Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for asking. The impetus behind this is, these are aliens who have been ordered deported by a Federal judge as a result of a hearing, who do not show up. They have had their day in court. The process is through. They have been ordered deported, and only 13 percent actually are deported.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment that I have comes as a result of my paying attention to not only the 9/11 Commission, but also my service to the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the prior Congress. It was very obvious to members of the committee, as we heard testimony, including from the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Inspector General report from the Department of Justice where they recognized the deficiencies that they had, where a person who had gone through an entire process in front of a Federal judge was ordered removed and yet only 13 percent of those were removed from the country. We have a problem. We have a problem that was enumerated in the 9/11 Commission report. We are utilizing the techniques that are not only available in the law, but also that many courts utilize today, Federal courts as well as city and State courts across the United States. We need to make sure that people who have gone through a hearing have been given the opportunity to make sure that they can present their case, but then have been ordered deported do so. The United States and, I think, Members of this Congress need to make sure that the things which we do, we give the tools to implement those necessary ways to enforce the laws of the United States to be done; for those who have been ordered to be deported and have not done so, we are giving them a better tool kit. That is why the Sessions amendment is being offered. I support this, and I hope the members will vote ``aye'' on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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