council of Jewish Women

Project for International Religious Liberty

Religoius Freedom Coalition

Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring

World Relief

Mr. Speaker, the asylum provisions make it much harder for people to get asylum. We will have 20 minutes to debate this issue. It would take me half of that time to read the full list of signers.

Last week, we were visited, those of us on the Democratic side, by a representative of the Catholic bishops, who asked us specifically to oppose this bill and particularly to condemn the asylum provisions. I do not think there has been any showing that asylumees have been terrorists.

But, in any case, I do want to stress, those of you who have said we have insufficiently paid attention to religious values, Mr. Speaker, I urge them not to turn their back on the religious community now and not to give the religious communities, a broad range of them, 10 minutes in which we can make the case that this bill violates biblical injunctions about aliens and undercuts our mission to be a haven for the religiously persecuted.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, section 101, the asylum provisions, are flawed. Existing law exempts and prohibits terrorists or threats to national security or those who the government can prove through secret evidence are threats to national security from getting asylum. That is existing law. This self-executing rule, which allows amendments which have never been considered by any committee or heard through hearing or markup, do several dangerous things.

Section 101 encourages asylum officers and immigration judges to deny an asylum claim simply because the applicant was able to recall or recount information later in the process that she did not mention when she was initially encountered by immigration officers. The amendment included in the rule would expand that to include consistency on matters that are entirely relevant to the basis of the claim for asylum.

It would mean that a woman who has been subjected to gang rape by government armed forces in her country who is too afraid or ashamed to tell the fact to the armed male immigration officer she first encounters at the airport in the United States could, if she tells the story later on in the process, be denied asylum simply because she was too afraid or too ashamed to tell the story to the first person she encountered.

Now, under the amendment, this woman could be denied asylum because she cannot recall facts that are irrelevant to establishing her need from protection, her high school graduation date, for example.

In a system where we rely on translations and statements taken from people in crisis, this is a very change in the law.

It is a fundamental challenge to the whole concept of the immigration judge considering all things coming into the record. The one thing I know is if section 101 becomes law, people with a well-founded fear of persecution, as a result of these changes, will be denied asylum, there will be no effort whatsoever to enhance our efforts to protect this country against terrorism, but we will have struck a fundamental blow against a tradition which I think is very important to maintain in this country and that is that we are a haven for refugees from persecution for political, ethnic, religious, gender reasons.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Even more troubling is a fact discussed in a report released this week by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Often Immigration Judges determine that an applicant is not credible because their statement at the airport was inconsistent with later statements because later statements included more detail. The problem with that logic is that when an asylum applicant is interviewed in inspections, the interview stops at the moment that the person establishes a fear of persecution. They are not invited to provide more detail until a later credible fear interview. In other words, the applicant isn't the reason the details are not included. This bill would codify this preposterous failure of the Immigration Judges' logic in these cases.

Section 101 also would encourage asylum officers and immigration judges to deny an asylum claim because of perceived problems with an applicant's demeanor. This would mean that a woman subjected to persecution by the Taliban who has been taught that she should not make eye contact with a man could be denied asylum simply because she did not make eye contact with the male immigration officer interviewing her.

Furthermore, it is quite common for torture survivors suffering from post-traumatic stress to exhibit characteristics in their demeanor such as lack of eye contact, the inability to recall simple details that to an untrained person may appear to be symptoms of lying. For example, Fauyiza Kassindja, a young Togolese woman who fled female genital mutilation (FGM), would have been denied asylum under this standard with little chance of getting that determination reversed on appeal. Under current law, the Board of Immigration Appeals rightly reversed the Immigration Judge's credibility finding in her case, and that decision has helped protect other women fleeing FGM.

Section 101 would encourage asylum officers and immigration judges to deny an asylum claim when the applicant cannot provide corroborating evidence of their claims if the officer, in his unreviewable discretion, believes that the applicant should be able to provide such evidence.

This disproportionately harms applicants who are detained and/or lack counsel. Relatedly, H.R. 418 would constrain judicial review of a denial of asylum based on an applicant's failure to provide corroborating evidence.

Section 101 would require some asylum applicants to prove not only that they are refugees, but also prove their persecutors' central Reason.

The additional burden on asylum applicants created by this provision is impermissible under the international law, including the U.N. Convention on Refugees to which the United States is a signatory. To meet the standard set forth in the Convention, it is sufficient to show persecution is motivated in part by one of the prohibited grounds. Asking a refugee or asylum applicant to parse his persecutor's motivations so finely as to distill the ``central Reason'' or ``central reason'' is asking asylum

seekers to read the minds of their persecutors. This additional burden will lead ineluctably to denials of legitimate asylum claims, sending helpless applicants back to face more persecution and potentially death.

The proponents of section 101 assert that we must enact this section in order to prevent terrorists from gaining asylum. My friends who are the authors of this provision are in error, however, in this assertion.

I have been informed by my staff that while several persons with terrorist connections have applied for asylum over the years, the Department of Homeland Security has not found a single terrorist has ever been granted asylum in the United States. This is because, first, current law appropriately makes terrorists ineligible for asylum, and second, the standard for granting asylum is already so high that applicants are subjected to intense scrutiny before a decision on their claims is made.

