TheWeekInCongress.com
Week Ending February 11, 2005
HR 418 the REAL ID Act of 2005.
BRIEF
The bill is a bit schizophrenic in that it appears to aim at stopping terrorism by requiring States to produce standard and uniform driver licenses and ID cards, and it does that, but concerns itself moreso with how to determine if an alien seeking asylum in the US legitimately qualifies for asylum status and is not a terrorist. The bill would also expedite enhancement and completion of security measures along the Mexico / US border.
Aliens seeking asylum will meet a “trier of fact”, an immigration employee, no doubt, who will scrutinize the alien’s answers and documentation supporting the claim that deportation would result in loss of freedom or physical threat or death. The trier of fact’s decision to allow entry or deport is sustainable in court. The alien successfully gaining refugee status would have done so within the boundaries of proving race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion as reasons for persecution. The trier of fact will weigh testimony credibility or persuasiveness along with evidence to determine the alien’s future. Credibility counts and would be established or disproved through the trier of fact’s observations of the alien’s demeanor, candor, responsiveness, plausibility and the consistency of oral and written testimony.
Once finished with the asylum argument the alien may also have to prove that he or she is not a terrorist or is not and has not been involved with terrorist organizations. The alien would have a hard time proving innocence unless it could be shown, for example, that a donation to an apparently charitable umbrella group that is later proven to finance terrorism was an innocent effort.
A border security provision in the bill waives any law that might get in the way of building a barrier or completing the one already started about three years ago. The bill prohibits any court from having jurisdiction over any complaints about the measures taken.
The drivers license provisions met with the most concerted opposition. Opponents argued that the provision did little more than establish a national ID card. Whether or not that was the intention, that is likely to be the outcome. The bill requires uniform information and similar designs on State drivers licenses and State ID cards. The requirement is not mandatory but if a State does not comply with the minimum information and standard design of those cards the cards would not be accepted by the Federal government as authentic ID and could cause problems if used to board an airplane. Rejection at the airport gate due to non-uniform ID is likely now that airport screening is again a Federal responsibility.
The new ID, to be in place in three years, must be in a database that is compatible with databases of all other States, accessible by those other States and territories. Traffic violations, suspensions and other actions against the driver would be added to the minimum ID information.
The 10,000 per year cap on aliens seeking asylum is removed.
Sponsor: Representative James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI-5th)
Vote: Passed House 261 to 161 (Feb. 10, 2005) (RC 31). A motion to recommit the bill failed in the House 195 to 229 (Feb. 10, 2005) (RC 30)
Cost to the taxpayers: CBO estimates the cost of completing the Mexico / US barrier at $32 million. (total cost $62 million). Grants and reimbursement to States for driver license database and uniformity compliance $100 million 2005 and 2007.
## All Rights Reserved. © 2005 TheWeekInCongress.com. No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.
MORE INFORMATION
DRIVERS LICENSES AND NATIONAL ID
ON ADDING INFORMATION TO THE AVIATION SECURITY DATABASE
REP. MICHAEL CASTLE (R-DE-AT LARGE)
CONCERNS WITH ADDING INFORMATION TO THE AVIATION SECURITY DATABASE.
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX)
ON WAIVING LEGAL OBSTACLES TO BORDER SECURITY CONSTRUCTION
IN FAVOR OF STRIKING PROVISIONS ON ESTABLISHING ASYLUM
REP. HOWARD L. BERMAN (D-CA-28TH)
LETTER FROM RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS REGARDING ASYLUM
AGAINST STRIKING THE PROVISIONS ON ESTABLISHING ASYLUM
REP. JAMES F. SENSENBRENNER, JR. (R-WI-5TH)
House Amendment 5 to promote the goal of 100 percent repatriation (deportation) of all aliens ordered deported by clarifying obligations under the Dept of Homeland Security existing authority.
Sponsor: Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX-32nd) Agreed to by voice vote (Feb. 10, 2005)
House Amendment 6 to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into aviation security screening database the appropriate background information of any person convicted of using a false driver’s license for the purpose of boarding an airplane.
Sponsor: Representative Michael N. Castle (R-DE-At Large) Agreed to by voice vote (Feb. 10, 2005)
House Amendment 7 requiring the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) to study the technology, equipment and personnel needed to address security within the US and submit a report to Congress including recommendations for improvement. The amendment would also require DHS to develop and carry out a ground surveillance pilot program to identify and test ground surveillance technologies that will improve border security.
