[Infowarrior] - Sen Leahy Statement: REAL ID hearing

[Richard Forno]

http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=2746&wit_id=2629


Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
³Will REAL ID Actually Make Us Safer?
An Examination of Privacy and Civil Liberties Concerns²
Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Today the Committee turns its attention to an issue of great concern to many
States, and to Americans who value their privacy in the face of the Federal
government¹s expanding role in their daily lives. I thank our witnesses for
being here today. I am especially pleased to welcome Allen Gilbert from
Vermont.

I look forward to gaining a better understanding of the impact of the
so-called REAL ID Act ‹ an assessment that Congress should have done before
this bill was passed. As we approach the second anniversary of its
enactment, it is time for the Congress to come to grips with this
significant policy.

The REAL ID Act was legislation forced through by the Republican Congress as
an add-on to the emergency supplemental bill passed in May 2005. I do not
recall hearing objection to this sweeping substantive legislation being
jammed into an emergency supplemental from those who this year were so
critical of the important aspects of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans'
Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act. This
bill would have provided for veterans care and Katrina relief and other
needs in the emergency supplemental legislation that Congress passed but the
President vetoed last week.

The REAL ID Act was attached to a must-pass appropriations bill without
Senate hearings or debate. Yet the implications of the Act are enormous. The
Federal government will be dictating how the States go about the business of
licensing residents to operate motor vehicle. State motor vehicle officials
will be required to verify the legal status of applicants, adding to the
responsibilities of already heavily burdened State offices. While the
Federal government dictates responsibilities for what has traditionally been
a State function ­ and adding layers of bureaucracy and regulation to
effectively create a national identification card ­ there is no help in
footing these hefty bills. Thus, in addition to privacy and civil liberties
concerns, this Act is an unfunded mandate that could cost the States in
excess of $23 billion. The REAL ID Act imposes costs and Federal
responsibilities on State officers.

Many States, including Vermont, have expressed their concern about the
mandates of the REAL ID Act by enacting resolutions in opposition. Maine and
Montana have gone so far as to indicate that they intend to refuse
compliance with it. The National Conference of State Legislatures and the
National Governors Association have expressed concerns about the costs
imposed on the States. Opposition spans the political spectrum, from the
right to the left.

The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial that ³Real Id was always more
about harassing Mexican illegals than stopping Islamic terrorists² and
continued to explain how ³in an effort to placate noisy anti-immigration
conservatives amid the GOP¹s poll-driven election panic,² the Republican
House in the last Congress attached this REAL ID bill onto a ³must-pass
military spending bill without hearings or much debate, and Mr. Bush made
the mistake of signing it.² That is from the Wall Street Journal.

Given my own concerns, I have joined with Senators Akaka, Sununu, and Tester
to introduce a bill that would repeal the driver¹s license provisions of the
REAL ID Act, and replace those provisions with the negotiated rulemaking
provisions of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Senator Collins
introduced a similar bill to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to
reconstitute the rulemaking committee established by the 9/11 Commission
Implementation Act, a bill that she managed through Senate consideration
when she chaired the Homeland Security Committee.

In 2004, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act and set up a process of negotiated rulemaking between the States and the
Federal government to create minimum standards to improve the security of
State-issued driver¹s licenses. This process provided for the States to play
an active and equal role in developing greater security measures, and to
ensure that privacy concerns were addressed. This process was underway at
the time the REAL ID Act passed and halted progress. Those negotiations
would likely have been completed and we would already have stronger
requirements for identification documents by now had the REAL ID Act not
been forced through.

All Americans recognize the critical importance of national security. But
for national security measures to be effective, they have to be smart as
well as tough. Forcing our States to bend to the Federal will in this area
may not be as effective a strategy as engaging in a cooperative process
intended to serve a common goal. The reaction to the unfunded mandates of
the REAL ID Act is a pretty good example of what happens when the Federal
government imposes itself rather than working to create cooperation and
partnership.

There are also civil liberties concerns involving this hasty Act. Americans
deeply value their privacy. Americans have traditionally recognized the
danger of an overreaching government. When Americans put their trust in the
Federal government to exercise the immense powers conferred by the PATRIOT
Act, only to see that trust terribly abused, it shakes the confidence of all
Americans in a government sworn to uphold the Constitution and the rule of
law.

I note, too, that today is the day that comments on the proposed REAL ID
regulations are due to the Department of Homeland Security. In addition to
the numerous stakeholders that I understand have made substantial comments,
I hope that the DHS will pay close attention to the sentiments expressed by
members of this Committee and by the Homeland Security and Government
Affairs Committee, which held an oversight hearing on REAL ID in March. The
days of Congress rubberstamping any and every idea cooked up by this
Administration are over. We need to see real solutions with demonstrable
results before we just throw away billions of dollars ­ or more accurately
push those costs onto the States ­ in the name of some vague claims of
enhanced security.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses so the Committee can better
understand the implications for individual privacy rights and national
security of this law.