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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kolbe amendment. I also thank my colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from California, for yielding me this time and, as well, my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz). Let me express my appreciation for his leadership, because we have spent a good amount of time together at the southern border.

I have also spent a good deal of time at the northern border, both sides of the coast.

Clearly, this legislation is needed with respect to improved and increased technology, but I would also argue that the Secure Our Border Act, that was offered by the Select Committee on Homeland Security Democrats in the last Congress, really speaks to the broader question. And, frankly, I wish this amendment had gone a step further; that is that what we do not have are the necessary Border Patrol agents and their training equal to the enormous responsibility that comes with people coming across the border and, as well, adding that to the technology that is part of this particular amendment. And then, of course, detention beds.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) is absolutely right. The southern border now lends itself to the doorway of terrorism because of this concept of OTMs, and the idea that they are given just a piece of paper, as he said, that says, Show up, and no one is required to show up; or when I say, Required, there is no pressure, no enforcement, of their showing up.

So technology is certainly what we need, and I hope, as we move forward in the Select Committee on Homeland Security, we will, if you will, author bills that will give those resources to the northern and southern border.

But we need to understand what the gentleman is saying. This is a crisis as it relates to OTMs, particularly dealing with the potential of using that border for terrorists to come across. Technology is one thing, but human participation is another; not what has been offered by the President's budget of 200 Border Patrol agents, but the 2,000 that really will help us secure the borders as necessary. This amendment will go a long way.

I rise in support of the Kolbe amendment. The Kolbe amendment is one of the few ideas that have been proposed on the floor of the House during debate on HR 418 that would help secure our borders.

We must secure our land borders and putting 21st century technology to work for us is the heart of the solution. Homeland Security Democrats support monitoring our borders 24 hours a day--7 days a week.

While the Kolbe amendment falls short of asking for an interagency border security strategy, as Democrats did in the SECURE Border Act, it does get at the key issues of assessing technology and staffing. Now that Congress has passed laws increasing personnel and technology, what we need most is an evaluation of what it will take to secure out borders.

Additionally, while sensors and cameras are currently being used, simple deployment isn't always the answer. The solution must address the problem and take into consideration the terrain. A ground surveillance program in partnership with the remote aerial surveillance program which was mandated as part of the 9/11 bill will go a long way towards achieving real border security. One missing area element in this amendment seems to be a link between the air and ground surveillance programs. I hope that that's addressed. We cannot afford to build systems in isolation.

Lastly, while this amendment does add to the debate on border security, these surveillance systems still require border patrol agents to apprehend illegal border crossers and contraband. When Homeland Security Committee staff visited the southern border last year during a six month investigation, they found and heard Border Patrol agents tell them that they are inadequately staffed to monitor the expansive southern border.

One border patrol support staffer explained that staffing shortages meant that he was responsible for simultaneously viewing 26 cameras for illegal crossings and notifying agents when he saw any crossings. This same employee was also responsible for notifying agents about buried sensor activations numbering from 100-150 an hour, and running computer checks on all detainees. It is clear that despite the fact that we have increased border patrol numbers, Border Patrol still lacks critical support staff.

Funding Border Security is a critical component of securing America's borders. If the President won't do it--let's make sure that Congress does.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). I thank him for protecting so many of our constitutional rights.

Mr. Chairman, let me say that the asylum laws, as I was reminded by my good and dear colleague from Florida, started in World War II when we were reminded of the ugly scene of turning away the St. Louis, the 1,000 Jews who were fleeing persecution.

Let me just suggest that we do have an opportunity to review this issue and make it right, but I can tell you that Commissioner Kean and Commissioner Hamilton indicated that in advocating that these are recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; these are not recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. There is no proof or facts that terrorists have been able to pull one over on us in large numbers.

It is very important to let the Comptroller General's study go forward that evaluates the extent to which weaknesses in the United States' asylum system have been or could be exploited by terrorists. We need to understand this.

I do not expect that the report will show that that is happening. It is extremely important that we realize that the 9/11 hijackers entered and remained in the United States as nonimmigrant visitors. They were not individuals who sought asylum.

