Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004: National Standards for Drivers Licenses, Social Security Cards, and Birth Certificates
CRS Report for Congress
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004: National Standards for Driver's Licenses,
Social Security Cards, and Birth Certificates
January 6, 2005
Todd B. Tatelman
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004: National Standards for Driver's Licenses, Social
Security Cards, and Birth Certificates
In its comprehensive report to the nation, the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) recommended that the federal
government set national standards for the issuance of identification documents
including driver's licenses, social security cards, and birth certificates. The
Commission noted that identification fraud is no longer simply a matter of theft, but
now complicates the government’s ability to adequately ensure public safety at
vulnerable facilities including airport terminals, train stations, bus stations, and other
As the legislative process unfolded, both the House of Representatives’ and the
Senate’s proposed versions of legislation included provisions intended to address this
specific recommendation, however, their approaches varied both with respect to
scope, as well as the suggested methodology that was to be used to bring the states
into conformity with these new national standards. Generally, the House version
opted to detail specific statutory requirements, while the Senate proposal chose to
mandate regulation, but delegated broad discretionary authority to the relevant federal
The final legislation that was approved by Congress on December 8, 2004, and
signed by the President on December 17, 2004, contained many of the provisions
found in the Senate’s original proposal with several significant additions from the
House’s proposed language. Many of the provisions that were considered
controversial were not ultimately included, however, several Members indicated
during the floor debate that these issues, specifically those that relate to driver'sth
licenses, would be revisited during the 109 Congress. In addition, because many of
these provisions only delegate regulatory authority to federal agencies, several
concerns that were raised during the legislation’s deliberation, including access to
birth certificates by genealogists or other historical researchers, are not specifically
addressed by the statutory language, and will likely be the subject of agency action.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
In troduction ..................................................1
Drivers’ Licenses and Personal Identification Cards...................2
Social Security Numbers........................................6
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004: National Standards
for Driver's Licenses, Social Security Cards,
and Birth Certificates
The 9/11 Commission’s final report recommended that “the federal government
should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates, and sources of
identification, such as driver's licenses.”1 Specifically noting the rising problem of
identification fraud, the Commission concluded that “sources of identification are the
last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether2
they are terrorists.” Prior to the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004, the standards for driver's licenses and birth certificates were
determined on a state-by-state basis with no national standards in place. While states
are currently required to obtain social security numbers from drivers’ license
applicants for child support collection purposes, it appears that most states were not
requiring that the social security number be printed on a driver’s license. However,
in those states that still use social security numbers on driver's licenses, it appears
that an opt-out process was available.
Both the House of Representatives3 and the Senate4 proposed legislation
designed to establish national standards, however, both chambers differed in their
approaches. On one hand, the House of Representatives opted to legislate specific
requirements, while the Senate chose to mandate regulation, and provided the
appropriate federal agencies broad discretionary authority to address the various
concerns identified in the statutory language. After a lengthy and contentious
conference committee, the final product, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004, contains numerous elements of both the House and Senate
proposals.5 While many of the more controversial provisions were not included in
1 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: FINAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES, 390 (2004).
3 See H.R. 10, 108th Cong. §§ 3051-3076 (2d Sess. 2004).
4 See S. 2845, 108th Cong. §§ 1026-1028 (2d Sess. 2004).
5 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, P.L. 108-408 §§ 7211-7214,
118 Stat. 3638, 3825-3832 (2004). Both H.R. 10 and S. 2845 were passed by their
respective houses, however, the conference committee elected to use S. 2845 as the
the final bill, numerous Members made public promises to revisit several of the
issues, specifically related to driver's licenses during the 109th Congress. This report,
therefore, includes descriptions of the provisions contained within the original House
and Senate proposals, as well as what the final bill contains with respect to driver's
licenses, personal identification cards, social security numbers, and birth certificates.