Sponsor: Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ-8th) Agreed to by voice vote. (Feb 10, 2005)
House Amendment 8 to strike section 101 of the bill (The section setting procedures for determining if the alien qualifies for asylum in the US.)
Sponsor: Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-8th) Failed 185 to 236 (Feb 10, 2005) (RC 28)
House Amendment 9 to strike section 102 of the bill. (Waiving legal obstacles to border security construction)
Sponsor: Representative Sam Farr (D-CA-17th) Failed 179 to 243 (Feb. 10, 2005) (RC 29)
ON STRIKING THE SECTION GOVERNING ALIENS SEEKING ASYLUM
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY-8TH)
“Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to strike section 101 of the bill relating to asylum seekers. Under the excuse of protecting national security, the asylum provisions in this bill make it much more difficult for legitimate victims to be granted asylum. The logic seems to be, if you keep out every asylum seeker, including legitimate victims, then the system cannot be abused.
“Proponents of this section make inaccurate, dramatic claims about terrorists who abuse the asylum system to get into the country, but the cases they cite are mostly pre-1996 when the law was changed. Since that 1996 change, asylum seekers are jailed, put in custody until a finding of reasonable fear of persecution is made, so they cannot pose a threat while they are in custody.
“Because current law already places the burden of proof on the asylum applicant and places the applicant in custody until he or she meets the initial burden of proof, a terrorist who wishes to enter the United States would most likely attempt to do so by a tourist visa or on fraudulent papers. They are not going to claim political asylum and then be put in jail until they can show a credible fear of persecution.
“But this bill seeks to raise the bar when people finally do get into court. If we pass this bill in its current form, mothers, fathers, children with legitimate asylum claims will be sent back to their persecutors with no benefit to national security.
“Current law provides that an asylum seeker must prove a reasonable fear of persecution by reason of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or political opposition. The new provision in this bill would require proof that one of these factors, race, color, creed, political opposition, is the ``central reason'' for the legitimate fear.
“This is an almost insurmountable burden of proof since the persecutors rarely stop to explain their motives while they are committing torture, rape, and murder. The judge would be forced to look into the minds of the persecutor and decide what weight to give to a particular motive in cases of mixed motives, which they are, in order to prove, the burden of proof, that this is the central reason. Not one of the major reasons, a central reason. This is an impossible burden of proof with no purpose other than to deny the asylum claim.
“This section would deny a victim asylum based on an immaterial inconsistency or inaccuracy in a prior statement. So an applicant who, at the airport, perhaps without a decent understanding of English or a mistranslation, forgets or misspeaks the date of her high school graduation, or the date of her wedding or her grandchildren's births, even though the dates might not be significant in her culture, unlike in ours, would later be denied safe haven from persecution, even though they have nothing to do with the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of her claim for asylum under the law. This would be a ridiculously harsh outcome for an absurdly innocent mistake.”
AGAINST STRIKING THE SECTION GOVERNING ALIENS SEEKING ASYLUM
REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. (R-WI-5TH)
“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.”
LETTER FROM RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS REGARDING ALIEN ASYLUM
REAL ID Act Threatens Ability of Victims of Persecution To Find Safe Haven in the United States
As representatives of various faith traditions, we are deeply concerned that the REAL ID Act, legislation proposed by Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), would make asylum a more remote possibility for hundreds of persons who need protection. We understand that safeguarding our national security is an urgent issue, and we support measures that honor that concern. We also subscribe to core beliefs which require that we provide safety to victims of persecution, particularly those who have no recourse to the projection that democratic societies traditionally provide. Restricting access to asylum beyond current practice and does not serve the cause of national security and, moreover, erodes a sacred and legal responsibility to give safety to those whose only protection comes from asylum.
Each of our traditions has witnessed the suffering of persons whose beliefs often place them in jeopardy and possibly in mortal danger. As American-based faith communities, we have cherished the ability of asylum seekers to find safety in communities around our nation. We are, therefore, saddened by a further erosion of our asylum system under the pretext of national security. We urge Members of Congress to reject the notion that all asylees are prospective terrorists and that the current system needs to be made more restrictive.
