Thread: Support H.R.220 - Common Sense About Identity Theft & RE

Originally Posted by Jonathan

No insult intended, jp.

I was just saying that some consider a strong plan to repel the invasion is more important than our privacy. During wartime, some rights are somewhat curtailed in order to more efficiently fight the war. Just look at Abe Lincoln as an example of a President who curtailed rights during the Civil War.

I see both issues as equally important. We can get rid of the invaders but if we loose our rights in doing so, we have no country left, so yes they are both important. Try looking at the big picture.

I see both issues as equally important. We can get rid of the invaders but if we loose our rights in doing so, we have no country left, so yes they are both important. Try looking at the big picture.

As long as we have a democratic way of electing OUR leaders to OUR government, we have the ability to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people, so we must remember that we ultimately control the State, not the reverse. And we also have a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of citizens.

As I previously said, during past war times or national emergencies, past Presidents have temporarily curtailed some rights, but those rights were restored after the emergency. Martial law was never made permanent.

An enhanced ID, even the Real ID, does not amount to the danger that many claim, IMO, and it appears wwb agrees with me. The benefits outweigh the risks.

We must also realize that illegals were more easily controlled during the 30's and 50's because there were fewer of them here then, they stood out in marked contrast to the overwhelmingly white American population, and prior to the civil rights movement of the 60's, the illegals could not run to civil rights lawyers as they do now. And the powers of the police and National Guard were not so limited by liberals (or libertarians) in those days, so they were actually able to militarily sweep through towns one by one as they approached the Mexican border. Nowadays, the ACLU and many other rights groups would halt such an operation in mere minutes.

So the highhanded methods of the 30's and the 50's are no longer available to us, so we must use gentler methods such as enhancing our ID's to make it as uncomfortable and as inconvenient as possible for illegals to remain in OUR country.

A final thought: It is ironic that the police had more power 60 years ago than they do now, and yet now more people are complaining about their rights being violated.

We're right to be wary of REAL ID
By W. Greg Ryberg| Guest Columnist
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
5 commentsPRINTEMAIL

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford decided not to request an extension of time for compliance with the federal REAL ID program. I applaud his steadfast defense of South Carolinians and their rights and their pocketbooks. REAL ID represents nothing less than a massive federal intrusion with a multi-year, multimillion-dollar price tag paid for by us in South Carolina. REAL ID promises to return our South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles to the days of multiple trips and hours-long waits.
Sign up to get local news by e-mail

REAL ID threatens to leave thousands of South Carolinians without the ability to drive at all. REAL ID, finally, offers no solution to security inasmuch as if federal documents were the answer, then we would have no illegal aliens in this country. Thank you, Governor, for telling the federal government to keep their national ID card.

THE COST ALONE warrants Gov. Sanford's defiance. The SCDMV reports that, to implement Real ID, it must develop new processes and build verification systems that do not currently exist. This would require an estimated $16 million in one-time funds and $10 million in ongoing funds -- $10 million dollars a year, every year, that could be spent on education, public safety or roads and bridges, but would instead be paying for a federal mandate that offers no real hope of making us any safer than we are now.

REAL ID would cost individual South Carolinians as well. The SCDMV reports that a REAL ID may cost as much as $60, as opposed to the $25 we now pay for a driver's license. Also, our current driver's license remains valid for 10 years, whereas a REAL ID remains valid for only eight. Anyone who needs a license for the next 40 years would spend an extra $200 for that privilege.

And the REAL ID would immediately return our SCDMV waiting rooms to the clogged mess they used to be. The process to issue a REAL ID would change considerably, compared to the way the SCDMV currently issues driver's licenses. The SCDMV would have to take the necessary documents and verify them for authenticity and scan them into its database. These additional steps could increase the average wait time from 15 minutes to one hour, and that wait could grow to as much as two hours during peak operating times.

THE ABOVE scenario applies if you only have to go once. But suppose you do not bring the right documents. When a person applies for a REAL ID, they must provide proof of citizenship, a Social Security card and proof of residency. A married or divorced woman also must provide a marriage license or divorce decree to document her name change.

The customer would not leave the field office with a REAL ID that day. Instead, they would receive a temporary, noncompliant credential. The SCDMV would electronically verify all of the source documents, and the REAL ID would be mailed to the customer within two or three weeks of their office visit. But if any documents failed, then the applicant would get to start all over.

