NCSL opposed the inclusion of Section 656(b) in the 1996 Immigration Reform Act of 1996. NCSL argued that driver's license issuance and the setting of content and standards were traditional state activities, that a declining number of states were using social security numbers on driver's licenses because of concerns over fraud and privacy, and that the federal law represented both an unfunded mandate and an intrusion into state authority. At that time, a majority of Members of Congress were actively engaged in pushing "tough" immigration reforms. The authors of the law proposed federalizing the driver's license process when their efforts to establish a national identification card failed.

1. The preemption of state authority resulting from the enactment of the law and the provisions contained in the rule.
2. The movement by the federal government to include social security numbers on driver's licenses despite the fact that many states specifically prohibit the inclusion of SSNs on licenses.
3. Contrary to the language in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1994 (UMRA) (P.L. 104-4), no state legislators, other elected officials, or their national organizations were consulted to "provide timely and meaningful input" in the development of this regulatory proposal.
4. The rule unduly burdens states with an unfunded mandate, in direct violation of UMRA. Although the proposed rule provides $325,000 in grants to defray state administrative costs, this amount is insufficient to implement the requirements of the rule. Individual states estimate that the cost of the proposed rule will exceed this amount in the first year.
5. The costs estimated by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to correspond to the requirements in the NPRM are grossly underestimated. According to information submitted by the states, the cost to implement these directives would well exceed $100 million, resulting in a direct violation of UMRA. Additionally, it appears that not only are the costs provided by the DOT flawed, but the process used to obtain the data as well

To fight for repeal of Section 656(b), NCSL is working with a broad-based coalition of public policy groups, civil libertarians, privacy experts, and consumer groups. Opposition to the law and the preliminary regulation has been overwhelming evidenced by the more than 2,000 comments submitted to NHTSA by state legislators, state agencies, groups, and individuals.

Congress has imposed a one-year moratorium on any action taken on behalf of Section 656(b) of the 1996 IIRRA, in Fiscal Year 1999. This moratorium means that states should not be concerned about being found in non-compliance of the rule during 1999. NCSL will use the one-year reprieve to continue to fight for repeal of Section 656(b). There are several Members of Congress who feel that federalization of the driver's license application process is both unwarranted and unnecessary. For this to occur, Members will have to be convinced there is a groundswell of opposition in the states.