A NATIONAL ID CARD: BIG GOVERNMENT AT ITS WORST OR TECHNOLOGICAL EFFICIENCY? THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David M. McIntosh (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives McIntosh and Kucinich. Also present: Mr. Davis of Virginia. Staff present: Mildred Webber, staff director; Karen Barnes, professional staff member; Andrew Wilder, clerk; and Alys Campaigne, minority professional staff member. Mr. MCINTOSH. The subcommittee will come to order. Today the subcommittee will examine several recent steps taken by Congress and the Clinton administration toward establishing a national ID card. These measures which include a medical ID requirement for uniform driver's licenses containing Social Security numbers, and a national data base of all newly hired employees, among others, move in exactly the wrong direction, threatening the privacy and security of all American citizens. The new law, which requires the Department of Health and Human Services to create a unique health identifier, or medical ID card, for all Americans would expose an individual's personal medical records to public scrutiny. As a result, individuals would be vulnerable to discrimination. Based on their medical history, they may be turned down for jobs, and turned down for insurance and important benefits. A medical history is one of an individual's most private records and it merits the greatest degree of privacy protection. Vice President Gore has indicated that the administration does not intend to move forward on establishing a medical ID until the proper privacy protections are in place. Now, we in Congress need to make sure that the privacy legislation enacted truly is adequate. One of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's latest proposals appears to create a de facto national ID card. This regulation says that a Federal agency may only accept, as proof of identity, a State-issued driver's license which conforms to certain standards, including, it must contain a Social Security number or, (1) at least, a Social Security number that is verified for each applicant. The privacy concerns surrounding this requirement are clear. All a thief needs to do is take someone's Social Security number, open credit card accounts and bank accounts in someone's name, and ruin his or her credit for life. With a Social Security number, anyone can find out almost anything about an individual on the Internet, including where he or she lives, the type of bank accounts he has, his credit history, the type of purchases he makes some of the most private information about an individual. This technology gives stalkers and abusers easy access to their victims. Many States are aware of these privacy concerns and are now changing their laws so that citizens do not have to include their Social Security numbers on their driver's licenses. And I am proud to say Indiana has such a system where it is optional if you want to put that Social Security number on your driver's licenses. This regulation is moving in the opposite direction. And I do not fault NHTSA for proposing the regulation. In fact, they have largely simply complied with the law and what is required of them. NHTSA submitted a statement to us for our hearing in which they state, and I will quote, We have no programmatic interest in whether a final rule is developed. We issued the proposal because we were directed by the act to do so. The use of the Social Security number, which has proven highly controversial, has little bearing on the safety mission of the agency. Let me digress for just a second here from the prepared remarks. I have complained a lot about different agencies and the regulations that they make over the last 10 years and oftentimes agencies do have a defense: "Congress made us do it." And in this particular case, I think this is a legitimate point. Therefore, it is important that we investigate the possible consequences of these regulations and make our colleagues aware here in Congress of the need to take action to change those requirements and remove any requirements that threaten individual pri vacy. NHTSA asked Congress to reconsider the statutory requirement for the rule, and I will quote again, To the extent that the controversy over the proposal is requiring us to address thousands of components from angry members of the public, we would welcome the Congress's reassessment of subsection 656(b). I pledged to work with them to see what we can do about that. I do not fault the authors of the law. They did not intend it to create a national ID, but unfortunately it does. Now Congress must deal with the very real, unintended consequences of this regulation. That may mean going back into the law and changing it, as I have said. Other measures, such as a recently implemented data base of all newly hired individuals for the purpose of tracking deadbeat parents, raise more concerns about exposing private, personal information to the public. This data base includes people's names, Social Security numbers, and wages. All these measures and others like them show a disturbing pattern of government invasion of individuals' privacy. This morning we will hear from two individuals who have already suffered dire consequences from having their Social Security numbers stolen-an invasion of privacy which is likely to become much more prevalent if a national ID card is established. Celene Cross and Marvin Young traveled across the country so they could warn others of the dangers of identity theft. I want to thank them and all of our witnesses for being here today. I look forward to your insight, and hope through this hearing we can determine constructive solutions to the privacy problems that these government policies present. Let me mention, my colleagues on the minority side are not able to be here yet. We are hoping that they will arrive later but, as I understand it, they are very supportive of this hearing as well. This is, in fact, something that does not cut across party lines, Republican and Democrat, but I think does bring the value of individual liberty and privacy into focus and requires all of us to look and see how the effects of some-I am sure well-meaning-provisions in the law have led to results which none of us would like to see in this country. So let us move now to the first panel. I would ask them to come forward. Celene Cross, Marvin Young, Greg Nojeim. Solange Bitol, and Grover Norquist. Please come forward. [The prepared statement of Hon. David M. McIntosh follows:] ५ A National ID Card: Big Government at its Worst or Technological Efficiency? Opening Statement of Chairman David McIntosh Today the Subcommittee will examine several recent steps, taken by the Congress and the Clinton Administration, toward establishment of a national ID card. These measures -- which include a medical ID, requirements for uniform driver's licenses containing Social Security numbers, and a national database of all newly hired employees, among others -- move in exactly the wrong direction, threatening the privacy and security of all American citizens. The new law which requires the Department of Health and Human Services to create a unique health identifier, or medical ID number, for all Americans would expose an individual's personal medical records to public scrutiny. As a result, individuals would be vulnerable to discrimination based on their medical histories -- they may be turned down for jobs, insurance, and important benefits. A medical history is one of an individual's most private records, and it merits the greatest degree of privacy protection. Vice President Gore has indicated that the Administration does not intend to move forward on establishing a medical ID until the proper privacy protections are in place. Now we in Congress need to make sure that the privacy. legislation enacted is truly adequate. One of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's latest proposals appears to create a de facto national ID card. This regulation says that a federal agency may only accept as proof of identity a state-issued driver's license which conforms to certain standards, including that it must contain a Social Security number or at least that a Social Security number is verified for each applicant. The privacy concerns surrounding this requirement are clear -- all a thief needs is a Social Security number to open credit card accounts and bank accounts in someone's name and ruin his or her credit rating for life. With a Social Security number, anyone can find out almost anything about an individual on the Internet, including where he or she lives. This technology gives stalkers and abusers easy access to their victims. Many states are aware of these privacy concerns and are now changing their laws so that their citizens do not have to include their Social Security numbers on their driver's licenses. This. regulation is moving in the opposite direction. |