The reality remains that many, many South Carolinians will never qualify for a REAL ID. Prior to 2002, the SCDMV did not require an applicant to present a certified birth certificate, a Social Security card or proof of residency. If a person did not have a birth certificate, they could provide two of the following: a family Bible, a census report, an insurance policy more than five years old, a military DD-214, a passport, immigration papers, a visa, a baptismal record, school records, a military ID card, or a letter from the Social Security Administration. If you received your driver's license prior to 2002 with any of the documents listed above, you are now disqualified.

THE FINAL RUSE in the REAL ID drama is the idea of an "extension." Proponents of an extension have argued that it offers South Carolina more time to study the implications of REAL ID. The federal government sees it otherwise. Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said just a few days ago, "We're pleased that states continue to work with us toward implementation and this will be an ongoing dialogue." She added: "An extension request is not an extension simply for more time, it's an extension to move toward compliance. So it needs to be a good-faith request for extension."

Gov. Sanford easily realized that REAL ID offered South Carolinians much headache and expense -- and offered some the prospect of never driving again -- while offering little if any guarantee of increased security. Gov. Sanford deserves our thanks for standing up to the federal government and protecting our rights.

(The writer represents South Carolina state Senate District 24, which includes Aiken County.)

From the Wednesday, April 02, 2008 edition of the Augusta Chronicle


We're right to be wary of REAL ID
By W. Greg Ryberg| Guest Columnist
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
5 commentsPRINTEMAIL

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford decided not to request an extension of time for compliance with the federal REAL ID program. I applaud his steadfast defense of South Carolinians and their rights and their pocketbooks. REAL ID represents nothing less than a massive federal intrusion with a multi-year, multimillion-dollar price tag paid for by us in South Carolina. REAL ID promises to return our South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles to the days of multiple trips and hours-long waits.
Sign up to get local news by e-mail

REAL ID threatens to leave thousands of South Carolinians without the ability to drive at all. REAL ID, finally, offers no solution to security inasmuch as if federal documents were the answer, then we would have no illegal aliens in this country. Thank you, Governor, for telling the federal government to keep their national ID card.

THE COST ALONE warrants Gov. Sanford's defiance. The SCDMV reports that, to implement Real ID, it must develop new processes and build verification systems that do not currently exist. This would require an estimated $16 million in one-time funds and $10 million in ongoing funds -- $10 million dollars a year, every year, that could be spent on education, public safety or roads and bridges, but would instead be paying for a federal mandate that offers no real hope of making us any safer than we are now.

REAL ID would cost individual South Carolinians as well. The SCDMV reports that a REAL ID may cost as much as $60, as opposed to the $25 we now pay for a driver's license. Also, our current driver's license remains valid for 10 years, whereas a REAL ID remains valid for only eight. Anyone who needs a license for the next 40 years would spend an extra $200 for that privilege.

And the REAL ID would immediately return our SCDMV waiting rooms to the clogged mess they used to be. The process to issue a REAL ID would change considerably, compared to the way the SCDMV currently issues driver's licenses. The SCDMV would have to take the necessary documents and verify them for authenticity and scan them into its database. These additional steps could increase the average wait time from 15 minutes to one hour, and that wait could grow to as much as two hours during peak operating times.

THE ABOVE scenario applies if you only have to go once. But suppose you do not bring the right documents. When a person applies for a REAL ID, they must provide proof of citizenship, a Social Security card and proof of residency. A married or divorced woman also must provide a marriage license or divorce decree to document her name change.

The customer would not leave the field office with a REAL ID that day. Instead, they would receive a temporary, noncompliant credential. The SCDMV would electronically verify all of the source documents, and the REAL ID would be mailed to the customer within two or three weeks of their office visit. But if any documents failed, then the applicant would get to start all over.

The reality remains that many, many South Carolinians will never qualify for a REAL ID. Prior to 2002, the SCDMV did not require an applicant to present a certified birth certificate, a Social Security card or proof of residency. If a person did not have a birth certificate, they could provide two of the following: a family Bible, a census report, an insurance policy more than five years old, a military DD-214, a passport, immigration papers, a visa, a baptismal record, school records, a military ID card, or a letter from the Social Security Administration. If you received your driver's license prior to 2002 with any of the documents listed above, you are now disqualified.

