Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential

speech in the US House of Representatives ^ | January 7, 2003 | Rep. Ron Paul

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, January 7, 2003

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.

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 not persuaded 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.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

I thought this speech noteworthy. We are apparently in the midst of a war called "enduring freedom" (and rightly so, I might add!)and yet right here at home our freedoms are being eroded faster than we can possibly realize. Will we continue to let the Federal government tell us that the ONLY way to win this war is to continue to give up freedoms one by one? At what point will the freedom erosion stop? We were once told that a Federall Income tax was necessary to fight a war. When the war ended, the taxes continued to grow and are showing NO sign of stopping this growth. Like the income tax, Once in motion, our freedoms will continue to dissappear and the Federal Government power over us will grow, in the name of Federal necessity.

[boomop1]

The horse is out of the barn a lot of states require ssn to get drivers license then they sell the lists the privacy act only protects criminals, like the clintoonn's

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I make two political donations each year. NRA and Ron Paul.

[Badray]

Liberty BUMP

[boomop1]

The only problem with Ron Paul is there are not enough like him.

[cruiserman]

Dr. Paul is missing the point. He would be better off pushing to eliminate Social Security and its associated mark, or at least decoupling its use as an identifier and an account number and a password in the private sector.

[FreePaul]

You're correct. It's too late to restrict the use of SS numbers. The quickest and cleanest solution would be to pass federal laws that make uncollectable all debts based on SS number identification or where a SS number was used in any manner to incur the debt. And prohibit any agency from using or reporting such debts. Sure would take the incentive out of stealing some identification and discourage the use of SS numbers for ID.

The secondary result of proposing this would bring millions of dollars to politicians from credit agencies to defeat it. Would be fun to watch.

[Mo1]

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Sgt_Schultze]

You know, even though you take care to leave your SS# in a "lockbox", it is still carried around in most American's wallets. Most medical insurers now use the registrant's SS# as the account number for their policy. It's a damn crime that the assurance of the government at Social Security's inception was that the number would never become an identifier. But through government mandated reporting in banking and taxes, its use prevails.

[jiggyboy]

Ron Paul for President. He's the only one in Congress who is really looking out for the Constitution in every (heck, in any) law or action under consideration.

[jiggyboy]

That one's DOA, old sport. Everybody uses their SSN at some point to get their mortgage.

[pepsionice]

If you really want to halt this whole mess...you start with a federal law that requires all licenses of states to have nothing to do with social security numbers...give them 60 days to switch over and all new licenses get independent numbers. Then turn to the military and get rid of use of SSN numbers there...go back to the old serial numbers...issue them in basic. Then turn to the credit card companies...and demand photos on all credit cards within 24 months. This whole problem started with credit card companies who opened the back door and said everyone can come in...so stop that practice. Finally, make a simple law that says you get 15 years in prison with no parole if you steal an ID. Make it stick and make the guy go for hard time in North Dakota. We can stop this whole thing if we all stand up.

[FreePaul]

I think that the fifteen years without parole would be good and should apply to anyone other than an employer and the SS Office who requests one's SS number. The whole problem is using the SS number as identification because it is too much trouble for companies to create their own numbers and keep track of them. If businesses want to keep track of people let them create their own national ID system and be responsible for the problems it creates.

[afraidfortherepublic]

You're right. Every time I turn around I am required to provide my SS number -- for insurance, driver's licenses, etc. At one time even Weight Watcher's made the SS# the membership number! (WW was had an English CEO at the time who thought nothing of it.) I was amazed at how many people provided their SS#s without question.

[savedbygrace]

I went to Thomas and apparently the Act doesn't have a number yet. There is an identically named Act from 2001, but it's way different than what Rep. Paul is recommending here.

[Timesink]

HR 220 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 220

To amend title II of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the integrity and confidentiality of Social Security account numbers issued under such title, to prohibit the establishment in the Federal Government of any uniform national identifying number, and to prohibit Federal agencies from imposing standards for identification of individuals on other agencies or persons.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 7, 2003

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mr. HINCHEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

---

A BILL

To amend title II of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the integrity and confidentiality of Social Security account numbers issued under such title, to prohibit the establishment in the Federal Government of any uniform national identifying number, and to prohibit Federal agencies from imposing standards for identification of individuals on other agencies or persons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBER.

(a) REPEAL OF PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING CERTAIN USAGES OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBER- Section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking `(C)(i) It is the policy' and all that follows through clause (vi);

(2) by striking subparagraphs (C)(ix), (E), and (H); and

(3) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) and (G) as subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively.

(b) NEW RULES APPLICABLE TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBERS- Section 205(c)(2) of such Act is amended further--

(1) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:

`(C)(i) All social security account numbers issued under this subsection shall be randomly generated.

`(ii) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph--

`(I) the social security account number issued under this subsection to any individual shall be the exclusive property of such individual, and

`(II) the Social Security Administration shall not divulge the social security account number issued to any individual under this subsection to any agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, to any State, political subdivision of a State, or agency or instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, or to any other individual.

`(iii) Clause (ii) shall not apply with respect to the use of the social security account number as an identifying number to the extent provided in section 6109(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to use of the social security account number for social security and related purposes).'; and

(2) by redesignating clauses (vii) and (viii) of subparagraph (C) as clauses (iv) and (v), respectively.