Let me correct my good friends about the 1993 bombing. These individuals sought asylum, but they were denied asylum. There is not a crisis here; but what is a crisis is when you turn people away from our shores who have come here downtrodden, who are seeking asylum because of religious persecution, because of mutilation of women, because of enormous child abuse or potentially child soldiers, and you turn them away because they do not look like you and because, in fact, they cannot make their case.

I would ask my colleagues to consider opposing this amendment.

I rise in support of the amendment that I have offered with my colleagues Representatives Nadler and Meek. It would strike section 101 of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, which is entitled, ``Preventing Terrorists From Obtaining Relief From Removal.'' Notwithstanding that title, the provisions in section 101 codify evidentiary standards for asylum proceedings. The supporters of section 101 believe that terrorists are gaming our asylum system to enter and remain in the United States.

It is not clear that terrorists actually are gaming our asylum system. Section 5403 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study to evaluate the extent to which weaknesses in the United States asylum system have been or could be exploited by terrorists. We need to wait until this study is completed before we rewrite our asylum laws. We cannot correct weaknesses that have not been identified yet.

I do not expect that report to show that terrorists are gaming our asylum system. The 9/11 hijackers entered and remained in the United States as nonimmigrant visitors. Visitors' visas are easy to get. It only requires a 2-minute interview with an American Consulate Officer to get a visitor's visa. The applicant just has to establish that he will return to his country at the end of the authorized period of stay. Moreover, it would be naive to think that terrorist organizations do not have ready access to fraudulent entry documents. In contrast, it is difficult and time consuming to enter the United States as an asylum applicant. The terrorist choosing this method would have to present himself at a border and then prove in expedited removal proceedings that he has a credible fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The section 101 provisions would not come into play during expedited removal proceedings in any event. They would not apply until the alien is before an immigration judge at an asylum hearing, and by then he has already entered the country.

The approach taken by the REAL ID Act is to raise the bar on the burden of proof for everyone who applies for asylum, which would result in a denial of relief to bona fide asylum seekers without any assurance that the changes would discourage terrorists from seeking asylum. In fact, terrorist organizations are in a much better position to fabricate evidence of persecution than the typical bona fide asylum applicant who has fled his country in fear for his life without any thought of meeting evidentiary standards at an asylum hearing.

For instance, in addition to showing that the alleged persecution would be ``on account of' one of the enumerated grounds, the applicant would have to establish that the persecution was or will be ``a central reason for persecuting the applicant.'' In effect, the asylum applicant would have to establish what was in the mind of the persecutor.

Section 101 has a subsection entitled, ``Credibility Determinations.'' It states that the trier of fact should consider all relevant factors. This is fine, unnecessary but fine. Then it provides that the trier of fact has the discretion of basing a credibility determination on any relevant factor, and it specifies relevant factors that can be the sole basis for a credibility determination. Near the end it mentions inconsistencies and inaccuracies or falsehoods in statements, ``without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim.'' In other words, it permits an immigration judge to make an adverse credibility finding in asylum proceedings on the basis of an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood that has no relevance to the asylum applicant's persecution claim. What has this got to do with preventing terrorists from obtaining relief from removal?

I urge you to vote for this amendment to strike section 101.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the importance of having standardized drivers' licenses and identification cards. This should be done on a bipartisan basis, however. The REAL ID Act was not bipartisan, and it was moved too quickly through the legislative process. It was passed without any Committee hearings or markups.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment is simple and straightforward. It strikes Section 102, which is entitled the ``Waiver of Laws Necessary for the Improvement of Barriers and Borders'' from the bill. I think the provision is trying to fix a process that is not broken.

I offer this amendment to strike Section 102, not to stop construction of the remaining 3 miles of the border fence, but to preserve the rule of law that this country was founded on.

I want my colleagues to listen. I want to make this very clear. The breadth of this provision is unprecedented. The border fence in San Diego is under construction right now. Of the 14 miles authorized to be constructed, more than 9 miles of triple fence have been completed. Only two sections have not been finished. In order to finish the fence, the Customs and Border Patrol has proposed to fill a canyon known as Smugglers Gulch with over 2 million cubic yards of dirt. The triple fence would then be extended across the filled gulch.

In February 2004, the Coastal Commission of California determined that the Customs and Border Patrol had not demonstrated, among other things, that the project was consistent to ``maximize'' to the extent practicable with the policies of the California Coastal Management program, the State program approved under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

The Coastal Zone Management Act requires Federal agency activity within and outside the coastal zone that affects any land use, water or other natural resources in the coastal zone to be carried out in a manner that is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the policies of an approved State management program.

