[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 56-57]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 3, 2001

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft 
Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government-
mandated uniform identifiers which 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 as 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 drivers' 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 the Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an 
uniform identifier, 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.
  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 well 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 data base?
  Many of my colleagues will claim that the federal government needs 
these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal 
activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in 
order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal 
activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the 
presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no 
right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their 
relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, 
criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments 
by the Constitution's Tenth Amendment.
  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 a little bit 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 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, 
they have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from 
accessing personal information. Did laws purporting to restrict the use 
of personal information stop the well-publicized violation of privacy 
by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon 
administrations?
  Second, the federal government has been creating property interests 
in private information for example, a little-noticed provision in the 
Patient Protection Act established a property right for insurance 
companies to access personal health are information. Congress also 
authorized private individuals to receive personal information from 
government databases in the copyright bill passed in 1998.
  Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is 
the Clinton Administration's so-called ``medical privacy'' proposal, 
which allow 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.

[[Page 57]]

  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 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 overwhelming opposition of the American people 
toward national identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the 
various ``Know-Your-Customer'' schemes, the attempt to turn drivers' 
licenses into National ID cards, the Clinton Administration's Medical 
Privacy proposal, 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. Congress risks provoking 
a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth of the surveillance 
state.
  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. 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.

                          ____________________