THE FINAL RUSE in the REAL ID drama is the idea of an "extension." Proponents of an extension have argued that it offers South Carolina more time to study the implications of REAL ID. The federal government sees it otherwise. Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said just a few days ago, "We're pleased that states continue to work with us toward implementation and this will be an ongoing dialogue." She added: "An extension request is not an extension simply for more time, it's an extension to move toward compliance. So it needs to be a good-faith request for extension."

Gov. Sanford easily realized that REAL ID offered South Carolinians much headache and expense -- and offered some the prospect of never driving again -- while offering little if any guarantee of increased security. Gov. Sanford deserves our thanks for standing up to the federal government and protecting our rights.

(The writer represents South Carolina state Senate District 24, which includes Aiken County.)

From the Wednesday, April 02, 2008 edition of the Augusta Chronicle

There Stands Schweitzer Like a Stone Wall

by Robert F. Hawes Jr.
by Robert F. Hawes Jr.

Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site
DIGG THIS

The pernicious and blatantly unconstitutional REAL ID Act has met with strenuous objections from many state officials, and, to their credit, some states have actually taken legislative action to forestall the program’s implementation. Even so, as the Associated Press reported on March 21, 2008, only Maine, Montana and South Carolina have not "sought extensions to comply, or already started toward compliance with Real ID." New Hampshire has asked to be exempted, but the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has deemed that request "not legally acceptable." So thus far, out of fifty states, only four have had the courage to tell the federales to go jump in a lake.

Now, I understand that, by filing requests for extensions, other states may be trying to drag the issue out until after the general election. Some state lawmakers don’t want to comply, but they’re afraid they’ll be accused of being "soft on terrorism" (or, even worse, breaking party ranks – horrors!) if they oppose it outright, so they’d rather stall in the hope that a new Congress and a new administration might repeal REAL ID and thereby solve the problem for them. But this solution, while pragmatic from a certain political point-of-view, is exacerbating the overall problem of federal usurpation. By filing for a compliance extension, states are playing by the federal government’s rules, and in doing so they are tacitly acknowledging the legitimacy of those rules (and the supremacy of those making them). On the other hand, the non-complying states are sending an entirely different message to Washington. They are denying that the federal government has any rightful authority to impose this program at all. In the process, they are also tacitly arguing that states have a right to interpret the Constitution for themselves, and to decide when the federal government has overstepped its bounds.

Enter Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer.

Schweitzer is not your typical Democrat. Indeed, he has been called the "antithesis of the Democrat stereotype." In a 2006 article in the New York Times, it was said that Schweitzer has "seized the heartland imagery generally monopolized by Republicans," and represents a new "Democratic brand of libertarian-tinged prairie populism" that may threaten the GOP’s traditional hold on the western states. I can’t support Schweitzer on every issue but I’ll take his brand of Democrat over Hillary or Obama anytime. For instance, on the topic of guns, Schweitzer has remarked that he owns "more than I need but less than I want," and says, "In Montana we think gun control is hittin’ what you’re shootin’ at."

It’s hard not to like a man who thinks that way.

Schweitzer is also a leading opponent of REAL ID, which he has called "another harebrained scheme, an unfunded mandate to tell us that our life is going to be better if we’ll just buckle under on some other kind of rule or regulation." Among America’s governors, he is easily the most outspoken on the issue, and has promised that Montana will not yield. Regarding the powers-that-think-they-be in Washington, Schweitzer recently told NPR, "We usually just play along for a while, we ignore them for as long as we can, and we try not to bring it to a head. But if it comes to a head, we found that it’s best to just tell them to go to hell and run the state the way you want to run your state." After hearing Schweitzer on NPR, Matthew Dunlap, Secretary of State for Maine, commented: "We were pretty impressed. We hadn’t heard rhetoric like that in many a year."

Schweitzer’s impressive rhetoric stems from the fact that he possesses qualities that have become increasingly rare in American politics: namely, principles and guts. He has the courage of his convictions, and, God bless him, he’s doing what he can to inspire others to cultivate brains and backbones of their own.