However, as stringent as these requirements are, if a Federal court finds a Federal activity to be inconsistent with an improved State program, the Secretary determines that the compliance is unlikely to be achieved through mediation, the President may exempt from compliance the activity if the President determines that the activity is in the paramount interest of the United States.

All the authority needed to build the barrier fence already exists in law. We can use laws and process that we have to get this fence built. There is no need for a blanket waiver to get any barrier constructed.

On October 26 of 2004 the Coastal Commission staff met with the Customs and Border Patrol/Homeland Security. In that meeting the Customs and Border Patrol explained why they did not believe additional comments, other than those that had already been agreed upon, were necessary to bring the project into compliance with the applicable coastal policies. Customs and Border Patrol maintained that it still wanted to continue to work with the Coastal Commission on measures they had agreed to, and the Coastal Commission indicated their continued willingness to work with them, despite the overall disagreement with some of the project components such as the Smugglers Gulch fill.

Coastal Commission informed Customs that in order to complete the Federal consistency review process, they would have to write a letter outlining their position. However, the Coastal Commission has not received any letter.

So why are we trying to fix something that is working through the established process of law? I ask because the reach of this amendment is actually the border fence in San Diego.

The proposed section 102 gives an unprecedented waiver and power to the Secretary of Homeland Security, not only for the border fence in San Diego but for any, any area. If enacted, the new 102 section would provide the Secretary of Homeland Security not only with the authority to waive all laws he determines necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads, but the requirement that the Secretary do so.

As I mentioned, there is no evidence that such an extraordinary rejection of the rule of law is necessary in the first instance.

Current law allows the DHS Secretary to waive the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act at the barrier, and this same provision was allowed to the Attorney General prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

This provision has never, to date, been used in San Diego nor am I aware at any other time the authority has been used on the barrier fence. So the remedies are there; they are in the law.

We forget in this debate that Mexico is the number one trading partner of California. It is the busiest border in the world for the legitimate transfer of people and commerce, and it is in the city and County of San Diego, and neither of those jurisdictions has asked for this draconian waiver. Neither has the State of California.

Why would the Government of the United States of America, at a time when we are advocating the support and enforcement of law, why would the government now want to forbid the use of our own law to finish the fence? Not even the importance of securing the border can justify placing a government official above the law.

As I mentioned, my colleagues ought to be wary of what is proposed here. It grants authority to waive all laws notwithstanding any other provision of the law. This section also says, notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear a claim, to order any relief.

How can we celebrate elections in Iraq and the honor of law when we in Congress are now asking that we waive all laws?

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 418 and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

This bill is a misguided attempt to implement immigration reform under the guise of Homeland Security. This bill turns its back on a core principle that distinguishes America from other nations; that of being a safe haven for the tired, poor, and weak. The three specific policies that the bill addresses--the border fence, asylum provisions and driver's licenses standards--should have been vetted through the Committee process. Instead, this legislation has been rushed through the process--without hearings, without debate, and with very little input from the minority side of the aisle. This bill is being debated simply for politics instead of going through a legitimate legislative process, a fact that should be of concern to every Member, Republican and Democrat alike.

Today I will offer an amendment. My amendment is simple and straight forward. It strikes section 102 from the ``REAL ID Act of 2005''. The proposed provision is trying to fIx a process that isn't broken. Section 102 gives an unprecedented waiver and power to the Secretary of Homeland Security. If passed, the Secretary has the sole discretion to wave all laws in order to expedite the construction of barriers and roads. There is no evidence that such an extraordinary rejection of the rule of law is necessary in the first instance. Current law already allows the DHS Secretary to waive the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act for the fence construction, the same exemption authorization that was allowed the Attorney General prior to creation of DHS. I look forward to the debate on my amendment.