(c) USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBERS UNDER INTERNAL REVENUE CODE- Subsection (d) of section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(1) in the heading, by inserting `FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PURPOSES' after `NUMBER'; and

(2) by striking `this title' and inserting `section 86, chapter 2, and subtitle C of this title'.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATES AND RELATED RULES-

(1) EFFECTIVE DATES- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall publish in the Federal Register the date determined by the Commissioner, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to be the earliest date thereafter by which implementation of the amendments made by this section is practicable. The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the earlier of such date or the date which occurs 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply with respect to social security account numbers issued on or after such earlier date. The amendments made by subsection (c) shall apply with respect to calendar quarters and taxable years beginning on or after such earlier date.

(2) REISSUANCE OF NUMBERS- The Commissioner of Social Security shall ensure that, not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, all individuals who have been issued social security account numbers under section 205(c) of the Social Security Act as of the date prior to the earlier date specified in paragraph (1) are issued new social security account numbers in accordance with such section as amended by this section. Upon issuance of such new social security account numbers, any social security account numbers issued to such individuals prior to such earlier date specified in paragraph (1) shall be null and void and subject to the requirements of section 205(c)(2)(C)(ii)(II) of such Act, as amended by this section. Nothing in this section or the amendments made thereby shall be construed to preclude the Social Security Administration and the Secretary of the Treasury from cross-referencing such social security account numbers newly issued to individuals pursuant to this paragraph to the former social security account numbers of such individuals for purposes of administering title II or title XVI of such Act or administering the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in connection with section 86, chapter 2, and subtitle C thereof.

SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a note, 88 Stat. 1909) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

`(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to any disclosure which is required under regulations of the commissioner of social security pursuant to section 205(c)(2) of the social security act or under regulations of the secretary of the treasury pursuant to section 6109(d) of the internal revenue code of 1986.'; and

(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

`(b) Except with respect to disclosures described in subsection (a)(2), no agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, or any combination of the foregoing may request an individual to disclose his social security account number, on either a mandatory or voluntary basis.'.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the earlier date specified in section 2(d)(1).

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF GOVERNMENT-WIDE UNIFORM IDENTIFYING NUMBERS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Except as authorized under section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act, any two agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal Government may not implement the same identifying number with respect to any individual.

(b) IDENTIFYING NUMBERS- For purposes of this section--

(1) the term `identifying number' with respect to an individual means any combination of alpha-numeric symbols which serves to identify such individual, and

(2) any identifying number and any one or more derivatives of such number shall be treated as the same identifying number.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE- The provisions of this section shall take effect January 1, 2005.

SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF GOVERNMENT-ESTABLISHED IDENTIFIERS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Subject to subsection (b), a Federal agency may not--

(1) establish or mandate a uniform standard for identification of an individual that is required to be used by any other Federal agency, a State agency, or a private person for any purpose other than the purpose of conducting the authorized activities of the Federal agency establishing or mandating the standard; or

(2) condition receipt of any Federal grant or contract or other Federal funding on the adoption, by a State, a State agency, or a political subdivision of a State, of a uniform standard for identification of an individual.

(b) TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN PRIVATE PERSONS- Notwithstanding subsection (a), a Federal agency may not establish or mandate a uniform standard for identification of an individual that is required to be used within the agency, or by any other Federal agency, a State agency, or a private person, for the purpose of--

(1) investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or otherwise regulating a transaction to which the Federal Government is not a party; or

(2) administrative simplification.

(c) REPEALER- Any provision of Federal law enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act that is inconsistent with subsection (a) or (b) is repealed, including sections 1173(b) and 1177(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(b); 42 U.S.C. 1320d-6(a)(1)).

(d) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this section:

(1) AGENCY- The term `agency' means any of the following:

(A) An Executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code).

(B) A military department (as defined in section 102 of such title).

(C) An agency in the executive branch of a State government.

(D) An agency in the legislative branch of the Government of the United States or a State government.

(E) An agency in the judicial branch of the Government of the United States or a State government.

(2) STATE- The term `State' means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau.

(e) EFFECTIVE DATE- The provisions of this section shall take effect January 1, 2005.

END

---

STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)

1/7/2003:

Introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1)

1/7/2003:

Introductory remarks on measure. (CR E5)

1/7/2003:

Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

1/7/2003:

Referred to House Ways and Means

1/7/2003:

Referred to House Government Reform

---

IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT -- HON. RON PAUL (Extensions of Remarks - January 08, 2003)

[Page: E5]

---

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.

  END
  

  ---

[savedbygrace]

Thank you, Timesink. This great. Now we can call our reps.

[savedbygrace]

I just called my congressman's office and spoke with a very nice person who registered my comment. I asked that the congressman sign on as a sponsor and that he would strongly support the bill.

I got an extremely favorable response.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Thanks Timesink! My Rep. is Bartlett.

[Vigilanteman]

Love your approach. This would absolutely destroy the market value of misused SSN's. It could also punish lenders who required the number as an identifier. Abuse would come to a screeching halt and there would be no expense to the government in reissuing numbers.