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 is n'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 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 . 
