mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time . 
mr. speaker , i rise in support of the rule . 
i rise also in support of the sessions amendment . 
but i also would like to take this time to make a few comments about why i will be voting against the bill . 
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 can not 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 . 
so i rise in strong objection to this bill . 
i hope there will be a few that will oppose h.r. 418 . 
