[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 8, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E5-E6]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, January 7, 2003

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft 
Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government-
mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as 
the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft 
Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number 
as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to 
issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after 
the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal 
property of the recipient and the Social Security administration shall 
be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to 
Social Security administration. Social Security numbers issued before 
implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal 
identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be 
able to use an individual's original Social Security number to ensure 
efficient administration of the Social Security system.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this 
problem because it was Congress which transformed the Social Security 
number into a national identifier. Thanks to Congress, today no 
American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional 
license, or even get a driver's license without presenting their Social 
Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security 
number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social 
Security number in order to get a fishing license!
  One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is 
the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social 
Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as 
dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state 
is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the 
dreams of a free republic which inspired this nation's founders.
  Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an 
identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks 
to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone's Social 
Security number in order to access that person's bank accounts, credit 
cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life 
savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft--
yet the federal government continues to encourage such crimes by 
mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!
  This act also forbids the federal government from creating national 
ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of 
investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private 
transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those 
sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 
1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to 
establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to 
government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will 
prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and 
privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.
  In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating 
national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government 
from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by 
withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of 
Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the 
American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.

[[Page E6]]

  Mr. Speaker, of all the invasions of privacy proposed in the past 
decade, perhaps the most onerous is the attempt to assign every 
American a ``unique health identifier''--an identifier which could be 
used to create a national database containing the medical history of 
all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private 
practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the 
physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends 
on a patient's ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. 
What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all 
information given to their doctor will be placed in a government 
accessible database?
  Some members of Congress may claim that the federal monitoring of all 
Americans will enhance security. However, the fact is that creating a 
surveillance state will divert valuable resources away from 
investigating legitimate security threats into spying on innocent 
Americans, thus reducing security. The American people would be better 
served if the government focused attention on ensuring our borders are 
closed to potential terrorists instead of coming up with new ways to 
violate the rights of American citizens.
  Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government 
needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government 
to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a 
constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their 
liberties to make the job of government officials easier. We are here 
to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy 
invasion more efficient.
  Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members 
who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens' rights are 
protected through legislation restricting access to personal 
information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the 
federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative 
``privacy protections'' are inadequate to protect the liberty of 
Americans for several reasons:
  First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws 
that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public 
than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal 
punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have 
suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation 
as a result of identity theft.
  Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, 
but have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from 
accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict 
the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized 
violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton 
and Nixon administrations.
  Just last month, thousands of active-duty soldiers and veterans had 
their personal information stolen, putting them at risk of identity 
theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the universal 
identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans 
simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one 
government database?
  Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary 
interests in private information for certain state-favored special 
interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy 
protection is the ``medical privacy'' regulation, which allows medical 
researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials' 
access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth 
Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, ``privacy 
protection'' laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal 
information when the government is the one providing or seeking the 
information.
  The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws 
authorizing privacy violations is insufficient is because the federal 
government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a 
universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. 
Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates 
liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, 
not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction 
over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of 
citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson's advice and ``bind 
(the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.''
  Mr. Speaker, those members who are unpersuaded by the moral and 
constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act 
should consider the opposition of the American people toward national 
identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the various ``Know-
Your-Customer'' schemes, the attempt to turn driver's licenses into 
National ID cards, as well as the numerous complaints over the ever-
growing uses of the Social Security number, show that American people 
want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to 
a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people 
oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID. Several other 
recent polls show most Americans remain skeptical that a national ID 
card would enhance their security or preserve their liberty.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to 
join me in putting an end to the federal government's unconstitutional 
use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. 
National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the 
threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their 
liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement 
resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In 
addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, 
constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join 
my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting 
the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

                          ____________________