On January 18, 2008, Schweitzer sent a letter to the governors of seventeen states, appealing for their help in stopping REAL ID. The following are some excerpts from the letter:

Last year, the Montana Legislature unanimously passed, and I signed, a bill to prevent our state from participating in Real ID…We recognized that Real ID was a major threat to the privacy, constitutional rights, and pocketbooks of ordinary Montanans…

Today, I am asking you to join with me in resisting the DHS coercion to comply with provisions of Real ID…I would like us to speak with one, unified voice and demand that Congress step in and fix this mess…

[DHS] Secretary Chertoff’s remarks yesterday, albeit about WHTI, not Real ID, reflect DHS continued disrespect for the serious and legitimate concerns of our citizens. I take great offense at this notion we should all simply "grow up." Please do not accept the Faustian bargain of applying for the DHS extension. If we stand together, either DHS will blink or Congress will have to act to avoid havoc at our nation’s airports and federal courthouses.

According to the Associated Press, as of March 14, Schweitzer’s office had been flooded with a grand total of two replies, "both simply acknowledging receipt of the letter." Tragically, this fact upholds my long-standing suspicion that, among America’s elected officials, the women aren’t the only ones wearing panties.

For his part, however, Schweitzer continues to soldier on.

On March 21, Montana’s Attorney General, Mike McGrath, sent a letter to DHS Secretary Chertoff, informing him that Montana’s licensing requirements are already "one of the most secure in the nation," and that he cannot authorize implementation of REAL ID because the Montana legislature has forbidden it. McGrath also asked that DHS not take any steps that would "penalize Montanans’ ability to use their valid Montana drivers licenses for federal identification purposes and commercial air travel." DHS replied that it would have to treat McGrath’s letter as "a request for an extension," to which Governor Schweitzer responded, "I sent them a horse and if they want to call it a zebra, that’s up to them. They can call it whatever they want, and it wasn’t a love letter."

Principles and guts, ladies and gentlemen. Principles and guts.

The battle over REAL ID is one that we cannot afford to lose. Its implementation would mark the beginning of a new era in America’s decline, and not just because it would limit the average American’s ability to board an airplane or enter a federal building. REAL ID will do far more than that. If successful, it will very quickly become the standard for identification purposes in every area of life and business where the federal government is involved, and there are precious few areas where it is not involved these days, thanks mainly to the war on drugs and the People’s glorious income tax system. You may be required to produce a REAL ID if you start a new job; open a bank account; buy a gun (and most likely ammunition, too); or even to purchase certain over-the-counter medicines, as DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy Stewart Baker recently told the Heritage Foundation. I can even foresee a time when you may not be permitted to vote without the Mark of the Bush on your person.

REAL ID will also become a patriotic shibboleth test and a law enforcement red flag. The Department of Homeland Security, working closely with law enforcement officials in collaborating – er, cooperating – states, will instruct officers to be on the look-out for vehicles with tags from non-complying states. Drivers of such vehicles will be pulled over more often, searched more often, and generally harassed and subjected to thuggery more often. Count on it. DHS and state officials may deny it – or not, in this age of brazen police-state tactics and intimidation – but, either way, it will happen. These people are on a witch hunt, and anyone who dares to challenge their methods is automatically under suspicion of having a broom and a pointy hat hidden away in his or her closet.

In a nutshell, REAL ID will, for the first time, give the federal government real power to destroy the lives of political dissenters; not by direct means, as this would assuredly spark a rebellion, but by indirect means. By simply denying an individual the ability to live a normal life. By blocking them in at every turn. By treating them like outcasts, if not virtual traitors. If you doubt that such things could ever happen here in America, I would encourage you to research civil liberties under Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, and particularly under Abraham Lincoln. There was a time in this country when it was considered the height of patriotism to harass and imprison those who criticized the government, to burn the towns and fields of dissenters, and to steal food from the mouths of women and children in the name of the flag. Our leaders are openly following in the ideological footsteps of the tyrants of the past, and, sadly, some in the highest courts in the land are prepared to excuse their abuses.