The belief that we must receive persons who have been rejected and persecuted because of their ideas and religious practices is anchored in both our histories and sacred texts. We have contributed over the years to supporting and enriching practices which embrace hospitality as not only a religious but an American value. We also appreciate the need to prevent terrorism from violating both our freedom and safety. We believe that hospitality to the stranger--particularly one who has been persecuted--and security are compatible national goals. We, therefore, reject legislation that subverts hospitality in the name of security.
The current asylum system includes rigorous safeguards against terrorists abusing the asylum system. The changes proposed by the REAL ID Act raise a false issue in further victimizing legitimate asylum seekers. Requiring unreasonable levels of evidence to prove an asylum claim, placing a greater burden on asylum seekers to convince reviewers of the key motivation of their accusers, and allowing subjective considerations to guide the review process all send a chilling message to those who desperately seek the safety and protection which they have a right to expect of our great nation.
We have all seen how fear can pervert justice. We believe that the religious traditions which we embrace calls us to oppose a narrowing of the door to asylum by some of the world's most at-risk persons. We are committed to resisting a fear driven agenda which violates our faith-based principles.
Anti-Defamation League
B'nai B'rith International
Church World Service
Episcopal Migration Ministries
HIAS and Council Migration Service of Philadelphia
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
Institute on Religion and Public Policy
Jesuit Refugee Service
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Jewish Labor Committee
Jubilee Campaign
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
Midland Alliances
Midland Association of Churches
Midland Ministerial Alliance
National Council of Jewish Women
Project for International Religious Liberty
Religious Freedom Coalition
Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring
World Relief
ON PROVISIONS REGARDING ALIEN ASYLUM
REP. HOWARD L.BERMAN (D-CA-28TH)
“Mr. Speaker, section 101, the asylum provisions, are flawed. Existing law exempts and prohibits terrorists or threats to national security or those who the government can prove through secret evidence are threats to national security from getting asylum. That is existing law. This self-executing rule, which allows amendments which have never been considered by any committee or heard through hearing or markup, do several dangerous things.
“Section 101 encourages asylum officers and immigration judges to deny an asylum claim simply because the applicant was able to recall or recount information later in the process that she did not mention when she was initially encountered by immigration officers. The amendment included in the rule would expand that to include consistency on matters that are entirely relevant to the basis of the claim for asylum.
“It would mean that a woman who has been subjected to gang rape by government armed forces in her country who is too afraid or ashamed to tell the fact to the armed male immigration officer she first encounters at the airport in the United States could, if she tells the story later on in the process, be denied asylum simply because she was too afraid or too ashamed to tell the story to the first person she encountered.
“Now, under the amendment, this woman could be denied asylum because she cannot recall facts that are irrelevant to establishing her need from protection, her high school graduation date, for example.
“In a system where we rely on translations and statements taken from people in crisis, this is a very change in the law.
“It is a fundamental challenge to the whole concept of the immigration judge considering all things coming into the record. The one thing I know is if section 101 becomes law, people with a well-founded fear of persecution, as a result of these changes, will be denied asylum, there will be no effort whatsoever to enhance our efforts to protect this country against terrorism, but we will have struck a fundamental blow against a tradition which I think is very important to maintain in this country and that is that we are a haven for refugees from persecution for political, ethnic, religious, gender reasons.
“I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the bill.
“Even more troubling is a fact discussed in a report released this week by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Often Immigration Judges determine that an applicant is not credible because their statement at the airport was inconsistent with later statements because later statements included more detail. The problem with that logic is that when an asylum applicant is interviewed in inspections, the interview stops at the moment that the person establishes a fear of persecution. They are not invited to provide more detail until a later credible fear interview. In other words, the applicant isn't the reason the details are not included. This bill would codify this preposterous failure of the Immigration Judges' logic in these cases.
“Section 101 also would encourage asylum officers and immigration judges to deny an asylum claim because of perceived problems with an applicant's demeanor. This would mean that a woman subjected to persecution by the Taliban who has been taught that she should not make eye contact with a man could be denied asylum simply because she did not make eye contact with the male immigration officer interviewing her.