As I stated before, H.R. 418 is not a good bill and even more troubling is that we had no hearings or committee debate on it. We need frank and productive dialogue about the state of our immigration system and this bill does nothing to open up the discussion that this country needs to have. I do not support illegal immigration, but I do support the people who have come to our country and played by the rules in order to obtain their citizenship status. Not only do we have a responsibility and a proud history of protecting those who seek

asylum in our country, which this bill is trying to thwart, we have a responsibility to legal immigrants who are contributing to our society to reduce the lengthy backlog to citizenship. Just earlier this week in meeting with some Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services employees, I was not surprised to learn that workers who were hired to help eliminate the backlog four years ago have been asked to stay on for another year. I do not often hear of temporary employees that are necessary for five years. I also learned that one of the reasons for the bureaucracy that legal immigrants experience is due to the antiquated state of technology the Bureau uses. As you can see, these are legitimate concerns about our immigration system that H.R. 418 does not address because it is a bill that has been brought up for political reasons, not legitimate policy reasons. The Republican Leadership of this Congress would do well to heed the President's comments to begin a dialogue on how to improve our immigration processes, and strengthen our national security, unlike the current legislation brought before us today.

The effects of the REAL ID Act are not only bad for domestic politics, they are destructive for the peace process in the Middle East. The Act states: ``An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this Act, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.'' In the first place, the United States already has a formal, congressionally approved mechanism for designating foreign terrorist organizations and imposing sanctions on them. The PLO is not on the U.S. list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This sneaky, backdoor attempt to override the responsibility of the State Department and the will of Congress is an incredibly stupid way to execute U.S. diplomacy.

Second, we are now on the cusp of a historic moment in the Middle East peace process. The administration has promised that they will be actively engaged in the Middle East peace process. I find it hard to believe that they can be ``actively'' engaged in the peace process if the President will not be able to invite newly elected President Mahmoud Abbas to his Texas ranch, Camp David or any other location within the United States. President Abbas appears to be making considerable efforts in brokering peace, and the United States should be supporting his efforts. The effects of this provision will be a diplomatic nightmare and damage the United States's ability to be a fair broker in the peace process. This provision is an embarrassment to United States diplomacy--it is highly counterproductive to peace negotiations.

Furthermore, I have concerns with the national driver's license standards in this bill. Current law already addresses this issue, but the regulations have been implemented since this bill was passed only 10 weeks ago. National driver's license standards in this bill create an unfunded mandate for States. Under this bill, at least 10 States would be forced to make significant changes to their systems, despite the fact that security standards can be attained without the interference this bill creates. State control of the licensing and identification process is crucial to maintaining public safety, bolstering security, reducing fraud, keeping costs of car insurance down and protecting privacy and Federal standards for such documents should be limited to those enumerated in the intelligence Reform Act of 2004.

Additionally, the proponents of this bill do not want you to know that H.R. 418 would not have prevented 9/11 hijackers from obtaining a driver's license or ID. The breach of our security was a result of the hijackers having been issued legal visas to come to the United States, which many of them used to apply for driver's licenses and identification cards. Does H.R. 418 seek to address the root of the problem here? No, obviously not. Again, this bill is political posturing under the guise of national security.

Instead of debating H.R. 418, the House of Representatives should be focused on ensuring the successful enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and working on comprehensively reforming our immigration system so that immigration is legal, safe, orderly, and reflective of the needs of American families, businesses, and national security.

Leadership should be ashamed to have brought a bill like this that will affect our environment, our citizens, and people from all around the world to the Floor in such a manner. I can not support the process nor the actual policy this bill proposes and I urge my colleagues vote no on H.R. 418.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, it has never been done before, waiving all labor laws, all contract laws, all small business laws, all laws relating to sacred places. It is a broad sweep, just a total repeal of all of those laws or a waiver of all those laws.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond, first, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

He is right, there is in existing law the authorization to waive those issues. It has never been used. It has never been used. This waives all laws, labor laws, every kind of law. This is a draconian approach to try to get the job done.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

We have heard a lot of talk here today, and I submit that this is not the answer, to emasculate all the laws. I would bet that if the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), myself and any other interested party sat down, one meeting with all the interested parties, we could resolve this. But that is not the way they want to proceed.

This was not a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. This is essentially emasculating all laws to get an environmental project completed. And emasculating all laws is not the way to do it.

This amendment is a good amendment because it does not allow my colleagues to emasculate all laws. What it allows us to do is to let this process work. And with the pressure that has been brought here today, we can get that fence built. The opposition on this side is not against the fence, it is against emasculating all the laws of the land in order to get there. So I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a memorandum of the Congressional Research Service, dated February 7, 2005, regarding the REAL ID Act.

