Real ID Act of 2005
REAL ID ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - February 09, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I sympathize with the gentlewoman from Michigan that she cannot get her State to do what she believes is the right thing for her State to do. I caution those from the States that the Federal Government is not the place to get the States to take appropriate action. Watch out when you open up that can of worms.
Mr. Chairman, the ink is not just damp; it is wet on perhaps the most important legislation we passed in the last half century, the bipartisan national security or 9/11 law; and H.R. 418, H.R. 368 come along right after to overturn the law.
Why is this bill here? To hear some who have preceded me, you would think the 9/11 Commission just left this out. What were they thinking?
What they were thinking is that this is a Federal Republic, and they tried to deal with the fact that we were dealing with a State function and that the Federal Government was moving in on a State function that we have had nothing to do with before. That is difficult to do.
So what did they say we should do? The 9/11 bill required just the kind of thoughtful rulemaking process that this issue needs to keep us from stepping all over each other and getting into needless controversy so that you bring people to the table and get a workable compromise. Under the process in the bill, the States must be at the table.
Remember, those are the entities that are mandated to carry out these procedures. This is an unfunded mandate, so they must pay for these procedures. So you say, let us bring you in. You are in disagreement, some of you are like Michigan, some are like other States, but let us sit down and figure it out. If you cannot, then we will have to work out a compromise in the Department of Homeland Security.
I thought that is the way we did things in this country, Mr. Chairman. I thought that the other side of the aisle extols federalism all the time; yes, even in hard times; and, yes, even when you are dealing with hard issues like terrorism.
So what is happening now? The Select Committee on Homeland Security, and I am on the committee, is establishing a committee that includes State officials, representatives of State driver's license agencies, and of course officials from the Department of Homeland Security so that the Federal Government is at the table big foot, big time, not to worry, we are covered, we are final here. So why shut the States out all together?
Why not listen to the 9/11 Commission and say let us try to reconcile as much as this before we fly off the handle?
The issue is not about what to do. Let us concede, Mr. Chairman, straight up that something must be done. That is the procedure provided for in the 9/11 bill passed just 2 months ago. We must do something. What to do; how to do it. The bill lays out how to do it. By September 2005, this committee, under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security, will provide recommendations, a detailed assessment of the costs and the benefits of its proposals.
By June 2006, a proposed regulation based on the committee's recommendations, with such changes as should occur by December 2006, the Federal agencies will accept only new licenses that conform with these minimum standards.
What is wrong with that procedure? What is wrong with that procedure? It is difficult to find fault with that kind of careful procedure in a Federal republic, especially when you consider the supremacy clause and that the Congress of the United States can overturn regulations. So what are you afraid of, since in fact the ball stops when it comes to a matter of national security with the Federal Government?
Why are we trying to shut the States out? Why are those who speak up for the States whenever it suits their fancy putting down the States now? I do not agree with everything that is happening in the States; I just do not believe we should pass a piece of regulation that says you are not in this, except you better pay for it and you better do what it takes to enforce it within 3 years, although experts tell us it will take a dozen years for them to even begin to get through competently what it is we are asking them to do.
What is mandated is a negotiated rulemaking process that incorporates the practical issues that nobody in this Congress knows anything about, the issues that the States pass. It is a reckless bill. It would literally undo the 9/11 legislation and mandate on this issue.
I am asking that we come to an agreement before we vote down our own States on how to proceed, regardless of where you stand. Experts are telling us that it will be a dozen years before the States begin to even come into mild conformance with this bill, and yet there will be hearings by the Members who are on this very floor criticizing the States and calling them before them to explain why illegals are still getting licenses in their States. How dare they do what we knew they could do in the first place.
So I hope you will keep the States at the negotiating table and join the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures in rejecting these bills and retaining the far more thoughtful rulemaking process Congress has just passed as part of the historic 9/11 Intelligence Reform legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a point of correction. What we are doing today is not mandated by the 9/11 Commission, nor is it mandated by the law we passed. It is contrary to the law we passed. It is mandated by the fact that we held up the law we passed and it was promised to two chairmen.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to say to the chairman that I could not agree more that the 9/11 Commission mandated secure identification standards by the Federal Government, and that is exactly what the 9/11 bill provides after rulemaking with the States at the table. What is being proposed is a unilateral process.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my good friend alluded to the support of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, and I include for the RECORD their letter indicating that they oppose both bills that are before us.
National Governors Association, and American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators,
February 8, 2005.
Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. THOMAS DELAY,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. NANCY PELOSI,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER, REPRESENTATIVE DELAY AND REPRESENTATIVE PELOSI: 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, and H.R. 368, the ``Driver's License Security and Modernization Act''. While Governors 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 2004 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 Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Davis for their commitment to driver's license integrity; however, both H.R. 418 and H.R. 368 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 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.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do want everybody to know what we are voting on here. We oppose this bill. We favor the 9/11 intelligence bill passed 2 months ago. That requires that driver's licenses be issued under Federal standards; that is Federal law. After the States have had an opportunity to have some input, the final would be a Federal bill. The only difference between us and those on the other side is they want to keep the States out of the process all together.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
http://thomas.loc.gov/