Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 418) to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 71 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I will perhaps apologize to the gentlewoman from Texas. I had thought that the minority was well equipped to have a document which I will enter into the Record from the Congressional Budget Office, a cost estimate dated February 7, 2005, concerning H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005, which is a summary of the issues that the gentlewoman from Texas is bringing up.

The information that the gentlewoman is referencing is addressed within this document by the CBO. If I could, I would like to summarize for the gentlewoman, pending such time as we get her a copy of this, and I apologize that evidently one has not been provided to her. And I quote: ``As a result, the additional costs that would be imposed by H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005, would not exceed the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Act, $62 million in 2005,'' which is the annual adjustment rate for inflation. This bill authorized appropriations for grants to States and appropriations would be under that amount. And I would be pleased to make sure that the gentlewoman has that at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate and respect the gentleman from Michigan's joining with the gentlewoman from Texas in bringing this issue before the House today. I would offer perhaps a different vision or view of the words that the gentleman has spoken. I believe that the Republican majority did sponsor the legislation for the Unfunded Mandates Act; however, I believe at the time that was done, there was a general understanding that unfunded mandates would have a threshold that was necessary to be met so that we would have to appropriately understand those items when we would have an unfunded mandate that would be necessary for us to understand what we were placing upon the States or municipalities that we would not then appropriate money to.

The gentleman is at least correct that the Republican majority did introduce this legislation and pass it. However, the threshold that was established at that time, now as a result of inflation several years later, we are aware of, and that is why we have made sure to ask the question about what we are imposing on States for this very important issue that is within the jurisdiction of these States, but as a result of the needs of this great Nation to address driver's license inconsistencies and the integrity behind those.

We believe it is necessary. So for the gentleman to bring this point of order with the gentlewoman from Texas, purely appropriate, I would remind all of my colleagues that we have addressed this issue, that CBO has been very clear that we do not reach those thresholds which would trigger this sort of point of order. So I would ask that my colleagues would pay attention not only to this argument but to understand that we have not violated any rule as it relates to the unfunded mandate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas has politely articulated something that I believe is misguided and inappropriate.

The Congressional Budget Office is a professional organization that assists the United States Congress in knowing in a nonpartisan way those impacts of the laws that we pass, and I have respectfully made sure that the gentlewoman had a copy and had been advised that before she came to the floor, evidently, the minority was in possession of this new document of 2005. And the Committee on Rules, in a meeting that we had yesterday where we considered this legislation, had to understand the implications or some of the implications as it related to this act, and we rely upon the current information that has come from the Congressional Budget Office.

So I am very disappointed that my colleague has chosen to think that we have placed pressure upon this professional organization, that we have fudged the numbers; and I would say to the gentlewoman from Texas that that, I believe, is not only an unfair accusation to this Member but, more specifically, to the Congressional Budget Office, which I believe is a professional organization, delivers a product that they put their name on and makes available to all who might read it.

So I respectfully disagree with the gentlewoman, do not accept the characterization that she has given to this Member or to the Congressional Budget Office, and would hope that the gentlewoman would find the time perhaps later in the day to bring this issue up upon full scrutiny of the documentation to recognize that, in fact, the professional conduct of the Congressional Budget Office was correct in their assertion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity to hear from the gentlewoman from Texas about a document that is old, that contained the best estimate and work at the time from the Congressional Budget Office. I have made available to the gentlewoman from Texas and for each and every Member of this body to see that the Congressional Budget Office has very clearly talked about the costs that would be associated with what might be known as an unfunded mandate. We believe, and they have concurred from the Congressional Budget Office that we are well within budgetary amounts to where we would not trigger this unfunded mandate clause.

I think it is important that we do have this law. I am glad we have debates over how much burden we are placing upon States or municipalities, but in this case, I would urge my colleagues to understand that we have the official document that is as of yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office; and I would ask that they would support our position, knowing that we have fallen within the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of this, I would simply say that our position is, we value and hold and believe we are well within the rules of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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 purposes of debate only.

