Text of Senate floor speech made by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) on April 20, 2005

From the Congressional Record

Full transcript of Senate debate about EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 available at

http://thomas.loc.gov/r109/r109d20ap5.html

REAL ID ACT

   Madam President, I rise in opposition to the REAL ID Act. The REAL ID Act is a measure the House Republicans attached to the supplemental appropriations bill. It has little or nothing to do with appropriations for tsunami victims, or appropriations for our men and women in uniform. It is a separate immigration matter, and a very controversial one.

   They chose this bill because they know we need this bill. It needs to be signed by the President. So they are hoping to push through this change in immigration law on a bill that is a must-pass bill. We have had no hearings, no debate, no votes in the Senate on this so-called REAL ID Act.

   The Senate Republican leadership has stated it is opposed to including this act in the appropriations bill. I hope they mean it. The test will come when this bill returns from the conference committee.

   I want to take a couple minutes to explain why the REAL ID Act is something we should debate. The proponents of this act claim it is simple, that all it wants to do is prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses.

   Several States across America have decided, in their State legislatures, to allow the issuance of State driver's licenses to people who are not documented. You know the argument: Those people are going to drive anyway. It is better they are licensed, that they clearly have demonstrated they can drive a truck or a car, and they have insurance.

   Now, we can get into that debate, and it would be an interesting one, as to whether those States have made the right decision. This bill says all the States that have decided to issue the driver's licenses are wrong. So it would prohibit those who are undocumented from receiving driver's licenses.

   If that were the only issue, it is one we could debate for a little while and decide whether we ought to preempt all of these State legislatures. But this bill does so much more. The REAL ID Act would mean real big problems for the States and a lot of people. It imposes very difficult standards for driver's licenses on the States.

   When we passed the intelligence reform bill, we carefully crafted language--bipartisan language--to establish standards for States issuing driver's licenses. We did not tell the States who could receive a driver's license. That has always been a State decision. But we required that the Federal Government work cooperatively with the States to create minimum Federal standards for driver's licenses. Standards will be established for, among other things, documents presented as proof of identity, fraud prevention, and security features included in driver's licenses.

   The REAL ID bill goes far beyond this intelligence reform provision. Its impact will be felt by every American when they go in for a driver's license. It requires that the State DMV verify every document, including birth certificates, presented by every applicant, including American citizens. This means significant expense and long processing delays.

   If a State, incidentally, fails to comply with the REAL ID provisions included in the House bill, no resident of that State--listen to this carefully--no resident of that State will be able to use their driver's license for Federal purposes. So what would that mean? The most common form of identification in an airport is a driver's license. If you have been on an airplane, you know it. People bring out their driver's license.

   This provision coming over from the Republican House says if your State does not comply with this law, if you are a resident of that State, you cannot use your driver's license to get on an airplane. What will you use? If you have a passport, I guess you could use it, but many people do not have a passport. So it goes way beyond what it needs to do to make certain we have secure driver's licenses.

   As I mentioned earlier, we have already addressed the issue of driver's license security in the intelligence reform bill. The Federal Government is already meeting with State governments to negotiate new minimum Federal standards for driver's licenses. The REAL ID Act would stop this process dead in its tracks by repealing the

[Page: S3978]

 driver's license provision in the intelligence reform bill.

   Incidentally, the REAL ID Act is opposed strongly by the States. Every Senator has received a letter opposing the REAL ID Act from the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. They have said clearly, this REAL ID Act will ``impose technological standards and verification procedures, many of which are beyond the current capacity of even the Federal Government.''

   Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   March 17, 2005.

Hon. WILLIAM H. FRIST,

Majority Leader,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. HARRY REID,

Minority Leader,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

   DEAR SENATOR FRIST and SENATOR REID: We write to express our opposition to Title II of H.R. 418, the ``Improved Security For Driver's Licenses and Personal Identification Cards'' provision, which has been attached to H.R. 1268, the fiscal year 2005 supplemental spending measure. While Governors, state legislatures, other state elected officials and motor vehicle administrators share your concern for increasing the security and integrity of the driver's license and state identification processes, we firmly believe that the driver's license and ID card provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 offer the best course for meeting those goals.