Drivers’ Licenses and Personal Identification Cards
Final Bill. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
delegates authority to the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, empowering them to issue regulations with respect
to minimum standards for federal acceptance of drivers’ licences and personal
The new law requires that the Secretary issue regulations within 18 months of
enactment that require each driver’s license or identification card, to be accepted for
any official purpose by a federal agency, include the individual’s: (1) full legal name;
(2) date of birth; (3) gender; (4) driver’s license or identification card number; (5)
digital photograph; (6) address; and (7) signature.7 In addition, the cards are required
to contain physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting or
duplication for fraudulent purposes as well as a common machine-readable8
technology with defined minimum elements. Moreover, States will be required,
pursuant to the new regulations, to confiscate a driver’s license or personal9
identification card if any of the above security components is compromised.
The statute also requires that the regulations address how driver’s licences and
identification cards are issued by the states. Specifically, the regulations are required
to include minimum standards for the documentation required by the applicant, the
blueprint for the final bill. Thus, S. 2845 became the vehicle that moved through the final
stages of the legislative process.
6 See supra note 5, at § 7212. Whether limiting the standards to federal acceptance - as
opposed to direct federal prescriptions on the states - obviates federalism concerns under
Supreme Court jurisprudence, remains to be seen. The Court has held that in exercising its
power under the Commerce Clause, Congress may not “commandeer” the state regulatory
processes by ordering states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. See New
York v United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). The Court has extended this principle by
holding, in Printz v. United States, that Congress may not circumvent the prohibition on
commandeering a State’s regulatory processes “by conscripting the State’s officers directly.”
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997). It may be possible to argue that, because
the issuance of driver's licenses remains a state regulatory function, the minimum issuance
and verification requirements established in this bill, even if limited to federal agency
acceptance, constitute an effective commandeering by Congress of the state regulatory
process, or a conscription of the state and local officials who issue the licenses.
7 Id. at § 7212(b)(2)(D)(i)-(vii).
8 Id. at § 7212(b)(2)(E)-(F).
9 Id. at § 7212(b)(2)(G).
procedures utilized for verifying the documents used, and the standards for
processing the applications.10 The regulations are, however, prohibited from not only
infringing upon the “State’s power to set criteria concerning what categories of
individuals are eligible to obtain a driver’s license or personal identification card
from that State,”11 but also from requiring a State to take an action that “conflicts
with or otherwise interferes with the full enforcement of State criteria concerning the
categories of individuals that are eligible to obtain a driver’s license or personal
identification card.”12 In other words, it would appear that if a State grants a certain
category of individuals (i.e., immigrants, legal or illegal) permission to obtain a
license, nothing in the forthcoming regulations is to infringe on that State’s decision
or its ability to enforce that decision. The regulations are also not to require a single
uniform design, and are to include procedures designed to protect the privacy rights
of individual applicants.13
Finally, the Senate’s recommendation of negotiated rulemaking pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act14 was adopted in the final language. This process is
designed to bring together agency representatives and concerned interest groups to
negotiate the text of a proposed rule. The rulemaking committee is required to
include representatives from: (1) State and local offices that issue driver’s licenses
and/or personal identification cards; (2) State elected officials; (3) Department of
Homeland Security; and (4) interested parties.15
House Proposal.16 The House proposal called for the establishment of
minimum document requirements, as well as verification and issuance standards for
the acceptance of driver's licenses and personal identification cards by federal
agencies. Specifically, the House proposal required that each driver’s license or
identification card, to be accepted for any official purpose by a federal agency,
include the individual’s: (1) full legal name; (2) date of birth; (3) gender; (4) driver’s
license or identification card number; (5) digital photograph; (6) address; and (7)
signature. In addition, the cards were to contain physical security features designed
to prevent tampering, counterfeiting or duplication for fraudulent purposes as well
as a common machine-readable technology with defined minimum elements.
The House proposal also required that, prior to issuing a document that
conforms with these minimum standards, a state would have to verify with the
issuing agency, the issuance, validity and completeness of: (1) a photo identification
document or a non-photo document containing both the individual’s full legal name
10 Id. at § 7212(b)(2)(A)-(C).
11 Id. at § 7212(b)(3)(B).
12 Id. at § 7212(b)(3)(C).
13 Id. at § 7212(b)(3)(D)-(E).
14 See Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, P.L. 101-648, 104 Stat. 4970 (1990) (codified
as amended at 5 U.S.C. § 581 et seq.).
