[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 129]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             INTRODUCING THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 5, 2011

  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 5 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 that 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 his 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 the 
children 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 that 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!
  The Identity Theft Prevention Act also prevents the Federal 
Government from establishing any form of national ID. In 2005, Congress 
attempted to turn state driver's licensing into a national ID; however, 
resistance to this unconstitutional and costly mandate on the states 
has been so intense that today, for all intents and purposes, the Real 
ID mandate has been nullified. The Identity Theft Prevention Act simply 
puts the nail in the coffin of the Real ID and similar schemes, thus 
protecting Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy 
violated by private and public sector criminals.
  Some 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 jobs 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 a couple of 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 reputations 
as a result of identity theft.
  Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, 
but these laws 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 of 
the Clinton and Nixon administrations.
  In one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, 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, that 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 seeking the information.
  Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is 
insufficient primarily 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 not persuaded by the moral and 
constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act 
should consider the American people's opposition to national 
identifiers. The numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the 
Social Security number show that Americans 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.
  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.

                          ____________________