   The ``Driver's Licenses and Personal Identification Cards'' provision in the Intelligence Reform Act of 1004 provides a workable framework for developing meaningful standards to increase reliability and security of driver's licenses and ID cards. This framework calls for input from state elected officials and motor vehicle administrators in the regulatory process, protects state eligibility criteria, and retains the flexibility necessary to incorporate best practices from around the states. We have begun to work with the U.S. Department of Transportation to develop the minimum standards, which must be completed in 18 months pursuant to the Intelligence Reform Act.

   We commend the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives for their commitment to driver's license integrity; however, H.R. 418 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 states represents a massive unfunded federal mandate.

   Our states have made great strides since the September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks to enhance the security processes and requirements for receiving a valid driver's license and ID card. The framework in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 will allow us to work cooperatively with the federal government to develop and implement achievable standards to prevent document fraud and other illegal activity related to the issuance of driver's licenses and ID cards.

   We urge you to allow the provisions in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 to work. Governors, state legislators, other state elected officials and motor vehicle administrators are committed to this process because it will allow us to develop mutually agreed-upon standards that can truly help create a more secure America.

   Sincerely,

Raymond C. Scheppach,

Executive Director, National Governors Association.

Linda R. Lewis,

President and CEO, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.

William T. Pound,

Executive Director, National Conference of State Legislatures.

Dan Sprague,

Executive Director, Council of State Governments.

   Mr. DURBIN. COL Margaret Stock, who is a law professor at West Point, points out that military personnel around the world will be dramatically impacted if their State driver's licenses are not accepted by the Federal Government. It is not simply a matter of getting on an airplane. For our men and women overseas it can be much worse. She wrote:

   This law threatens to disrupt thousands of routine yet official acts that occur daily on every military post in the world. .....The proposed law threatens vital functions of the Department of Defense, and promises unforeseen headaches for military personnel and their family members.

   Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   The ``REAL ID'' Act--A Real Nightmare for DoD

(By LTC Margaret D. Stock, USAR)

   If you watched or heard the congressional debate over H.R. 418, the ``REAL ID Act of 2005,'' you might have thought this proposed law--which passed the House of Representatives Friday, February 11, 2005, by a vote of 261-161--was all about stopping terrorists from getting on airplanes. But you would be wrong. This bill--which sets new rules for state motor vehicle departments (DMVs)--promises to be more of a nightmare for DoD than a deterrent to any terrorists.

   Consider this language, which is found in the section creating federal standards for state driver's licenses and identification cards:

   ``Beginning 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements of this section.''

   No state currently meets the requirements of the proposed law, and it's unlikely that many will be able to comply within three years. the ``REAL ID'' Act would require, among other things, that each state create an expensive new computer system for issuing state driver's licenses and identification cards; obtain security clearances for its DMV employees; verify with the issuing agency the validity of each document offered by an applicant in support of a driver's license application; put digital photos on all licenses; print the principal residence of the applicant on the face of the license; ensure that all prior licenses have been terminated before issuing a new one; verify the immigration status of all applicants; and color-code licenses to show that the state has complied with the law. While all these goals may be laudable, achieving them any time soon is almost impossible, particularly within three year. And yet any license issued in violation of this law cannot be used ``for any official'' federal purpose unless a special waiver is granted by the secretary of homeland security.

   Here are some ``official'' federal purposes for which state driver's licenses and identification cards are commonly used by military members, their families, and their friends:

   Enlisting in the military; obtaining an initial military identification card; Obtaining a U.S. passport; voting in a federal election; registering a vehicle on a military installation; entering a military installation; driving on a military installation; entering a federal building; writing a check to a federal agency; obtaining federal firearms licenses; boarding an airplane; boarding an Amtrak train; or obtaining federal hunting or fishing licenses.

   If this law passes, military members and their families won't be able to do any of these things with their state driver's licenses and ID cards--unless they are lucky enough to be residents of a state that manages to meet the three-year deadline for compliance.

