[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 121 (Thursday, September 16, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11066-S11068]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION CARD

 Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to join with 
Senator Shelby in supporting the repeal of the provisions in Federal 
law creating a National ID card. I am pleased that the managers have 
decided to accept this amendment.
  Mr. President, the American people strongly oppose the institution of 
a national identification card.
  And, I share their opposition.
  The establishment of a national system of identification seriously 
threatens our personal liberties. It would allow Federal bureaucrats to 
monitor movements and transactions of every citizen.
  It's Big Brother on an immense scale. It's even possible, perhaps 
more probable, that Federal officials could even punish innocent 
citizens for failure to produce the proper papers.
  The authority was given for a national I.D. card in Section 656 of 
the Immigration Reform Act of 1996. That section sets the stage for the 
establishment of Federal standards for drivers' licenses, thus 
transforming drivers' licenses into a de facto national ID card.
  Let me go through what Section 656 does.
  It expands the use and dissemination of the Social Security Account 
number.
  It requires Federal agencies to accept only documents that meet the 
standards laid out in the section, thus creating a de facto national 
identification card.
  It preempts the traditional state function of issuing driver's 
licenses and places it in the hands of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration.
  In a time when we are trying to give control back to the states, the 
establishment of Federal standards for drivers' licenses usurps the 
states constitutionally-protected authority to set their own standards 
for drivers' licenses.
  Only 7 states require the social security account number to be 
displayed on driver's licenses. 9 states have repealed their 
requirement that drivers license display the number since 1992.
  The National Conference of State Legislatures is very concerned about 
the Federalizing of State drivers' licenses and has written letters to 
Congress calling for the repeal of Section 656. They rightly understand 
that, although the National Highway Transportation Safety 
Administration is not proceeding with any rulemaking at this time, the 
law is still on the books, the potential is still there.
  Mr. President, in 1998, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, contained a provision that 
prohibits the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 
from issuing a final rule on National identification cards as required 
under section 656.
  Today we have an opportunity, with my amendment, to prohibit the 
establishment of a national identification card by denying funding for 
Section 656.

[[Page S11067]]

  Mr. President, let me read from a letter that was written by 13 
groups in opposition to Section 656 and this national ID system.
  This letter is from: The National Conference of State Legislators, 
the National Association of Counties, the American Civil Liberties 
Union, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Concerned Women 
for America, Eagle Forum, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Congress 
Foundation, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, National 
Council of La Raza, National Immigration law Center, Traditional Values 
Coalition, and the U.S. Catholic Conference.
  It is addressed to Speaker Hastert.

       Dear Speaker Hastert, We represent a broad-based coalition 
     of state legislators, county officials, public policy groups, 
     civil libertarians, privacy experts, and consumer groups from 
     across the political spectrum.
       We urge Congress to repeal Section 656 of the Immigration 
     Reform and Immigration Responsibilities Act of 1996 that 
     requires states to collect, verify, and display social 
     security numbers on state-issued driver's license and conform 
     with federally-mandated uniform features for drivers license.
       The law preempts state authority over the issuance of state 
     driver's licenses, violates the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 
     of 1994, and poses a threat to the privacy of citizens. 
     Opposition to the law and the preliminary regulation issued 
     by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has 
     been overwhelmingly evidenced by the more than 2,000 comments 
     submitted by individuals, groups, state legislators, and 
     state agencies to NHTSA.
       The law and the proposed regulations run counter to 
     devolution. The law preempts the traditional state function 
     of issuing driver's licenses and places it in the hands of 
     officials at NHTSA while imposing tremendous costs on the 
     states that have been vastly underestimated in the 
     Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation.
       The actual cost of compliance with the law and the 
     regulation fax exceeds the $100 million threshold established 
     by the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
       In addition, the law and proposed regulation require states 
     to conform their drivers' licenses and other identity 
     documents to a detailed federal standarde.
       Proposals for a National ID have been consistently rejected 
     in the United States as an infringement of personal liberty.
       The law raises a number of privacy and civil rights 
     concerns relating to the expanded use and dissemination of 
     the Social Security Number, the creation of a National ID 
     Card, the potential discriminatory use of such a card, and 
     the violation of federal rules on privacy.
       The law and proposed rule require each license contain 
     either in visual or electronic form the individual's Social 
     Security Number unless the state goes through burdensome and 
     invasive procedures to check each individual's identity with 
     the Social Security Administration.
       This will greatly expand the dissemination and misuse of 
     the Social Security Number at a time that Congress, the 
     states, and the public are actively working to limit its 
     dissemination over concerns of fraud and privacy.
       Many states are taking measures to reduce the use of Social 
     Security Numbers as the driver's identity number. Only a few 
     states currently, require the Social Security Number to be 
     used as an identifier on the driver's licenses.
       While the impact of Section 656 may not have been fully 
     comprehended in 1996, we urge the Congress now act swiftly to 
     repeal this provision of law that has between challenged by 
     many diverse groups.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I also have a letter from 
the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons:

       I am writing today to express the support of the 
     Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a group of 
     thousands of private physicians in the United States 
     concerned about patient/physician confidentiality for 
     repealing Section 656 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
       In our system of government, not everything that people do 
     or think is presumed to be within the government's right to 
     know. By repealing the law establishing a national ID scheme, 
     you help protect the threatened liberty of all Americans from 
     a dangerous precedent, which allows bureaucrats the ability 
     to inappropriately monitor private details.
       As a doctor, I cannot allow the privacy of my patients to 
     be at risk.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Jane Orient, MD.

  Mr. President, the Republican Party Platform, states clearly and 
unequivocally, ``We oppose the creation of any national ID card.''
  Mr. President, let me read from a paper compiled by a group called 
Privacy International, entitled, ``ID Cards: Some Personal Views from 
around the world.''
  I ask that this paper by Privacy International be printed in the 
Record at this point.
  The material follows:

          ID Cards: Some Personal Views From Around the World

       In 1994, in an attempt to discover the problems caused by 
     ID cards, Privacy International compiled a survey containing 
     reports from correspondents in forty countries. Amongst the 
     gravest of problems reported to Privacy International was the 
     overzealous use or misuse of ID cards by police--even where 
     the cards were supposed to be voluntary. One respondent 
     wrote:
       ``On one occasion I was stopped in Switzerland when walking 
     at night near Lake Geneva. I was living in Switzerland at the 
     time and had a Swiss foreigner's ID card. The police were 
     wondering why I should want to walk at night to look at the 
     Chateau de Chillon. Really suspicious I suppose, to walk at 
     night on the banks of the lake to look at an illuminated 
     chateau (I am white and dress conservatively). I had to wait 
     for 20 minutes whilst they radioed my ID number to their 
     central computer to check on its validity.''
       Correspondents in most countries reported that police had 
     powers to demand the ID card. A correspondent in Greece 
     reported:
       ``In my country the Cards are compulsory. If police for 
     example stop you and ask for identification you must present 
     them the ID or you are taken to the police department for 
     identification research.''
       Police were granted these powers in the late 1980s, despite 
     some public misgivings. Non European countries reported more 
     serious transgressions, In Brazil, for example:
       They are compulsory, you're in big trouble with the police 
     if they request it and you don't have one or left home 
     without it. The Police can ask for my identity card with or 
     without a valid motive, it's an intimidation act that happens 
     in Brazil very, very often. The problem is not confined to 
     the police. Everybody asks for your ID when you are for 
     example shopping, and this is after you have shown your 
     cheque guarantee card. We also had other similar cards. 
     Nobody trusts anybody basically.
       Predictably, political hot-spots have seen widescale abuse 
     of the card system:
       One problem that Afghans encountered carrying these 
     ``tazkiras'' (ID cards) was during the rule of the communist 
     regime in Afghanistan where people were stopped in odd hours 
     and in odd places by the government's Soviet advisors and 
     their KHALQI and PARCHAMI agents and asked for their 
     ``tazkiras''. Showing or not showing the ``tazkira'' to the 
     enquiring person at that time was followed by grave 
     consequences. By showing it, the bearer would have revealed 
     his age upon which, if it fell between 16-45, he would have 
     been immediately taken to the nearest army post and drafted 
     into the communist army, and if he refused to show, he would 
     have been taken to the nearest secret service (KHAD) station 
     and interrogated as a member of the resistance (Mujahideen), 
     imprisoned, drafted in the army or possibly killed.
       Many countries reported that their ID card had become an 
     internal passport, being required for every dealing with 
     people or institutions. In Argentina, according to this 
     correspondent, the loss of the ID card would result in grave 
     consequences:
       ``I got my first personal ID when I turned seven. It was 
     the Provincial Identity Card. It looked like the hardcover of 
     a little book with just two pages in it. It had my name, my 
     photograph, the fingerprint of my right thumb, and some other 
     personal data. I never questioned what was the logic about 
     fingerprinting a seven-year old boy. It was suggested that 
     identification was one of the major purposes for the 
     existence of the Police of the Province which issued the 
     card. It was required for enroling in the Provincial 
     School I attended. Attending the primary school is 
     compulsory, hence everybody under twelve is indirectly 
     forced to have the Card. Well, this Book was required for 
     any sort of proceedings that the person wanted to 
     initiate, e.g. enrol at school, buy a car, get his driving 
     license, get married. Nobody could do anything without it. 
     In addition, it became a prerogative of the police to 
     request it at any time and place. Whoever was caught 
     without it was customarily taken to jail and kept there 
     for several hours (or overnight if it happened in the 
     evening) while they ``checked his personal record''. In 
     effect, Argentine citizens have never been much better off 
     than South-African negroes during the Apartheid, the only 
     difference is that we Argentinians did not have to suffer 
     lashings if caught without the pass cared. As for daily 
     life without the ID, it was impossible.
       Of greater significance is the information that ID cards 
     are commonly used as a means of tracking citizens to ensure 
     compliance with such laws as military service. Again, in 
     Argentina:
       ``The outrage of the military service was something that 
     many people was not ready to put up with. Nevertheless, 
     something forced the people to present themselves to be 
     drafted. It was nothing more or less than the ID. In fact, if 
     somebody did not show up, the army never bothered to look for 
     them. They just waited for them to fall by themselves, 
     because the ID card showed the boy to be on military age and 
     not having the necessary discharge records by the army. 
     Provided that in the country you could not even go for a walk 
     without risking to be detained by the police, being a no-show 
     for military duty amounted to a civil death.''
       Another respondent in Singapore noted that many people in 
     his country were aware

[[Page S11068]]

     that the card was used for purposes of tracking their 
     movements, but that most did not see any harm in this:
       ``If that question is put to Singaporeans, they are 
     unlikely to say that the cards have been abused. However, I 
     find certain aspects of the NRIC (ID card) system 
     disconcerting. When I finish military service (part of 
     National service), I was placed in the army reserve. When I 
     was recalled for reserve service, I found that the army 
     actually knew about my occupation and salary! I interpreted 
     this as an intrusion into my privacy. It might not be obvious 
     but the NRIC system has made it possible to link fragmented 
     information together.''
       The consequences of losing ones card were frequently 
     mentioned:
       ``A holiday in Rio was ruined for me when I was robbed on 
     the beach and had to spend the rest of the brief holiday 
     going through the bureaucracy to get a duplicate issued. One 
     way round this (of dubious legality) is to walk around with a 
     notarized xerox copy instead of the original.''
       The Brazilian experience shows that the card is often 
     misused by police:
       ``Of course violent police in metropolitan areas of Sao 
     Paulo and Rio de Janeiro love to beat and arrest people 
     (especially black/poor) on the pretext that they don't have 
     their ID card with them.''
       In some countries, denial of a card means denial of 
     virtually all services:
       ID cards are very important in Vietnam. They differentiate 
     between citizens and non-citizens. People without an ID card 
     are considered as being denied of citizenship and all the 
     rights that come with it. For example, they cannot get legal 
     employment, they cannot get a business license, they cannot 
     go to school, they cannot join official organizations, and of 
     course they cannot join the communist party. They cannot 
     travel either. (Even though in practice, they bribe their way 
     around within the country, they would face big trouble if got 
     caught without ID card.)
       The same problem occurs in China:
       I personally feel that the card has the following 
     drawbacks: It carries too much private info about a person. 
     We have to use it in almost every situation. Such as renting 
     a hotel room, getting legal service from lawyers, contacting 
     government agencies, buying a plane ticket and train ticket, 
     applying for a job, or getting permit to live with your 
     parents, otherwise your residence is illegal. In a lot of 
     cases, we are showing too much irrelevant information to an 
     agency or person who should not know that. The card is 
     subject to police cancellation, and thus without it, one can 
     hardly do anything, including traveling for personal or 
     business purposes, or getting legal help or obtaining a job. 
     The government has been using this scheme too often as a 
     measure against persons who run into troubles with it 
     socially or politically. The identity card is showing your 
     daily or every short-term movement, and can be used to 
     regularize and monitor a person's behavior and activity.
       One Korean professor reported that the national card was 
     used primarily as a means of tracking peoples activities and 
     movements:
       ``If you lose this card, you have to report and make 
     another one within a certain period. Since it shows your 
     current address, if you change your address then you must 
     report and make a correction of the new address. If you go to 
     a military service or to a prison, then the government takes 
     away this identity card. You get the card back when you get 
