- Legislation is currently pending before
Congress which will make it MANDATORY for states to collect social security
numbers before they can grant any state-issued license or certificate.
The bill under consideration, H.R. 3130, mandates that states "SHALL"
require SSNs from ALL applicants for any professional license, driver's
license, occupational license, or recreational license in addition to requiring
SSNs on all birth certificates, marriage certificates, divorce decrees,
and death certificates. This is a major change from the present law which
merely "coerces" states to collect SSNs under the child support
enforcement program as a condition to their receiving federal welfare funding.
-
- The original bill passed the House in
March of this year as the "Child Support Performance and Incentive
Act of 1998". The House measure provided "bonuses" for states
which achieve acceptable "performance scores" in tracking down
deadbeat dads and collecting unpaid child support payments. The House-approved
version did not contain any SSN reporting requirements. But when H.R. 3130
went to the Senate a "substitute" bill was quickly approved including
the mandatory provisions. The Senate substitute, sponsored by Senator William
Roth, was approved by unanimous consent on April 2, 1998.
-
- Section 403 of this bill will amend Title
42 U.S. Code section 405(c)(2)(C) by changing the word "MAY"
to the word "SHALL." The U.S. Code presently only "permits"
the states to obtain social security numbers for certain limited purposes.
And, as presently worded, any request for a social security number by a
state must be done in compliance with the Privacy Act requirements. The
Privacy Act provides: "It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State
or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit,
or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose
his social security account number." But if this bill is approved
-- with the proposed wording changes -- it will become MANDATORY that all
states "SHALL" require SSNs for ALL state-issued licenses and
certificates -- the Privacy Act protections will become inconsequential.
-
- There has been a plan in the works for
many years to make driver?s license (DL) documents the de facto national
ID. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) has
promoted this notion since at least 1979. Their plan was exposed in the
"Driver?s License Applicant Identification and Licensing System Security"
guidelines booklet published by the U.S. Department of Transportation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in conjunction with
the AAMVA. On page 7, the AAMVA stated:
-
- "The AAMVA reiterates its position
and the NHTSA concurs that social security numbers should be collected
and used by each State licensing agency for purposes of interstate driver
identification." (Booklet available from the AAMVA)
-
- Also in 1995, during Congressional hearings
on ways to curb illegal immigration held before the Subcommittee on Immigration,
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the subject of national ID cards was
openly discussed. A spokesman for the AAMVA, Marshall Rickert, Motor Vehicle
Administrator, State of Maryland, acknowledged AAMVA's desire to establish
a national ID system using social security numbers for identification in
combination with driver's license cards. He said:
-
- "There has been much talk of a national
identification card. The Oklahoma disaster supports such a concept and
I would submit that such a system is already in place... the driver?s license."
-
- "A key element of the [driver's
licenses standardization] program is the development of a unique identifier
which will allow a person to be tracked throughout North America. AAMVA
is recommending that the social security number serve as the unique identifier
and that the number be verified through the Social Security Administration
prior to issuance [of a driver's license]."
-
- Recently, the AAMVA was instrumental
in developing a national "social security number on-line verification"
(SSOLV) system which licensing jurisdictions can use to verify an applicant's
SSNs at the time a driver's license is issued. (A link regarding the SSOLV
system is provided at the bottom of this page.)
-
- The AAMVA is a pseudo-private/quasi-governmental
organization. It is regularly called upon by the DOT, the NHTSA, and by
Congress to help establish national "public safety" and "traffic
enforcement" policy for the country. Then it lobbies Congress to implement
the governmental agencies' plans. It is also one of this country's leading
promoters of the national DL/ID concept. The AAMVA is funded through dues
paid by state motor vehicle administrative agencies. It is also my understanding
that AAMVA receives money -- either in the form of grants or as contract
payments -- for the governmental research projects it often conducts in
partnership with the DOT and NHTSA. The bottom line is that AAMVA's funding
originates as taxpayer money. Consequently, taxpayers are paying for the
lobbying effort TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL DL/ID SYSTEM -- which they themselves
have consistently opposed. Ironic isn?t it.