   Military personnel will be harmed by this law in other ways as well: Deployments often prevent soldiers from renewing their licenses in a timely manner, and many states give them ``automatic extensions.'' These extensions would be barred. Many states currently issue licenses to military members that are ``valid without photo.'' This practice will not be barred by federal law. The REAL ID Act on its face also bars military police and other federal law enforcement officials from using state driver's licenses and ID cards to identify criminal suspects.

   At a time when federal and state budgets are under tremendous pressure, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the cost of complying with ``REAL ID'' to be in excess of $120 million--$20 million more than the cost of complying with the legislation enacted last year in Public Law 108-458, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This CBO estimate, however, is probably a vast underestimate of the true cost of the proposed law. Worse, Congress has not agreed to pay for the required upgrades to state DMV systems, making ``REAL ID'' yet another ``massive unfunded mandate,'' according to both the National Governor's Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. If the federal government isn't going to pay to implement this law, most states won't be able to pay for it without raising taxes--and all of their residents will be punished accordingly.

   Indirectly, however, DoD will suffer--because this law threatens to disrupt thousands of routine yet official acts that occur daily on every military post in the world. Those who already have military ID cards or who carry a passport around at all times can avoid some of the problems with this law--but a US passport or military ID doesn't give a person the right to drive on a military base. Also, anyone without a passport or other Federal ID prior to the effective date of the law will have difficulty obtaining one unless she can produce some other valid government-issued picture identification, such as a foreign passport. Strangely, this law will make it easier for foreigners or naturalized citizens to travel than native-born Americans: The law allows the use of a foreign passport, but bars the use of American

[Page: S3979]

 state-issued licenses and identification cards.

   REAL ID's sponsors claim the law will stop terrorists from getting on airplanes. The flaw in this logic is that the 9/11 terrorists did not need state driver's licenses to board the airplanes they hijacked--they could have used their foreign passports, and at least one of them did. Is meeting a false ``security gap'' a reason to spend millions forcing the states to conform to the ``REAL ID'' requirements?

   REAL ID's sponsors are seeking support in the Senate. Their bill, however, goes far beyond the common-sense driver's license provisions enacted last year in Public Law 108- 458, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The ``REAL ID'' Act almost completely preempts state regulation of driver's licenses and effectively creates a national ID card by federal fiat. The proposed law threatens vital functions of the Department of Defense, and promises unforeseen headaches for military personnel and their family members. The reforms enacted late last year by Congress were sensible and worthy, but the ``REAL ID'' Act is a recipe for chaos.

   Mr. DURBIN. Separate and apart from the driver's license issue, the REAL ID Act goes into other equally important and controversial issues. It would dramatically raise the standards for receiving asylum. This provision is supposedly aimed at terrorists but applies to all asylum applicants. Current law already prohibits--already prohibits--suspected terrorists from obtaining asylum. That is not an issue.

   In Illinois, there is a wonderful social-services agency called Heartland Alliance. One of the things they do is provide assistance to refugees who have come to Illinois from all over the world. Heartland Alliance is not a political organization. They are down in the trenches doing important work for people in need. So when I received a letter from them telling me the REAL ID Act would hurt the people they serve, I paid attention.

   Let me tell you what they said:

   REAL ID threatens to eliminate relief for immigrants most in need of protection--those fleeing persecution in their home countries. REAL ID is inconsistent with our commitment to international agreements relating to refugees, and it violates some of the rights that we, as a nation of immigrants and a global leader of human rights, cherish.

   Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

    HEARTLAND ALLIANCE,

   Chicago, IL, March 25, 2005.

   DEAR SENATOR DURBIN: At the opening of the 109th Congress, national security and immigration reform concern Americans as never before. In response to these concerns, the House of Representatives introduced legislation that, if passed into law, would undermine the asylum provisions of immigration law while doing nothing to effectively advance national security REAL ID (HR 418) will not provide the immigration reform needed or advance national security, but it will force us to turn our backs on asylum seekers.