Furthermore, it is quite common for torture survivors suffering from post-traumatic stress to exhibit characteristics in their demeanor such as lack of eye contact, the inability to recall simple details that to an untrained person may appear to be symptoms of lying. For example, Fauyiza Kassindja, a young Togolese woman who fled female genital mutilation (FGM), would have been denied asylum under this standard with little chance of getting that determination reversed on appeal. Under current law, the Board of Immigration Appeals rightly reversed the Immigration Judge's credibility finding in her case, and that decision has helped protect other women fleeing FGM.
“Section 101 would encourage asylum officers and immigration judges to deny an asylum claim when the applicant cannot provide corroborating evidence of their claims if the officer, in his unreviewable discretion, believes that the applicant should be able to provide such evidence.
“This disproportionately harms applicants who are detained and/or lack counsel. Relatedly, H.R. 418 would constrain judicial review of a denial of asylum based on an applicant's failure to provide corroborating evidence.
“Section 101 would require some asylum applicants to prove not only that they are refugees, but also prove their persecutors' central Reason.
“The additional burden on asylum applicants created by this provision is impermissible under the international law, including the U.N. Convention on Refugees to which the United States is a signatory. To meet the standard set forth in the Convention, it is sufficient to show persecution is motivated in part by one of the prohibited grounds. Asking a refugee or asylum applicant to parse his persecutor's motivations so finely as to distill the ``central Reason'' or ``central reason'' is asking asylum seekers to read the minds of their persecutors. This additional burden will lead ineluctably to denials of legitimate asylum claims, sending helpless applicants back to face more persecution and potentially death.
“The proponents of section 101 assert that we must enact this section in order to prevent terrorists from gaining asylum. My friends who are the authors of this provision are in error, however, in this assertion.
“I have been informed by my staff that while several persons with terrorist connections have applied for asylum over the years, the Department of Homeland Security has not found a single terrorist has ever been granted asylum in the United States. This is because, first, current law appropriately makes terrorists ineligible for asylum, and second, the standard for granting asylum is already so high that applicants are subjected to intense scrutiny before a decision on their claims is made.
“While the United States has not, as far as the Department of Homeland Security knows, ever granted asylum to a terrorist, there was, indeed, a problem more than a decade ago whereby persons could apply for asylum and then be paroled into the United States while their claims were pending. That is no longer possible today. A person who applies for asylum today is held in detention until an investigation is made on the credibility of their claim and on whether they pose a security risk to the United States.
“In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the consequences for asylum seekers to enactment of section 101 could be catastrophic. The new standards could make it far more difficult for legitimate asylum seekers to prove their claims. After all, would an asylum officer in 1938 have found Jews' claims of being thrown into the death camps and ovens of Nazi Germany credible? Would the victims of the Nazi death camps have been able to present corroboration of the specific facts asserting their claims? If a Bosnian woman who has faced rape at the hands of government agents as a systematic form of persecution is ashamed or afraid to relate her rapes in her initial interviews, should that be an automatic ground to find her not credible?
“It is unclear what really motivated the drafters of H.R. 418 to put section 101 into this measure. Two things are clear, however: the provision has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, and it was not recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Let me repeat that, because yesterday a Member of the majority claimed this bill was simply enacting recommendations of the Commission. The chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission have clearly and specifically rejected that these asylum provisions are supported by their recommendations.
IN FAVOR OF PROVISIONS REGARDING GRANTING ASYLUM TO ALIENS
REP. PHIL GINGREY (R-GA-11TH)
“I wanted to come to the floor today to speak in favor of reforming our system for asylum and against the move to strike the necessary reforms incorporated in H.R. 418. It has been suggested throughout out this debate yesterday and today that because there is no specific recommendation made by the 9-11 commission to reform our asylum system that we in Congress should do nothing to fix it.
“That in my opinion is insane. My colleagues and friends on the other side of the isle suggest we stick our heads in the sand and ignore one of the tools used by terrorists to gain access to and remain in our country.
“Make no mistake, the 9-11 commission report does specifically state that our asylum system was and is used by terrorists to carry out their schemes to kill Americans.
“Let me quote from the report and its accompanying statements:
“The report states, speaking of the first Trade Center bombing, ``.....Ramazi Yousef, who had also entered with fraudulent documents but claimed political asylum and was admitted. It quickly became clear that Yousef had been a central player in the attack. He had fled to Pakistan immediately after the bombing and would remain at large for nearly two years.''
