Providing for Further Consideration of H.R.418, Real ID Act of 2005
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 418, REAL ID ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - February 09, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding me this time.
I would like to join in the point that is being made by the gentlewoman from Texas to remind all of our friends that when Republicans took power in 1994, they made a solemn promise to the States that they would make sure that there would be no imposition of unfunded mandates on those States, and today we have a chance to redeem that promise by voting "no" on consideration of this rule, which waives the unfunded mandate requirement.
The majority may, if they have not already, attempt to argue that it is a minor mandate and show new and improved CBO estimates showing that the cost of this bill is only $125 million over the next 5 years; and, therefore, I think this warrants at minimum committee hearings in markups that has so far been denied this Congress.
So we are not asking a lot this afternoon. And I am impressed by the Governors Association. Their letter points out that while they commend the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for their commitment to driver's license integrity, they find that those bills would impose technological standards and verification procedures on States, many of which are beyond the current capacity of even the Federal Government.
Moreover, the cost of implementing such standards and verification procedures for the 220 million driver's licenses issued by the States represents a massive unfunded mandate. So they close by urging us to allow the provisions of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 to work.
So I commend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for making such a very timely and important point of order, and I support her in it.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my colleague from Texas for his comments. I think I can start out by saying that we come from a State that is very diligent and as well very astute on their Members of Congress supporting unfunded mandates to a burdened and already overworked State budget in a growing State that would have added responsibilities with this enormous burden that this REAL ID bill would exercise against it.
Let me just say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), because I know his commitment to fiscal responsibility, let me refer him back to the CBO report of 2004. We appreciate the CBO, but we know what happened; and I think it is more important to know what the impact will be on the States on the basis of the National Governors Association and State legislatures. In 2004, on this very same bill, the CBO told what the numbers would be. It was not under $62 million. In fact, it was $80 million every single year, making it $400 million of unfunded mandates. What has happened here is that in the new report, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have gotten the CBO to, in essence, underestimate, fudge the numbers by leaving out some of the language in the bill, but the plan is to still put on the backs and burdens of the local jurisdictions and State jurisdictions the responsibility of the birth certificate document. So I beg to differ with my colleague, and I think that our colleagues should, with their eyes open, vote on this question.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov