[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 17, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3353-H3356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5192, PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM
IDENTITY THEFT ACT
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 830 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 830
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5192) to
authorize the Commissioner of Social Security to provide
confirmation of fraud protection data to certain permitted
entities, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 115-68 shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Davidson). The gentleman from Alabama is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 830 provides for
consideration of H.R. 5192, the Protecting Children From Identity Theft
Act. The resolution calls for a closed rule, as no amendments to the
bill were submitted.
Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation is designed to reduce
identity fraud by allowing financial institutions to verify the
accuracy of a name, Social Security number, and date of birth before
passing that information to credit bureaus.
This legislation is designed to target something known as synthetic
identity fraud. This begins when a criminal combines a real Social
Security number with fictitious information, such as a name and date of
birth, to apply for credit with a financial institution that passes
information to credit bureaus for a credit check.
Credit bureaus create a record based on the fraudulent credentials.
Over time, this creates a synthetic identity based on the valid Social
Security number but a false name.
Currently, children and other vulnerable individuals are more likely
to be victims of synthetic identity theft because they do not drive,
work, or establish credit. This makes it easier for an identity thief
to misuse the Social Security number of a child without being detected.
Reports indicate that over 1 million children have their identity
stolen each year. Studies show that children are 50 times more likely
than adults to be a victim of identity theft.
This is a real and serious issue that is only becoming more and more
common. According to TransUnion, a record $355 million in outstanding
credit card balances was owed by people who it suspects didn't exist in
2017. That is up more than eightfold from 2012.
This type of fraud can saddle children with unintended debt and a
flawed
[[Page H3354]]
credit history sometimes before they can even walk or drive a car.
That is why this bipartisan legislation is so important. The bill
would require the Social Security Administration to create a
verification system to match the name, Social Security number, and date
of birth submitted by permitted entities against their official
records.
This would allow financial institutions to verify the accuracy of the
customer's personal information in order to guard against synthetic
identity fraud.
Importantly, the bill requires that users of the verification system
pay the full cost to limit any costs to taxpayers. Also, the bill
ensures that the provisions do not distract the Social Security
Administration from their core duties and responsibilities.
It is also important to note that the bill includes protections to
ensure the verification system is secure and not subject to abuse or
misuse. The consumer must also consent before their information could
be subject to an inquiry.
This is bipartisan, commonsense legislation that solves a real-world
problem, but I bet it will never get the attention that it deserves.
This bill went through regular order. It passed out of the Ways and
Means Committee on a 38-0 vote, and I hope it receives a similar vote
here on the House floor.
Despite what some in the national news media would have you to
believe, this type of bipartisan legislation actually happens all the
time here in the House. The vast majority of bills we pass receive
bipartisan support, and while that may not make for the best
television, it is the reality of the work we do on a daily basis.
So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the Protecting
Children From Identity Theft Act, and let's work to solve a problem
impacting Americans each and every day.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 830 and
the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of good to see a Floridian in
the pro tempore chair.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes for debate, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate this rule. Last night at the
Rules Committee, we had the opportunity to hear from Chairman Kevin
Brady of the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the Oversight
Subcommittee, Lynn Jenkins, and the ranking member of the Oversight
Subcommittee, John Lewis, about this legislation.
They discussed--hey, America, listen to this--the bipartisan nature
in which they worked on this issue to craft legislation that they hope
can achieve strong bipartisan support in this body.
It came out of committee 38-0.
H.R. 5192 protects young children and recent immigrants from
synthetic identity theft, a type of fraud that involves combining a
legitimate Social Security number with a fake name in order to create a
new synthetic identity. One in every 10 children have fallen victim to
this type of threat. Research has shown that children's identities are
stolen at a rate of 50 times more frequently than adults, resulting in
children and families shouldering unforeseeable debt and a flawed
credit history that is extremely difficult to clear.
Mr. Speaker, in a refreshing change of pace, this measure, as I
indicated, had a 38-0 vote coming out of the markup in committee and
included input from Democrats, the IRS, and consumer protection
advocates.
Unsurprisingly, as I have indicated, it came out of committee
overwhelmingly with all 16 Democrats voting in favor. The
bipartisanship reflected in this bill is certainly a rarity in this
body and, frankly, could have easily come before us under suspension of
the rules.
It is now painfully obvious what the Republican majority's playbook
is. My friends across the aisle can work in a bipartisan manner if they
want to, but when it comes to major issues facing our country, like
taking away healthcare from 23 million Americans or handing a $1.5
trillion tax giveaway to America's wealthiest citizens, they would
rather force through partisan legislation written in back rooms with
little to no expert analysis, similar to the farm bill that is about to
come out here sometime in the not-to-distant future.
While it is certainly refreshing that we are working in a bipartisan
manner for a change, protecting children and families from identity
theft is not the only bipartisan priority. These reforms are just as
pressing as protecting our children from gun violence, providing relief
for hard-working, young Dreamers, and debating the use of military
force overseas--or how about an infrastructure bill of consequence and
real immigration reform.
{time} 1230
Sixty-eight percent of Americans say Congress must do more to reduce
gun violence. More than a million Americans took to the streets across
the country to march for our lives and to urge Congress to take action
to reduce gun violence. I had the honor of sitting on the stage on that
day, and I was never as proud as I was of the children from Broward
County, where I am privileged to serve, or from around this Nation, and
their friends and allies, parents, loved ones, and constituents who
came from all over the country here, as well as to events in a
significant number of locations around the country.
207 members of Congress, including 14 Republicans, are sponsoring
H.R. 4240, the Democratic Representative Mike Thompson's bill that
would give States the resources to help them submit information to the
background check system. One hundred Members of Congress, including
seven Republicans, are cosponsoring the Gun Violence Restraining Order
Act, which will allow family members or law enforcement officials to
petition a judge to temporarily remove firearms from an individual in
crisis. We had that example in Florida after it passed its law.
Immediately, a family came to the sheriff's office to have weapons
taken from a person in crisis.
Has the Speaker brought these bipartisan measures to the floor for a
vote? No. The Republican majority has refused to take up even the most
basic commonsense legislation to help mitigate the epidemic of gun
violence facing this country. My friends across the aisle have even
refused to address the use of bump stocks, a reform whose need is
agreed upon by Democrats and Republicans, including the President.
Fortunately, in the State of Florida, it did pass in the last session
of the legislature.
Mr. Speaker, just last year, 34 House Republicans signed a letter to
Speaker Paul Ryan urging him to bring forward a permanent legislative
solution for the Dreamers, these young, hardworking individuals who are
stuck in legal limbo. But despite this bipartisan support, not to
mention the support of 90 percent of the American public, the
Republican majority continues to block the Dream Act, ignoring the
calls of the vast majority of Americans.
It is time for the Trump administration and Republican-controlled
Congress to stop playing politics with the lives of Dreamers and come
to terms with the fact that their long anti-immigrant wish list is not
going anywhere fast.
Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is a place where the issues
facing our Nation should be addressed and solved in a bipartisan
manner, similar to this legislation. It is a sad state of affairs for
the Nation that Congress has continued to sit idly by while the
executive branch further engages our military in conflicts overseas
without congressional authorization.
Republican leadership's refusal to allow a robust debate on the
efficacy of an authorization of the use of military force for our
presence in Syria is not only a dereliction of duty but does a great
disservice to the country and our Constitution. If the President, any
President, intends to further involve American troops in the Syrian
conflict, or any conflict, then Congress has not only the
responsibility but also the constitutional authority to lead that
conversation.
Despite across-the-aisle support for these pressing problems, we are
not here today debating the rule to address gun violence in America. We
are not here today debating the rule to protect Dreamers from being
removed from our
[[Page H3355]]
workforce or being deported to countries of which they have no
knowledge. We are not here today debating the rule for the use of
military force in Syria. We are not here today discussing immigration
reform. We are not here today discussing an infrastructure measure that
is desperately needed.
When I came to Congress in 1992, there were 14,000 bridges in this
country in need of repair. Today there are 54,000 bridges in this
country in need of repair. But we are not discussing that here today.
Instead, we are using floor time to discuss a bill that could have
easily been considered on the suspension calendar, and I predict that,
had it been on the suspension calendar, 435 Members, or as many as
assembled, would have voted unanimously in favor of the measure today
as they would if it were on the floor at this particular moment.
Are my friends across the aisle intent on running out the clock
before the midterm elections? Is that what the American people have to
look forward to over the next 7 months? The people who sent us here
deserve bipartisan solutions to the pressing problems confronting this
great Nation. Not next month. Not next week. Not tomorrow. But today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my good friend from Florida.
I do want to note the presence on the floor of our newest member of the
Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres). We
welcome her to the committee.
I do think there are bipartisan things that we can do. The gentleman
said one that I think is very important; that is, infrastructure. He
and I have had this discussion before. The President wants us to do an
infrastructure bill, and I think all of us want to do an infrastructure
bill. I think there is some time here we need to take to make sure that
we do get a bipartisan bill in that regard. I don't think it will pass
without a bipartisan agreement, so I hope we do that.
On the gun issue, as I think the gentleman knows, the bump stock rule
was actually something put in place by ATF under the Obama
administration, and President Trump has asked the ATF essentially to
rescind it, and they are in the process of doing that. So I hope
they'll do that.
We did pass, and this body is part of our appropriations bill for
this fiscal year that has gone to the President and been signed, the
Fix NICS bill. So there are gun legislation things, addressing these
issues, that are moving forward.
He also brought up the very important issue of immigration. The
President, I think, has made some very bold moves in that regard to try
to get a discussion going so that we can have some bipartisanship here.
It is clear that that is not going to pass both the House and the
Senate without that. I hope that those negotiations and those
discussions can somehow resume because they clearly hit a very bad
spot. The President has shown his good faith. I hope the rest of us can
reach back and find a way to address this issue.
But this issue is not just the Dreamers. It is also border security.
If we are not willing to talk about that and chain migration and the
others, we are not really talking about immigration reform; we are
talking about one piece of it.
With regard to the AUMF, Authorization for Use of Military Force, I
am a strong advocate, as I think the gentleman knows, for a new AUMF.
Actually, I am a cosponsor for one of the bills that would provide for
that. I have said, going back several years, that I think we have been
operating in certain parts of the world without adequate authorization.
And whether it is constitutionally required or not, I think it is the
right thing to do.
However, I do not think the President had to have prior congressional
authorization before the strike that was launched Friday night against
Syria in conjunction with France and Great Britain. He clearly has that
authority under Article II of the Constitution, to protect our
servicemen and -women who are in Syria right now. So I applaud what the
President did. I applaud the way he did it. But I am clear in my
thinking that he did not need prior authorization from Congress to go
there.
Now, I hope that we will get a strategy in general for Syria that
fits into our overall strategy to the Middle East. We have been
stumbling around in Syria for several years now. President Obama put
out the so-called red line, and then the Syrians walked across it and
used chemical weapons against their people. And we did nothing. All
that did was encourage further bad behavior like what we saw in this
horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians in Syria.
At least President Trump is doing something. And I hope that that
something that he has done will send a loud message, not just to the
Assad regime in Syria but also to Russia and to Iran, that the
civilized world is not going to tolerate that sort of activity. And we
don't care who does it; we are going to take appropriate action. The
President had the authorization to do it, and I am glad that he did it.
We are not done legislating this year. I think the gentleman suggests
that we are, but we have got some big bills coming before us. This week
we will take up a major IRS reform bill. I am looking forward to that,
this being tax day for so many of us. A good tax day for the vast
majority of the people in America, by the way.
We will be taking up a reauthorization of the Federal Aviation
Administration. We will be taking up another farm bill. We will be
taking up the National Defense Authorization Act that comes out of the
Committee on Armed Services that I am in.
We have a host of legislation that we will be doing, and I think
doing successfully, between now and when we have these midterm
elections in November. So we are not done legislating by any means.
I look forward to continuing to debate these issues, but today we are
talking about a very important bill that did come through committee in
a bipartisan fashion and, I believe, is going to get broad bipartisan
support here in this body, once more showing the American people that
we can get the people's work done in the right way.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, through you, I would advise my friend that
I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am as well.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to my friend from Alabama, and
he indicated that the action that was just undertaken over the weekend
by this administration was ``something,'' and I maintain that it was
under an old Authorization for Use of Military Force.
Listen, one of the reasons Congress won't undertake to debate an
authorization for the use of military force, which I would urge my
friend would give us a strategy if we had that debate and at least the
administration would have Congress' input with reference to the use of
military force--we can't continue to have pin pricks at the whim of any
President. I argued the same thing during the Obama administration, and
I argued it during the Clinton administration.
What we have done is abdicate our responsibility in Congress when it
comes to war. And if you think it isn't war, then ask the 500,000
people who are dead as a result of this measure undertaken in Syria,
not just by the United States but with a variety of forces fighting
inside. If you think it isn't war when a bomb destroys a building, or
76 missiles destroy buildings, then I have news for you about what war
looks like. And we had no input.
My understanding is the administration met with the leadership of the
Republican Party. I don't recall hearing a single Democrat was invited
to have any discussion at all about this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud this bipartisan legislation, as I have said,
that would limit synthetic identity fraud and help protect millions of
identities, including those of young children and recent immigrants,
from being stolen. In a refreshing change of pace, this measure
received input from Democrats, the IRS, and consumer protection
advocates.
My friend from Alabama said that there are measures that are coming
[[Page H3356]]
forward, and I applaud him that those measures are coming forward. But
I didn't hear him say that there were going to be measures having to do
with Dreamers. I didn't hear him say there was anything that would be
significantly involved in gun violence other than his words with
reference to bump stocks and some reference back to some other date in
time. I am talking about right now, not only bump stocks but the
necessary indicia for buying a weapon and the age for buying a weapon
and a variety of measures.
Twenty-six measures exist right here in the House of Representatives
on which we could be voting--any one of them--that are commonsense gun
reform. And we refuse to do so because the Speaker won't put them on
the floor.
I hope that we can continue working together across the aisle to
confront the pressing issues facing this great Nation. When the farm
bill comes here, I hope Democrats have some input. They haven't had any
at this point. And we can help people whom we have been elected to
serve.
{time} 1245
However, it is time that we address gun violence in America; it is
time that we protect Dreamers; it is time we exert our constitutional
authority and debate a new Authorization for Use of Military Force; and
it is time for us to repair these broken-down bridges and raggedy roads
in the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my good friend from Florida.
I certainly hope that there can be some further discussions and we can
have something that comes forth on this floor that is truly bipartisan
on the issue of immigration reform, including border security.
I know that there are some people, not including my friend from
Florida, who would like to pass legislation that would repeal the
Second Amendment. I hope that that legislation doesn't come to the
floor because I do not think it would meet with the approval of the
vast majority of the people of America.
I do strongly believe at some point we should be debating on this
floor a new Authorization for Use of Military Force. But I will say
again, the President did not need that authorization for what he did on
Friday night, not because he was presuming to act under an old
authorization, but because he had the inherent power to do that under
Article II of the Constitution. If he is acting under that authority,
he doesn't need extra authorization from us.
This bill, however, that we are talking about today is something we
can all agree on, is something that is important for protecting young
children and, yes, for protecting people who have just become immigrant
citizens of this country. So I applaud the fact that we have come
forward with this legislation. It shows that we are working together. I
look forward to the debate on the floor of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution
830 and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.
____________________