Home Page

Contents

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul privacy Book of Ron Paul privacy Voter Eligibility Verification Act 12 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 10:6 In order to protect the privacy rights of America’s citizens, I plan to soon introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which will forbid the use of the Social Security number for any purpose other than for the administration of the Social Security system. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill when introduced and vote against the Voter Eligibility Act. It is time for Congress to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans and stop using the Social Security number as a de facto national identification card. privacy Introducing The Privacy Protection Act 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 20:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Act of 1998, which forbids the use of the Social Security number for any purpose not directly related to the administration of the Social Security system. The Social Security number was created solely for use in administering the Social Security system. However, today the Social Security number is used as an identifier for numerous federal programs. Unless the use of the Social Security number is restricted, it will soon become a national identification number by which the federal government can easily keep track of all vital information regarding American citizens. privacy Introducing The Privacy Protection Act 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 20:4 There are not isolated incidents; in fact, since the creation of the Social Security number in 1934 there have been almost 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs! Abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level. Mr. Speaker, in many states. One cannot get a driver’s license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one’s child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official, and just X weeks ago 210 of my colleagues voted to allow States to require citizens to show their Social Security number in order to vote. Since the Social Security number is part of a federal program created by Congress, it is Congress’ responsibility to ensure it is not used to violate the privacy of America’s citizens. privacy Introducing The Privacy Protection Act 25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 20:6 Unless the abuses of the Social Security number is stopped, Americans will soon have a de facto national identification number, which would provide the federal government the ability to track all citizens from cradle to grave. The drafters of the Constitution would be horrified if they knew that the federal government would have the ability to set up a universal identifier and every newborn baby had to be assigned a number by the federal government. I therefore urge my colleagues to protect America’s freedom by cosponsoring the Privacy Protection Act of 1998. privacy Random Drug Testing Of House Members And Staff Is Ill-Advised 21 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 35:2 The real issue here is not drugs but rather the issues of privacy, due process, probable cause and the fourth amendment. We are dealing with a constitutional issue of the utmost importance. It raises the question of whether or not we understand the overriding principle of the fourth amendment. privacy Random Drug Testing Of House Members And Staff Is Ill-Advised 21 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 35:6 Random drug testing is based on the same assumption made by anti-gun proponents. Unreasonable efforts at identifying the occasional and improbable drug user should not replace respect for our privacy. It is not worth it. privacy Random Drug Testing Of House Members And Staff Is Ill-Advised 21 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 35:9 I have one question for my colleagues: If we have so little respect for our own privacy, our own liberty and our own innocence, how can we be expected to protect the liberties, the privacy and the innocence of our constituents, which we have sworn an oath to do? privacy Random Drug Testing Of House Members And Staff Is Ill-Advised 21 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 35:11 It is said that if one has nothing to hide, why object to testing? Because, quite simply, we have something to keep: our freedom, our privacy and the fourth amendment. The only answer to solving problems like this is to encourage purely voluntary drug testing, whereby each individual and each Member of the House makes the information available to those who are worried about issues like this. privacy Social Security Numbers And Student Loans 29 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 41:4 In 1974, it was stated rather explicitly that the Social Security number should not be used for programs like this, and I would like to just quote the Privacy Act of 1974: “It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.” privacy Social Security Numbers And Student Loans 29 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 41:5 I think this is a good idea, because today we are very much aware of the fact that if a company, if a loaning company, or if one is going into a store to buy something, and they get one’s name and one’s Social Security number, one knows that they can call up more information about somebody than they know about themselves. I think this is a serious threat to the privacy of every American citizen, and we should be cautious about using the Social Security number. It is being used all the time. privacy Social Security Numbers And Student Loans 29 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 41:6 Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to this Congress, I was an obstetrician delivering babies, and babies cannot leave the hospital these days without a Social Security number. So they are born, get a Social Security number, they do not leave the hospital without it, and do my colleagues know that one cannot have a death certificate without a Social Security number? They are everyplace. It is an intrusion on our privacy. We do not need to use a Social Security number. privacy Social Security Numbers And Student Loans 29 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 41:7 When I was in the Air Force, we used to have an identification number, but now, today, it is the Social Security number. Not too many years ago a law was passed here in the Congress that mandates that each State licensing agent for our automobile says that one has to have a Social Security number. So now they will be cross-checking with Social Security number and all of our driver’s license numbers. We are losing our privacy in this country. The American people know it. We do not need this number to be used in this program for it to be successful, and we should move very cautiously, and I hope I can get support for this amendment so that we do not use the Social Security number as the electronic personal identifier. privacy Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul 29 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 42:5 The concern that I have and that many Americans have is that government is too intrusive, wants too many records and knows too much about everybody. The government and nongovernment people can get our names and they can get our Social Security numbers and find out more about us than we know about ourselves, and that is not the intent of our Constitution. It certainly is not the intent of the Privacy Act. privacy Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul 29 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 42:6 The Privacy Act concerns were expressed through this legislation in 1974 stating that, yes, we have overstepped our bounds, there is too much intrusiveness, and we are moving in the direction of a national identification card, something that is unknown and should be unheard of in a free society. privacy Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul 29 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 42:8 I would like to just read very briefly some passages from the Privacy Act of 1974 to make my colleagues stop and think about what we are doing. privacy Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul 29 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 42:13 Some would argue, well, possibly, just possibly, the efficiency of the program may be diminished. That will be the argument that I will probably hear. The efficiency of the program will be diminished. Well, if this is the argument, then we are saying that we are here to protect the efficiency of the State. I see an important role for us to be here is to protect the privacy and the civil liberties of the citizen. So we are in conflict. Which should our role be, to protect privacy and civil liberties, or is it to protect the efficiency of the State? privacy Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul 29 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 42:15 In the Privacy Act of 1974, in the findings, they made a comment which I think is very important, and this is in 1974 when it was not really bad. “The Congress finds the opportunities for an individual to secure employment, insurance and credit and his right to due process and other legal protections are endangered by the misuse of certain information systems.” privacy Wasting Money On War On Drugs 5 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 46:10 I have a suspicion that there are motivations behind the invasion of privacy. Because government so often likes to know what people are doing, especially in the financial area, this has been a tremendous excuse to accuse anybody who spends anything in cash of being a drug dealer, because they want to know where the cash is. This is part of the IRS collection agency, because they are worried about collecting enough revenues. privacy Higher Education Amendments of 1998 6 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 49:12 Another offensive provision of the campus crime reporting section of the bill that has raised concerns in the higher education community is the mandate that any campus disciplinary proceeding alleging criminal misconduct shall be open. This provision may discourage victims, particularly women who have been sexually assaulted, from seeking redress through a campus disciplinary procedures for fear they will be put “on display.” For example, in a recent case, a student in Miami University in Ohio explained that she chose to seek redress over a claim of sexual assault “* * * through the university, rather than the county prosecutor’s office, so that she could avoid the publicity and personal discomfort of a prosecution * * *” Assaulting the privacy rights of victimized students by taking away the option of a campus disciplinary proceeding is not only an unconstitutional mandate but immoral. privacy Internet Tax Freedom Act 23 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 66:9 These H.R. 4105-established “duties” suggest that the Commission’s real purpose is to design a well-engineered system of taxation (efficient tyranny) rather than keep citizens in a state of “Tax Freedom” as the bill’s name suggests. I encourage my colleagues in this House as well as citizens of this country to be wary of federal and international encroachment upon the privacy and efficiency currently available to individuals around the globe via the internet. privacy Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 75:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing an establishment of Federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. privacy The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 76:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform state drivers’ licenses into national ID cards. privacy The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 76:5 Of course, the most important reason to support the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act is because any uniform, national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace. privacy The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 76:8 National ID cards are a trademark of totalitarianism and are thus incompatible with a free society. In order to preserve some semblance of American liberty and republican government I am proud to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act. I thank Congressman BARR for joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of American people by cosponsoring the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act. privacy The Patient Privacy Act 21 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 82:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act, which repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans. This identifier would then be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. Establishment of such an identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens’ record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into the national database. privacy The Patient Privacy Act 21 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 82:4 Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration has even come out in favor of allowing law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. It is bitterly ironic that the same administration that has proven so inventive at protecting its privacy has so little respect for physician-patient confidentiality. privacy The Patient Privacy Act 21 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 82:6 This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen. privacy The Patient Privacy Act 21 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 82:7 The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.” privacy The Patient Privacy Act 21 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 82:8 For those who claim that the Patient Privacy Act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs. privacy The Patient Privacy Act 21 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 82:9 Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act. privacy Patient Protection Act 24 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 83:4 In 1996, the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill allowed for a national identifier and a national data bank to control all our medical records at a national level. This is very dangerous. In a bill that is called the Patient Protection Act, obviously the best thing we can do is protect patient privacy. If we do not, we interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, and this is a disaster. privacy Patient Protection Act of 1998 24 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 84:2 Earlier this week I introduced legislation, the Patient Privacy Act (H.R. 4281), to repeal those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that authorized the creation of a national medical ID. I believe that the increasing trend toward allowing the federal government to track Americans through national ID cards and numbers represents one of the most serious threats to liberty we are facing. The scheme to create a national medical ID to enter each person’s medical history into a national data base not only threatens civil liberties but it undermines the physician-patient relationship, the cornerstone of good medical practice. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor, a trust that would be severely eroded if the patient knew that any and all information given their doctor could be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier.” privacy National Provider ID 8 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 115:3 Allowing the federal government to establish a National Health ID not only threatens privacy but also will undermine effective health care. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most 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 their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?” privacy National Provider ID 8 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 115:5 Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has even come out in favor of allowing law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. It is bitterly ironic that the same administration that has proven so inventive at protecting its privacy has so little respect for physician-patient confidentiality. privacy National Provider ID 8 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 115:10 This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen. privacy National Provider ID 8 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 115:13 The most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.” privacy National Provider ID 8 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 115:15 Mr. Chairman, all I ask is that Congress by given the change to correct the mistake made in 1996 when they authorized the National Health ID as part of the Kennedy-Kasebaum bill. The federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge the Rules Committee to take the first step toward protecting Americans from a medical ID by ruling my amendment to the Labor-HHS–Education Appropriations bill in order. privacy Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton 19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:10 If my suspicion is correct we can claim a major victory. Polling across Texas, as well as nationally, confirms that more than 80 percent of the people are fearful of the Federal Government’s intrusion into our personal privacy. That’s a healthy sign and indicates that the privacy issue could be the issue that will eventually draw attention to the evils of big government. privacy Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton 19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:11 The political contest, as it has always been throughout history, remains between the desire for security and the love for liberty. When economic security is provided by the government, privacy and liberty must be sacrificed. The longer a welfare state lasts the greater the conflict between government intrusiveness and our privacy. Government efficiency and need for its financing through a ruthless tax system prompts the perpetual barrage of government agents checking on everything we do. privacy Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton 19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:13 But this resentment must be channeled in the right direction. Belief that privacy and liberty can be protected while the welfare state is perpetuated through ever higher taxes is an unrealizable dream. privacy Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton 19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:15 The ambivalence comes from fear that demanding privacy, even for the President, means that his actions are then condoned. And turning this into a perjury issue has been difficult. privacy Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton 19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:16 The President, his advisors, and the friendly media were all aware that the sexual privacy issue would distract from the serious charges and knew it was their best chance to avoid impeachment. privacy Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton 19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:17 But the President, this Administration and the Congress have all been hypocritical for demanding privacy for themselves yet are the arch enemies of our privacy. Although other Administrations have abused the FBI and the IRS, this Administration has systematically abused these powers like none other. privacy Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton 19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:18 Let’s declare a victory in despite of the mess we’re in. The President is not likely to be removed from office. We’ll call it a form of “jury nullification” and hope someday this process will be used in our courts to nullify the unconstitutional tax, monetary, gun, anti-privacy, and seizure laws that are heaped upon us by Congress, the President, and perpetuated by a judicial system devoid of respect for individual liberty and the Constitution. privacy Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton 19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:21 Even though we might claim a victory of sorts, the current impeachment process reveals a defeat for our political system and our society. Since lack of respect for the Constitution is pervasive throughout the Administration, the Congress and the Courts and reflects the political philosophy of the past 60 years, dealing with the President alone, won’t reverse the course on which we find ourselves. There are days when I think we should consider “impeaching” not only the President, but the Congress and the Judiciary. But the desired changes will come only after the people’s attitudes change as to what form of government they desire. When the people demand privacy, freedom and individual responsibility for everyone alike, our government will reflect these views. Hopefully we can see signs in these current events that more Americans are becoming serious about demanding their liberty and rejecting the illusions of government largesse as a panacea. privacy Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 6 January 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. privacy Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 6 January 1999    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!” privacy Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 6 January 1999    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. privacy Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 6 January 1999    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. privacy Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 6 January 1999    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. privacy Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 6 January 1999    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? privacy Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 6 January 1999    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.” privacy Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 6 January 1999    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. privacy Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 6 January 1999    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. privacy How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices? 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:3 In the past several months the airways have been filled with Members of Congress relating or restating their fidelity to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. That is good, and I am sure it is done with the best of intentions. But when it comes to explaining our constitutional responsibility to make sure unconstitutional sexual harassment laws are thoroughly enforced, while disregarding most people’s instincts towards protecting privacy, it seems to be overstating a point, compared to our apathy toward the usurping of congressional power to declare and wage war. That is something we ought to be concerned about. privacy How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices? 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 3:4 A major reason for the American Revolution was to abolish the King’s power to wage war, tax, and invade personal privacy without representation and due process of law. For most of our history our presidents and our Congresses understood that war was a prerogative of the congressional authority alone. Even minimal military interventions by our early presidents were for the most part done only with constitutional approval. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:2 Madam Speaker, the relinquishing of the power to wage war by Congress to the President, although ignored or endorsed by many, raises serious questions regarding the status of our Republic, and although many Americans are content with their routine activities, much evidence demonstrating that our personal privacy is routinely being threatened. Crime still remains a concern for many with questions raised as to whether or not violent crimes are accurately reported, and ironically there are many Americans who now fear that dreaded Federal bureaucrat and possible illegal seizure of their property by the government more than they do the thugs in the street. I remain concerned about the economy, our militarism and internationalism, and the systemic invasion of our privacy in every aspect of our lives by nameless bureaucrats. I am convinced that if these problems are not dealt with. The republic for for which we have all sworn an oath to protect will not survive. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:3 Madam Speaker, all Members should be concerned about the war powers now illegitimately assumed by the President, the financial bubble that will play havoc with the standard of living of most Americans when it bursts and the systemic undermining of our privacy even in this age of relative contentment. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:32 On another issue, privacy, privacy is the essence of liberty. Without it, individual rights cannot exist. Privacy and property are interlocked and if both are protected, little would need to be said about other civil liberties. If one’s home, church or business is one’s castle, and the privacy of one’s person, papers and effects are rigidly protected, all rights desired in a free society will be guaranteed. Diligently protecting the right to privacy and property guarantees religious, journalistic and political experience, as well as a free market economy and sound money. Once a careless attitude emerges with respect to privacy, all other rights are jeopardized. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:33 Today we find a systematic and pervasive attack on the privacy of all American citizens, which undermines the principle of private property ownership. Understanding why the attack on privacy is rapidly expanding and recognizing a need to reverse this trend is necessary if our republic is to survive. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:34 Lack of respect for the privacy and property of the American colonists by the British throne was a powerful motivation for the American revolution and resulted in the strongly worded and crystal clear Fourth Amendment. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:39 Although the voters in the 1990’s have cried out for a change in direction and demanded a smaller, less intrusive government, the attack on privacy by the Congress, the administration and the courts has, nevertheless, accelerated. Plans have now been laid or implemented for a national I.D. card, a national medical data bank, a data bank on individual MDs, deadbeat dads, intrusive programs monitoring our every financial transaction, while the Social Security number has been established as the universal identifier. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:41 The attack on privacy is not a coincidence or an event that arises for no explainable reason. It results from a philosophy that justifies it and requires it. A government not dedicated to preserving liberty must by its very nature allow this precious right to erode. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:42 A political system designed as ours was to protect life and liberty and property would vigorously protect all citizens’ rights to privacy, and this cannot occur unless the property and the fruits of one’s labor, of every citizen, is protected from confiscation by thugs in the street as well as in our legislative bodies. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:43 The promoters of government instruction into our privacy characteristically use worn out cliches to defend what they do. The most common argument is that if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it? privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:49 I have never heard of a proposal to promote the national I.D. card or anything short of this for any reasons other than a good purpose. Essentially all those who vote to allow the continual erosion of our privacy and other constitutional rights never do it because they consciously support a tyrannical government; it is always done with good intentions. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:53 Various management problems in support for welfarism motivates those who argue for only a little sacrifice of freedom to achieve a greater good for society. Each effort to undermine our privacy is easily justified. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:55 Financial privacy must be sacrificed, it is argued, in order to catch money launderers, drug dealers, mobsters and tax cheats. Privacy for privacy’s sake, unfortunately for many, is a nonissue. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:57 After thousands of complaints were registered at the Federal Reserve and the other agencies, Richard Small was quoted as saying that in essence, the complaints were coming from these strange people who are overly concerned about the Constitution and privacy. Legal justification for the program, Small explained, comes from a court case that states that our personal papers, when in the hands of a third party like a bank, do not qualify for protection under the Fourth Amendment. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:59 For this reason, the proposal for a national medical data bank to assure us there will be no waste or fraud, that doctors are practicing good medicine, that the exchange of medical records between the HMOs will be facilitated and statistical research is made easier, should be strenuously opposed. The more the government is involved in medicine or anything, the greater the odds that personal privacy will be abused. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:61 This flagrant and systematic abuse of privacy may well turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Like the public schools, it may provide the incentive for Americans finally to do something about the system. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:63 Hopefully, a similar reaction will occur in the area of privacy, but overcoming the intrusiveness of government into our privacy in nearly every aspect of our lives will be difficult. Home schooling is a relatively simple solution compared to avoiding the roving and snooping high of big brother. Solving the privacy problem requires an awakening by the American people with a strong message being sent to the U.S. Congress that we have had enough. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:64 Eventually, stopping this systematic intrusion into our privacy will require challenging the entire welfare state. Socialism and welfarism self-destruct after a prolonged period of time due to their natural inefficiencies and national bankruptcy. As the system ages, more and more efforts are made to delay its demise by borrowing, inflating and coercion. The degree of violation of our privacy is a measurement of the coercion thought necessary by the proponents of authoritarianism to continue the process. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:65 The privacy issue invites a serious discussion between those who seriously believe welfare redistribution helps the poor and does not violate anyone’s rights, and others who promote policies that undermine privacy in an effort to reduce fraud and waste to make the programs work efficiently, even if they disagree with the programs themselves. This opportunity will actually increase as it becomes more evident that our country is poorer than most believe and sustaining the welfare state at current levels will prove impossible. An ever-increasing invasion of our privacy will force everyone eventually to reconsider the efficiency of the welfare state, if the welfare of the people is getting worse and their privacy invaded. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:66 Our job is to make a principled, moral, constitutional and practical case for respecting everyone’s privacy, even if it is suspected some private activities, barring violence, do not conform to our own private moral standards. We could go a long way to guaranteeing privacy for all Americans if we, as Members of Congress, would take our oath of office more seriously and do exactly what the Constitution says. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:91 Mr. Speaker, let me summarize. We in the Congress, along with the President, will soon have to make a decision that will determine whether or not the American republic survives. Allowing our presidents to wage war without the consent of Congress, ignoring the obvious significance of fiat money to a healthy economy, and perpetuating pervasive government intrusion into the privacy of all Americans will surely end the American experiment with maximum liberty for all unless we reverse this trend. privacy Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 4:93 Giving up a little privacy seems a small price to pay for the many who receive the generous benefits of big government, but when the prosperity comes to an end and the right to privacy has been squandered, it will be most difficult to restore the principles of a free society. privacy The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act 25 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 52:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce H.J. Res. 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, a joint resolution disapproving a Postal Service Regulation which tramples on the privacy of the two million Americans who rent mailboxes from Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies. Under this regulation, any American currently renting, or planning to rent, a commercial mailbox will have to provide the receiving agency with personal information, including two items of valid identification, one of which must contain a photograph of the applicant and one of which must contain a “serial number — traceable to the bearer.” Of course, in most cases that number will be today’s de facto national ID number — the Social Security number. privacy The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act 25 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 52:2 The receiving agency must then send the information to the Post Office, which will maintain the information in a database. Furthermore, the Post Office authorizes the Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies to collect and maintain photocopies of the forms of identification presented by the box renter. My colleagues might be interested to know that the Post Office is prohibited from doing this by the Privacy Act of 1974. I hope my colleagues are as outraged as I am by the Post Office’s mandating that their competitors do what Congress has forbidden the Post Office to do directly. privacy The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act 25 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 52:5 This regulation also provides the Post Office with a list of all those consumers who have opted out of the Post Office’s mailbox service. Mr. Speaker, what business in America would not leap at the chance to get a list of their competitor’s customer names, addresses, social security numbers, and photographs? The Post Office could even mail advertisements to those who use private mail boxes explaining how their privacy would not be invaded if they used a government box. privacy The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act 25 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 52:7 During the rule’s comment period, more than 8,000 people formally denounced the rule, while only 10 spoke generally favor of it. However, those supporting this rule will claim that the privacy of the majority of law-abiding citizens who use commercial mailboxes must be sacrificed in order to crack down on those using commercial mailboxes for criminal activities. However, I would once again remind my colleagues that the Federal role in crime, even if the crime is committed in “interstate commerce,” is a limited one. The fact that some people may use a mailbox to commit a crime does not give the Federal Government the right to treat every user of a commercial mailbox as a criminal. Moreover, my office has received a significant number of calls from battered women who use these boxes to maintain their geographic privacy. privacy The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act 25 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 52:9 In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, which uses the Agency Review Procedures of the Contract with America Advancement Act to overturn Post Office’s regulations requiring customers of private mailboxes to give the Post Office their name, address, photographs and social security number. The Federal Government should not force any American citizen to divulge personal information as the price for receiving mail. I further call on all my colleagues to assist me in moving this bill under the expedited procure established under the Congressional Review Act. privacy H.J. Res. 55, The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act 7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 55:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, because this is small business appreciation week I would like to remind my colleagues of the importance of enacting HJ Res 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act. HJ Res 55 repeals recently enacted Post Office regulations requiring Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies (CMRAs) to collect personal information about their customers, such as their name, address, social security number, and photograph. These regulations not only force small businesses to intrude into their customer’s privacy, they could impose costs as high as $1 billion on small businesses during the initial six-month compliance period. The long term costs of this rule are incalculable, but could conceivably reach several billion dollars in the first few years. Some small businesses may even be forced into bankruptcy. privacy H.J. Res. 55, The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act 7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 55:2 Businesses like Mailboxes, etc., must turn the collected information over to the Post Office. Mr. Speaker, what business in America would not leap at the chance to force their competitors to provide them with their customer names, addresses, social security numbers, and photographs? The Post Office could even mail advertisements to those who use private mail boxes explaining how their privacy would not be invaded if they used a government box. privacy Flag Day 1999 14 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 59:6 Yes, Mr. Speaker, our flag is a symbol of our nation. It is a symbol but certainly not the sum. America means so much more to us than symbol devoid of substance. It means those rights, inalienable and indivisible, which are life, liberty and property. Property not just as an object of ownership but as an idea. Private property is indeed the bedrock of all privacy. And private enjoyment of property is not simply exemplified by the right to hold, but to use and dispose of as the owner sees fit. This is at the very essence of property, and it is in fact the meaning of the pursuit of happiness. privacy Privacy Project Act 24 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 68:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform state drivers’ licenses into national ID cards. privacy Privacy Project Act 24 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 68:6 National ID cards are a trademark of totalitarianism and are thus incompatible with a free society. In order to preserve some semblance of American liberty and republican government I am proud to introduce the Privacy Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of American people by cosponsoring the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act. privacy Privacy Project Act 24 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 68:7 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES [NCSL]; AND AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [ACLU]; ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER [EPIC]; NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA [NCLR]; EAGLE FORUM; ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION; FREE CONGRESS FOUNDATION/COALITION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES; AND AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM We represent a broad-based coalition of state legislators, county officials, public policy groups, civil libertarians, privacy experts, and consumer groups from across the political spectrum. We urge the Congress to repeal Section 656 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act of 1996 that requires states to collect, verify and display social security numbers on state-issued driver’s licenses and conform with federally-mandated uniform features for driver’s license. The law preempts state authority over the issuance of the state driver’s licenses, violates the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1994 (UMRA) and poses a threat to the privacy of citizens. Opposition to the law and the preliminary regulation issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been overwhelmingly evidence by the more than 2,000 comments submitted by individuals, groups, state legislators, and state agencies to NHTSA. privacy Privacy Project Act 24 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 68:10 THE LAW RAISES SERIOUS PRIVACY CONCERNS privacy Privacy Project Act 24 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 68:11 The law raises a number of privacy concerns relating to the expanded use and dissemination of the Social Security Number (SSN), the creation of a national ID cared, and the violation of federal rules of privacy. The law and proposed rule require that each license contain either in visual or electronic form the individual’s SSN unless the state goes through burdensome and invasive procedures to check each individuals’s identify with the Social Security Administration. This will greatly expand the dissemination and misuse of the SSN at a time that Congress; the states, and the public are actively working to limit its dissemination over concerns of fraud and privacy. Many states are taking measures to reduce the use of SSNs as the driver’s identify number. Only a few states currently require the SSN to be used as an identifier on their driver’s licenses. privacy “Know Your Customer” Rules 1 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 70:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I am known to be very concerned about the privacy of all Americans and am tenacious in protecting the privacy of everyone. privacy “Know Your Customer” Rules 1 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 70:2 I believe I am a well-known civil libertarian. But I do believe this bill adequately protects privacy, except in one area. It has not eliminated the potential Know Your Customer regulations. My amendment permits this. It is the regulations such as Know Your Customer that is the motivation for banks to collect so much information. privacy “Know Your Customer” Rules 1 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 70:4 I am in strong support of this rule, believing very sincerely this bill does protect privacy. But we can make it better by passing my amendment. privacy Improving Privacy 1 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 71:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I will take my one minute to address the subject of privacy, because I do have an amendment that I think would improve the protection of privacy. privacy Improving Privacy 1 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 71:2 We have had a lot of talk and indication on this side of the aisle about protecting privacy. But I believe the understanding of what our role is in protecting privacy, if it applied across the board, would mean that politicians and political action committees could never rent a list from the Sierra club or the American Civil Liberties Union. privacy Improving Privacy 1 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 71:3 But I am addressing the subject of Know Your Customer. At the same time we hear these declarations for protection of privacy, we hear from the same people that we cannot get rid of Know Your Customer. privacy Improving Privacy 1 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 71:4 Now, if one wants to really find something where one invades the privacy of the individual citizen, it is this notion that the Federal Government would dictate a profiling of every bank customer in this country; and then, if that customer varied its financial activities at any time, it could be reported to the various agencies of the Federal Government. Now, that is privacy. That is what we have to stop. I ask for support for my amendment. privacy Mail Receiving Agencies 15 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 75:4 We do have enough freedom in this country to some degree to offer competition to even this monopoly of the Post Office. By doing this, the private post offices have been set up to give additional service and privacy to many of our citizens, and they are well used. privacy Mail Receiving Agencies 15 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 75:7 When I first got involved in this, I did not know which constituencies would be interested in this issue. But one thing that I have discovered is that many of those women who need privacy will use private post offices to avoid the husband or some other individual who may be stalking them. They have been writing to me with a great deal of concern about what these regulations will do. privacy Mail Receiving Agencies 15 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 75:10 We as a Congress have the ability, and the authority, to undo regulations. For too long, we have allowed our regulatory bodies to write law, and we do nothing about it. Since 1994, we have had this authority, but we never use it. This is a perfect example of a time that we ought to come in and protect the people, try to neutralize this government monopoly and help these people who deserve this type of protection and privacy. privacy Mail Receiving Agencies 15 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 75:11 Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER). Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas that I think he raises the question that is a good question; and it should be raised, should be looked at. It will not come as a surprise to him that we do not agree on all the aspects of what he has said, but he certainly raises an issue that ought to be focused on. I know in talking to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman KOLBE) that he shares that concern. I want to assure the gentleman that both the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) and myself will be looking at this. Furthermore, as the gentleman may know, the Postal Department has made very substantial changes to its initially sponsored resolution through the efforts of the organizations that the gentleman from Texas talked to and himself and others who raised these issues with the department, so that they are moving to ensure greater privacy and protection to the individuals of which the gentleman spoke. The gentleman from Texas raises a legitimate issue. I certainly intend to, along with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE), look at that further. I thank the gentleman for his comments. privacy Conference Report On S. 900, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 4 November 1999    1999 Ron Paul 113:8 Government regulations present the greatest threat to privacy and consumers’ loss of control over their own personal information. In the private sector, individuals protect their financial privacy as an integral part of the market process by providing information they regard as private only to entities they trust will maintain a degree of privacy of which they approve. Individuals avoid privacy violators by “opting out” and doing business only with such privacy-respecting companies. privacy Conference Report On S. 900, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 4 November 1999    1999 Ron Paul 113:9 The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. The same approach applies to Glass-Steagall and S. 900. Why not just repeal the offending regulation? In the banking committee, I offered an amendment to do just that. My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector could be replaced with a simple one-page bill. privacy Statement on OSHA Home Office Regulations January 28, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 1:3 Federal polices discouraging telecommuting will harm the environment by forcing American workers out of their home and onto America’s already overcrowded roads. It is ironic that an administration, which has claimed that “protecting the environment” is one of its top priorities, would even consider policies that could undermine a market-created means of protecting the environment. Employers who continue to allow their employees to telecommute will be forced by any OSHA regulations on home offices to inspect their employees’ homes to ensure they are in compliance with any and all applicable OSHA regulations. This is a massive invasion of employees’ privacy. What employee would want their boss snooping around their living room, den, or bedroom to make sure their “home-based worksite” was OSHA compliant? privacy A Republic, If You Can Keep It 31 January 2000    2000 Ron Paul 2:86 In addition to the military wars, liberty has also suffered from the domestic wars on poverty, literacy, drugs, homelessness privacy and many others. We have in the last 100 years gone from the accepted and cherished notion of a sovereign Nation to one of a globalist new world order. As we once had three separate branches of our government, the United Nations proudly uses its three branches, the World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organization to work their will in this new era of globalism. Because the U.S. is by far the strongest military industrial power, it can dictate the terms of these international institutions, protecting what we see as our various interests such as oil, along with satisfying our military industrial complex. Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate. This allows for subsidized profits while the taxpayers are forced to protect huge corporations against any losses from overseas investments. The argument that we go about the world out of humanitarian concerns for those suffering, which was the excuse for bombing Serbia, is a farce. As bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates the hatred directed toward America, even if at times it seems suppressed, and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state. privacy A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:12 The people should be able to closely monitor the Government, but as our government grows in size and scope, it, the Government, seeks to monitor our every move. Attacks on our privacy are an incessant and always justified by citing so-called legitimate needs of the State, efficiency and law enforcement. privacy A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:16 The Government knew very little about each individual American citizen in 1900. But, starting with World War I, there has been a systematic growth of Government surveillance of everyone’s activities, with multiple records being kept. Today, true privacy is essentially a thing of the past. The FBI and the IRS have been used by various administrations to snoop and harass political opponents, and there has been little effort by Congress to end this abuse. A free society, that is, a constitutional republic, cannot be maintained if privacy is not highly cherished and protected by the Government, rather than abused by it. We can expect it to get worse. privacy A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:20 Since 1973, abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American rejection of abortion at the beginning of the century compared to today’s casual acceptance is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal, living entity, deserving protection of the law. privacy A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:25 A free society designed to protect life and liberty is incompatible with Government sanctions and financing abortion on demand. It should not be a surprise to anyone that as abortion became more acceptable, our society became more violent and less free. The irony is that Roe v. Wade justified abortion using the privacy argument, conveniently forgetting that not protecting the innocent unborn is the most serious violation of privacy possible. privacy A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:26 If the location of the fetus is the justification for legalized killing, the privacy of our homes would permit the killing of the newborn, the deformed and the elderly, a direction, unfortunately, in which we find ourselves going. As government-financed medical care increases, we will hear more economic arguments for euthanasia, that is, mercy killing, for the benefit of the budget planners. Already we hear these economic arguments for killing the elderly and terminally ill. privacy A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:56 A compulsive attitude by politicians to regulate nonviolent behavior may be well intentioned but leads to many unintended consequences. Legislation passed in the second half of the 20th Century dealing with drugs and personal habits has been the driving force behind the unconstitutional seizure and forfeiture laws and the loss of financial privacy. privacy A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:109 The only way the supporters of big government can stop the Internet will be to tax, regulate, and monitor it. Although it is a major undertaking, plans are already being laid to do precisely that. Big government proponents are anxious to make the tax on the Internet an international tax, as advocated by the United Nations, apply the Eschelon principle used to monitor all overseas phone calls to the Internet, and prevent the development of private encryption that would guarantee privacy on the Internet. privacy A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:120 5. Government snoops must be stopped. We must work to protect all privacy, especially on the Internet, prevent the national ID card, and stop the development of all Government data banks. privacy MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT March 9, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 15:5 * Mr. Speaker, I do not wish my opposition to this bill to be misconstrued as counseling inaction. Quite the contrary, Congress must enact ambitious program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to remove government-created obstacles to job growth. For example, I would have supported the reforms of the Fair Labor Standards Act contained in this bill had those provisions been brought before the House as separate pieces of legislation. Congress should also move to stop the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from implementing its misguided and unscientific ‘ergonomics’ regulation. Congress should also pass my H.J. Res. 