     out. You are supposed to carry this card everywhere you go, 
     since the purpose is to check out the activity of people. 
     There are fines and some jail terms if you do not comply. If 
     you board a ship or an airplane, then you must show this card 
     to make a record. You need to show this card when you vote. 
     Former presidential candidate Kim, Dae Joong could not vote 
     for his own presidential election because his secretary 
     forgot to bring Kim's card. He had to wait for a while until 
     somebody bring his card. Many government employees make lot 
     of money selling information on this card to politicians 
     during election season. Police can ask you to show this card 
     and check whether your identity number is on the wanted list 
     or not. There is a widespread prejudice between the people of 
     some local areas. This card shows the permanent address of 
     you. And it allows other people to successfully guess the 
     hometown of your parents.''
       One Portuguese man studying in the United States reported 
     an obsession with identity in his country:
       ``I keep losing my ID. card, and people keep asking for it. 
     It seems like it's needed for just about everything I want to 
     do, and I should really carry it around my neck or have it 
     tattooed on my palm. The information on it is needed for 
     everything. Many buildings, perhaps most, will have a clerk 
     sitting at a ``reception desk'' who will ask you for your id. 
     They will keep it and give it back to you when you leave. Few 
     people seem bothered with this, but then they don't keep 
     loosing they're cards like I do. So I usually threw a little 
     tantrum ``Are we under curfew? Why do I have to carry my id 
     with me anyway?'' Our tolerant culture invariably leads the 
     clerk to take whatever other document I happen to be 
     carrying--usually my bus pass, which I loose less often. 
     After a while I surrender and go get myself a new id. card. 
     It take \1/2\ a day or more to do this and--guess what--you 
     need your old id. card. It's more complicated if you've lost 
     it. Then finally I am legal again for a while. It's partly 
     due to the Portuguese obsession with identity. Everyone 
     carries both they're mother's and father's last names.''
       Others confirmed the traditional problem of counterfeiting:
       It costs only 300 rupees ($10) to get a counterfeit ID 
     card. The system hardly works. We all know how fake IDs (one 
     guy's photo, another one's name) can be obtained so people 
     can have their friends take GREs and TOEFLs (national tests) 
     for them.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, when my colleagues come 
down here to vote, I want you to look around at some of the statues and 
portraits in this building.
  What would some of these great men, Washington, Jefferson, Adams--our 
founding fathers--what would they think about the government they 
created setting up a system requiring every law-abiding citizen to 
carry a national ID card.
  Is this what the Constitution intended?
  Does the Tenth Amendment allow the Federal Government to dictate what 
information state governments must put on their drivers' licenses?
  For the sake of nabbing a few illegal aliens--which a national ID 
card will not do--is it worth inconveniencing tens of millions of law-
abiding American citizens and costing Federal, state, and local 
governments millions of dollars?
  Mr. President, I again thank the managers for accepting this 
amendment to protect the rights of all Americans by opposing this 
misguided section in the law creating a National ID Card.

                          ____________________