While the United States has not, as far as the Department of Homeland Security knows, ever granted asylum to a terrorist, there was, indeed, a problem more than a decade ago whereby persons could apply for asylum and then be paroled into the United States while their claims were pending. That is no longer possible today. A person who applies for asylum today is held in detention until an investigation is made on the credibility of their claim and on whether they pose a security risk to the United States.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the consequences for asylum seekers to enactment of section 101 could be catastrophic. The new standards could make it far more difficult for legitimate asylum seekers to prove their claims. After all, would an asylum officer in 1938 have found Jews' claims of being thrown into the death camps and ovens of Nazi Germany credible? Would the victims of the Nazi death camps have been able to present corroboration of the specific facts asserting their claims? If a Bosnian woman who has faced rape at the hands of government agents as a systematic form of persecution is ashamed or afraid to relate her rapes in her initial interviews, should that be an automatic ground to find her not credible?

It is unclear what really motivated the drafters of H.R. 418 to put section 101 into this measure. Two things are clear, however: the provision has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, and it was not recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Let me repeat that, because yesterday a Member of the majority claimed this bill was simply enacting recommendations of the Commission. The chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission have clearly and specifically rejected that these asylum provisions are supported by their recommendations.

We should consider changes to our asylum laws in a sober and reflective manner after hearings, subcommittee consideration, and full committee consideration. Neither section 101 of H.R. 418 nor any of the other provisions of this bill had a single hearing or markup.

I urge my colleagues to stand against this rule and if the rule is not defeated, I implore you to support the amendment that will be offered later today to strike Section 101 in its entirety.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.

Contrary to what my very good friend from Fort Lauderdale has said, this is a very fair and balanced rule. If we look at the amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules and those that we have made in order, it is fascinating.

We made half of the amendments in order that were proposed by the Democrats, those were the priorities established, and 33 percent of the amendments made in order that were submitted by the Republicans. We have really turned ourselves inside out to try and accommodate the wide array of issues that were put forward before the Committee on Rules.

Yesterday, we had three committees of jurisdiction share an hour and 40 minutes of general debate, and we are going to have an opportunity for free-flowing debate on a wide range of issues today. And I am anxiously looking forward to that.

I would like to say that one of the priorities is the passage of the Sessions amendment, which is very, very fair and, I believe, an appropriate way to deal with one of the important challenges we face.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend that clearly we are debating this right now, during consideration of the rule. We have had Special Orders held on this issue. We had a very lengthy hearing in the Committee on Rules which was available for all of the Members; we had that streamed online. So I think that these issues are pretty darned transparent.

We are trying to deal with border security. It is a very important part of the number one priority that we have, and that is our national security. I think in light of that, we are going to have an opportunity to consider these measures, and I want to say that I think we have some amendments that are very, very important that do need to be addressed.

We did make in order the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), my colleague, which calls for steps that would prevent the completion of the 3.5 mile gap in the 14-mile fence that goes along the border from the Pacific Ocean to the Otai Mesa in San Diego.

I have to say that it is amazing, Mr. Speaker, to observe that it took a shorter period of time to win the Second World War than it has to complete this fence. It is a fence wherein actually the provision for it was signed into law by President Clinton back in 1997, and that was done with strong bipartisan support.

I worked with my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and our colleague Mr. Ose in the last Congress, who was very involved in this; and I just 10 weeks ago flew with T.J. Bonner, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, over this gap in the fence. It is very clear that people have taken advantage of it.

Now, the argument that is going to be used on the fence issue, and we will be bringing that up in just a little while, has to do with the environment. There are people who say that we need to keep all of these environmental constraints in place which have prevented completion of the fence.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened is, we have seen the California Coastal Commission file a case to prevent completion of it because of something known as the Bell's Verio bird. This bird has chosen to nest on part of the fence, and for that reason, they cannot complete the fence, and it has allowed people to come in.

Now, what has happened is, people have illegally fled across the border.

We have seen that border in what is known as the Tijuana Estuary devastated environmentally. There is all kinds of trash in there, and the environmental vote, Mr. Speaker, is to vote against the Farr amendment in favor of completion of the fence. If we were to complete the fence, we would be able to improve the environmental standard at the border.

Now, this issue is one of the important parts of it, but there is one other issue that I want to mention before I yield back the balance of my time.

I introduced legislation, H.R. 100, to deal with something known as the Saint Cyr decision, that is included in the manager's amendment; and what that does, basically, the provision that we have in the manager's amendment will finally get to the point where the appellate courts are the courts of jurisdiction, and we will not see consistent appeals. Not many people are aware of the fact that, actually, people who are here illegally have an additional appellate step over American citizens. In the manager's amendment, we will be able to rectify that very, very important issue that does need to be addressed.

This is a fair and balanced rule. It will allow us to deal with border security, a very important part of our national security; and I hope this great day will see us, at the end, pass this very important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me say, there was a lot of discussion as to whether or not we were going to make the Nadler amendment in order, as my friend knows. I know that that addresses the issue of asylum. We are going to have an opportunity for debate on that and an up-or-down vote on that issue.

We clearly had to deal with a wide range of questions as we fashioned this rule. I will tell the gentleman that I am very proud of the fact that we were able to incorporate many of the ideas that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle offered. I will tell the gentleman there were 10 amendments submitted by members of the minority, and six of those 10 amendments were, in fact, withdrawn. We made in order two of the four amendments that remained at the committee level.

We had on our side 10 amendments that were submitted, and we have only made three of our amendments in order of the original 10 that were submitted. That is why I am arguing that we have, in fact, really gone the extra mile to ensure that the rights of the minority are respected.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, did I actually say that?