-
- The national DL/ID scheme has been intentionally
implemented incrementally and surreptitiously. It began in 1996 when Congress
enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reform Act, (PRWORA)
which required that in order for states to receive federal welfare funding
they must collect social security numbers from "commercial driver?s
license" applicants. Then, in 1997 Congress passed the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 which included "technical corrections" to the PRWORA;
the substance of which was to delete the limiting word "commercial"
from the "commercial driver?s license" clause thereby causing
the SSN requirement to apply to ALL driver's license applicants. This
supposedly minor "technical correction" impacted more than 6
million drivers in this country. And now the "Child Support Performance
and Incentive Act of 1998" proposes to once again "tweak"
the SSN requirement; again under the false pretense of being a "technical
correction." This bill will effectively consummate AAMVA's national
DL/ID plan.
-
- One other point: H.R. 3130 also initiates
the establish a national "instant check" database system which
employers will be required to use for "screening" every new employee
or job applicant against a national directory of child support order obligees.
Employers will become the government?s child support enforcement arm. No
cardie, no workie.
-
- The wording of H.R. 3130 blatantly violates
the principle of "dual sovereignty" which serves to protect the
states from direct regulation by Congress. Relevant sections of the Brady
Act were recently held unconstitutional under this principle. In the case
of Sheriffs Richard Mack and Jay Prince v the United States the Supreme
Court ruled that:
-
- "Congress cannot compel the States
to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. ... The Federal Government
may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular
problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political
subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It
matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing
of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally
incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."
-
- But the proponents of the national DL/ID
plan have no regard for our constitution. Furthermore, if this bill passes
it will be up to the states to challenge the requirement. In the recent
past the states have shown little willingness to oppose unconstitutional
mandates dished out by Congress (with few exceptions). And many of the
states' driver's licensing officials SUPPORT these requirements anyway.
Therefore, if this bill becomes law you can expect that it will be enforced
by the several states. Goodbye freedom, goodbye liberty, goodbye privacy
-- Hello Big Brother.
-
- This bill MUST BE STOPPED! An excellent
link is provided below for contacting Congress members. Also included is
the contact information for the key committee members which will be drafting
the compromise bill.
-
- SM -----------------------------------------------------------
-
- CURRENT BILL STATUS: H.R. 3130
-
- On April 23, 1998, the House disagreed
to the Senate amendments, and requested a conference. The Speaker appointed
conferees - from the Committee on Ways and Means for consideration of the
House bill and the Senate amendments, and modifications committed to conference:
Archer, Shaw, Camp, Rangel, and Levin. We need to contact these committee
members and insist that they remove the SSN reporting and database provisions.
Contact information for these committee members is included at the bottom
of this notice.
-
- It is my understanding that H.R. 3130
will have to go before the full House once again for final approval after
the conference committee hashes out a compromise. As I find out more, I'll
pass it along. Representative Bill Archer is the chairman of the Ways
and Means Committee. He is THE KEY MEMBER.
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------
-
- COMMITTEE MEMBERS PHONE
FAX NUMBER
-
- Bill Archer (R- TX) 202-225-2571
202-225-4381
-
- Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL) 202-225-3026
202-225-8398 clay.shaw@mail.house.gov
-
- Dave Camp (R-MI) 202-225-3561
202-225-9679 davecamp@mail.house.gov
-
- Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) 202-225-4365
202-225-0816 rangel@mail.house.gov
-
- Sander M. Levin (D-MI) 202-225-4961
202-226-1033 slevin@mail.house.gov
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------
The best page I?ve found for contacting members of Congress located at:
-
- http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
-
- You can also write your Congressman at:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
-
- -----------------------------------------------------------
-
- [Following is an excerpt taken from the
Congressional Record regarding the Roth amendment to H.R. 3130. Notice
that it calles the SSN requirements a "technical" amendment --
Right! Funny, this sort of deception used to be called "LYING".]
-
- [Page: S3184, 1998]
-
- "Technical and conforming amendments.
There are several technical and conforming amendments made. The two most
noteworthy amendments deal with data collection in the calculation of the
adopting incentive payments and collection of Social Security numbers and
are described below."
-
- "(1)[snipped]
-
- "(2) The 1996 welfare reform law
requires states to collect Social Security numbers on applications for
state licenses for purposes of matching in child support cases by January
1, 1998. The `Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility
Act of 1996' required states to collect Social Security numbers on applications
for state licenses for purposes of checking the identity of immigrants
by October 1, 2000. This amendment would conform the differing requirements
by changing the date for child support cases to October 1, 2000, or such
earlier date as the state selects."
