HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 6, 1999
1999 Ron Paul 1:1 Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce
the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of
1999. This act forbids the federal government
from establishing any national ID cards or establishing
any identifiers for the purpose of investigating,
monitoring, overseeing, or regulating
private transactions between American citizens.
This legislation also explicitly repeals
those sections of the 1996 Immigration Act
that established federal standards for state
drivers’ licenses and those sections of the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 that require the Department of
Health and Human Services to establish a uniform
standard health identifier.
1999 Ron Paul 1:2 The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act
halts the greatest threat to liberty today: the
growth of the surveillance state. Unless Congress
stops authorizing the federal bureaucracy
to stamp and number the American people
federal officials will soon have the power
to arbitrarily prevent citizens from opening a
bank account, getting a job, traveling, or even
seeking medical treatment unless their “papers
are in order!”
1999 Ron Paul 1:3 In addition to forbidding the federal government
from creating national identifiers, this
legislation forbids the federal government from
blackmailing states into adopting uniform
standard identifiers by withholding federal
funds. One of the most onerous practices of
Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately
taken from the American people to
bribe states into obeying federal dictates.
1999 Ron Paul 1:4 Perhaps the most important part of the
Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act is the
section prohibiting the use of the Social Security
number as an identifier. Although it has
not received as much attention as some of the
other abuses this legislation addresses, the
abuse of the Social Security number may
pose an even more immediate threat to American
liberty. For all intents and purposes, the
Social Security number is already a national
identification number. Today, in the majority of
states, no American can get a job, open a
bank account, get a drivers’ license, or even
receive a birth certificate for one’s child without
presenting their Social Security number.
So widespread has the use of the Social Security
number become that a member of my
staff had to produce a Social Security number
in order to get a fishing license! Even members
of Congress must produce a Social Security
number in order to vote on legislation.
1999 Ron Paul 1:5 One of the most disturbing abuses of the
Social Security number is the congressionally-authorized
rule forcing parents to get a Social
Security number for their newborn children in
order to claim them as dependents. Forcing
parents to register their children with the state
is more like something out of the nightmares
of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic
which inspired this nation’s founders.
1999 Ron Paul 1:6 Since the creation of the Social Security
number in 1935, there have been almost 40
congressionally-authorized uses of the Social
Security number as an identification number
for non-Social Security programs! Many of
these uses, such as the requirement that employers
report the Social Security number of
new employees to the “new hires data base,”
have been enacted in the past few years. In
fact, just last year, 210 members of Congress
voted to allow states to force citizens to
produce a Social Security number before they
could exercise their right to vote.
1999 Ron Paul 1:7 Mr. Speaker, the section of this bill prohibiting
the federal government from using identifiers
to monitor private transactions is necessary
to stop schemes such as the attempt
to assign every American a “unique health
identifier” for every Americanan identifier
which could be used to create a national database
containing the medical history of all
Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30
years in private practice, I know well the importance
of preserving the sanctity of the
physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective
treatment depends on a patient’s ability to
place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What
will happen to that trust when patients know
that any and all information given to their doctor
will be placed in a government accessible
data base?
1999 Ron Paul 1:8 A more recent assault on privacy is a regulation
proposed jointly by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of
Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Reserve,
known as “Know Your Customer.” If this regulation
takes effect in April 2000, financial institutions
will be required not only to identify their
customers but also their source of funds for all
transactions, establish a “profile” and determine
if the transaction is “normal and expected.”
If a transaction does not fit the profile,
banks would have to report the transaction
to government regulators as “suspicious.”
The unfunded mandate on financial
institutions will be passed on to customers
who would have to pay higher ATM and other
fees and higher interest rates on loans for the
privilege of being spied on by government-inspired
tellers.
1999 Ron Paul 1:9 Many of my colleagues will claim that the
federal government needs these powers to
protect against fraud or some other criminal
activities. However, monitoring the transactions
of every American in order to catch
those few who are involved in some sort of illegal
activity turns one of the great bulwarks of
our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on
its head. The federal government has no right
to treat all Americans as criminals by spying
on their relationship with their doctors, employers,
or bankers. In act, criminal law enforcement
is reserved to the state and local governments
by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.
1999 Ron Paul 1:10 Other members of Congress will claim that
the federal government needs the power to
monitor Americans in order to allow the government
to operate more efficiently. I would
remind my colleagues that in a constitutional
republic the people are never asked to sacrifice
their liberties to make the job of government
officials a little bit easier. We are here to
protect the freedom of the American people,
not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
1999 Ron Paul 1:11 Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity
of those members who suggest that
Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected
through legislation restricting access to
personal information, the fact is the only solution
is to forbid the federal government from
using national identifiers. Legislative “privacy
protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty
of Americans for several reasons. First,
federal laws have not stopped unscrupulous
government officials from accessing personal
information. Did laws stop the permanent violation
of privacy by the IRS, or the FBI abuses
by the Clinton and Nixon administrations?
1999 Ron Paul 1:12 Secondly, the federal government has been
creating property interests in private information
for certain state-favored third parties. For
example, a little-noticed provision in the Patient
Protection Act established a property
right for insurance companies to access personal
health care information. Congress also
authorized private individuals to receive personal
information from government data bases
in last year’s copyright bill. The Clinton Administration
has even endorsed allowing law enforcement
officials’ access to health care information,
in complete disregard of the fifth
amendment. Obviously, “private protection”
laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect
personal information when the government
is the one providing or seeking the information!
1999 Ron Paul 1:13 The primary reason why any action short of
the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation
is insufficient is because the federal government
lacks constitutional authority to force citizens
to adopt a universal identifier for health
care, employment, or any other reason. Any
federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations
violates liberty because it ratifies the
principle that the federal government, not the
Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own
jurisdiction over the people. The only effective
protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress
to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and
“bind (the federal government) down with the
chains of the Constitution.”
1999 Ron Paul 1:14 Mr. Speaker, those members who are
unpersuaded by the moral and constitutional
reasons for embracing the Freedom and Privacy
Restoration Act should consider the overwhelming
opposition of the American people
toward national identifiers. My office has been
inundated with calls from around the country
protesting the movement toward a national ID
card and encouraging my efforts to thwart this
scheme. I have also received numerous complaints
from Texans upset that they have to
produce a Social Security number in order to
receive a state drivers’ license. Clearly, the
American people want Congress to stop invading
their privacy. Congress risks provoking
a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth
of the surveillance state.
1999 Ron Paul 1:15 In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call
on my colleagues to join me in putting an end
to the federal government’s unconstitutional
use of national identifiers to monitor the actions
of private citizens. National identifiers are
incompatible with a limited, constitutional government.
I therefore, hope my colleagues will
join my efforts to protect the freedom of their
constituents by supporting the Freedom and
Privacy Restoration Act of 1999.
Note:
1999 Ron Paul 1:5
congressionally-authorized probably should be capitalized and not hyphenated: Congressionally authorized.
1999 Ron Paul 1:6
congressionally-authorized probably should be capitalized and not hyphenated: Congressionally authorized.
1999 Ron Paul 1:7
the attempt to assign every American a unique health identifier for every American
is redundant and probably should be
the attempt to assign a unique health identifier for every American
1999 Ron Paul 1:13
constitutional limitations probably should be capitalized:
Constitutional limitations.
1999 Ron Paul 1:14
constitutional reasons probably should be capitalized:
Constitutional reasons.
1999 Ron Paul 1:15
Here, a limited, constitutional government appears to be used in the general sense, thus
the uncapitalized constitutional appears to be correct.