15 See supra note 5, at § 7212(b)(4)(A)-(B).
16 All references to the House proposal in this section can be found at H.R. 10, 108th Cong.
§§ 3051-3060 (2d Sess. 2004).
and date of birth; (2) date of birth; (3) proof of a social security number (SSN) or
verification of the individual’s ineligibility for a SSN; and (4) name and address of
the individual’s principal residence. Pursuant to the House’s proposed language, a
state would not be able to accept any foreign document, with the exception of an
Moreover, states would also have been required to verify an individual’s legal
presence in the United States. The House proposal required that not later than
September 11, 2005, states would enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Secretary of Homeland Security to routinely utilize the “Systematic Alien
Verification for Entitlements” to verify the legal presence status of a person, other
than a U.S. citizen. According to the House proposal, if an individual were to fall
into one of six categories,17 a state could only issue a temporary driver’s license or
identification card with an expiration date equal to the period of time of the
applicant’s authorized stay in the United States. If there was an indefinite end to the
period of authorized stay, the card’s expiration date would have been one year. The
temporary card was to clearly indicate that it was temporary and state the expiration
date. Renewals of the temporary cards were to be done only upon presentation of
valid documentary evidence that the status has been extended by the Secretary of
In instances of renewal, duplication, or re-issuance of a driver’s license or
identification card, a state was to presume that the initial card was issued in
accordance with the law, if at the time of application, the driver’s license or
identification card had not expired or been canceled, suspended or revoked. This
presumption would have been inapplicable if the state is notified by a local, state or
federal government agency that the individual seeking renewal, duplication or re-
issuance was neither a citizen of the United States nor legally in the United States.
Furthermore, the House proposal would have required the states to have adopted
procedures and practices to: (1) employ technology to capture digital images of
identity source documents; (2) retain paper copies of source documents for a
minimum of seven years or images of source documents presented for a minimum
of ten years; (3) subject each applicant to a mandatory facial image capture; (4)
confirm or verify a renewing applicant’s information; (5) confirm with the Social
Security Administration a SSN presented by a person using the full social security
account number;18 (6) refuse issuance of a driver’s license or identification card to
17 A person would only be eligible for a temporary drivers’ license or identification card if
evidence is presented that they: (1) have a valid, unexpired non-immigrant visa or non-
immigrant visa status for entry into the United States; (2) have a pending or approved
application for asylum in the United States; (3) have entered into the United States in
refugee status; (4) have a pending or approved application for temporary protected status in
the United States; (5) have approved deferred action status; or (6) have a pending
application for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence in the United States or conditional permanent resident status in the United States.
18 In the event that a SSN is already registered to or associated with another person to which
any state has issued a driver’s license or identification card, the state shall resolve the
a person holding a driver’s license issued by another state without confirmation that
the person is terminating or has terminated the driver’s license; (7) ensure the
physical security of locations where cards are produced and the security of document
materials and papers from which driver's licenses and identification cards are
produced; (8) subject all persons authorized to manufacture or produce driver's
licenses and identification cards to appropriate security clearance requirements; (9)
establish fraudulent document recognition training programs for appropriate
employees engaged in the issuance of driver's licenses and identification cards.
Senate Proposal.19 Like the House version, the Senate proposal attempted
to establish national standards for federal agency acceptance of driver's licenses and
personal identification cards. However, the Senate proposal delegated the authority
to set the minimum standards to the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with
the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The Senate proposed that the Secretary, within 18 months of enactment,
establish minimum standards for driver's licenses or personal identification cards
issued by a State for use by federal agencies for identification purposes. The
regulations would have been required to include standards for documentation,
verification, and processing required for driver's licenses and personal identification
cards. In addition, the regulations were required to contain security standards to
ensure that driver's licenses and personal identification cards are resistant to
tampering, alteration, or counterfeiting, and capable of accommodating and ensuring
the security of a digital photograph or other unique identifier. Also, the regulations
were to require states to confiscate a driver’s license or personal identification card
if any component or security feature of the license or identification card is
compromised. Finally, the regulations were required to contain procedures designed
to protect the privacy and civil rights of applicants for driver's licenses and
identification cards. To ensure compliance with these regulations, the Senate
language required the States to certify to the Secretary of Transportation, at intervals
to be determined by regulation, that their licensing procedures conform with the
The Senate proposal also imposed limitations on the Secretary’s regulatory
authority. Specifically, the regulations were not permitted to infringe on the state’s
power to set eligibility requirements or to fully enforce those requirements. In
addition, the Senate proposed that the Secretary may not require a single national
design for either driver's licenses or personal identification cards.