   REAL ID is not Congress' first attempt to dismantle the asylum system in an effort to further national security. These ill-conceived changes to asylum law were proposed as part of the intelligence reform bill last year, but Congress (following the lead of the 9/11 Commission which found no fault with the current asylum system) wisely excluded these changes from the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Despite the findings of the 9/11 Commission, REAL ID threatens to eliminate relief for immigrants most in need of protection--those fleeing persecution in their home countries. REAL ID is inconsistent with our commitments to international agreements relating to refugees, and it violates some of the rights that we, a nation of immigrants and a global leader of human rights, cherish.

   REAL ID Eviscerates Due Process Protections In the Asylum Adjudication Process:

   Judicial oversight guarantees a full and fair process in proceedings that can literally mean life or death to asylum applicants. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that ``caseload pressures and . . . resource constraints'' can cause errors in Immigration Courts; the growing dockets make these errors more inevitable. However, because all immigrants are ``entitled to a national analysis of the evidence,'' judicial review must exist to maintain this standard.

   REAL ID would suspend habeas corpus review for many immigrants, denying them one of the most cherished protections from government abuse. This provision would prevent parole for immigrants challenging unwarranted detention or deprivation of fundamental freedoms.

   REAL ID eliminates stays of removal pending judicial review. Stays of removal exist to allow asylum seekers to remain in the United States while petitioning for relief. The 7th Circuit has explained that this right is especially ``vital when the alien seeks asylum or contends that he would be subject to torture if returned,'' but by deporting asylum seekers, REAL ID would make it impossible for these asylum seekers to see their case to its judicial end.

   REAL ID Will Result in the Denial of Asylum to Those Who Are Persecuted:

   REAL ID raises the burden of proof for asylum applicants by requiring them to prove that the central reason for their persecution is one of the five protected grounds. Applicants can rarely prove the unspoken intent of their persecutors. Moreover, persecution rarely happens for one specific reason. The current law recognizes this limitation and grants asylum to many individuals who have suffered persecution for complex or multiple reasons. Women fleeing female genital mutilation, domestic violence, and honor killings, and victims from political contexts where economic or sexual violence such as extortion, kidnapping for ransom, and rape are political tools can find safe haven in the United States. REAL ID would eliminate asylum for these and other deserving individuals.

   Under current law and longstanding international authority, individuals may be granted asylum based solely on their credible testimony explaining their well-founded fear of persecution. The law relects the reality that refugees cannot obtain documents from their persecutors. REAL ID would give Immigration Judges wide discretion to deny relief from removal simply because the immigrant lacks corroborating evidence, even when the applicant's testimony is found to be credible. For example, under this provision, a refugee may be denied protection if his country lacks sufficient infrastructure to issue official documentation.

   Because credibility determinations are notoriously subjective, judges must substantiate their findings in reasoned judgments, and they may not make negative credibility findings based on minor inconsistencies in testimony. REAL ID eliminates these safeguards. It would allow judges to determine credibility based on any alleged inconsistency with any prior statements, even if that inconsistency is immaterial to the person's claim. Judges could also use an applicant's demeanor, perceived candor, or responsiveness as a basis for a credibility finding.

   REAL ID will damage asylum seekers' right to protection while doing nothing to enhance our national security. The current U.S. asylum system screens all applicants using thorough background checks and allows the U.S. State Department to comment on all applications. Under the existing system, asylum is granted only to those who establish that they are refugees and who have no ties to criminal or terrorist organizations. If REAL ID is passed in its current form, many deserving applicants will be denied refuge in this country.

   If Congress truly wishes to address the link between immigration and national security, it must turn its full attention to the problem. Because of their piecemeal nature, the asylum provisions of REAL ID are ineffective. Furthermore, attempts to tack on these provisions as amendments to appropriations bills reflect an unwillingness to recognize the need for immigration reform. We need a better system for tracking arriving and departing non-citizens; we need to improve security screening while reducing backlogs that keep families separated for years and U.S. employers short of labor. We do not, however, need to throw out an effective system and replace it with harmful provisions in REAL ID.

