May 9th, 2007
Anti-Real ID rebellion comes to the Senate
The debate rages on over citizen privacy rights versus government standards for driver's licenses, reports the Washington Post.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) stood his ground over protecting citizen privacy by stating that he would support a repeal of the RealID Act, a 2005 law that requires states to equip drivers' licenses with data-carrying RFID chips
States have until May 2008 to comply. After 2013, people whose IDs do not meet those standards will not be allowed to board planes or enter federal buildings.
Since concerns are mounting about protecting personal information - and the RealID Act doesn't provide states with funds to pay for the new licenses - a states' rebellion is mounting over the new rules. A number of states have passed or are considering legislation that forbids local governements from complying with Real ID.
Many Democrats are opposed to Read ID, as the legislation was added onto a 2005 emergency spending bill by House Republicans, without Senate debate, and signed by President Bush. The bill's passage nipped the debate about better ways to improving driver's license security.
Advocates for Real ID say that it will strengthen security standards for state-issued driver's licenses. They emphasize that 19 of the 9/11 hijackers had 30 state-issued IDs, at least seven of which were obtained by fraud.
But forces on both side of the political divide oppose the effective creation of a national ID card, as Real ID would be, since complying states would merge their data into a mongo database controlled by the Dept. of Homeland Security.
"I think the days of Congress rubber-stamping any and every idea cooked up by the administration are over," Leahy said yesterday at a hearing. "You have the nation's governors, Republicans and Democrats, who say they want to have a voice in this. Should they be ignored, or is this a case where the federal government knows better than the states?"
The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, well known as a conservative voice, took a shot at Real ID yesterday, saying the law "was always more about harassing Mexican illegals than stopping Islamic terrorists." DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said he understood states' concerns about costs, but suggested it was a burden they should carry for national security.
"Understandably it's going to create some burden in terms of cost for states," he said. "But it's righteous. And shame on us if we don't take the steps now to address known vulnerabilities because the alternative is sitting back and hoping you get lucky."