This general debate rule provides for 1 hour and 40 minutes of general debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides that after general debate the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion and no further consideration shall be in order except by subsequent order of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to begin the debate on fulfilling Congress's promise to the American people made in the wake of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, that our government will do everything it can to protect them from another deadly attack on our homeland. This promise was made in the days immediately following September 11 when President Bush committed to the American people that the full force of American power would be used to bring terrorists and their sponsors to justice.

This promise was continued by the efforts of the September 11 Commission and the subsequent efforts of Congress to study the frailties and oversights of our national security system that the 9/11 terrorists were able to identify, exploit and use against us. And this promise will continue again today through the consideration of the REAL ID Act of 2005, which has been authored by my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

This legislation continues the reform mission begun by Congress in the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. By implementing the additional security measures including the REAL ID Act, Congress will help to ensure that our borders are secure, that terrorists cannot travel to America, and that the rule of law is respected by those who come to our Nation.

The narrowly constructed legislation by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) accomplishes this goal by focusing on four common- sense areas: implementing much-needed driver's license reform, closing the asylum loopholes, defending our borders, and strengthening our deportation laws.

Implementing the driver's license reforms included in H.R. 418 will provide greater security for the American people because lax standards and loopholes in the various current State issuance processes allow terrorists to obtain a driver's license, often multiple drivers' licenses from different States, and abuse these fake identities for illegal and harmful purposes. The September 11 hijackers had within their position at least 15 valid driver's licenses and numerous State- issued identification cards listing a wide variety of addresses.

These terrorists were able to exploit many of the benefits conferred upon them by the possession of these cards, such as enabling the bearer to acquire other corroborating identification documents, transfer funds to U.S. bank accounts, 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 identification documents to expire simultaneously with the expiration of lawful entry status, this legislation will ensure that individuals harboring malicious intent 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 staff report noted, ``A number of terrorists . . . abused the asylum system.'' By strengthening judges' ability to determine whether asylum- seekers are truthful and credible, we will be able to prevent future 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 to the system like 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 the asylum claim only weeks before his followers bombed the World Trade Center.

Defending our physical borders, as provided for in the Real ID bill, will 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 have recommended and taken a number of appropriate actions that have made 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 toward attaining that goal. But closing down only the legal means by which they will try to enter and infiltrate our country is simply not enough.

Because increased vigilance has made entering the country through normal, regular channels more difficult, we must also be increasingly prepared for the certainty that terrorists will try to use illegal, clandestine methods to enter our country and to do us harm, and we must now take steps to close those gaps in our border security where 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 terrorism-related grounds for keeping an alien out of the U.S. 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 for those same actions.

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

Mr. Speaker, this rule is intended to allow debate to begin on this important legislation and to give Members an opportunity to come to the floor and to voice their support or concerns about its contents as the Committee on Rules finalizes an appropriate rule for consideration of possible amendments. I encourage all of my colleagues to improve America's national security by supporting this rule to begin the debate on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the time remaining for both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), one of the bright new members of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the favorite son from San Dimas, chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and H.R. 418. The anti- immigrant provisions contained in this bill are unconscionable. We are a nation of immigrants, a nation that people, from time immemorial, have journeyed to for freedom. As Ronald Reagan said, ``America is a shining light on the hill.'' Well, apparently, Mr. Speaker, today that light is red.

We find ourselves in the second week of the second month of this legislative session, and we have yet to have a bill come to the floor with an open rule. And I remind the majority that that is shutting America out with reference to this debate.

We are here today without a final rule because of a lack of agreement on which amendments to allow. Well, I have a simple solution, one that should be obvious to all of us. I say, allow all amendments to be brought to the floor for a full and free debate by the House of Representatives as envisioned by this Nation's Founding Fathers who were immigrants. Let Congress work its will on this legislation.

To stifle debate on a bill as ill conceived as H.R. 418 is undemocratic to the core. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for hesitation. This is the only bill of substance on the House's agenda this week. We have the opportunity to conduct an open debate on each radical section of this bill. As a country that prides itself on spreading democracy throughout the world, we must practice what we preach. Allow the people to have their say by bringing H.R. 418 to the floor with an open rule. Do not shut America out.