Congressional Research Service,

February 7, 2005.

memorandum

To: House Committee on Homeland Security, Attention: Sue

Ramanathan; and House Committee on the Judiciary,

Attention: Kristin Wells.

From: Stephen R. Vina and Todd Tatelman, Legislative

Attorneys, American Law Division.

Subject: Legal Analysis of Sec. 102 of H.R. 418, Waiver of

Laws Necessary for Improvement of Barriers at Borders.

Pursuant to your request on February 3, this memorandum

analyzes section 102 of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. Section

102, captioned ``Waiver of Laws Necessary for Improvement of

Barriers at Borders,'' provides the Secretary of Homeland

Security with authority to waive all laws he deems necessary

for the expeditious construction of the barriers authorized

to be constructed by Sec. 102 of the Illegal Immigration

Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)

(P.L. 104-208, Div. C, codified at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103 note)

and removes judicial review from such waiver decisions.

Specifically, this memorandum discusses the extent to which

Congress has passed laws that provide waivers comparable to

Sec. 102 of H.R. 418 and outlines some of the legal issues

that could potentially arise if Sec. 102 is passed in its

current form. In view of the short time frame for response,

the following analysis is necessarily brief and we refer you

to CRS Report RS 22026, Border Security: Fences Along the

U.S. International Border for background information on

Sec. 102 of IIRIRA and the border fence.

H.R. 418, Sec. 102

Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend Sec. 102(c) of IIRIRA

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I wish those that were arguing against the amendment read it and see what it says; and then I think they will be convinced that this is a commonsense change.

First of all, let me say that the asylum law was designed to provide safe haven to those who are fleeing persecution in their homeland. It is not to be used as a crutch for economic migrants who are coming to the United States because the grass is greener on our side of the border.

Now, the bill as it is currently before us takes away the cap of 10,000 approved asylum applicants who are admitted to permanent residency every year. The Nadler amendment strikes that. The bill as it is before us states that the applicant for asylum has the burden of proof to prove that he or she is eligible to receive asylum in our country. The Nadler amendment strikes it. But every petitioner, whether it is a plaintiff in a lawsuit or someone who is applying for Social Security disability benefits, has got the burden of proof to show that they are entitled to the relief that they are seeking.

This bill makes it clear that asylum applicants have to make the same burden of proof as others, and the Nadler amendment strikes that.

The other thing that the Nadler amendment strikes is a detailed explanation of how the immigration judge is to determine the credibility of the applicant and the witnesses that the applicant and the government put before the judge. Every trier of fact in court makes the determination based on the credibility of witnesses. Criminal juries can send someone to their death or to prison for life based on their determination of the credibility of the witnesses, and immigration judges should do so also.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) says that 100 percent of the people who show up at the airport claiming asylum are detained. That is not right. Ninety percent of those people are released. Only 10 percent are detained past the airport. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) says that all of the statements or the instances that we raise were pre-1996 law change cases. I will give you two that were after that.

Nuradin Abdi who was a Somali national stood accused of providing material support to al Qaeda. The government alleged that Abdi admitted al Qaeda member Iyman Faris and others initiated a plot to blow up a Columbus, Ohio, area shopping small. Mr. Abdi was granted asylum in 1999. Later after traveling to a terrorist camp in Ethiopia, he was arrested when he reentered the United States, and his asylum status was revoked. It was revoked, as the U.S. Attorney's Office puts it, because with the exception of some minor biographical data, every aspect of the asylum application he submitted was false.

Now, giving a judge an opportunity to deny a claim based upon a determination that the applicant is lying is in my bill and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) tries to strike that.

Again, in 1999 an Egyptian national who had been granted asylum, despite the fact that the INS had provided classified evidence that the alien was a known member of a foreign terrorist organization designated by the Secretary of State, and according to the committee-hearing witness, the INS submitted a report from a New York City detective showing the alien's participation in a meeting with the infamous Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, dedicated to planning acts of terrorism in which the pros and cons of hijacking an airplane were discussed. He got asylum too.

Now, while it is true that many terrorists are statutorily barred from receiving asylum, members of terrorist organizations are explicitly allowed to receive asylum. Further, despite any statutory bar to the contrary, asylum regulations and the courts have made it practically impossible for the government to ferret out terrorists who apply.