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, which repeals Post Office regulations on the uses of Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies (CMRAs). Many entrepreneurs have found CMRAs a useful tool to help them grow their businesses. Unless Congress repeals the Post Office’s CMRA regulations, these businesses will be forced to divert millions of dollars away from creating new jobs into complying with postal regulations! privacy PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000 April 5, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 26:2 As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I can assure my colleagues that the partial-birth abortion procedure is the most egregious legally permitted act known to man. Decaying social and moral attitudes decades ago set the stage for the accommodated Roe vs. Wade ruling that nationalizes all laws dealing with abortion. The fallacious privacy argument the Supreme Court used must some day be exposed for the fraud that it is. privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number May 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 35:2 The Congress that created the Social Security system in no way intended to create a national identifier. In fact, Congress never directly authorized the creation of the Social Security number — they simply authorized the creation of an “appropriate record keeping and identification scheme.” The Social Security number was actually the creation of the Internal Revenue Service! The Social Security Number did not become a popular identifier until the 1960s. In response to concerns about the use of the Social Security number, Congress passed the Privacy Act of 1974, because “The Congress finds the opportunities for an individual to secure employment, insurance and credit and his right to due process and other legal protections are endangered by the misuse of certain information systems.” privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number May 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 35:3 The Privacy Act of 1974 states that “It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.” This is a good and necessary step toward protecting individual liberty. Unfortunately, the language of the Privacy Act allows Congress to require the use of the Social Security number at will. In fact, just two years after the passage of the Privacy Act, Congress explicitly allowed state governments to use the Social Security number as an identifier for tax collection, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ license identification. privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number May 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 35:4 Since the passage of the Privacy Act, Congress has been all too eager to expand the use of the Social Security number as a uniform identifier. For example, in 1996, Congress required employers to report the Social Security number of employees as part of the “new hires” database, while in 1998, 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. Mr. Chairman, my legislation, the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220) forbids Federal or State governments from using the Social Security number for purposes not directly related to administering the Social Security system. privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number May 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 35:5 Since I introduced this legislation on the first day of the 106th Congress, my office has received countless calls, letter, faxes, and e-mails from Americans around the country who are tired of having to divulge their national ID number in order to get a job, open bank account, or go fishing. The strong public outrage over the federal banking regulators’ “know your customer” scheme, as well as the attempt to turn state drivers’ licenses into a national ID card, and the Clinton Administration’s so-called “medical privacy” proposals all reveal the extent to which the American people oppose the “surveillance state.” These Americans believe that since Congress created this problem, Congress must fix it. privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number May 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 35:7 I hope that we in Congress would not once again allow a problem Congress created to become an excuse for disregarding the constitutional limitations of federal police powers or imposing new mandates on businesses in the name of “protecting privacy.” Federal mandates on private businesses may harm consumers by preventing business from offering improved services such as the ability to bring new products that consumers would be interested in immediately to the consumers’ attention. These mandates will also further interfere with matters that should be resolved by private contracts. privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number May 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 35:8 Furthermore, as we have seen with the administration’s so-called “medical privacy protection” proposal, federal “privacy protection laws” can actually undermine privacy by granting certain state-favored interests access to one’s personal information. privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number May 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 35:9 Finally, I would remind my colleagues that no private organization has the power to abuse personal liberty on as massive a scale as the federal government. After all, consumers have the right to refuse to do business with any private entity that asks for a Social Security number, whereas citizens cannot lawfully refuse to deal with government agencies. Furthermore, most of the major invasions of privacy, from the abuse of IRS files to the case of the Medicare clerk who sold the names of Medicare patients to an HMO, to the abuse of the FBI by administrations of both parties have occurred by government agents. Therefore Congress should focus on the threat to liberty caused by the federal government’s use of uniform identifiers. privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220) May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:1 Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on my legislation, HR 220, the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act. I greatly appreciate your commitment to the issue of personal privacy. Protecting privacy is of increasing importance to the American people. Since I have introduced this bill, my office has received countless calls of support from Americans all across the country who are opposed to the use of uniform identifiers. I have also worked with a bipartisan coalition of members on various efforts to protect Americans from the surveillance state, such as the banking regulators’ “know your customer” scheme, and the attempt by the Post Office to violate the privacy of all Americans who use Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies (CMRAs). privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220) May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:2 The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act represents a comprehensive attempt to protect the privacy of individual citizens from government surveillance via the use of standard identifiers. Among the provisions of the legislation is one repealing 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. As I am sure my colleagues know, the language authorizing a national ID card was repealed in last year’s Transportation Appropriations bill and language prohibiting the expenditure of funds to develop a personal medical identifier has been included in the past two Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bills. These victories where made possible by the thousands of Americans who let their elected representatives know that they were opposed to federally-mandated identifiers. privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220) May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:7 The Social Security number did not become a popular identifier until the 1960s. In response to concerns about the use of the Social Security number, Congress passed the Privacy Act of 1974, because, as stated within the act itself, “The Congress finds the opportunities for an individual to secure employment, insurance and credit and his right to due process and other legal protections are endangered by the misuse of certain information systems.” privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220) May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:8 The Privacy Act of 1974 states that “It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.” This is a good and necessary step toward protecting individual liberty. Unfortunately, the language of the Privacy Act allows Congress to require the use of the Social Security number at will. In fact, just two years after the passage of the Privacy Act, Congress explicitly allowed state governments to use the Social Security number as an identifier for tax collection, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ license identification. When one considers the trend toward the use of the Social Security number as an identifier, the need for HR 220 becomes clear. privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220) May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:9 The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act also contains a blanket prohibition on the use of identifiers to “investigate, monitor, oversee, or otherwise regulate” American citizens. Mr. Chairman, prohibiting the Federal Government from using standard identifiers will ensure that American liberty is protected from the “surveillance state.” Allowing the federal government to use standard identifiers to oversee private transactions present tremendous potential for abuse of civil liberties by unscrupulous government officials. privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220) May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:11 This history of abuse of personal information by government officials demonstrates that the only effective means of guaranteeing American’s privacy is to limit the ability of the government to collect and store information regarding a citizen’s personal matters. The only way to prevent the government from knowing this information is preventing them from using standard identifiers. privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220) May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:14 I hope that we in Congress would not once again allow a problem Congress created to become an excuse for disregarding the constitutional limitations of federal police powers or imposing new mandates on businesses in the name of “protecting privacy.” Federal mandates on private businesses may harm consumers by preventing business from offering improved services such as the ability to bring new products that consumers would be interested in immediately to the consumers’ attention. These mandates will also further interfere with matters that should be resolved by private contracts. privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220) May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:15 Furthermore, as we have seen with the administration’s so-called “medical privacy protection” proposal, federal “privacy protection laws” can actually undermine privacy by granting certain state-favored interests access to one’s personal information. privacy Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220) May 18, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 38:17 Others may claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. However, 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. privacy Medical Privacy Amendment June 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 41:4 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment says that none of the funds in this appropriation can be used for implementing a uniform medical identifier. It is a privacy amendment. It was in the bill in 1998 and 1999. I think it would be a good idea to have it in this year’s bill. privacy Medical Privacy Amendment June 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 41:5 This comes from authority granted in the Health Insurance Portability Act of 1996 and it was designed to establish a medical data bank. But because many, on both sides of the aisle, have objected to this invasion of privacy to set up a medical data bank, there has been some resistance to this. Although the removal of the authority would be the proper way to solve this problem once and for all, I think that it would be very appropriate to continue the policy of not permitting any Federal funding to be spent on developing this universal medical identifier, which by all indications would be our Social Security numbers. privacy Medical Privacy Amendment June 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 41:6 Many people object to this invasion of privacy. They do not place full trust in the U.S. Congress and in the U.S. Government to protect our privacy. Many say that this would not be an invasion of privacy and there would be some strict rules and regulations about how this medical information would be used, but that is not enough reassurance. privacy Medical Privacy Amendment June 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 41:7 As a physician, I can tell my colleagues that this form of invasion of our medical privacy will not serve us well in medical care. What it leads to is incomplete and inaccurate medical records, because it becomes known to the patient as well as the physician that once this information is accumulated that it might get in the hands of the politicians and used for reasons other than for medical care, I think, it could damage medical care endangered from having a medical data bank set up. privacy Medical Privacy Amendment June 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 41:8 The American people have spoken out strongly in recent years about their invasion of privacy. There was a proposal to implement a know-your-customer bank regulations. These were soundly rejected by the people, and I think that this same sentiment applies to the medical data bank. Also, efforts to establish a national identification card for the American people has not met with a great deal of acceptance with the American people. privacy Medical Privacy Amendment June 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 41:11 Already, under authority that was given to Health and Human Services, they have started to draw up regulations which regulate privacy matters, not so much the medical data bank but in other areas. The other thing that concerns me a great deal is these medical regulations that have been proposed not only deal with the privacy of somebody that may be receiving medical care from Medicare but also in the private sector. privacy Campbell/Bonior Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act June 22, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 57:5 Our goal should not be to protect the privacy of government. Certainly we need security, and that is important; but privacy of government and the efficiency of government comes second to the protection of individual liberty. That is what we should be here for. I wish we would do a lot less of a lot of other things we do around here and spend a lot more of our efforts to protect liberty. And we can start by protecting the liberty of the weak and the difficult ones to defend, the small, the little people who have nobody to represent them, the ones who can be pushed around. That is what is happening, all with good intentions. privacy INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000 July 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 66:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000 for several reasons. The bill threatens Internet privacy, invites Federal Government regulation of the Internet and tramples States’ rights. privacy Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000 September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 71:1 * Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I must oppose H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act. While I applaud the sections of the bill providing increased flexibility to states to ensure that child support payments go to benefit children, rather than government bureaucrats, other provisions of H.R. 4678 present grave dangers to individual liberty, privacy, constitutional government and the sanctity of the American family. privacy Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000 September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 71:5 * I would also remind my colleagues that the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in the collection of child support, much less invade the privacy of every citizen in order to ferret out a few wrongdoers. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas. For Congress to authorize federal involvement in any other law enforcement issue is a violation on the limits on Congressional power contained in Article 1, section 8 and the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. No less an authority than Chief Justice William Renhquist has stated that Congress is creating too many federal laws and infringing on the proper police powers of the states. privacy Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000 September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 71:12 * In conclusion, H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act, violates the Constitution by expanding the use of the new hires database, thus threatening the liberty and privacy of all Americans, as well as by expanding the federal role in family in the misguided belief that the state can somehow promote responsible fatherhood. By expanding the so-called ‘charitable choice’ program this bill also violates the conscience of millions of taxpayers and runs the risk of turning effective religious charities into agents of the welfare state. It also furthers the federalization of crime control by increasing the federal role in child support despite the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority in this area. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill and return responsibility for America’s children to states, local communities and, most importantly, parents. privacy SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999 17 October 2000    2000 Ron Paul 87:3 * While this bill does represent a good step toward protecting privacy, I would remind my colleagues that much more needs to be done to ensure the Social Security number is not used as means of facilitating identity crimes. The increasing prevalence of identity theft is directly related to the use of the Social Security number as a uniform identifier. privacy SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999 17 October 2000    2000 Ron Paul 87:5 * Unscrupulous people have found ways to exploit this system and steal another’s identity — the ubiquity of the Social Security number paved the way for these very predictable abuses and crimes. Congress must undo the tremendous injury done to the people’s privacy and security by the federal government’s various mandates which transformed the Social Security number into a universal identifier. privacy SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999 17 October 2000    2000 Ron Paul 87:6 * In order to stop the disturbing trend toward the use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID I have introduced the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220), which forbids the use of the Social Security number for purposes not related to Social Security. The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act also contains a blanket prohibition on the use of identifiers to ‘investigate, monitor, oversee, or otherwise regulate’ American citizens. Mr. Speaker, prohibiting the Federal Government from using standard identifiers will help protect Americans from both private and public sector criminals. privacy SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999 17 October 2000    2000 Ron Paul 87:7 * While much of the discussion of identity theft and related threats to privacy has concerned private sector criminals, the major threat to privacy lies in the power uniform identifiers give to government officials. I am sure I need not remind my colleagues of the sad history of government officials of both parties using personal information contained in IRS or FBI files against their political enemies, or of the cases of government officials rummaging through the confidential files of celebrities and/or their personal acquaintances, or of the Medicare clerk who sold confidential data about Medicare patients to a Health Maintenance Organization. After considering these cases, one cannot help but shudder at the potential for abuse if an unscrupulous government official is able to access one’s complete medical, credit, and employment history by simply typing the citizens’ ‘uniform identifier’ into a database. privacy SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999 17 October 2000    2000 Ron Paul 87:8 * In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I enthusiastically join in supporting HR 3218 which will help protect millions of senior citizens and other Americans from identity theft by strengthening the confidentiality of the Social Security number. I also urge my colleagues to protect all Americans from the threat of national identifiers by supporting my Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act. privacy THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM October 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 88:1 * Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of hearing remarks made by our former House colleague, Bob Bauman of Maryland, at a meeting of the Eris Society in Colorado. Since his talk centered on banking, financial and related privacy issues pending before the Congress, I want to share his view with the House as an informed statement of the threats to financial freedom posed by the Clinton administration’s policies. privacy THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM October 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 88:8 The constant surveillance is accomplished, as is most privacy invasion these days, by a special banking computer software program called ‘America’s Software’ which allows every transaction in any account to be watched constantly. It produces a daily record for bank officials, who now have certain obligations imposed by US law that require the reporting of ‘suspicious activities’ to federal agents. Transfers of large amounts of cash or other unusual account activity rings alarm bells and results in an investigation not revealed to the ‘suspect’ banking client under penalty of law. privacy THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM October 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 88:14 For the last 20 years the policies adopted by the United States and allied governments have constituted a stealth war against wealth and against financial privacy. While the free flow of capital is extolled as appropriate and essential, the governments of major nations have turned upside down the traditional role of banks and banking. As a child I was made to believe that the people you dealt with at your bank and other financial institutions were fiduciaries to whom you could entrust your money. privacy THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM October 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 88:32 All this is really a smoke screen for increased tax collection. Feeling the tax drain, the rich nations want an end to all those factors that make tax haven attractive: They demand that taxes be imposed where there are none, want an end to financial and banking privacy and ‘free exchange’ of information, want complete ‘transparency’, and want these small nations to become tax collectors for the rich, welfare state nations. In other words, they want tax havens to become just like the profligate major nations. privacy THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM October 19, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 88:33 This new cartel of high-tax nations, limping along with their huge, unsustainable welfare state budgets, are engaged in a grotesque rebirth of colonialism and imperialism of a financial nature. They are willing to trample the sovereignty of small nations. In fact, the United Nations last year said national sovereignty must be compromised in order to impose a world financial order of high taxes and no financial privacy. Such a radical demand mocks international law. It makes vassal states out of sovereign nations. privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:5 * This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing 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. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals. privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:7 * Mr. Speaker, of all the invasions of privacy proposed in the past decade, perhaps the most onerous is the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” — an 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? privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:9 * 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. privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:10 * 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 only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft. privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:11 * Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, they have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information stop the well-publicized violation of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations? privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:13 * Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the Clinton Administration’s so-called “medical privacy” proposal, which allow medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one providing or seeking the information. privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:14 * The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violations 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 chains of the Constitution.” privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:15 * Mr. Speaker, those members who are unpersuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the various “Know-Your-Customer” schemes, the attempt to turn drivers’ licenses into National ID cards, the Clinton Administration’s Medical Privacy proposal, as well as the numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that 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. privacy CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC — February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:116 Once a society and a system of laws deny the importance of life, privacy and personal choice are difficult to protect. Since abortions have become commonplace, it has been easier to move the issue of active euthanasia to center stage. As government budgets become more compromised, economic arguments will surely be used to justify reasonable savings by not wasting vital resources on the elderly. privacy CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC — February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:119 The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on drug usage since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are all less free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all wars, both domestic and foreign. It’s clear that, even if it were a legitimate function for government to curtail drug usage, eliminating bad habits through government regulation is not achievable. Like so much else that government tries to do, the harm done is not always evenly distributed. Some groups suffer more than others, further compounding the problem by causing dissention and distrust. privacy CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC — February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:138 Welfarism and government interventionism are failed systems and always lead to ever-more intrusive government. The issue of privacy is paramount. Most Americans and Members of Congress recognize the need to protect everyone’s privacy. But the loss of privacy is merely the symptom of an authoritarian government. Effort can and should be made, even under today’s circumstances, to impede the government’s invasion of privacy. privacy CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC — February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:139 We must realize that our privacy and our liberty will always be threatened as long as we instruct our government to manage a welfare state and to operate foreign policy as if we are the world’s policemen. privacy POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:51 Once a society and a system of laws deny the importance of life, privacy and personal choices are difficult to protect. Since abortions have become commonplace, it has been easier to move the issue of active euthanasia to center stage. As Government budgets become more compromised, economic arguments will surely be used to justify reasonable savings by not wasting vital resources on the elderly. privacy POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:54 The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on drug usage seen since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are less free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all wars, both domestic and foreign. privacy POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:85 The issue of privacy is paramount. Most Americans and Members of Congress recognize the need to protect everyone’s privacy. But the loss of privacy is merely the symptom of an authoritarian government. privacy POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:86 Effort can and should be made, even under today’s circumstances, to impede the Government’s invasion of privacy. But we must realize that our privacy and our liberty will always be threatened as long as we instruct our Government to manage a welfare state and to operate a foreign policy as if we are the world’s policemen. privacy IDENTITY THEFT — HON. RON PAUL Tuesday, February 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 11:4 * This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing 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. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals. privacy IDENTITY THEFT — HON. RON PAUL Tuesday, February 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 11:10 One of my in-laws — I will call her Jean to protect what remains of her privacy — was the victim of identity theft in 1999. Jean is a teacher who lives in Westchester County, New York, and drives a Volvo. She and her husband have perfect credit. About a year ago, Jean called in a panic, saying that her bank had frozen the family checking account because someone had a judgment against her. Being the banker in the family, I agreed to act for Jean. What I discovered during more than a year of investigation was a personal outrage and an investor’s nightmare. privacy The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:1 * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Medical Privacy Protection Resolution, which uses the Congressional Review Act to repeal the so-called Medical Privacy regulation. Many things in Washington are misnamed, however, this regulation may be the most blatant case of false advertising I have come across in all my years in Congress. Rather than protect an individual right to medical privacy, these regulations empower government officials to determine how much medical privacy an individual “needs.” This “one-size-fits-all” approach ignores the fact that different people may prefer different levels of privacy. Certain individuals may be willing to exchange a great deal of their personal medical information in order to obtain certain benefits, such as lower-priced care or having information targeted to their medical needs sent to them in a timely manner. Others may forgo those benefits in order to limit the number of people who have access to their medical history. Federal bureaucrats cannot possibly know, much less meet, the optimal level of privacy for each individual. In contrast, the free market allows individuals to obtain the level of privacy protection they desire. privacy The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:2 * The so-called “medical privacy” regulations not only reduce an individual’s ability to determine who has access to their personal medical information, they actually threaten medical privacy and constitutionally-protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials access to a citizen’s private medical record without having to obtain a search warrant. privacy The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:4 * Mr. Speaker, these regulations also require health care providers to give medical records to the federal government for inclusion in a federal health care data system. Such a system would contain all citizens’ personal health care information. History shows that when the government collects this type of personal information, the inevitable result is the abuse of citizens’ privacy and liberty by unscrupulous government officials. The only fail-safe privacy protection is for the government not to collect and store this type of personal information. privacy The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:5 * In addition to law enforcement, these so-called “privacy protection” regulations create a privileged class of people with a federally-guaranteed right to see an individual’s medical privacy The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:9 * The collection and storage of personal medical information “authorized” by these regulations may also revive an effort to establish a “unique health identifier” for all Americans. The same legislation which authorized these privacy rules also authorized the creation of a “unique health care identifier” for every American. However, Congress, in response to a massive public outcry, has included a moratorium on funds for developing such an identifier in HHS budgets for the last three fiscal years. privacy The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:11 * The American public is right to oppose these regulations, for they not only endanger privacy but could even endanger health! As an OB-GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I am very concerned by the threat to medical practice posed by these regulations. The confidential physician-patient relationship is the basis of good health care. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on the patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. The legal system has acknowledged the importance of maintaining physician-patient confidentiality by granting physicians a privilege not to divulge confidential patient information. privacy The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:13 * Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues agree that questions regarding who should or should not have access to one’s medical privacy are best settled by way of contract between a patient and a provider. However, the government-insurance company complex that governs today’s health care industry has deprived individual patients of control over their health care records, as well as over numerous other aspects of their health care. Rather than put the individual back in charge of his or her medical records, the Department of Health and Human Services’ privacy regulations give the federal government the authority to decide who will have access to individual medical records. These regulations thus reduce individuals’ ability to protect their own medical privacy. privacy The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:14 * These regulations violate the fundamental principles of a free society by placing the perceived “societal” need to advance medical research over the individual’s right to privacy. They also violate the fourth and fifth amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special interests to seize medical records without an individual’s consent or a warrant and could facilitate the creation of a federal database containing the health care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of Americans. I, therefore, call on my colleagues to join me in repealing this latest threat to privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Medical Privacy Protection Resolution. privacy Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:4 This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing 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. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals. privacy Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:7 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. privacy Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:8 Mr. Chairman, 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 only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is a more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides old comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft. privacy Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:9 Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, they have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information stop the well-publicized violation of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations? ! privacy Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:10 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.” privacy Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:11 Mr. Chairman, those members who are unpersuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the various “Know-Your-Customer” schemes, the attempt to turn drivers’ licenses into National ID cards, HHS’s misnamed “medical privacy” proposal, as well as the numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that 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. privacy Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation May 23, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 39:1 Thank you for your interest in revising the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) medical privacy regulations. I respectfully urge HHS to revise those sections of the bill that reduce medical privacy by allowing the government increased access to medical records. privacy Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation May 23, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 39:6 I am also aware that some will make the argument that there is a “social good” in medical research that outweighs the individual’s right to privacy. As a physician, I certainly recognize the value and importance of medical research. However, as a legislator, I also recognize that because people have a property interest in their medical information, forcing individuals to divulge medical information without their consent runs afoul of the fifth amendment’s taking clause, which was designed to prevent sacrifices of individual liberty and property for the “common good.” privacy Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation May 23, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 39:8 Finally, Secretary Thompson, if HHS is going to collect private medical records, the medical privacy rule should then explicitly forbid the federal government from permanently storing any medical information on a federally maintained or funded database. Previous experience with federal collection of information demonstrates the need for an explicit ban on creating a database. For example, despite repeated assurances they would not do so, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is using their authority to conduct background checks under the Brady Law to compile a database of every gun owner in America! privacy Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation May 23, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 39:9 In conclusion, I once again respectfully request that the Department of Health and Human Services amend the medical privacy rule to require a search warrant before government officials may seize medical records. I also request that HHS remove all sections of the rule that give private parties (particularly researchers) a federal right to access medical records without consent for purposes unrelated to treatment. Furthermore, if HHS is going to continue to allow the Federal Government to collect medical information for any reason, HHS must explicitly provide that none of the information collected under the authority given HHS, or any other federal agency, will be stored in a federally maintained or funded database. Thank you for your consideration of my views, which, according to the Gallup poll, are shared by the vast majority of Americans. privacy “Postal Service Has Its Eye On You” 27 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 47:2 As postal officials admitted to Mr. Berlau, the Post Office is training its employees to assume those purchasing large money orders are criminals. In fact, the training manual for this program explicitly states that “it is better to report many legitimate transactions that seem suspicious than let one illegal one slip through.” This policy turns the presumption of innocence, which has been recognized as one of the bulwarks of liberty since medieval times, on its head. Allowing any federal employee to assume the possibility of a crime based on nothing more than a subjective judgment of “suspicious behavior” represents a serious erosion of our constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, and due process. privacy “Postal Service Has Its Eye On You” 27 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 47:4 This is why I will soon be introducing legislation to curb the Post Office’s regulatory authority over individual Americans and small business (including those who compete with the Post Office) as well as legislation to repeal the statutory authority to implement these “Know Your Customer” type policies. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Berlau’s article and join me in protecting the privacy and liberty of Americans by ensuring law-abiding Americans may live their lives free from the prying “Eagle Eye” of the Federal Government. POSTAL SERVICE HAS ITS EYE ON YOU (By John Berlau) privacy “Postal Service Has Its Eye On You” 27 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 47:8 Many privacy advocates see similarities in the post office’s customer-surveillance program, called “Under the Eagle’s Eye,” to the “Know Your Customer” rules. In fact, in a postal-service training manual also obtained by Insight, postal clerks are admonished to “know your customers.” privacy “Postal Service Has Its Eye On You” 27 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 47:10 It is statements such as these that raise the ire of leading privacy advocates on both the left and right, most of whom didn’t know about the program until asked by Insight to comment. For example, Rep. RON PAUL, RTexas, who led the charge on Capitol Hill against the “Know Your Customer” rules, expressed both surprise and concern about “Under the Eagle’s Eye.” He says the video’s instructions to report transactions as suspicious are “the reverse of what the theory used to be: We were supposed to let guilty people go by if we were doing harm to innocent people” when the methods of trying to apprehend criminals violated the rights of ordinary citizens. PAUL says he may introduce legislation to stop “Under the Eagle’s Eye.” privacy “Postal Service Has Its Eye On You” 27 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 47:11 The same sort of response came from another prominent critic of “Know Your Customer,” this time on the left, who was appalled by details of the training video. “The postal service is training its employees to invade their customers’ privacy,” Greg Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington National Office, tells Insight. “This training will result in the reporting to the government of tens of thousands of innocent transactions that are none of the government’s business. I had thought the postal-service’s eagle stood for freedom. Now I know it stands for, ‘We’re watching you!’ ” privacy “Postal Service Has Its Eye On You” 27 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 47:17 It also was the Bank Secrecy Act that opened the door for the “Know Your Customer” rules on banks, to which congressional leaders objected as a threat to privacy. Lawrence Lindsey, now head of the Bush administration’s National Economic Council, frequently has pointed out that more than 100,000 reports are collected on innocent bank customers for every one conviction of money laundering. “That ratio of 99,999-to-1 is something we normally would not tolerate as a reasonable balance between privacy and the collection of guilty verdicts,” Lindsey wrote in a chapter of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s book The Future of Financial Privacy, published last year. privacy “Postal Service Has Its Eye On You” 27 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 47:18 Critics of this snooping both inside and outside the postal service are howling mad that the agency’s reputation for protecting the privacy of its customers is being compromised. “It sounds to me that they’re going past the Treasury guidelines,” says Rick Merritt, executive director of Postal Watch, a private watchdog group. The regulations, for example, do not give specific examples of suspicious activity, leaving that largely for the regulated companies to determine. But the postal-service training video points to lots of “red flags,” such as a customer counting money in the line. It warns that even customers whom clerks know often should be considered suspect if they frequently purchase money orders. privacy “Postal Service Has Its Eye On You” 27 June 2001    2001 Ron Paul 47:25 But the “suspicious” customers might just be concerned about privacy, says Solveig Singleton, a senior analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And a professional criminal likely would know that $3,000 was the reporting requirement before he walked into the post office. “I think there’s a lot of reasons that people might not want to fill out such forms; they may simply think it’s none of the post office’s business,” Singleton tells Insight. “The presumption seems to be that from the standpoint of the post office and the Bank Secrecy regulators every citizen is a suspect.” privacy THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL July 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 65:1 * Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act, which repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans, as well as prohibiting the use of federal funds to develop or implement a database containing personal health information. privacy THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL July 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 65:2 * Establishment of such a medical identifier, especially when combined with HHS’s misnamed “federal privacy” regulations, would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens’ record simply by entering the patient’s identifier into a health care database. privacy THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL July 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 65:8 * This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen. privacy THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL July 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 65:9 * The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, or force citizens to divulge their personal health information to the government, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty as it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the constitution.” privacy THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL July 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 65:10 * Those who claim that the Patient Privacy act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, should remember that under the constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs. privacy THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL July 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 65:11 * Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act. privacy Patients’ Bill Of Rights 2 August 2001    2001 Ron Paul 74:14 In addition to the Medicare regulations, doctors must contend with FDA regulations (which delay the arrival and raise the costs of new drugs), insurance company paperwork, and the increasing criminalization of medicine through legislation such as the Health Insurance Portability Act (HIPPA) and the medical privacy regulations which could criminalize conversations between doctors and nurses. privacy Statement on the New York City and Washington, DC Terrorist Attacks September 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 78:7 Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be sacrificed on the altar of authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we willingly give up some of our cherished liberties while defending ourselves from their threat. privacy Foreign Interventionism September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:35 We must not sacrifice the civil liberties that generations of Americans have enjoyed and fought for over the past 225 years. Unwise decisions in response to the terror inflicted on us may well fail to destroy our enemy, while undermining our liberties here at home. That will not be a victory worth celebrating. The wise use of marque and reprisal would negate the need to undermine the privacy and rights of our citizens. privacy Foreign Interventionism September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:39 The heat of the moment has prompted calls by some of our officials for great sacrifice of our liberties and privacy. This poses great danger to our way of life and will provide little help in dealing with our enemies. Efforts of this sort will only punish the innocent and have no effect on a would-be terrorist. We should be careful not to do something just to do something- even something harmful. privacy Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee October 11, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 86:1 Mr. Chairman, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals. privacy Statement on HR 3004 October 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 88:1 Mr. Speaker, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals. privacy A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS -- October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:32 I would like to draw analogy between the drug war and the war against terrorism. In the last 30 years, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed war on drugs. This war has been used as an excuse to attack our liberties and privacy. It has been an excuse to undermine our financial privacy while promoting illegal searches and seizures with many innocent people losing their lives and property. Seizure and forfeiture have harmed a great number of innocent American citizens. privacy A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS -- October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:39 This war has been behind most big government police powers of the last 30 years, with continual undermining of our civil liberties and personal privacy. Those who support the IRS’s efforts to collect maximum revenues and root out the underground economy, have welcomed this intrusion, even if the drug underworld grows in size and influence. privacy Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals November 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 96:4 Madam Chairwoman, 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, legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft. privacy Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals November 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 96:5 Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, they have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information stop the well-publicized violation of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations? privacy The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:47 Granting bailouts is not new for Congress, but current conditions have prompted many takers to line up for handouts. There has always been a large constituency for expanding federal power for whatever reason, and these groups have been energized. The military-industrial complex is out in full force and is optimistic. Union power is pleased with recent events and has not missed the opportunity to increase membership rolls. Federal policing powers, already in a bull market, received a super shot in the arm. The IRS, which detests financial privacy, gloats, while all the big spenders in Washington applaud the tools made available to crack down on tax dodgers. The drug warriors and anti-gun zealots love the new powers that now can be used to watch the every move of our citizens. “Extremists” who talk of the Constitution, promote right-to-life, form citizen militias, or participate in non-mainstream religious practices now can be monitored much more effectively by those who find their views offensive. Laws recently passed by the Congress apply to all Americans- not just terrorists. But we should remember that if the terrorists are known and identified, existing laws would have been quite adequate to deal with them. privacy The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:50 Now we hear a similar argument that a certain amount of privacy and personal liberty of law-abiding citizens must be sacrificed in order to root out possible terrorists. This will result only in liberties being lost, and will not serve to preempt any terrorist act. The criminals, just as they know how to get guns even when they are illegal, will still be able to circumvent anti-terrorist laws. To believe otherwise is to endorse a Faustian bargain, but that is what I believe the Congress has done. privacy The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:52 Before the 9-11 attack, Attorney General Ashcroft let his position be known regarding privacy and government secrecy. Executive Order 13223 made it much more difficult for researchers to gain access to presidential documents from previous administrations, now a “need to know” has to be demonstrated. This was a direct hit at efforts to demand openness in government, even if only for analysis and writing of history. Ashcroft’s position is that presidential records ought to remain secret, even after an administration has left office. He argues that government deserves privacy while ignoring the 4 th Amendment protections of the people’s privacy. He argues his case by absurdly claiming he must “protect”the privacy of the individuals who might be involved — a non-problem that could easily be resolved without closing public records to the public. privacy The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:53 It is estimated that approximately 1,200 men have been arrested as a consequence of 9-11, yet their names and the charges are not available, and according to Ashcroft, will not be made available. Once again, he uses the argument that he’s protecting the privacy of those charged. Unbelievable! Due process for the detainees has been denied. Secret government is winning out over open government. This is the largest number of people to be locked up under these conditions since FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Information regarding these arrests is a must, in a constitutional republic. If they’re terrorists or accomplices, just let the public know and pursue their prosecution. But secret arrests and silence are not acceptable in a society that professes to be free. Curtailing freedom is not the answer to protecting freedom under adverse circumstances. privacy The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:59 The“anti-terrorism” legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in a rush to respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate the bill despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy experts or from others fields outside of law enforcement. Normal congressional committee and hearing processes were suspended. In fact, the final version of the bill was not even made available to Members before the vote! The American public should not tolerate these political games, especially when our precious freedoms are at stake. privacy Too Many Federal Cops 6 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 104:9 Bureaucratic momentum alone can cross over the line. After President John F. Kennedy privately berated the Army for being unprepared to quell the riots when James Meredith enrolled at the University of Mississippi, we (I was Army general counsel at the time) responded by collecting intelligence information on individuals such as civil rights leaders, as well as local government officials in places where we thought there might be future trouble. We were motivated not by any mischievous desire to violate privacy or liberties of Americans but by the bureaucratic reflex not to be caught short again. privacy Stimulating The Economy February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:61 7. In the area of personal liberty, we face some real dangers. Throughout our history, starting with the Civil War, our liberties have been curtailed and the Constitution has been flaunted. Although our government continued to grow with each crisis, many of the liberties curtailed during wartime were restored. War was precise and declared, and when the war was over, there was a desire to return to normalcy. With the current war on terrorism, there is no end in sight and there is no precise enemy, and we’ve been forewarned that this fight will go on for a long time. This means that a return to normalcy after the sacrifices we are making with our freedoms is not likely. The implementation of a national ID card, pervasive surveillance, easy-to-get search warrants, and loss of financial and medical privacy will be permanent. If this trend continues, the Constitution will become a much weaker document. privacy Stimulating The Economy February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:63 9. There is a danger that personal privacy will be a thing of the past. Even before 9-11, there were attacks on the privacy of all Americans- for good reasons, or so it was argued. The attacks included plans for national ID cards, a national medical data bank, and “Know Your Customer” type banking regulations. The need for enforcement powers for the DEA and the IRS routinely prompted laws that violated the Fourth amendment. The current crisis has emboldened those who already were anxious to impose restrictions on the American people. With drug and tax laws, and now with anti-terrorist legislation sailing through Congress, true privacy enjoyed by a free people is fast becoming something that we will only read about in our textbooks. Reversing this trend will not be easy. privacy Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003” February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 12:2 For example, this document gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to the committee, these increased funds are justified by FINCEN’s new authority under the PATRIOT Act. However, Mr. Chairman, FINCEN’s powers to snoop into the private financial affairs of American citizens raise serious constitutional issues. Whether the expansion of FINCEN’s power threatens civil liberties is ignored in this document; instead, the report claims the only problem with the PATRIOT Act is that the federal financial police state does not have enough power and taxpayer money to invade the privacy of United States citizens! privacy Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003” February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 12:7 In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” presented by the Financial Services committee endorses increasing the power of the federal police state, as well as increasing both international and corporate welfare, while ignoring the economic problems created by federal intervention into the economy. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending federal corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system which is the root cause of America’s economic instability. privacy Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:8 H.R. 4737 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the use of the "New Hires Database" to allow states to use the database to verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name and social security number of everyone lawfully employed in the United States. Increasing the states’ ability to identify fraudulent unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American citizens. privacy Is America a Police State? June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:22 If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What’s the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers. privacy Is America a Police State? June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:23 Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal others’ identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy has been compounded by the technology now available to those in government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before 9/11. privacy Is America a Police State? June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:39 Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. “Sneak and peak” and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment? privacy Is America a Police State? June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:54 Political propagandizing is used to get all of us to toe the line and be good “patriots,” supporting every measure suggested by the administration. We are told that preemptive strikes, torture, military tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to wage war, and sacrificing privacy with a weakened 4th Amendment are the minimum required to save our country from the threat of terrorism. privacy Is America a Police State? June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:120 When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes (just look at what’s coming under the new FEC law). War will be the prerogative of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for suspects, and their prosecution will not be carried out by an independent judiciary. In a police state, this becomes common practice rather than a rare incident. privacy H.R. 2896 10 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 67:6 A lot of times I get support from the other side of the aisle when they see the prohibitions that our legislation places on the First Amendment. Likewise, I get a lot of support when I would like to reduce the prohibitions on the Fourth Amendment in the area of privacy. Unfortunately, since 9–11, we have moved in the wrong direction. We are making more prohibitions by law on our Bill of Rights. privacy DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – WHO NEEDS IT? July 23, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 73:9 Yet, we have done plenty to undermine the liberties and privacy of all Americans through legislation such as the PATRIOT Act. A program is being planned to use millions of Americans to spy on their neighbors, an idea appropriate for a totalitarian society. Regardless of any assurances, we all know that the national ID card will soon be instituted. privacy Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act Of 2002 25 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 79:5 In the course of just one week, the President’s original 52-page proposal swelled to 232 pages, with most members, including myself, unable to review the greatly expanded bill. While I know that some of those additions are positive, such as Mr. ARMEY’s amendments to protect the privacy of American citizens, it is impossible to fully explore the implications of this, the largest departmental reorganization in the history of our Federal Government, without sufficient time to review the bill. This is especially the case in light of the fact that a number of the recommendations of the standing committees were not incorporated in the legislation, thus limiting our ability to understand how our constituents will be affected by this legislation. privacy “You Are A Suspect” 14 November 2002    2002 Ron Paul 103:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read “You are a Suspect” by William Safire in today’s New York Times. Mr. Safire, who has been one of the media’s most consistent defenders of personal privacy, details the Defense Department’s plan to establish a system of “Total Information Awareness.” According to Mr. Safire, once this system is implemented, no American will be able to use the internet to fill a prescription, subscribe to a magazine, buy a book, send or receive e-mail, or visit a web site free from the prying eyes of government bureaucrats. Furthermore, individual internet transactions will be recorded in “a virtual centralized grand database.” Implementation of this project would shred the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that the government establish probable cause and obtain a search warrant before snooping into the private affairs of its citizens. I hope my colleagues read Mr. Safire’s article and support efforts to prevent the implementation of this program, including repealing any legislation weakening privacy protections that Congress may inadvertently have passed in the rush to complete legislative business this year. privacy “You Are A Suspect” 14 November 2002    2002 Ron Paul 103:8 Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter’s assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight. privacy “You Are A Suspect” 14 November 2002    2002 Ron Paul 103:10 When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person’s medical, financial and communications privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the president. privacy “You Are A Suspect” 14 November 2002    2002 Ron Paul 103:13 The Latin motto over Poindexter’s new Pentagon office reads “Scientia Est Potentia” “knowledge is power.“ Exactly: the government’s infinite knowledge about you is its power over you. “We’re just as concerned as the next person with protecting privacy,” this brilliant mind blandly assured The Post. A jury found he spoke falsely before. privacy Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:5 This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing 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. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals. privacy Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:7 Mr. Speaker, of all the invasions of privacy proposed in the past decade, perhaps the most onerous is the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” — an 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 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 database? Some members of Congress may claim that the federal monitoring of all Americans will enhance security. However, the fact is that creating a surveillance state will divert valuable resources away from investigating legitimate security threats into spying on innocent Americans, thus reducing security. The American people would be better served if the government focused attention on ensuring our borders are closed to potential terrorists instead of coming up with new ways to violate the rights of American citizens. privacy Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:8 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 easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient. privacy Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:9 Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons: privacy Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:11 Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations. privacy Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:13 Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy” regulation, which allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one providing or seeking the information. privacy Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:14 The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violations 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.” privacy Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:15 Mr. Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the various “Know-Your-Customer” schemes, the attempt to turn driver’s licenses into National ID cards, as well as the numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number, show that American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID. Several other recent polls show most Americans remain skeptical that a national ID card would enhance their security or preserve their liberty. privacy Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:50 Even before 9–11 these trends were in place, and proposals were abundant for restraining liberty. Since 9–11 the growth of centralized government and the loss of privacy and personal freedoms have significantly accelerated. It is in dealing with homeland defense and potential terrorist attacks that the domestic social programs and the policy of foreign intervention are coming together and precipitating a rapid expansion of the state and an erosion of personal liberty. privacy End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment January 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 7:3 Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor. privacy Oppose the Federal Welfare State February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 22:8 H.R. 4 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the use of the “New Hires Database” to allow states to use the database to verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name and social security number of everyone lawfully employed in the United States. Increasing the states’ ability to identify fraudulent unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American citizens. privacy The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004 February 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 27:2 For example, this document gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to the committee, these increased funds are justified by FINCEN’s new authority under the PATRIOT Act. However, Mr. Chairman, FINCEN’s power to snoop into the private financial affairs of American citizens raises serious constitutional issues. Whether the expansion of FINCEN’s power threatens civil liberties is ignored in this document; instead, the committee is concerned that the federal financial police state does not have enough power and taxpayer money to invade the privacy of United States citizens! privacy The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004 February 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 27:8 In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” presented by the Financial Services Committee endorse increasing the power of the federal police state, as well as increasing both international and corporate welfare, while ignoring the economic problems created by federal intervention into the economy. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending federal corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system that is the root cause of America’s economic instability. privacy Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule” April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:1 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act. This bill repeals the misnamed Medical Privacy regulation, which went into effect on April 14 and actually destroys individual medical privacy. The Patient Privacy Act also repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans, as well as prohibiting the use of federal funds to develop or implement a database containing personal health information. Both of these threats to medical freedom grew out of the Clinton-era craze to nationalize health care as much as politically possible. privacy Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule” April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:3 The dangers to liberty inherent in the “uniform health identifier” are magnified by the so-called “medical privacy” regulation. Many things in Washington are misnamed, however, this regulation may be the most blatant case of false advertising I have come across in all my years in Congress. Rather than protecting the individual’s right to medical privacy, these regulations empower government officials to determine how much medical privacy an individual “needs.” This one-size-fits-all approach ignores the fact that different people may prefer different levels of privacy. Some individuals may be willing to exchange a great deal of their personal medical information in order to obtain certain benefits, such as lower-priced care or having information targeted to their medical needs sent to them in a timely manner. Others may forgo those benefits in order to limit the number of people who have access to their medical history. Federal bureaucrats cannot possibly know, much less meet, the optimal level of privacy for each individual. In contrast, the free market allows individuals to obtain the level of privacy protection they desire. privacy Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule” April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:4 The so-called medical privacy regulations and uniform health identifier scheme not only reduce an individual’s ability to determine who has access to his personal medical information, but actually threaten medical privacy and constitutionally-protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials access to a citizen’s private medical records without having to obtain a search warrant. privacy Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule” April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:6 Mr. Speaker, these regulations also require health care providers to give medical records to the federal government for inclusion in a federal health care data system. Such a system would contain all citizens’ personal health care information, accessible to anyone who knows the individual’s unique health identifier. History shows that when the government collects this type of personal information, the inevitable result is the abuse of citizens’ privacy and liberty by unscrupulous government officials. The only fail-safe privacy protection is for the government not to collect and store this type of personal information. privacy Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule” April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:7 In addition to law enforcement, these so-called privacy protection regulations create a privileged class of people with a federally-guaranteed right to see an individual’s medical records without the individual’s consent. My medical office recently received a Model “Privacy Act Compliance” form. This three-page form lists over 20 situations where medical information may be disclosed without individual consent. Medical information may be disclosed to attorneys, business associates of the provider, and federal agencies conducting “health oversight activities.” Medical information may also be divulged without consent to insurance companies and medical researchers! privacy Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule” April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:11 As an OB-GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I am very concerned by the threat to medical practice posed by these privacy regulations and the unique health identifier scheme. The confidential physician-patient relationship is the basis of good health care. privacy Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule” April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:14 By now it should be clear to every member of Congress that the American people do not want their health information recorded on a database, and they do not wish to be assigned a unique health identifier. According to a survey by the respected Gallup Company, 91 percent of Americans oppose assigning Americans a unique health care identifier, while 92 percent of the people oppose allowing government agencies the unrestrained power to view private medical records and 88 percent of Americans oppose placing private health care information in a national database. Congress has acknowledge this public concern by including language forbidding the expenditure of funds to implement or develop a medical identifier in the federal budget for the past five fiscal years. Rather than continuing to extend the prohibition on funding for another year, Congress should finally obey the wishes of the American people by repealing the authorization of the individual medical ID this year as well as repealing these dangerous medical privacy rules. privacy Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule” April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:15 Mr. Speaker, the misnamed medical privacy regulations and the scheme to assign all Americans a unique health care identifier violates the Fourth and Fifth amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special interests to seize medical records without an individual’s consent or a warrant. Federal supervision of who can access medical records, combined with a federally-assigned medical ID, facilitate the creation of a federal database containing the health care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of Americans. I, therefore, call on my colleagues to join me in repealing these threats to privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Patient Privacy Act. privacy Neo – CONNED ! July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:2 Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before? privacy Neo – CONNED ! July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:12 The remnant’s instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives—especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it’s been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-ll, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians. privacy Neo – CONNED ! July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:22 There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naïve for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.) privacy Neo – CONNED ! July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:80 There’s no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid growth of the education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy. Support for labor unions and protectionism are not uncommon. Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little concern, except for a few members of Congress. Foreign aid and internationalism—in spite of some healthy criticism of the UN and growing concerns for our national sovereignty—are championed on both sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money. privacy Legislation To Prohibit The Federal Government From Imposing A “Carry Tax” 17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 78:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect American liberty, privacy and economic wellbeing by introducing legislation to prohibit the Federal Government from imposing a “carry tax.” A carry tax is a tax imposed on Americans that requires them to pay a tax whenever they make a bank deposit. The amount of the tax is based on how long their money has been in circulation. Hard as it may be to believe, some in the Federal Government have actually considered imposing this tax on American citizens. Since this bill punishes those who rely on cash for the majority of their economic transactions, and since lower income Americans tend to rely on cash for their economic transactions, this is a highly regressive tax plan. Furthermore, since the plan is designed to lower interest rates, it will negatively impact those who rely on investment income for a significant part of their income. Thus, the carry tax will lower the income of millions of senior citizens. privacy Legislation To Prohibit The Federal Government From Imposing A “Carry Tax” 17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 78:2 Proposals to punish people if their economic behavior meets with the disapproval of government officials form the foundation of the type of central planning which caused so much misery in the last century. The carry tax proposal is obviously incompatible with a free market. This proposal is also a major threat to personal and financial privacy and thus individual liberty. In order to enforce the carry tax, the government would need a means of monitoring how long each piece of currency has been in circulation and how many hands it passed through before coming into the possession of the person on whom the tax is assessed. Thus, enforcing this tax would also give the government the power to monitor the transactions of individual Americans. The Federal Government should not abuse the authority granted it by our current monetary system and legal tender laws as a backdoor means of prying into the private economic transactions of American citizens. That is why my legislation also forbids the Federal Government from placing any information storage capacity on any Federal Reserve notes. privacy The Senior Citizens Freedom Of Choice Act 17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 81:9 I discovered this in June 2001 when I went with my husband to apply for my Social Security benefits. I made it quite clear that I would not enroll in Medicare, Part A due to my objections to certain aspects of this program. (The objectionable aspects include invasion of privacy and limitation of medical choice.) In response I was told that I then could not receive the Social Security benefits to which I am otherwie entitled. privacy Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain 11 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 4:10 Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic pain patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement officials can rummage through patients’ personal medical records and, as may be the case with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or political scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records. privacy Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief February 12, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 5:10 Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic pain patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement officials can rummage through patients’ personal medical records and, as may be the case with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or political scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records. privacy The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005” February 26, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 7:5 The committee’s ‘Views and Estimates” gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN), while ignoring the growing erosion of our financial privacy under the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation. In fact, the committee ignores the recent stealth expansion of the FBI’s power to seize records of dealers in precious metals, jewelers, and pawnshops without a warrant issued by an independent judge. Instead of serving as cheerleaders for the financial police state, the committee should act to curtail the federal government’s ability to monitor the financial affairs of law-abiding Americans. privacy The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005” February 26, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 7:17 In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” report presented by the committee claims to endorse fiscal responsibility, yet also supports expanding international, corporate, and domestic spending. The report also endorses increasing the power of the federal police state. Perhaps most disturbingly, this document ignores the looming economic problems created by the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary polices and the resulting increase in private and public sector debt. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system that is the root cause of America’s economic instability. privacy We The People Act 4 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 13:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and policies relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress. privacy American Community Survey 7 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 45:6 It was stated earlier in the discussion about the census that this was certainly the law of the land. The law of the land is very clear that the Congress gave the authority; the Census Bureau certainly does not do this on its own. We, the Congress, gave it the authority to do this. But it just happens to be an authority that we had no right to give. We have no right to give this authority to meddle into the privacy of American citizens. privacy Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny July 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 64:3 Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas. privacy Reject a National Prescription Database October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 74:1 Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to HR 3015, the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act. This bill is yet another unjustifiable attempt by the federal government to use the war on drugs as an excuse for invading the privacy and liberties of the American people and for expanding the federal government’s disastrous micromanagement of medical care. As a physician with over 30 years experience in private practice, I must oppose this bill due to the danger it poses to our health as well as our liberty. privacy Reject a National Prescription Database October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 74:7 HR 3015 also threatens patients’ privacy. A patient’s medical records should be treated according to the mutual agreement of the patient and doctor. In contrast, HR 3015 will put a patient’s prescriptions on a government-mandated database that can be accessed without the patient’s permission! privacy Reject a National Prescription Database October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 74:8 Instead of further eroding our medical privacy, Congress should take steps to protect it. Why should someone be prevented from denying the government and third parties access to his medical records without his permission or a warrant? privacy Reject a National Prescription Database October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 74:9 One way the House can act to protect patients’ privacy is by enacting my Patient Privacy Act (HR 1699) that repeals the provision of federal law establishing a medical ID for every American. Under the guise of “protecting privacy,” the Health and Human Services’ so-called “medical privacy” regulations allow medical researchers, insurance agents, and government officials access to your personal medical records — without your consent! Congress should act now to reverse this government-imposed invasion of our medical privacy. privacy The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom October 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 77:8 I am also disappointed the Financial Services Committee rejected my amendment to conform the regulations governing the filing of suspicious activities reports with the requirements of the US Constitution. This amendment not only would have ensured greater privacy protection, but it also would have enabled law enforcement to better focus on people who truly pose a threat to our safety. privacy Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:8 Both supported the Patriot Act and its controversial attack on personal privacy. privacy Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act 4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:9 By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public sector criminals. privacy Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act 4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:11 Some 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 jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient. privacy Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act 4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:12 Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those Members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the Federal Government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons. privacy Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act 4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:14 Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations. privacy Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act 4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:16 Second, the Federal Government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain State-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy”’ regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information. privacy Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act 4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:17 Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily 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.” privacy Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act 4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:18 Mr. Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the American people’s opposition to national identifiers. The numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that Americans want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID. privacy Government IDs and Identity Theft January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:9 By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public sector criminals. privacy Government IDs and Identity Theft January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:11 Some 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 jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient. privacy Government IDs and Identity Theft January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:12 Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons. privacy Government IDs and Identity Theft January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:14 Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations. privacy Government IDs and Identity Theft January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:16 Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy'” regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information. privacy Government IDs and Identity Theft January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:17 Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily 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.” privacy Government IDs and Identity Theft January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:18 Mr. Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the American people’s opposition to national identifiers. The numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that Americans want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID. privacy America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:14 These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us as the authoritarianism we accept at the airports. The creation of the Transportation Security Administration has intruded on the privacy of all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that we are safer for it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. privacy America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:18 There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its power and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personal privacy annoys those who promote a centralized state. It is no surprise to learn that many of the new laws passed in the aftermath of 9/11 had been proposed long before that date. The attacks merely provided an excuse to do many things previously proposed by dedicated statists. privacy Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment 26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 10:3 Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor. privacy Protect Privacy 15 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 65:5 I might not be an alarmist about it, but I am very concerned. I do think we have moved in the wrong direction and that we should be very cautious and protect the privacy of all American citizens. privacy Congress Erodes Privacy November 16, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 121:1 The privacy issue has been around for a long time. The brutal abuse of privacy and property of early Americans played a big role in our revolt against the King. The 1 st , 4 th , and 5 th amendments represented attempts to protect private property and privacy from an overzealous federal government. Today those attempts appear to have failed. privacy Congress Erodes Privacy November 16, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 121:2 There have been serious legal debates in recent decades about whether “privacy” is protected by the Constitution. Some argue that since the word does not appear in the text of that document, it is not protected. Others argue that privacy protection grants the federal government power to dictate to all states limits or leniency in enforcing certain laws. But the essence of liberty is privacy. privacy Congress Erodes Privacy November 16, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 121:3 In recent years—especially since 9-11—Congress has been totally negligent in its duty to protect U.S. citizens from federal government encroachment on the rights of privacy. Even prior to 9-11, the Echelon worldwide surveillance system was well entrenched, monitoring telephones, faxes, and emails. privacy Congress Erodes Privacy November 16, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 121:4 From the 1970s forward, national security letters were used sparingly in circumventing the legal process and search warrant requirements. Since 9-11 and the subsequent passage of the Patriot Act, however, use of these instruments has skyrocketed, from 300 annually to over 30,000. There is essentially no oversight nor understanding by the U.S. Congress of the significance of this pervasive government surveillance. It’s all shrugged off as necessary to make us safe from terrorism. Sacrificing personal liberty and privacy, the majority feels, is not a big deal. privacy Congress Erodes Privacy November 16, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 121:6 The debate in Congress—if that’s what one wants to call it—boils down to whether the most egregious parts of the Act will be sunsetted after 4 years or 7. The conference report will adjust the numbers, and members will vote willingly for the “compromise” and feel good about their effort to protect individual privacy. privacy Introducing We The People 17 November 2005    2005 Ron Paul 122:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning State laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by the Congress. privacy The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:35 Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on free speech and privacy, national ID cards, the Patriot Act, National Security letters, and challenges to habeas corpus all have been promoted; privacy Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:25 Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on free speech and privacy, national ID cards, the PATRIOT Act, National Security Letters, and challenges to habeas corpus all have been promoted. privacy The End Of Dollar Hegemony 15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:115 Cut funding for corporate welfare, foreign aid, international NGOs, defense contractors, the military industrial complex, and rich corporate farmers before cutting welfare for the poor at home. No more unconstitutional intrusions into the privacy of law-abiding American citizens. Reconsider the hysterical demands for security over liberty by curtailing the ever-expanding oppressive wars on drugs, tax violators and gun ownership. privacy Illegal Drug Problem — Part 2 9 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 13:5 Once a war is declared, whether it is a war overseas or whether it is a domestic war on some evil here, that is when the American people should look out for their civil liberties. There, the issue of privacy is attacked. So now we have a war on terrorism and we have the PATRIOT Act and all these other things that intrude on the civil rights and civil liberties of Americans, and, at the same time, not achieving a whole lot of good results. privacy Illegal Drug Problem — Part 2 9 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 13:6 This is what happens when there is a war on. Those people who are trying to avoid taxes, all law-abiding citizens have to obey all these laws. So as soon as there is a war, look out for your civil liberties and your privacy. The war on drugs has done a great deal of harm to our right of privacy. privacy Gold And The U.S. Dollar 25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:54 At home the war on poverty, terrorism, drugs or foreign rulers provide an opportunity for authoritarians to rise to power, individuals who think nothing of violating the people’s rights to privacy and freedom of speech. They believe their role is to protect the secrecy of government rather than protect the privacy of citizens. privacy Introduction Of The We The People Act 29 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 51:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress. privacy Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:23 We are constantly told that the next terrorist attack could come at any moment. Rather than questioning why we might be attacked, this atmosphere of fear instead prompts giving up liberty and privacy. 9/11 has been conveniently used to generate the fear necessary to expand both our foreign intervention and domestic surveillance. privacy Why Are Americans So Angry? June 29, 2006    2006 Ron Paul 52:25 In all instances where fear is generated and used to expand government control, it’s safe to say the problems behind the fears were not caused by the free market economy, or too much privacy, or excessive liberty. privacy Health Information Technology Promotion Act Of 2006 27 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 72:4 Those who are concerned with the increasing erosion of medical privacy should also oppose H.R. 4157. H.R. 4157 facilitates the invasion of medical privacy by explicitly making electronic medical records subject to the misnamed federal “medical privacy” regulation. Mr. Chairman, many things in Washington are misnamed, however this regulation may be the most blatant case of false advertising I have come across in all my years in Congress. Rather than protect an individual right to medical privacy, these regulations empower government officials to determine how much medical privacy an individual needs. privacy Health Information Technology Promotion Act Of 2006 27 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 72:5 The so-called “medical privacy” regulation not only reduce individuals” ability to determine who has access to their personal medical information, but actually threatens medical privacy and constitutionally protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials’ access to a citizen’s private medical record without having to obtain a search warrant. privacy Health Information Technology Promotion Act Of 2006 27 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 72:7 By creating a new federal bureaucracy to establish a “national strategic plan” for the adoption of electronic health care records, H.R. 4157 discourages private sector innovation and expands government control of the medical profession. H.R. 4157 also facilities the violation of medical privacy. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. privacy Statement In Support Of NAIS 26 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 87:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recently become a cosponsor of H.R. 6042, offered by my colleague Mrs. Emerson. This bill prohibits the federal government from implementing the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). It also provides some privacy protections for framers and ranchers who choose to participate in a voluntary identification system. I hope all of my colleagues join me in supporting this bill. privacy Statement In Support Of NAIS 26 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 87:3 Small, family farmers and ranchers will be forced to spend thousands of dollars, as well as comply with new paperwork and monitoring regulations, to implement and operate NAIS. These farmers and ranchers will be paying for a massive assault on their property and privacy rights as NAIS forces farmers and ranchers to provide detailed information about their private property to the government. In addition, the NAIS system empowers the Federal government to enter and seize property from farmers and ranchers without a warrant. Mr. Speaker, this is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment-protected right to be free of arbitrary searches and seizures. privacy Identity Theft Protection Act 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:11 By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public sector criminals. privacy Identity Theft Protection Act 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:12 Some 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 jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient. privacy Identity Theft Protection Act 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:13 Madam Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the Federal Government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons. privacy Identity Theft Protection Act 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:15 Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations. privacy Identity Theft Protection Act 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:17 Second, the Federal Government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain State-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy’ ” regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information. privacy Identity Theft Protection Act 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:18 Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily 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.” privacy Identity Theft Protection Act 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:19 Madam Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the American people’s opposition to national identifiers. The numerous complaints over the evergrowing uses of the Social Security number show that Americans want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID. privacy Introducing We The People 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 9:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress. privacy Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment 7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 24:3 Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor. privacy Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act 25 April 2007    2007 Ron Paul 44:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the supporters of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, are right to be concerned over the possibility that third parties, such as the government or potential employers, will access an individual’s genetic information without consent, and use that information to deny an individual health insurance or other benefits. I have long advocated repealing government laws and polices that allow third parties to access personal information. For example, I have worked to repeal the provision of Federal law giving the Federal Government the power to assign every American a “unique medical health identifier.” I also support repealing the phony “medical privacy” regulations that give law enforcement officials and state-favored private interests the right to access medical records at will. privacy Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act 25 April 2007    2007 Ron Paul 44:2 Because of the Federal Government’s poor record in protecting privacy, I do not believe the best way to address concerns about the misuse of genetic information is through intrusive Federal legislation. Uniform Federal mandates are a clumsy and ineffective way to deal with problems such as employers making hiring decisions on the basis of a potential employee’s genetic profile. Imposing Federal mandates on private businesses merely raises the costs of doing business and thus reduces the employment opportunities for all citizens. A much better way to eliminate irrational discrimination is to rely on state and local regulation. Unlike the Federal Government, states and localities are able to tailor their regulations to fit the needs of their particular populaces. I would remind my colleagues that 34 states currently ban genetic discrimination in employment, while 46 states forbid health insurers from engaging in genetic discrimination. Clearly, the states are capable of addressing this issue without interference from Washington. My colleagues should also remember that Congress has no constitutional authority to forbid private sector employers from making hiring or other employment decisions on the basis of genetic information. privacy In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?) 22 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 55:32 These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security. privacy In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?) 22 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 55:40 The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony. privacy National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act — Part 1 13 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 61:3 H.R. 2640 also seriously undermines the privacy rights of all Americans, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, by creating and expanding massive Federal Government databases, including medical and other private records of every American. privacy National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act — Part 1 13 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 61:5 Among the information that must be submitted to the database are medical, psychological, and drug treatment records that have traditionally been considered protected from disclosure under the physician/patient relationship, as well as records related to misdemeanor domestic violence. While supporters of H.R. 2640 say that there are restrictions on the use of this personal information, such restrictions did not stop the well-publicized IRS and FBI files privacy abuses by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Neither have such restrictions prevented children from being barred from flights because their names appeared on the massive terrorist watch list. We should not trick ourselves into believing that we can pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights we support. privacy Living by the Sword 13 March 2008    2008 Ron Paul 14:6 Two wrongs do not make a right. Two wrongs make it doubly wrong. Sacrifice of our personal privacy has been ongoing for decades, but has rapidly accelerated since 9/11. Before 9/11 the unstated goal of collecting revenue was the real reason for the erosion of our financial privacy. When nineteen suicidal maniacs attacked us on 9/11, our country became convinced that further sacrifice of personal and financial privacy was required for our security. privacy Living by the Sword 13 March 2008    2008 Ron Paul 14:7 The driving force behind this ongoing sacrifice of our privacy has been fear and the emotional effect of war rhetoric – war on drugs, war against terrorism, and the war against third world nations in the Middle East who are claimed to be the equivalent to Hitler and Nazi Germany. privacy Living by the Sword 13 March 2008    2008 Ron Paul 14:9 Recently we’ve been told that this increase in the already intolerable invasion of our privacy was justified because the purpose was to apprehend terrorists. We were told that the massive amounts of information being collected on Americans would only be used to root out terrorists. But as we can see today, this monitoring of private activities can also be used for political reasons. We should always be concerned when the government accumulates information on innocent citizens. privacy Living by the Sword 13 March 2008    2008 Ron Paul 14:18 What we need is more government transparency and more privacy for the individual! privacy NEWBORN SCREENING SAVES LIVES ACT OF 2007 8 April 2008    2008 Ron Paul 20:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, as an OB–GYN I take a back seat to no one when it comes to caring about the health of newborn children. However, as a Representative who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation’s stated goals, that exceeds the Constitutional limitations on Federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have unintended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it. privacy NEWBORN SCREENING SAVES LIVES ACT OF 2007 8 April 2008    2008 Ron Paul 20:3 As the Federal Government assumes more control over health care, medical privacy has increasingly come under assault. Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing Government officials and State-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent. After all, patient confidentiality is the basis of the trust that must underline a positive physician-patient relationship. Yet my review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children. privacy NEWBORN SCREENING SAVES LIVES ACT OF 2007 8 April 2008    2008 Ron Paul 20:4 In fact, by directing Federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a “public health” disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of “emergency.” Thus, most people will gladly sacrifice their families’ medical privacy if they are told it is necessary to protect them from a Government-declared health emergency, while the Federal Government will be very unlikely to relinquish its new powers when the emergency passes. privacy Statement on HR 3221 July 24, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 48:4 Among the information that will be collected from loan originators for inclusion in the federal database are fingerprints. Madam Speaker, giving the federal government the power to force Americans who wish to work in real estate to submit their fingerprints to a federal database opens the door to numerous abuses of privacy and civil liberties and establishes a dangerous precedent. Fingerprint databases and background checks have been no deterrent to espionage and fraud among governmental agencies, and will likewise fail to prevent fraud in the real estate market. I am amazed to see some members who are usually outspoken advocates of civil liberties and defenders of the Fourth Amendment support this new threat to privacy. privacy HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008 25 July 2008    2008 Ron Paul 52:4 Among the information that will be collected from loan originators for inclusion in the Federal database are fingerprints. Madam Speaker, giving the Federal Government the power to force Americans who wish to work in real estate to submit their fingerprints to a Federal database opens the door to numerous abuses of privacy and civil liberties and establishes a dangerous precedent. Fingerprint databases and background checks have been no deterrent to espionage and fraud among governmental agencies, and will likewise fail to prevent fraud in the real estate market. I am amazed to see some members who are usually outspoken advocates of civil liberties and defenders of the fourth amendment support this new threat to privacy. privacy VETERANS’ HEALTH CARE POLICY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2008 July 30, 2008    2008 Ron Paul 53:2 I am concerned, however, that this bill incorporates language from HR 6114, which rescinds a current law requirement that the VA obtain a signed consent form from a veteran before conducting an HIV test. We have seen veterans punished severely for attempting to avoid the required but controversial myriad of inoculations they are required to receive. Now we see that they will have less control over what medical tests to which they might be subjected. I am concerned over this loss of control over one’s healthcare decisions among those who voluntarily join the military, and I urge the adoption of a more flexible policy. I would also urge my colleagues and the American people to contemplate this deprivation of medical and privacy rights on a massive scale should we ever reinstate the draft. I believe taking care of veterans should include both providing promised benefits and protecting their privacy rights. privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT January 6, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 4:11 By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public sector criminals. privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT January 6, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 4:12 Some 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 jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient. privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT January 6, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 4:13 Madam Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons. privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT January 6, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 4:15 Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping, private criminals, but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations. privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT January 6, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 4:17 Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy”’ regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information. privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT January 6, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 4:18 Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily 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.” privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT January 6, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 4:19 Madam Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the American people’s opposition to national identifiers. The numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that Americans want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID. privacy INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE January 14, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 9:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning State laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by the Congress. privacy INTRODUCTION OF THE LIBERTY AMENDMENT April 30, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 50:3 Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the Federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the Federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor. privacy INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT May 21, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 59:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act. This legislation protects medical privacy, as well as quality health care, by allowing patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system. The bill also repeals the sections of Federal law establishing a “unique health identifier” and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a third party. privacy INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT May 21, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 59:2 Congress has refused to fund the development of a unique health identifier every year since 1998. Clearly, the majority of my colleagues recognize the threat this scheme poses to medical privacy. It is past time for Congress to repeal the section of law authorizing the Federal unique health identifier. privacy INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT May 21, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 59:4 One of the major flaws with the federally mandated electronic record system is that it does not provide adequate privacy protection. Electronic medical records that are part of the federal system will only receive the protection granted by the Federal “medical privacy rule.” This misnamed rule actually protects the ability of government officials and state-favored special interests to view private medical records without patient consent. privacy INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT May 21, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 59:5 Even if the law did not authorize violations of medical privacy, patients would still have good reason to be concerned about the government’s ability to protect their medical records. After all, we are all familiar with cases where third parties obtained access to electronic veteran, tax, and other records because of errors made by federal bureaucrats. My colleagues should also consider the abuse of IRS records by administrations of both parties and ask themselves what would happen if unscrupulous politicians gain the power to access their political enemies’ electronic medical records. privacy INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT May 21, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 59:6 As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that one of the foundations of quality health care is the patient’s confidence that all information the patient shares with his or her health care provider will remain confidential. Forcing physicians to place their patients’ medical records in a system without adequate privacy protection undermines that confidence, and thus undermines effective medical treatment. privacy INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT May 21, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 59:9 Madam Speaker, allowing patients and providers to opt out of the electronic medical records system will in no way harm the practice of medicine or the development of an efficient system of keeping medical records. Instead, it will enhance these worthy goals by ensuring patients and physicians can escape the inefficient, one-size-fits-all government- mandated system. By creating a market for alternatives to the government system, the op- out ensures that private businesses can work to develop systems that meet the demands for an efficient system of electronic records that protects patients’ privacy. I urge my colleagues to stand up for privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act. Texas Straight Talk privacy - Paul's legislation focuses on individual liberty 25 August 1997    Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 6 ... Cached The first is HR 2029, the Selective Service Registration Privacy Act. Put succinctly, this legislation will prohibit Clinton's Americorps program from using any Selective Service Administration resources, including draft registration information. Current law requires 18-year-old males to register with Selective Service. privacy - FDA bill no reform: proves Congress still the same 13 October 1997    Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 12 ... Cached To the dismay of medical privacy advocates, the bill goes so far as to authorize the FDA to track patients who use certain medical devices for up to 36 months, and even to conduct post-market surveillance of these patients. Just think, a formerly overweight patient may be followed by an FDA agent to make sure they don't regain the weight a few years later. privacy Paul legislation will stop national ID card 13 July 1998    Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 9 ... Cached It is for this reason that I am introducing the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, with Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia as a cosponsor. As the law stands now, the government is in a position to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace. privacy Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained 20 July 1998    Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 3 ... Cached Issues of individual privacy, rights should not be so quickly dismissed privacy Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained 20 July 1998    Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 6 ... Cached While I am proud to be the author of the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which would stop a national identification card from taking effect, we need to be aware that those wanting to give government power to track us from cradle to grave already have the Social Security Number as their tool of choice. It is for this reason that several months ago I introduced the Privacy Protection Act, H.R. 3261. privacy Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained 20 July 1998    Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 9 ... Cached This is not an isolated incident; in fact, since the creation of the Social Security number in 1934, there have been almost 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs! Abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level. In many states - thanks to federal law - one cannot get a driver's license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one's child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official, and just a couple months ago weeks ago 210 of my colleagues voted to allow States to require citizens to show their Social Security number in order to vote. Since the Social Security number is part of a federal program created by Congress, it is Congress' responsibility to ensure it is not used to violate the privacy of America's citizens. privacy Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained 20 July 1998    Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 10 ... Cached I am proud to be the author of the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act to stop a national ID system from taking place, but we should not be fooled into thinking that the coming National ID is the only threat to our privacy. For America already has a de facto national identification number in the Social Security Number, which comes close to providing the federal government with the ability to track all citizens from cradle to grave. privacy Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained 20 July 1998    Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 11 ... Cached The Social Security Number was created to administer the social security system, and nothing else. We must restore the integrity of the system by restoring the integrity of the accounts. That will only occur when we reign in the use of the account numbers and secure the privacy of the people. This is the purpose of the Privacy Protection Act. privacy Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained 20 July 1998    Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 12 ... Cached We must stop a national ID for many reasons, both moral and constitutional, and we need to stop it in all its forms. The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act addresses the specific issue of a looming National ID, while the Privacy Protection Act addresses the broader issue which has been creeping up on us for many years. privacy Privacy tops agenda 09 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 1 ... Cached Privacy tops agenda privacy Privacy tops agenda 09 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 4 ... Cached Perhaps the most pressing issue before our nation is that of personal privacy. The last several years have seen a dramatic rise -- though certainly not discussed by the press or in politically polite company -- in attempts by the government to claim greater privileges in violating the privacy of American citizens. privacy Privacy tops agenda 09 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 5 ... Cached For a Republican Member of Congress like me, it would perhaps be more comforting to claim that these incidents were all being perpetrated by the "liberal Democrats." While accusing the Republicans of violating his privacy, President Clinton’s Administration has indeed been at the front of the charge to increase the government’s ability to pry into our personal affairs and monitor our movements, he has had many willing allies in the so-called "conservative" camp. privacy Privacy tops agenda 09 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 6 ... Cached From a national database containing the private medical history of every American to a national identification card and granting broad new authorities to the FBI in wiretapping, many on both sides of the political aisle have been working to erode our tradition of privacy. privacy Privacy tops agenda 09 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 11 ... Cached We were unsuccessful in stopping the Administration from implementing "roaming wiretaps." It has been the case up until now that the FBI or other agency can only tap those phone lines that are approved by a court once probable cause has been shown. While some (including myself) believe that the courts have been too liberal in allowing taps, at least there has been a passing acknowledgement that violating privacy, even of someone suspected of engaging in criminal activity, is not a trivial matter. Now, however, these agencies want the power to tap any phone a suspected criminal may use. privacy Privacy tops agenda 09 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 14 ... Cached Benjamin Franklin once wrote that those who give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. The application of this quote to the privacy issue is unmistakable. We have become so consumed as a nation with "fighting crime" that many are willing to give up their liberties, those precious gifts of our creator secured by the blood of soldiers, to secure the illusion of eliminating criminal behavior. privacy Privacy tops agenda 09 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 17 ... Cached The restoration and protection of personal privacy is, and will remain, a key issue for 1999, for the 106th Congress, and for our nation. privacy Wrong debate in House 'leadership' race 16 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 12 ... Cached Both parties, unfortunately, endorse the use of government force to police the world, to redistribute wealth domestically and internationally, and to manipulate money and credit. Both allow government to invade our privacy as a trade-off for the government financing of education, medical care, and housing, arguing such invasion is necessary to run the system efficiently, and prevent waste and fraud. In the name of "public safety," neither party resists the federal government’s takeover of local law enforcement. privacy Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching 30 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 2 ... Cached Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching privacy Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching 30 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 3 ... Cached New FDIC regs require banks to violate customers privacy privacy Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching 30 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 5 ... Cached This massive new program -- euphemistically called "Know Your Customer" -- would convert our nation's banks into wholly owned subsidiaries of the government-wide movement to invade every aspect of Americans' privacy. privacy Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching 30 November 1998    Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 11 ... Cached But at the expense of law-abiding citizen's privacy? And with the resources of private institutions? While such egregious violations of individual rights are common in totalitarian regimes (Hitler's National Socialists elevated such abuses to a perverse art), they cannot be tolerated in a free society. The regulators say these new banking rules are required under existing banking laws. If that is the case, I will gladly relieve them of that burden by introducing, at the beginning of the 106th Congress in January, legislation to repeal those laws. Somehow, though, I imagine such action will not stop them, only slow them down. privacy Stopping the Surveillance State 18 January 1999    Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 3 ... Cached New legislation halts privacy invasions privacy Stopping the Surveillance State 18 January 1999    Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 5 ... Cached To challenge this, I recently introduced The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999 (H.R. 220), legislation forbidding the federal government from establishing national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of monitoring, overseeing, or regulating the private transactions between American citizens. privacy Stopping the Surveillance State 18 January 1999    Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 10 ... Cached Many in Congress sincerely suggest that citizens' privacy could be protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, but the fact is that legislative "privacy protections" are inadequate. Recent history demonstrates that federal laws have not stopped unscrupulous officials from accessing supposedly protected information. Did laws stop the continuous violation of privacy by the IRS, or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations? The Clinton Administration has even endorsed allowing law enforcement officials' access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment. privacy Stopping the Surveillance State 18 January 1999    Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 11 ... Cached The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason, and therefore doomed to failure is anything short of repealing laws that violate personal privacy. privacy Stopping the Surveillance State 18 January 1999    Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 12 ... Cached While most members of Congress are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, they will consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward the government's prying eyes. My office has been inundated with calls from around my district, state and, indeed, the nation, encouraging my efforts to thwart these attacks on our privacy. On the other hand, I have yet to meet a taxpayer who wants the government to further erode their privacy. privacy Stopping the Surveillance State 18 January 1999    Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 13 ... Cached 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. National IDs and massive government databases are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. privacy Orwellian rules face major opposition 01 February 1999    Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 3 ... Cached Paul legislation will restore financial privacy privacy Orwellian rules face major opposition 01 February 1999    Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 5 ... Cached More than 14,000 people -- average American consumers, bankers, and civil-liberties advocates -- have written federal agencies in opposition to the gross violation of privacy known by the Orwellian title "Know Your Customer." This response is even more remarkable when one realizes that the usual number generated by these agencies' rules is less than a hundred. privacy Orwellian rules face major opposition 01 February 1999    Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 6 ... Cached Almost three months ago I first reported on the proposed regulations brought forward by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and other regulatory agencies. These regs would turn bank tellers from reluctant information-gathers to unwilling investigators for the federal government's ongoing War-on-Everything -- which obviously includes the privacy of ordinary Americans. privacy Orwellian rules face major opposition 01 February 1999    Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 13 ... Cached Congressmen are signing on these measures due in large part to the growing chorus of Americans who are saying, to paraphrase our founding fathers' cry, "don't tread on my privacy rights!" Dozens of organizations, ranging from banking and technology groups to conservative family-values coalitions to the liberal ACLU, are joining in the fight to oppose these regulations. privacy Orwellian rules face major opposition 01 February 1999    Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 14 ... Cached As a member of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, this important threat to our financial privacy will be a top priority for me. privacy Victory should be call to action 08 March 1999    Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 6 ... Cached These proposed regulations, which I have written about for almost a year, would virtually eliminate any vestiges of privacy remaining in our financial system. In addition to subverting the Constitution's Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections, these regulations would -- if enacted -- wreak havoc on our system of finance. Banks would be required to monitor every transaction of its customers, create detailed profiles based on that monitoring, and then notify federal agencies any time a customer deviated -- even slightly -- from that profile. All the records would be accessible at any time to the federal government. privacy Victory should be call to action 08 March 1999    Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 7 ... Cached More than 140,000 people wrote in opposition to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve and the other agencies promulgating these regulations. Those same agencies -- with no small degree of bewilderment -- recorded less than 100 comments in support of the massive privacy grab. privacy Victory should be call to action 08 March 1999    Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 9 ... Cached The LEAA statement goes on to read that, "Such intrusive measures will also infringe the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens while detracting from meaningful debate and discussion of measures that would improve law enforcement's crime-fighting ability." privacy Victory should be call to action 08 March 1999    Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 10 ... Cached The real problem is not the specifics of this particular set of regulations, but the entire process that allows these regulations in the first place. Unfortunately, though, there are some in Congress who irrationally believe one can violate the Constitution's strict prohibition against federal crime laws, support a multitude of big-government programs like the failed "war on drugs," yet still respect individual privacy. The logical fallacy of such a belief would be almost laughable, were it not so dangerous and irresponsible. privacy Get to know your banker 12 April 1999    Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 3 ... Cached Free-market economics can stop privacy invasion privacy Get to know your banker 12 April 1999    Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 4 ... Cached When government regulators recently announced they were pulling the plug -- for now, at least -- on plans to strip away the financial privacy of all Americans, one can imagine they did so with a knowing smirk on their face. privacy Get to know your banker 12 April 1999    Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 9 ... Cached The problem for both the big banks and the regulators, though, is the free market. Not every bank is participating in this privacy grab. But you can bet you won't see anyone advertise that they share every detail of your life with any federal agent who walks in the door. As a consumer, though, you do have a right to know what records your bank keeps on you, what is being done with them, and how they are being used. privacy Get to know your banker 12 April 1999    Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 10 ... Cached I would suggest that anyone concerned about financial privacy send a letter to their bank, asking those questions and requesting a response in writing. If the bank does have these programs which are not required, the customer should demand that such files not be kept. If the bank gets enough pressure from their customers, they will change their policies -- after all, what good is volunteering to assist the government in invading privacy if their customers leave in favor of other institutions that will not? privacy Get to know your banker 12 April 1999    Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 12 ... Cached Until then, Americans should use the free market to get to know their banker, and protect their own privacy. privacy Post Office stamps out privacy 24 May 1999    Texas Straight Talk 24 May 1999 verse 2 ... Cached Post Office stamps out privacy privacy Post Office stamps out privacy 24 May 1999    Texas Straight Talk 24 May 1999 verse 4 ... Cached Assaults on privacy are rampant. No sooner have we been successful in stopping four agencies from implementing Orwellian invasions into the financial records of every American citizen, but now the US Post Office has moved to severely limit privacy and restrict trade. privacy Post Office stamps out privacy 24 May 1999    Texas Straight Talk 24 May 1999 verse 5 ... Cached A Postal Service regulation has been finalized that tramples the privacy of the approximately two million Americans who rent mailboxes from commercial mail receiving agencies. privacy Post Office stamps out privacy 24 May 1999    Texas Straight Talk 24 May 1999 verse 8 ... Cached It should not escape notice that the Postal Service, under the Privacy Act of 1974, is prohibited from doing this itself. How ironic, and outrageous, that the Post office is mandating a private business do what Congress has explicitly forbidden the Post Office from doing. privacy Post Office stamps out privacy 24 May 1999    Texas Straight Talk 24 May 1999 verse 9 ... Cached Because the federal government has granted a monopoly on first-class mail delivery to the Postal Service, Americans cannot receive mail without dealing with them. Therefore, this regulation presents Americans who wish to receive mail at a commercial mail receiving agency with a choice: either surrender your right to privacy, or surrender your right to receive legal mail in the manner you prefer. privacy Post Office stamps out privacy 24 May 1999    Texas Straight Talk 24 May 1999 verse 10 ... Cached The post office likes this database because it will give them a 100-percent, no-error list of people who have opted against using a Postal Service PO Box and related services. Thus the Postal Service could mail advertisements to these people explaining, perhaps, how their privacy would not be invaded if they used a government box. privacy Post Office stamps out privacy 24 May 1999    Texas Straight Talk 24 May 1999 verse 14 ... Cached I have introduced House Joint Resolution 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, hoping that it will be considered under the expedited procedures to overturn onerous regulations as established in the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996. Congress cannot hide and blame these actions on the bureaucracy. privacy Post Office stamps out privacy 24 May 1999    Texas Straight Talk 24 May 1999 verse 15 ... Cached This latest assault on privacy must be reversed. Congress must not allow the Post Office to force American citizens to divulge, as the price for receiving mail, personal information for inclusion in massive databases. Given this rule, and the recent series of postage stamps and paraphernalia, one can only conclude that the US Postal Service has gone loony. privacy In search of a cause 25 October 1999    Texas Straight Talk 25 October 1999 verse 11 ... Cached If Congress were eager to address the issue of "cruelty," then perhaps the ongoing trampling of the Constitution would be a good place to start. There certainly is a market for people eager to watch our liberties trashed. Or, if Congress is so concerned about brutality, why not finally address the brutal assault on privacy experienced daily by American citizens? privacy This Year's Successes 22 November 1999    Texas Straight Talk 22 November 1999 verse 11 ... Cached Another key victory we have had is dealing with the US Postal Service regulation that would allow further invasions of the privacy of Commercial Mail Receiving agencies and their many customers. Since I proposed HJR 55, the post office has backed off its original position and redrafted its regulations to make them less onerous. However, we will continue to fight on this front until this regulation is totally repealed. privacy Cosponsored Bills 20 December 1999    Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1999 verse 5 ... Cached Some of the bills I have cosponsored deal with topics on which I have already introduced legislation. These include measures dealing with second amendment rights protection, restriction of funding to the United Nations and "Sense of Congress resolutions" regarding executive orders and privacy issues. Often times, I cosponsor a bill that is not necessarily drafted in such a fashion that I believe will really get at the heart of the problem it is intended to address. Nonetheless, I decide to cosponsor such measures, as long as they take steps in the right direction. Additionally, if the issue is something that I see as significant to maintaining our liberty and restoring our Republic, I will also craft a bill that I think more directly addresses the central problem. In this way, I can lend support to other Members who are moving in the right direction