-
- [The above statements taken from the
Congressional Record are all either miss-statement of facts or half-truths,
i.e. LIES.]
-
- [Excerpts from the Senate-approved version
provided below.] [The first proposed change to U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C) "clause
(i)" is with regard to the provision in current law which presently
says that states "may" use SSNs in their licensing programs.
Currently, usage must be in conformity with the Privacy Act.]
-
-
- H.R.3130 Child Support Performance and
Incentive Act of 1998 (Engrossed Senate Amendment)
-
- S.AMDT.2286 AMENDS: H.R.3130 AMENDMENTS
SPONSORED BY: Sen Roth, (introduced 04/02/98)
-
- To provide a complete substitute. SEC.
403. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE COLLECTION AND USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBERS FOR PURPOSES OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.
-
- (a) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- Section 205(c)(2)(C)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)) is amended--
-
- (1) in clause (i), by striking `may require'
and inserting `shall require';
-
- (2) in clause (ii)--
-
- (A) by inserting after the 1st sentence
the following: `In the administration of any law involving the issuance
of a marriage certificate or license, each State shall require each individual
named in the certificate or license to furnish to the State (or political
subdivision thereof), or any State agency having administrative responsibility
for the law involved, the social security number of the individual.'; and
-
- B) by inserting `or marriage certificate'
after `Such numbers shall not be recorded on the birth certificate';
-
- 3) in clause (vi), by striking `may'
and inserting `shall'; and
-
- 4) by adding at the end the following:
-
- `(x) An agency of a State (or a political
subdivision thereof) charged with the administration of any law concerning
the issuance or renewal of a professional license, driver's license, occupational
license, or recreational license shall require each applicant for issuance
or renewal of the license to provide the applicant's social security number
to the agency for the purpose of administering such laws, and for the purpose
of responding to requests for information from an agency operating pursuant
to part D of title IV. If a State allows the use of a number other than
the social security number to be used on the face of the document while
the social security number is kept on file at the agency, the State shall
so advise any applicants.
-
- (xi) All divorce decrees, support orders,
and paternity determinations issued, and all paternity acknowledgments
made, in each State shall include the social security number of each individual
subject to the decree, order, determination, or acknowledgment in the records
relating to the matter, for the purpose of responding to requests for information
from an agency operating pursuant to part D of title IV.'.
-
- (b) RETROACTIVITY- The amendments made
by subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of
section 317 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat.2220).
-
-
- SEC. 405. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORTS.
(a) Report On Feasibility of Instant Check System: Not later than December
31, 1998, the Comptroller General of the United States shall report to
the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means
of the House of Representatives on the feasibility and cost of creating
and maintaining a nationwide instant child support order check system under
which an employer would be able to determine whether a newly hired employee
is required to provide support under a child support order.
-
- ---------------------------------------------------
- You can view the full bill on Thomas.
-
- http://thomas.loc.gov/
-
- [Incidentally, if you access this bill
on "Thomas," section 403
- does not display on the main page. You
have to click on section
- 402, then select "forward"
in order to access section 403.
- Curious, ALL sections are normally shown???]
-
- -----------------------
-
- [Here are the amendment sponsors]
-
- S.AMDT.2286
- AMENDS: H.R.3130
-
- Apr 2, 98 Proposed by Senator Collins
for Senator Roth.
- Cosponsors
-
- Sen Moynihan - 04/02/98
- Sen Murkowski - 04/02/98
- Sen Rockefeller - 04/02/98
- Sen Baucus - 04/02/98
- Sen Chafee - 04/02/98
- Sen Kennedy - 04/02/98
- Sen Abraham - 04/02/98
- Sen Jeffords - 04/02/98
- Sen Santorum - 04/02/98
- Sen Grassley - 04/02/98
- Sen Graham - 04/02/98
- Sen Moseley-Braun - 04/02/98
-
- ------------
-
- Here's the contact information for Senator
Roth, should anyone wish to
- thank him...
-
- Sen. William Roth, Jr. (R-DE) 202-224-2441
-
- comments@roth.senate.gov
|
Sightings HomePage