In addition to the specific content requirements, the Senate proposal required20
that the regulations be promulgated under the negotiated rule-making process. In
this case, the Senate proposal directed that the negotiating group include
discrepancy and take appropriate action.
19 All references to the Senate proposal in this section can be found at S. 2845, 108th Cong.
§ 1027 (2d Sess. 2004).
20 See supra note 14.
representatives from the state offices charged with issuing such documents, state
elected officials, the Department of Homeland Security, organizations with
technological and operational expertise in document security, and organizations that
represent applicant interests.
Social Security Numbers
Final Bill. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
contains many of both the House and Senate provisions with respect to Social
The law requires the Commissioner of Social Security to, within one year:
restrict the issuance of multiple replacement social security cards to any individual
to 3 per year and to 10 for the life of the individual, except where the Commissioner
determines there is a minimal opportunity for fraud; create minimum standards for
the verification of documents or records submitted to establish eligibility for original
or replacement cards; require independent verification of all records provided by
applicants for social security numbers other than at enumeration at birth; and add
death and fraud indicators to the verification system for employers, State agencies21
and other verification routines considered appropriate by the Commissioner.
In addition, the law directs the creation of an interagency task force to further
improve the security of social security cards and numbers.22 Within 18 months the
task force is to establish security requirements for safeguarding social security cards
from counterfeiting, tampering, theft and alteration, verifying documents submitted
for the issuance of replacement cards, and to have increased enforcement against the
fraudulent issuance or use of social security numbers and cards.23
The law also requires that the Commissioner undertake and improve the system
that issues social security cards to newborn children. Specifically, the law requires
the Commissioner to improve the following: (1) the assignment of social security
accounts to unnamed children; (2) the issuance of more than one account number to
the same child; and (3) any other opportunities to obtain a social security account by24
means of fraud. The law also requires that the Commissioner submit a report to
Congress within one year detailing the improvements made to the newborn applicant25
process. In addition, the Commissioner is required to conduct a study to determine
the most efficient options for ensuring the security of the enumeration at birth
21 See supra note 5, at §§ 7213(a)(1)(A)-(C) & 7213(a)(2) .
22 Id. at § 7213(b). The task force is to include the Commissioner of Social Security in
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security. Id.
23 Id. at § 7213(b)(1)-(3).
24 Id. at § 7213(c)(1)(A)-(C).
25 Id. at § 7213(c)(2).
process, the results of which are due to Congress within 18 months of the date of
enact m ent .26
Finally, the law amends the Social Security Act to expressly prohibit the states
or their political subdivisions from displaying, electronically or otherwise, a social
security number, (or any derivative of such number) on any driver’s license or motor
vehicle registration, or on any other document issued by states to an individual for
House Proposal.28 The House proposal contained numerous changes to the29
Social Security Act designed to protect the integrity and privacy of social security
numbers.30 The proposal called for a prohibition on the states or their political
subdivisions from displaying, electronically or otherwise, a social security number,
(or any derivative of such number) on any driver’s license or motor vehicle
registration, or on any other document issued by states to an individual for
The House proposal also required the Commissioner of Social Security to
promulgate a number of regulations with respect to the system for issuing social
security numbers. First, regarding applications for social security numbers by
individuals, other than for purposes of enumeration at birth, the Commissioner was
instructed to require independent verification of any birth record provided by the
applicant in support of the application, and may provide for reasonable exceptions
in situations where the Commissioner determines there is minimal opportunity for
fraud. Second, the Commissioner was directed to make improvements to the
enumeration at birth program for the issuance of social security numbers to
newborns. Such improvements were to be designed to prevent the assignment of
social security numbers to unnamed children; the issuance of more than one social
security number to the same child; and, other opportunities for fraudulently obtaining
a social security number. Finally, the House proposal required the Commissioner to
issue regulations restricting the issuance of multiple replacement social security cards
to any individual to 3 per year and to 10 for the life of the individual, except where
the Commissioner determines there is a minimal opportunity for fraud.
In addition, the House proposal contained a number of provisions requiring the
submission to Congress of reports and recommendations including reports to
Congress regarding the results of a study and legislative recommendations to test the
feasibility and cost effectiveness of verifying all identification documents submitted
by an applicant for a replacement social security card; the results of a study and
legislative recommendations on the most efficient options for ensuring the integrity
26 Id. at § 7213(d)(1)-(2).
27 Id. at § 7214.
28 All references to the House proposal in this section can be found at H.R. 10, 108th Cong.
§§ 3071-3076 (2d Sess. 2004).
29 Social Security Act of 1935, Title II, § 205, 49 Stat. 624 (codified as amended at 42
U.S.C. § 401 et seq.)
30 See H.R. 10, 108th Cong. §§ 3071-3076 (2d Sess. 2004).
of the process for enumeration at birth and; the results of a study and legislative
recommendations on the best method of requiring and obtaining photographic
identification of applicants for old-age, survivors, and disability insurance benefits,
for a social security number, or for a replacement social security card, including
reasonable exceptions to any requirement for photographic identification of such
Senate Proposal.31 As was the case with respect to driver's licenses, the
Senate proposal took a different approach with respect to social security numbers.
Like the House, the Senate proposal required the Commissioner of Social Security
to issue regulations restricting the issuance of multiple replacement cards to
minimize fraud and requiring independent verification of all records provided by
applicants for social security numbers other than at enumeration at birth.
However, unlike the House, the Senate required the Commissioner to add death,
fraud, and work authorization indicators to the social security number verification
system within 18 months of the legislation’s enactment. In addition, the Senate
proposal provided for the establishment of an interagency task force to further
improve the security of social security cards and numbers. Within one year the task
force was to have established security requirements for safeguarding social security
cards from counterfeiting, tampering, theft and alteration, verifying documents
submitted for the issuance of replacement cards, and to have increased enforcement
against the fraudulent issuance or use of social security numbers and cards. The
Senate proposal did not appear to amend the Social Security Act, nor did it appear
to have contained any of the study and recommendation provisions included within
the House’s proposed language.
Final Bill. With respect to birth certificates, the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 delegated authority to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services requiring that minimum standards for birth certificates for use by
federal agencies for official purposes be completed no later than one year after the32
date of enactment. The regulations are directed to require the State or local issuing
official to certify the birth certificate, and will also require that the state’s utilize
safety paper or alternative secure measures “designed to prevent tampering,
counterfeiting, or otherwise duplicating the birth certificate for fraudulent33
In addition to the security measures, the Secretary is instructed to establish
requirements for “proof and verification of identity as a condition of issuance of a
31 All references to the Senate proposal in this section can be found at S. 2845, 108th Cong.
§ 1028 (2d Sess. 2004).
32 See supra note 5, at § 7211(b)(3); see also supra note 6 regarding potential federalism
concerns raised by setting minimum federal standards with respect to traditionally state