“Later in the report it talks about the outdated immigration benefits system, ``.....when Doris Meissner became INS Commissioner in 1993, she found ..... the asylum and other benefits systems did not effectively deter fraudulent applicants.
“Finally, ``Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition.'' ``this could be accomplished ..... by applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit (such as claiming asylum) sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.''
REGARDING DRIVERS LICENSES
REP RON PAUL (R-TX-14TH)
“With the utmost sincerity and a deep conviction, I am quite confident that this bill, if you vote for it, you will be voting for a national ID card. I know some will argue against that and they say this is voluntary, but it really cannot be voluntary. If a State opts out, nobody is going to accept their driver's license. So this is not voluntary.
“As a matter of fact, even the House Republican Conference, which sent a statement around with some points about this bill, said ``the Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses.''
“This is nationalization of all identification. It will be the confirmation of the notion that we will be carrying our papers.
“As a matter of fact, I think it might be worse than just carrying our papers and showing our papers, because in this bill there are no limitations as to the information that may be placed on this identification card. There are minimum standards, but no maximum limitations.
“The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can add anything it wants. So if they would like to put on our driver's license that you belong to a pro-gun group, it may well become mandatory, because there may be an administration some day that might like to have that information.
“But there is no limitation as far as biometrics and there is no limitation as far as radio frequency identification. That technology is already available and being used on our passports. This means that you do not have to show your papers. All you have to do is walk by somebody that has a radio frequency ability to read your passport or read your driver's license. There is no limitation as to what they can put on these documents.
“This bill also allows the definition of ``terrorism'' to be re-defined. There are no limitations.
“In many ways I understand how well intentioned this is, but to me it is sort of like the gun issue. Conservatives always know that you do not register guns, that is just terrible, because the criminals will not register their guns. But what are we doing with this bill? We are registering all the American people, and your goal is to register the criminals and the thugs and the terrorists.
“Well, why does a terrorist need a driver's license? They can just steal a car or steal an airplane or steal a bus or whatever they want to do. So you are registering all the American people because you are looking for a terrorist, and all the terrorist is going to do is avoid the law. But we all, the American people, will have to obey the law. If we do not, we go to prison.”
ON ADDING INFORMATION TO THE AVIATION SECURITY DATABASE
REP. MICHAEL CASTLE (R-DE-AT LARGE)
“The 9/11 Commission identified gates for boarding airplanes is the last opportunity for our screeners to use sources of identification to ensure that people are who they say they are, and frankly, obviously, to check whether they are terrorists. To improve this process, Congress tasked the Department of Homeland Security with the goal of developing and building upon the aviation watch lists that our screeners commonly rely upon today.
“My amendment is intended to enhance the information contained in Homeland Security's aviation security screening databases and to ensure that our security is not compromised through the use of falsified driver's licenses.
“Specifically, the amendment would require Homeland Security to enter into the appropriate database any person convicted of using a false driver's license in attempting to board an airplane. Currently, aviation screeners at the Transportation Security Administration immediately detain individuals suspected of presenting false driver's licenses and then turn them over to the custody of either the Department of Justice or local authorities. The criminal justice system is then responsible for determining whether the suspect is guilty or innocent.
“Under the present system, if convicted, this person is sentenced to federally mandated punishment, but the Department of Homeland Security is not required to put their name on a watch list.
“My amendment would go a step further in protecting our Nation by also requiring the Department to enter a violator into one of its national aviation screening databases. Improving the quantity and quality of information contained in these passenger-screening databases is essential to enhancing our ability to identify potential threats and prevent terrorists from gaining access to our airliners.
“When a person is convicted of trying to deceive security to get on an airplane, there is serious cause for alarm. My amendment would ensure that those convicted of using a false driver's license in attempting to board an airplane would be red-flagged for airport screeners.”
CONCERNS WITH ADDING INFORMATION TO THE AVIATION SECURITY DATABASE.
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX)
“… 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.”
ON WAIVING LEGAL OBSTACLES TO BORDER SECURITY CONSTRUCTION
REP. SAM FARR (D-CA-17TH)
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
## All Rights Reserved. © 2005 TheWeekInCongress.com. No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.