The changes to asylum law contained in H.R. 418 will not improve our homeland security. Terrorists do not have the right to seek asylum in our country and are already prohibited from doing so, but those who would legitimately seek refuge at our shores ought not to be turned away from our golden door through this bill's misguided attempt at curbing immigration.

Nor will erosion of our personal privacy improve our security. The collection of unnecessary personal information by State agencies in an attempt to discern each and every person's immigration standard goes against the very freedom this Nation was founded on by immigrants and must be rejected.

Our Nation's security is of paramount importance; but in an effort to achieve that goal, let us, a thriving Nation of immigrants, not turn our backs on our history and our future. So before we replace the Statue of Liberty's torch with a ``Do Not Enter'' sign, let us reconsider in the most open of debates what that says about our great Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my very good friend who serves on the Committee on Rules with me.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), my good friend, the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend from Massachusetts, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would say to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) I have not had an opportunity to talk to him, and I simply want to point out to him that all of us that have feelings regarding States' rights line up in many respects alike. But the gentleman needs to know that the National Governors Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the National Conference of State Legislators all oppose this legislation. And the primary reason that they do would be, had I known the gentleman 20 years ago, or 10 years ago, he would have been arguing that the Federal Government is sending unfunded mandates to the States.

Well, welcome to the Federal Government. This is an unfunded mandate.

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

(Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) whether he is on the Committee on the Judiciary.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia and I are on the Committee on Rules, and we know this measure did not come up until 2 hours just before we went in there. We also know there were no hearings. We also know that the 9/11 Commission went much further than what the gentleman presented here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, to give a more exemplary outline of what transpired.

Mr. Speaker, I gather those unfriendly nations were like Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), who lives in south Texas and is on the Texas-Mexican border and may have some experiences in this regard.

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

I remind my colleagues that there was no hearing with reference to this matter. There are 43 new Members in the House of Representatives who have absolutely no opportunity to have voiced themselves regarding this matter. There is a new Committee on Homeland Security that is now permanent, rightly so. There was no hearing there. The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Sensenbrenner) manager's amendment came to the Committee on Rules 2 hours before we had an opportunity to see it, and I would urge in the House how many have read it even at this point.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, BICE, in the authorized budget that we presented to the President, it required 800 new officials for that agency. Only 143 are in the President's budget.

I also include for the Record the National Conference of State Legislatures' letter in opposition and the National Governors Association and American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators' opposition to this measure.

Additionally, there are others who are too numerous to mention without great prolixity, but I will cite in the Record some of the organizations that oppose this measure: the AFL-CIO; the American Jewish Committee; the Anti-Defamation League; the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Catholic Charities USA and Catholic Bishops; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; the Irish American Unity Conference; the Korean American Coalition; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and a footnote, all of the colleagues in the House that are Latino and African American have signed on to a letter opposing this measure; the National Conference of State Legislatures that I just mentioned; the National Council of La Raza; the Service Employees International Union; the Arab-American Anti- Discrimination Committee. And, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Liberty Caucus opposes this measure.

And in addition, thereto, in case someone thinks that there are a whole bunch of left wing crazies that are out

here trying to protect the personal rights of individuals, the Gunowners of America Association opposes this measure and the American Conservative Union. I would think, then, that those 100-plus organizations should give us a lot of food for thought before we proceed.

Identity Security, Driver's Licenses and State Identification Cards

official policy statement

States traditionally have maintained authority over the

issuance of driver's licenses and state identification cards.

The principal purpose of the driver's license is to certify

individuals to operate a motorized vehicle and to secure

automobile insurance. Driver's licenses also are used for

numerous other purposes, including proof and verification of

identity and as documents to qualify for a variety of

commercial, financial, educational, governmental and other

services. The driver's licensing process and related

regulatory activities are crucial for maintaining public

safety, bolstering security, and reducing fraud and

counterfeiting. States have renewed their scrutiny of

driver's licenses and have enacted and considered legislation

to strengthen application processes, require expanded proof

of identity, modify qualifications for license and

identification card approval, deter fraudulent activity, and

bolster privacy protections.