There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that government attorneys are barred from asking foreign governments about any evidence they may possess about the veracity of asylum claims. Thus, the only evidence available to the government to support an asylum applicant is the lack of credibility to the applicant. However, the ninth circuit is preventing immigration judges from denying asylum claims when it is clear that the alien is lying. Furthermore, the ninth circuit has held that an alien can receive asylum on the very basis that the alien's government believes he is a terrorist, even if we agree.

This bill brings back sanity to the asylum laws by overturning these

rogue precedents from the ninth circuit. And if any jury in the country can convict a defendant based on its determinations of credibility, certainly an immigration judge should be able to do the same thing.

Vote down this amendment, and let us put some common sense into our asylum laws as well as giving hope and shelter to people who can legitimately claim and receive asylum.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close and will close after the gentleman yields his time.

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

Mr. Chairman, contrary to what my distinguished friend from New Jersey says, there are no onerous new requirements to meet the standard for asylum. Page 2 of the managers amendment incorporated in the bill says the applicant has to establish that he is a refugee within the meaning of this section. The applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular cultural group or political opinion was or will be a central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Now, that means that all of the Jewish people who were turned away on the St. Louis prior to the Second World War would have qualified because they were being persecuted in Nazi Germany because of their religion.

People who have been engaged in what was used to be called anti- Soviet activities in the former Soviet Union, that was a political opinion, they would have been eligible for asylum.

And the comments that the gentleman from New Jersey makes about torture are simply not true. This bill does not impact the obligations of the United States under the convention to prevent torture by prohibiting the deportation of people to countries that torture them.

Now, simply what is stated is that the burden of proof is on the applicant, just like it ought to be, like it is on our constituents who apply for Social Security disability. And it sets up standards for determining the credibility of the witness. If the witness comes and says, Gee, I made a mistake because I forgot the birth date and admits to that mistake, that certainly is exonerating evidence.

Vote down the amendment. All of these arguments are a red herring.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which continues to have endless litigation against plugging the hole in the fence south of San Diego. We were able to win World War II quicker than we were able to complete this fence. I think that shows why this amendment is a bad one.

I want to tell the membership the short story that illustrates why the fence has to be completed.

In early January, I sent two of my staff personally to inspect this area. On the day they visited the Imperial Beach Station at the Border Patrol, they asked to see a demonstration of the AFIS fingerprint system used to identify criminal aliens among those caught across the border. A man picked at random from a holding area of high-risk detainees, who had been apprehended the night before, was selected for fingerprint check.

Within 15 minutes the system returned a rap sheet that was 17 pages long. Crimes he committed across three different States included abusing his spouse, raping his daughter and multiple counts of theft. This man was apprehended not far from Smuggler's Gulch and came through the area where the fence is not complete. The Border Patrol says he is typical of the one in three aliens they apprehend coming through the 3- mile unfenced area along the beach.

This person is a criminal, and membership of the California delegation complained about the cost of California incarcerating criminal aliens. We can cut down that cost and incarcerate fewer criminal aliens by plugging the hole in this fence and keeping them south of the border.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and one of the biggest supporters of Governor Schwarzenegger.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), another big supporter of Governor Schwarzenegger.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), a close adviser of Governor Schwarzenegger and the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not require the States to do anything or not do anything. It has been very clear from the beginning of the debate on this legislation. What the bill does is it says that a driver's license has to meet certain standards if it is to be acceptable for Federal ID purposes, such as getting on an airplane.

What the motion to recommit does is force the States to do something, or not do something; and that goes directly against the notion of federalism that is contained in this bill and which was drafted by the Committee on Government Reform.

The first vote that we had yesterday on this legislation was on whether we should waive the law relative to unfunded mandates. The vote on that was 228 ``aye'' to 191 ``no.'' The author of this motion to recommit, as well as the 190 who joined him in saying that we should not waive the unfunded mandate law, is now asking the States to have another unfunded mandate.

I would urge all of the 191 who voted ``no'' on the Jackson-Lee objection to consideration of the rule to bring this up to join me in voting ``no'' on this motion to recommit, together with the 228 who voted the right way yesterday.

Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit; vote ``aye'' on passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.