33 Id. at § 7211(b)(3)(A).
birth certificate, with additional security measures for the issuance of a birth
certificate for a person who is not the applicant.”34 Concern has been expressed that
this provision may have an impact on genealogical and other historical research
involving access to birth records. However, what exactly that impact will be appears
dependant on precisely how the regulation is ultimately drafted. For example, it is
possible that the regulations could be drafted in such a way that will make it difficult
for genealogical researchers to obtain birth certificates without express permission
or authorization from the person or persons whose records they are seeking. This
problem may be especially prevalent with respect to abandoned, foster-raised, or
adopted children who may not have the ability to obtain proper authorizations from
their direct decedents. While it appears possible for the Secretary to draft a
regulation that both complies with the statute and provides an exception or special
procedure for genealogical and historical access, this result is by no means
guaranteed, nor is it mandated by the plain language of the statute. Furthermore, it
is important to note that these regulations appear only to apply with respect to
acceptance of a birth certificate by a federal agency for official purposes; therefore,
if the birth certificate is to be used for any other purpose, it appears that these
regulations will not apply and the states will retain control over procedures for
issuing non-official birth records. That being said, it is also possible that either
federal pressure to unify the standards may force states to move exclusively to
federally-compliant birth records, thereby eliminating the storage and issuance of
non-official birth certificates.
The statute does provide some limitations on the Secretary’s regulatory powers.
Specifically, the regulations “may not require a single design to which certificates
issued by all States must conform.”35 The Secretary’s power is also limited by the
requirement to “accommodate the differences between the States in the manner and
form in which birth records are stored and birth certificates are produced from such
Finally, the statute sets a timetable for implementation. As previously
mentioned, the Secretary has one year to promulgate the regulations; however, the
regulations will not go into effect until two years after they are promulgated.37 The
States will be required to certify that the State and all local government or other
officials are in compliance with the standards at intervals established by the
Secretary.38 The statute also provides that grant funding be made available to assist
the States in conforming to the standards that are created by the Secretary.39
34 Id. at § 7211(b)(3)(B).
35 Id. at § 7211(b)(3)(D).
36 Id. at § 7211(b)(3)(E).
37 Id. at § 7211(b)(1).
38 Id. at § 7211(b)(2)(C).
39 Id. at § 7211(c).
House Proposal.40 Similar to the driver’s license provisions, the House
proposal established minimum document, issuance, and verification standards for
federal recognition of birth certificates. To meet the minimum document standards
the House proposal required state and local governments to use safety paper, a
custodian of records seal, and any other measures deemed necessary by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services to prevent the tampering, counterfeiting, or
unauthorized duplication of a birth certificate. The Secretary was instructed,
however, not to require a single national design to which all states must conform.
Before issuing a duplicate certificate, a state, to comply with the minimum
issuance standards, would have been required to verify the name on the birth
certificate, the date and location of birth, the mother’s maiden name and substantial
proof of the requestor’s identity. In cases where the requestor was not named on the
birth certificate, states were to have required the presentation and verification of legal
authorization before issuing a birth certificate. In addition, the House language
would have required the Secretary to promulgate regulations establishing minimum
standards for the issuance of birth certificates to authorized family members.
The House proposal would have also required states to establish minimum
building security standards for both state and local vital records offices, implement
other security and privacy protection measures, and establish a central database that
can provide interoperative data exchange with other states and federal agencies. In
addition, the House proposal required the Secretary to establish a common database
and exchange protocol for electronic birth and death registration systems. This
system would have been required to employ fraud prevention technology, utilize a
common electronic system for issuing birth certificates, employ a common format
for certified copies, and establish uniform field requirements for state birth registries.
Senate Proposal.41 As with standards for driver's licenses and social security
cards, the Senate measure proposed delegating regulatory authority – here, to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services – to establish minimum standards for birth
certificates for use by federal agencies for official purposes. The regulations
promulgated by the Secretary were required to include certification by the state or
local custodian of records, the use of safety paper, custodian’s seal, and other features
designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or other unauthorized duplications for
fraudulent purposes. In addition, the regulations were to establish requirements for
both proof and verification of identity, as well as the processing of birth certificate
applications to prevent fraud. Moreover, the Secretary was to be prohibited from
requiring that a single national design be used, and was specifically required to
accommodate the differences between the states with respect to the manner and form
in which birth certificates are stored and produced.
40 All references to the House proposal in this section can be found at H.R. 10, 108th Cong.
§§ 3061-3067 (2d Sess. 2004).
41 All references to the Senate proposal in this section can be found at S. 2845, 108th Cong.
§ 1026 (2d Sess. 2004).