Not only can it happen here, it already has happened here. And it can and will happen again unless those in positions of responsibility, like Governor Brian Schweitzer, stand up to tyranny, look it in the eye, and call it what it is, even when it comes wrapped in red-white-and-blue packaging. Furthermore, such brave men and women will need the support – the very loud and public support – of every single American who cares enough about freedom to do something more than complain about its decline. The Washington establishment must know that people like Schweitzer have our active support, and that we will do everything in our power to oppose the overthrow of this republic. Write and call your elected officials. Let them know that REAL ID is an affront to the principles of American liberty and that it must be repealed. Give them the example of Schweitzer. Ask that they not let him be the lone voice for sanity and freedom among America’s governors where REAL ID is concerned. Encourage them to stand with him. Point out that REAL ID was never even debated by Congress, but was attached as a rider to an "emergency" war-funding bill! Remind them that states do have the right to oppose unconstitutional federal edicts. In fact, I would go further than that – remind them that they are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and thus that they are obligated to oppose its violation. And above all, let them know that, if they will stand for you, you will stand with them.

There stands Schweitzer like a stone wall. Rally behind the Montanans!

April 2, 2008

Robert Hawes is the author of One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution. This article, along with his past writings, can be found on his blog. He lives in South Carolina with his family, and is working on a career as a freelance writer.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hawes3.html

Passport snooping
From staff reports
Article Launched: 04/01/2008 06:02:06 PM PDT

The twenty-some unauthorized breaches of confidential passport files by government employees are an embarrassment that must be thoroughly investigated and, if warranted, prosecuted.

Last week, the State Department confirmed that contract employees had snooped into files for the three leading presidential candidates. As it turns out, files for other well-known Americans had been opened as well, including one for late Playboy model Anna Nicole Smith.

After initially dragging his feet, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Justice Department prosecutors would help the State Department's inspector general in the probe.

Investigators need to find out exactly who accessed the files, how and why. If safeguards against such activity are nonexistent or inadequate, we hope the inspector general will come up with suggestions on how to clamp down on such activity.

The timing of the scandal couldn't be worse for government officials who are struggling to get states to comply with the Real ID program. Some states have balked at implementing the program, which standardizes requirements for a drivers' licenses, in part because of fears that privacy could be compromised.

The passport episode is a case in point for those who think licenses and associated databases for Real ID driver's licenses would make personal information more readily available for unwarranted snooping.

The passport debacle also has raised questions about what
is in passport files. The online magazine Slate did an explainer on the issue and said it contains all the information requested in a passport application: applicant's name, address, occupation and Social Security number.

It also has background information, such as an applicant's date, place of birth, and parents' names. Included are photocopies of some documents, such as birth certificates.

If the applicant fills out an optional section, it can include an e-mail address, employer, travel plans and emergency contact information.

Some of the information is potentially sensitive. It's important for government officials to fully investigate the breaches and provide assurances that Americans can trust their government to be a responsible steward of their personal information.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8774381

Senate Judiciary Committee Rebukes Chertoff For "Bullying" States To Comply With Real ID Program

April 3, 2008 5:13 p.m. EST

Kris Alingod - AHN News Writer

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - Homeland Security Department Sec. Michael Chertoff was rebuked by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday for pressuring states into implementing the Real ID law.

"There are benefits to be gained by encouraging the States to make improvements in the identification they issue; everyone wants that. But I share the view that far greater cooperation would have been gained by partnering with the states, rather than imposing a costly federal mandate," Committee chair Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said. "Bullying the states is not the answer, nor threatening their citizens' right to travel. From Maine to Montana, States have said no."

"We ought to engage in a fairer, more productive negotiated rule-making with the states," he added later as Chertoff answered questions including those about immigration detention practices and backlogs in the naturalization process for new citizens.

Several states including Arizona, Maine, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and South Carolina have opposed the implementation of the Real ID Act of 2005. State officials as well as civil rights groups cite the costs of complying with the law, privacy issues and the vulnerabilities of a national ID system to counterfeiters. A March 31 deadline for states that postponed enforcing the law passed with the Homeland Department announcing that all states had made the required security upgrades to comply.

The Real ID program will require people traveling by air and doing business with federal offices to present identification that pass certain security requirements. It also forces states to tighten rules governing the issuance of drivers' licenses. Implementation of the law begins May 11.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010530651

Lamar seeing chance to nix Real ID Act
By J. Taylor Rushing
Posted: 03/25/08 07:06 PM [ET]

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) wants to scrap a three-year-old anti-terrorism law that his fellow Republicans drafted in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. And with his new power in the GOP conference, he may have a chance.

