Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:06:42 -0700 (PDT) From: jd@scn.org (SCN User) To: local-computer-activists@scn.org Subject: H.R. 3130 Action Alert --SSNs Reply-To: jd@scn.org Sender: owner-local-computer-activists@scn.org >From: "ScanThisNews" >To: "Scan This News Recipients List" >Subject: [FP] Bill Imposes Mandatory SSN Requirements Upon the States >Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 12:29:13 -0500 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 >Importance: Normal >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 >Sender: owner-scan@efga.org >Reply-To: owner-scan@efga.org >X-Web-Site: http://www.efga.org/ >X-Mail-List-Info: http://efga.org/about/maillist/ >X-SCAN: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml > >====================================================================== >"ScanThisNews" newsletter from the "Fight the Fingerprint" email list! >====================================================================== >SCAN THIS NEWS >5/17/98 > > -=- ALERT -=- LEGISLATION ALERT -=- ALERT -=- > > <<<<<< MAJOR NEW SSN LEGISLATION IN CONGRESS >>>>>> > > >Bill Imposes Mandatory SSN Requirements Upon the States > >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^Òs 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^Òs 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^Òs 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^Òt 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^Òs 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^Òs 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^Òs 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^Òve 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 > >--------------------------------------------------- >Link to the AAMVA Social Security Number On-Line Verification (SSOLV) brag >sheet: >http://www.aamva.org/driver/documents/public/html/ssninfo.htm > >======================================================================= > To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to > and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY. > Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY. > For additional instructions see www.efga.org/about/maillist.html >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N. > SOVEREIGN CITIZENS AGAINST NUMBERING > Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page: > www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml >======================================================================= > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo@scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe local-computer-activists END