Although states retain authority over the driver's license

application and issuance processes, Congress recently passed

the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

to overhaul the nation's intelligence systems. This

legislation included federal standards for state issued

driver's licenses and personal identification cards that the

states must enact or face the refusal of federal agencies to

accept these documents for any official purpose. Although

NCSL opposed this federal mandate, NCSL worked with Congress

to ensure that state elected officials are included on a

negotiated rulemaking committee, which will devise the

federal standards, to apply the standards only to newly

issued documents, and to require the Secretary of the

Department of Transportation to identify the cost of the

federal standards on states prior to their implementation.

NCSL is committed to preserving the congressional intent of

the Act by ensuring that state legislatures are represented

on the negotiated rulemaking committee. NCSL strongly

believes that the negotiated standards should provide states

with maximum flexibility within the framework of the federal

Act to implement the standards. NCSL encourages the Secretary

of Transportation to exercise his authority under the Act to

grant states extensions of the effective date if they make

reasonable efforts to comply, and NCSL is committed to

working with Congress and the Secretary to delay the

implementation of the Act if Congress fails to appropriate

funds to implement the standards. NCSL further encourages the

Secretary to exercise his authority under the Act to include

individuals from organizations that represent civil liberties

and privacy interests on the negotiated rulemaking committee.

Although there is a need to strengthen the driver's license

application process and to address inadequacies, states

remain best positioned to accomplish these goals. States have

direct experience with driver's license formatting, identity

verification procedures and systems, customer service,

qualifying and insuring drivers, testing potential and

licensed drivers, and driver training. State laws and

regulations guide these activities. States also are mindful

of needs to protect consumers, taxpayers, business concerns

and privacy, all of which must be taken into account while

enhancing security and public safety. Any federal standards

should be narrowly limited to those areas enumerated in the

federal Act and should in no way limit the ability of states

to innovate to strengthen the integrity of document

verification and issuance.

NCSL supports the innovative efforts at the state level to

address security concerns with driver's license issuance.

Currently, individual states are considering legislative and

regulatory actions, interstate compacts, model legislation,

intergovernmental agreements, data sharing, standards

development through recognized standards-developing entities,

and enhanced legislative and executive branch coordination.

NCSL will provide organizational support to states as they

opt to pursue any or all of these or other avenues to reform.

NCSL will oppose any federal legislative or regulatory effort

to require states to adopt specific model legislation or

participate in an interstate compact.

NCSL believes that the federal government does have a

significant role in assisting states with matters regarding

non-citizens and their qualification for and use of state-

issued driver's licenses and identification cards. States

need direct links to verifiable, timely and accurate date

regarding status, duration of stay, application for change in

status and related information. The expanding number of

visas, backlogs on applications for status changes and

inability to either access or navigate Department of Homeland

Security data systems are among the problems requiring

resolution so that states can administer non-citizen

applications for driver's licenses and identification cards.

Without these changes, states cannot be expected to, nor be

held accountable for, providing enhanced security in their

driver's license application and issuance processes.*

This discussion has rekindled debate and concern about the

development of a national identification card or national

driver's license. NCSL continues to believe that there is no

compelling reason to establish such national cards or

licenses and will work with Congress and federal officials to

ensure that such an establishment is not achieved--either

intentionally or unintentionally--through legislation,

regulation or rulemaking process.

NCSL believes that states must establish am ore cooperative

working relationship on this issue with the federal

government. Therefore, NCSL supports a federal role in

providing technical support, highlighting successful models,

facilitating discussion and providing necessary funding for

changes made at the discretion of the states.

NCSL is opposed to any further federal attempts including

coercion or direct preemption, to usurp state authority over

the driver's license process or diminish the validity or

usefulness of licenses awarded at the state level. NCSL urges

the federal government to respect the provisions and intent

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just close by raising these points. It looks like we are moving quite quickly. It is the

question of having the answers. This has good intentions, but the answers of what DHS is doing, the training of TSA, what kind of standards are used in different airports. Some TSA person might say it is a mistake, go back. Others might make it in essence a Federal crime and that person is prosecuted. So some you get in the database, others you do not. It is just a question of concern as to how this will work.

Again, it is a good idea. Before I yield back my time, I would simply say that I would suggest that this amendment be addressed again in our hearings, to be able to detail out what would ultimately happen.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.