Alexander’s target is the 2005 Real ID Act, which mandated that states adopt uniform federal standards for driver’s licenses. Despite the Tennessee Republican’s concerns, he was outnumbered by party colleagues who wanted to stop terrorists from exploiting loose identification laws.

This time around, Alexander has leverage. As chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, he is the third-ranking Republican in the chamber. He also has a strong ally in Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who, like most Democrats, disagrees with the law. As a former governor, Alexander also has many of the nation’s governors and state legislatures behind him. Many complain that the federal government overstepped its bounds when it enacted the legislation that included the provision and effectively passed along a huge public expense to the states.

When Congress returns next week, Alexander plans to file an amendment to the fiscal 2009 homeland security appropriations bill that would halt the program until the government finds a way to reimburse states for its cost.

“The federal government shouldn’t be able to enforce the Real ID law unless the federal government pays for it,â€

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 41 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.

http://epic.org/privacy/id-cards/durbin ... 20_05.html

Tester investigates the cost of Real ID act

Posted: April 29, 2008 06:21 PM

Updated: April 30, 2008 12:03 PM

Montana Senator Jon Tester is questioning the real cost of the federal REAL ID program.

The program is currently expected to cost states $4 billion, mostly to pay for what Tester calls unnecessary changes to drivers licenses and computer databases.

During a Capitol Hill hearing, the Democrat warned that taxpayers will end up spending an additional $5.6 billion in secondary costs, including travel to DMV offices and time spent applying for new drivers licenses.

"This legal bobbing and weaving has done nothing to improve our homeland security, but the consequences for the states and for individuals are very meaningful. They have no idea whether to go forward with the database construction, to redesign the drivers' licenses and the training of new DMV workers that REAL ID requires."

Senator Tester also criticized the Department of Homeland Security's series of "meaningless" deadlines for states to declare whether they intend to comply with REAL ID.

The Montana Legislature unanimously rejected REAL ID last year and is one of four states that has refused to comply with the program.

-Jami Bond reporting from KTVQ in Billings

http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Glob ... =menu227_7,

ACTE Urges Repeal of REAL ID

May 05, 2008

The Association of Corporate Travel Executives (ACTE) urged the repeal of key sections of the REAL ID Act of 2005, in written testimony presented to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee last week. According to a statement issued by the association's Global Executive Director, Susan Gurley, ACTE then endorsed the proposed Identification Security Enhancement Act (S. 717) as a "realistic and reasonable alternative" to REAL ID.

The proposed enhanced identification program has sparked a battle between some state governments, which refuse to enforce the new national standards for driver licenses, and the Department of Homeland Security, which has required the new licenses for all air travel.

"The primary objective of any government security or identity program that impacts travel is to safeguard the lives and the livelihoods of travellers - while fostering confidence in the transportation network and the people entrusted with its protection," said Gurley. "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) REAL ID program falls short of these objectives."

Gurley's detailed the shortcomings of the REAL ID Act, saying it creates a dual standard of identification for U.S. citizens traveling domestically and storing sensitive drivers license data in a questionable manner that could place the U.S. travel network at risk through fraudulent documents.

"In an attempt to strengthen certain aspects of the states' drivers licensing program, the REAL ID Act inadvertently exposed these same systems to other weaknesses," commented Gurley. She also noted that state legislators and governors from California to New Hampshire were debating the effectiveness of the REAL ID Act, and that a substantial number did not support it. "Numerous security experts from around the country also questioned the degree of security promised by REAL ID, while expressing doubt that a massive new federal database would not be breached," she added.

ACTE's endorsed the Identification Security Enhancement Act by stating it offered tighter control over the drivers licensing process, without creating an additional federal identification document. According to Gurley, the proposed legislation adds enhanced security measures, including extended consideration for privacy laws enacted by the states, and provisions which prohibit the use of this enhanced identification by third parties. ACTE has been a longtime advocate of traveller redress and resolution in regard to data, and applauded the fact that the Identification Security Enhancement Act provides for due process.

http://www.meetingnews.com/mimegasite/n ... 1003798492