   As a representative of the people of Illinois and a Senate leader, we appeal to you to vigorously oppose REAL ID and to encourage your colleagues to do the same. We hope you will work as our ally to ensure that the bill docs not pass. Moreover, we hope to continue working with you to ensure comprehensive reform that improves our immigration system, strengthens our national security, and reflects the will of the general public and our common values; REAL ID docs none of these. We would welcome an opportunity to talk to you further about the REAL ID and will contact your office within the next few days to arrange a meeting with you or your staff. In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments, please contact Mary Meg McCarthy, Director of Heartland Alliance's Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights Center at (312) 660-1351 or

   mmccarthy@heartlandalliance.org.

   Sincerely,

Natalie Spears, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, Co-Chair MIHRC Leadership Counsel; Mary Meg McCarthy, Director, Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights Center; William B. Schiller, Davidson & Schiller, LLC Co-Chair MIHRC Leadership Counsel; Brain Neuffer, Winston & Strawn LLP; Lee Ann Russo, Jones Day; David Austin, Jenner & Block LLP; Bart Brown, Chicago-Kent College of Law; Linus Chan, Butler Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP; Sid Mohn, President, Heartland Alliance; Carlina Tapia-Ruano, Minsky, McCormick & Hallagan, PC, American Immigration Lawyers Association, First Vice President; Nicole Nehama Auerbach, Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman;

Terrance Norton, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLC; Amalia Rioja; David Berten, Competition Law Group LLC; Craig Mousin, DePaul University College of Law; James Morsch, Butler Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP; Martin Castro, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP; Terry Yale Fiertag, Mandel Lipton & Stevenson Ltd.; Hugo

[Page: S3980]

 Dubovoy, Baker & McKenzie LLP; Joseph A. Antolin, Executive Director, Heartland Human Care Services; Elissa Steglich, Asylum Project Managing Attorney, Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights Center; Maria Woltjen, Unaccompanied Children's Advocate Project, Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights Center; Jennifer K. Fardy, Seyfarth Shaw LLP; Marketa Lindt.

   Mr. DURBIN. I agree with Heartland Alliance. Our country has always stood with, not against, refugees. I have heard Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, Senators and Congressmen, step forward and talk about religious persecution in other countries. I have heard people on both sides of the aisle lamenting some of these human rights abuses in other countries where people who are simply expressing their points of view are imprisoned.

   We have said, and I believe, that the United States is in favor of freedom around the world. So the victims of oppression, the victims of tyranny, the victims of dictatorships, when they escape, come to the shores of the United States and ask us if we will give them refuge until their country changes. And we have done it. It is one thing to say you stand for freedom of religion and freedom of speech and freedom of the press; it is another to prove it by accepting these refugees.

   This bill, the so-called REAL ID Act, will make it much more difficult for those refugees to come to our shores. If this becomes law, it will become very difficult for individuals fleeing persecution and torture to receive asylum in the United States. If we shut the door to the most vulnerable, how can we continue to preach to the rest of the world about our commitment to democracy?

   Remember President Reagan's vision of our Nation. He called it ``a shining city on a hill.'' Here is what he said:

   If there have to be city walls, the walls have doors and the doors are open to anyone with the will and heart to get here. ..... The city is a beacon ..... a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

   Like me, President Reagan was the son of an immigrant. We had very different political philosophies, but President Reagan understood that our great country has always been a sanctuary for those fleeing persecution and oppression.

   Even the conservative Wall Street Journal is opposed to the REAL ID Act. In an editorial they called the driver's license provisions ``costly and intrusive.'' They said:

   It's not hard to imagine these de facto national ID cards--

   Which they believe this bill would create--

   turning into the kind of domestic passport that U.S. citizens would be asked to produce for everyday commercial and financial tasks.

   They also called the asylum provisions ``dubious.'' That is the Wall Street Journal. Listen to what they said:

   The last thing a terrorist would want to do is apply for asylum. Not only would he be bringing himself to the attention of the U.S. government--the first step is being fingerprinted--but the screening process for applicants is more rigorous than for just about anyone else trying to enter the country. ..... Raising the barrier for asylum seekers at this point would only increase the likelihood of turning away the truly persecuted.

   That is the Wall Street Journal, not known as a bleeding-heart publication. They think the REAL ID Act makes no sense in fighting terrorism.

   Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 17, 2005]

   National ID Party

   Republicans swept to power in Congress 10 years ago championing State prerogatives, and one of their first acts was to repeal Federal speed-limit requirements. Another was aimed at ending unfunded State mandates. So last week's House vote to require costly and intrusive Federal standards for State drivers' licenses is a measure of how far the party has strayed from these federalist principles.

   More important, it reveals a mindset among some that more enforcement alone will bring better border security and reduce illegal immigration. The bill that passed the House last week and now goes to the Senate is known as the Real ID Act, and the driver's license requirements may not even be the worst part of the legislation. Also included are unnecessary provisions that would make it much more difficult for foreigners to seek asylum in the U.S.

   House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who authored the bill, insists that his goal is to reduce the terrorist threat, not immigration. But it just so happens that the bill's provisions have long occupied the wish list of anti-immigration lawmakers and activists. Mr. Sensenbrenner produced a photo of Mohammed Atta during the floor debate last week, arguing that the 9/11 hijackers' ability to obtain drivers' licenses and use them to board airplanes represents a security loophole.

   His solution is to force States to issue federally approved drivers' licenses with digital photographs and ``machine-readable technology.'' In theory, states can opt out, but if they do their drivers' licenses will no longer be accepted as identification to board planes, purchase guns, enter Federal buildings and so forth. It's not hard to imagine these de facto national ID cards turning into a kind of domestic passport that U.S. citizens would be asked to produce for everyday commercial and financial tasks.

   Aside from the privacy implications of this show-us-your-papers Sensenbrenner approach, and the fact that governors, State legislatures and motor vehicle departments have denounced the bill as expensive and burdensome, there's another reality: Even if the Real ID Act had been in place prior to 9/11, it's unlikely that the license provisions would have prevented the attacks.

   That's because all of the hijackers entered the U.S. legally, which means they qualified for drivers' licenses. The Real ID Act wouldn't change that. Moreover, you don't need a driver's license to fly. Other forms of identification--such as a passport--are acceptable and also were available to the hijackers. Nothing in the Sensenbrenner bill would change that, either.

   The biggest impact will be on undocumented workers in the U.S., which is why the immigration restrictionists are pushing for the legislation. But denying drivers' licenses to illegal aliens won't result in fewer immigrants. It will result in more immigrants driving illegally and without insurance.

   Mr. Sensenbrenner's claims that tougher asylum provisions will make us safer are also dubious. The last thing a terrorist would want to do is apply for asylum. Not only would he be bringing himself to the attention of the U.S. government--the first step is being fingerprinted--but the screening process for applicants is more rigorous than for just about anyone else trying to enter the country. In the past decade, perhaps a half-dozen individuals with some kind of terrorists ties have applied for asylum. All were rejected.

   The Real ID Act would raise the bar substantially for granting asylum to people fleeing persecution. But this is a solution in search of a problem. A decade ago the U.S. asylum laws were in fact being abused by foreigners with weak claims who knew they would receive work permits while their cases were pending.

   But in 1994, the Clinton Administration issued regulations to curb this abuse. The law now says that asylum seekers cannot receive work permits until they have won their case. Applications per year subsequently have fallen to about 30,000 today from 140,000 in the early 1990s. This was the biggest abuse of the system, and it's been fixed. Raising the barrier for asylum seekers at this point would only increase the likelihood of turning away the truly persecuted.

   But the bigger problem with Mr. Sensenbrenner's bill is that is takes our eye off the ball. Homeland security is about taking useful steps to prevent another attack. It's not about keeping gainfully employed Mexican illegals from driving to work, or cracking down on the imagined hordes gaming our asylum system.

   President Bush realizes this and is pushing for a guest-worker program that would help separate people in search of employment from potential terrorists. If the Republican Congress doesn't realize that, perhaps a Presidential veto of the Real ID Act would focus its attention.

   Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, clearly, the REAL ID Act is a Draconian piece of legislation that would impose unnecessary hardships on the States and the American people and lead us to turn away deserving refugees who are fleeing persecution.

   I sincerely hope the Senate Republican leadership, which has said they do not want this provision in this bill, will oppose its inclusion in the conference report.

   Madam President, I yield the floor.