while also advocating a more specific, and often times more significant, remedy to the problem. privacy Overall Review 27 December 1999    Texas Straight Talk 27 December 1999 verse 8 ... Cached Nonetheless, our voice is being heard. On issues such as education, health care and personal privacy, we have begun to see the coming together of broad based coalitions that want only to see the federal government out of the day-to-day lives of the American people. While we do not yet have a majority in Congress, often because certain Republicans from the northeast tend to be every bit as liberal as House Democrats, there is a change afoot in the nation. The American people are largely waking up to the fact that further federal intrusion is not the answer. privacy The Year Ahead 03 January 2000    Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2000 verse 8 ... Cached This coming year I will also continue to focus considerable attention on issues of personal privacy. Right now, my staff is studying ways to draft a privacy amendment to our constitution. Generally, I am not a big fan of constitutional amendments, especially since the federal government now ignores so much of the existing constitution. privacy The Year Ahead 03 January 2000    Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2000 verse 9 ... Cached Still, with the federal judges and liberals working to define privacy in a way that our founding fathers would have never intended, and with leftists using so-called privacy legislation to further expand the ever-growing weed that is our federal government, I am convinced the time has come for us to outline, in a clear, concise and constitutional manner, the true definition of privacy rights as our founding fathers would have understood them. privacy Medical Privacy Threatened 07 February 2000    Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 2 ... Cached Medical Privacy Threatened privacy Medical Privacy Threatened 07 February 2000    Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 4 ... Cached An unconstitutional and dangerous rulemaking procedure by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is underway and greatly threatens the health care privacy and freedom of Americans. The deadline for concerned citizens to submit comments to HHS is February 17. privacy Medical Privacy Threatened 07 February 2000    Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 5 ... Cached On November 3rd, 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published proposed medical privacy regulations in the Federal Register. Protecting medical privacy is a noble goal; however, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to mandate a uniform standard of privacy protections for every citizen. Rather, individuals and those with whom they entrust their health care information should determine the question of who should have access to a person's medical records. Real threats to privacy come primarily from governments that have historically compelled individuals to provide information, often in exchange for some government benefit. privacy Medical Privacy Threatened 07 February 2000    Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 6 ... Cached The HHS regulation would severely reduce individuals' control over their medical records. The regulation, when finalized, will deny, as a matter of federal law, individuals' ability to contract with providers or payors to establish limitations on who should have access to their medical records. Instead, every American will be forced to accept the privacy standard decided upon by Washington-based bureaucrats and politicians, and it is not a good one. privacy Medical Privacy Threatened 07 February 2000    Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 7 ... Cached The regulations also give the federal government power to punish those who violate these standards. Thus, in a remarkable example of government paternalism, individuals are forced to rely on the good graces of government bureaucrats for protection of their medical privacy. These so-called "privacy protection" regulations not only strip individuals of any ability to determine for themselves how best to protect their medical privacy, they also create a privileged class of people with a federally-guaranteed right to see an individual’s medical records without the individual’s consent. For example, medical researchers may access people’s private medical records even if individuals do not want this. privacy Medical Privacy Threatened 07 February 2000    Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 10 ... Cached Finally, I object to the fact that these proposed regulations "permit" health care providers (already beholden to government by funding) to give medical records to the government for inclusion in a federal health care data system. Such a system would contain all citizens’ personal health care information. History shows that when the government collects this type of personal information, the inevitable result is the abuse of citizens’ privacy and liberty by unscrupulous government officials. The only fail-safe privacy protection is for the government not to collect and store this type of personal information. privacy Government Snoops Threaten Privacy 08 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 2 ... Cached Government Snoops Threaten Privacy privacy Government Snoops Threaten Privacy 08 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 5 ... Cached When I see President Clinton suggesting he is going to protect the privacy rights of Americans I start to feel like the fella in the example just cited. Do I really trust Bill Clinton, or any U.S. President, to protect my privacy? Would the founding fathers accept the notion that the federal government is supposed to protect our privacy? Did they authorize that in the constitution? privacy Government Snoops Threaten Privacy 08 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 6 ... Cached Bill Clinton has been a terrible custodian of the public records with which he has been entrusted. He has allowed secrets to slip into the hands of the communist Chinese, but that is not all. This President has been found in violation of the Privacy Act by a federal court. Moreover, we all know the sad story of "filegate," when the White House improperly obtained private FBI files. privacy Government Snoops Threaten Privacy 08 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 7 ... Cached Now President Clinton says he wants to protect your privacy. Has he had a change of heart? Is he now prepared to take steps to make sure the federal government will no longer engage in the kinds of activities it has undertaken on his watch? Hardly! privacy Government Snoops Threaten Privacy 08 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 8 ... Cached Whenever this President talks about privacy protection he always means giving the federal government more power. What he wishes to restrict are private sector actions involving companies selling names or information. Certainly we should not be subject to the sale of our private information against our will. But there are existing methods to prevent such a thing from happening. Through the freedom to contract and the power of state laws such activities can be curtailed. privacy Government Snoops Threaten Privacy 08 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 9 ... Cached When it comes to our privacy rights however, we need to understand the idea from the view of those who ensconced our rights in a constitution. Our founding fathers understood privacy rights are held by individuals and ought not to be violated by the federal government. Mr. Clinton's attempts are to turn the thoughts of the founders upside down. He would have us believe that privacy rights are protected by federal intervention into the information economy. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more contrary to the ideas of liberty. privacy Government Snoops Threaten Privacy 08 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 10 ... Cached If we really want to advance privacy we need to make sure our federal government has fewer records rather than giving it more power to create more lists and police more communications in the name of privacy protection. Let's look at the issue of identity theft as an example. What few realize is that the single greatest contributing factor to identity theft is the government-mandated Social Security number. Successful identity-thieves routinely rely on the Social Security number as the "key" to unlock the records of their victims. Just as the burglar uses a crow bar to open windows, the chief tool of the identity thief is the Social Security number. privacy Government Snoops Threaten Privacy 08 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 11 ... Cached If President Clinton were truly concerned with this invasion of privacy he would spend less time making speeches attacking the private sector, or proclaiming that he is tough on crime, and he would join with me in working to pass HR 220, restricting use of the Social Security number. We have essentially allowed that number to become a unique identifier for all sorts of purposes outside of those originally intended, and that is the problem my legislation seeks to address. privacy Privacy Takes Center Stage 22 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 2 ... Cached Privacy Takes Center Stage privacy Privacy Takes Center Stage 22 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 3 ... Cached A few weeks back I wrote about my efforts to advance privacy legislation. This issue has taken front and center stage over the past couple of weeks, so I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on the activities undertaken these past weeks. privacy Privacy Takes Center Stage 22 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 4 ... Cached Last week the Ways and Means Committee held hearings regarding use of the Social Security number. The fact that the Social Security number has become a unique identifier has strongly contributed to the efforts of those who invade the privacy rights of citizens. From government snoops at the IRS to identity-thieves, those who would invade privacy have found the Social Security number to be a key weapon to allow them to commit their criminal actions. privacy Privacy Takes Center Stage 22 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 5 ... Cached This week the Government Reform and Oversight Committee met to consider potential solutions to privacy problems. Featured in this legislative hearing was my bill, HR 220. As I had done the week before, I was called to testify before the government reform committee. In so doing, I again stressed the importance of ending the use of the Social Security number as a unique identifier. privacy Privacy Takes Center Stage 22 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 10 ... Cached Right now Congress is considering two very different solutions to the privacy problems that have arisen as the result of these extraneous uses of the Social Security number. My solution remains to strictly limit the government. This Congress I introduced two bills the very first day we met. HR 219 stops the government from using Social Security monies for other government programs and HR 220 stops the use of the Social Security number as a unique identifier. privacy Privacy Takes Center Stage 22 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 11 ... Cached It will probably not surprise anybody to learn that there are a number of people in Congress who are actually suggesting that the best way to protect privacy is to make the government bigger and stronger. These people argue that the government should further regulate the information economy in an attempt to advance privacy. Any person familiar with the concept of negative and positive rights, and any student of history, will immediately realize the follies of trying to secure privacy rights by increasing government authority. privacy Privacy Takes Center Stage 22 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 12 ... Cached Right now we can celebrate that this very important issue is being discussed, but we need to be cautious because it is very possible that in the name of privacy, bad legislation will pass. privacy A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress 19 June 2000    Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 2 ... Cached A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress privacy A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress 19 June 2000    Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 3 ... Cached On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed an amendment I proposed to an appropriations bill that will prohibit the federal government from imposing a "uniform standard health identifier" on the American people. This legislation will give Americans the peace of mind that comes from knowing that every detail of their lives is not being filed away. It restores and protects the fundamental privacy and due process rights that are the foundation of our system of government. privacy A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress 19 June 2000    Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 4 ... Cached As a doctor, I know how crucial it is to insure people's privacy when speaking to their physicians. Unless Congress permanently forbids the development of a medical ID, Americans may not be able to talk to their doctors about matters that are of an utmost private nature without fear of having this information accessed by government agencies! As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. What happens to that trust when patients know any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a database accessible by anyone who knows the patient's 'unique personal identifier? privacy A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress 19 June 2000    Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 5 ... Cached "Some 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. privacy A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress 19 June 2000    Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 7 ... Cached No private organization has the power to abuse personal liberty on a massive scale as can the federal government. After all, consumers have the right to refuse to do business with any private entity that asks for a Social Security number, whereas citizens cannot lawfully refuse to deal with many government agencies. Furthermore, most of the major invasions of privacy, from the abuse of IRS files to the abuse of the FBI by administrations of both parties, have occurred by government agents. I can only imagine the havoc they could wreak if they were allowed to access an individual's medical records. privacy A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress 19 June 2000    Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 8 ... Cached I am very pleased that my amendment to the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill passed the House. American citizens have the right to be free from the prying eyes of government bureaucrats. It is the only way to guarantee that medical IDs do not become a reality. By listening to the American people, we have terminated the uniform standard health identifier. This is a great victory for privacy rights. We have finally taken a stand against federal bureaucrats invading our privacy and recording every detail of our lives. privacy Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked 14 August 2000    Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 2 ... Cached Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked privacy Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked 14 August 2000    Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 3 ... Cached From time to time, some of my colleagues in the House of Representatives claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans so it can operate more efficiently. While I do not doubt their good intentions, I would remind them that in the United States, the people should never be asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government a little easier. The government is here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to invade their privacy in the name of efficient government. privacy Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked 14 August 2000    Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 4 ... Cached With that in mind, I have introduced two key pieces of legislation aimed at curtailing governmental privacy invasions. The first is the "Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act" (HR 220). This bill forbids federal or state governments from using your Social Security number for purposes not directly related to administering the Social Security system. When Social Security was introduced, the American people were told that their number would never become a form of national identifier. In fact, until the 1970’s all Social Security cards stated on the back that the card was not an ID card. Unfortunately, cards issued today do not contain that same phrase, and Congress has been all too eager to expand the use of Social Security numbers. privacy Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked 14 August 2000    Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 5 ... Cached For example, in 1998 over 200 members of Congress voted to allow states to force citizens to produce a Social Security number before they could exercise their right to vote. Also, day-to-day private business dealings are becoming increasingly difficult without a Social Security number. You cannot open a bank account, get married, or even obtain a fishing license without disclosing your Social Security number. My bill will restore privacy to Americans who currently are being abused by overreaching government. privacy Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked 14 August 2000    Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 6 ... Cached The other piece of legislation I have introduced is the "Census Privacy Act" (HR 4085). This bill will prohibit the Census Bureau from collecting any information from citizens except for their name, address and the number of people per residence. That is all Congress needs for a head count of the population in order to re-draw congressional districts every ten years as is required by the Constitution. privacy Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked 14 August 2000    Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 8 ... Cached On a more positive note, privacy advocates scored a major victory this summer when the House passed an amendment I proposed to an appropriations bill that will prohibit the federal government from imposing a uniform standard health identifier on the American people. As a doctor, I know how important it is to insure patient confidentiality, and I am very pleased my colleagues supported the amendment. It is the only way to guarantee that national medical ID’s do not become a reality. privacy Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked 14 August 2000    Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 9 ... Cached The other major privacy victory recently was when the federal government withdrew proposed Know Your Customer regulations which would have forced banks to report practically every customer transaction to the government. I was proud to lead the effort on the Banking Committee to stop this invasion of privacy with my "Bank Secrecy Sunset Act" (HR 518), would have overturned any such regulations. Fortunately, the proposal was withdrawn before the legislation was needed, but I believe this will be an ongoing battle. Those advocating more intrusion by the government will continue their legislative efforts, and we must stand ready to face that constant threat. privacy Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy 23 October 2000    Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2000 verse 2 ... Cached Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy privacy Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy 23 October 2000    Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2000 verse 6 ... Cached First and foremost, we must end the massive abuse of Social Security numbers by the government. The widespread proliferation of uses (and misuses) of the number is well known to all of us. One cannot open a bank account, get a job, get married, or even obtain a simple library card without disclosing one's number. Even worse, the IRS uses Social Security numbers as a taxpayer ID, and IRS regulations even force parents to get numbers for newborns to qualify for the dependency deduction. Increasingly, we are tracked from cradle to grave by our Social Security number, which now undeniably acts as a national ID. Every American should be alarmed by this terrible loss of privacy caused by a government that seeks to number and track its citizens. privacy Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy 23 October 2000    Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2000 verse 7 ... Cached Concerns about personal privacy are not new. When the Social Security program began in the 1930s, people objected to the idea of being assigned a number that could be widely used as an identifier. Franklin Roosevelt spoke to those concerns, promising Americans that only they and the Social Security administration would ever know their number. Sadly, 65 years later we see how utterly this promise has been broken. The mission of Congress should be to reverse this dangerous trend and restore privacy before America truly becomes a "surveillance society." privacy Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy 23 October 2000    Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2000 verse 8 ... Cached I introduced the "Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act" (H.R.220) to immediately bring an end to governmental abuse of our Social Security numbers. This legislation simply prohibits the federal or state governments from using your Social Security number for any purpose not directly related to the Social Security administration. Quite simply, your number is your private business, and this legislation is badly needed to restore promised confidentiality. The IRS should not know your private number, and certainly your local motor vehicles department has no business asking for it. privacy Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy 23 October 2000    Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2000 verse 9 ... Cached Similarly, I cosponsored the "Social Security Number Confidentiality Act" (H.R.3218), which forces the Treasury department to prevent numbers from being viewed through window envelopes used for benefits checks. H.R. 3218 passed by a unanimous vote in the House last week, which encourages me that citizens are voicing their privacy concerns to their Representatives. privacy Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy 23 October 2000    Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2000 verse 10 ... Cached The administration and federal bureaucrats will continue to look for ways to increase government monitoring of citizens. Recently, the administration proposed and fought to enact legislation creating a "uniform standard health identifier," clearly as part of a larger plan to create a national medical system. As a physician and privacy advocate, I know how dangerous a federal medical ID would be. The sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship would be destroyed if the patient knew his or her medical problems would be entered into a federal database. The government has no business knowing your medical history. Virtually all Americans agree with me, because public support for my opposition to the medical ID proposal was overwhelming. Ultimately, the medical ID plan was eliminated by my amendment to a larger bill. privacy The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington 26 March 2001    Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 2 ... Cached The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington privacy The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington 26 March 2001    Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 3 ... Cached Medical privacy advocates enjoyed a victory last week when the Supreme Court ruled that a government hospital in South Carolina violated the constitutional rights of pregnant women by testing them for drugs without their consent. The hospital ostensibly began the testing program because of concerns about increasing cocaine use by pregnant patients, but if the hospital was concerned only with patient and fetus health, why were test results turned over to law enforcement? Several women were arrested and put in jail because of the tests, with their newborns presumably taken away to become wards of the state. Not surprisingly, the rationale for this terrible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality was the drug war. The real tragedy of this case is that it may cause pregnant women to conceal illegal drug use from their doctors out of fear of arrest. How many babies will be misdiagnosed or go untreated because their mothers no longer have any medical privacy? privacy The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington 26 March 2001    Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 5 ... Cached As a physician, I cannot imagine providing my patients' medical records to police as evidence for a criminal prosecution. Like most doctors, I adhere to a strict policy of maintaining patient confidentiality. Medical privacy has existed for centuries between doctors and patients, without government interference. However, the drug war has provided the ever-growing federal government with new justifications to invade your once-private medical history. privacy The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington 26 March 2001    Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 6 ... Cached Unfortunately, the drug war is not the only threat to your medical privacy. Medical privacy also is under assault by Washington health bureaucrats. The federal government wants greater access to your private medical records than ever before. On April 14, the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is scheduled to implement invasive new medical rules written during the Clinton administration. The proposed rules require doctors and other health care providers to give patient records to the federal government for very broadly defined purposes and without patient consent. The rules grant law enforcement access to patient records without a search warrant. Patients will have only limited knowledge of who sees their records, and individuals will not be able to sue health care providers or the government for breaches of privacy. Ultimately, your medical history will be readily available to any government agency that wishes to create a national medical database. privacy The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington 26 March 2001    Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 8 ... Cached I recently introduced legislation to halt implementation of the new HHS rules. The federal government has no business knowing your private medical history. Don't believe the bureaucrats who tell us they have innocent reasons for wanting our medical records. The truth is that the federal government wants to eliminate your medical privacy, just as it has eliminated so many of your liberties. privacy The Case Against the Income Tax 07 May 2001    Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2001 verse 5 ... Cached The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results. privacy Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats 18 June 2001    Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 2 ... Cached Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats privacy Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats 18 June 2001    Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 3 ... Cached The vast majority of Americans want and expect their medical records to be kept strictly confidential. Recent polls show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose giving government the power to create a national health database or issue health ID numbers. People instinctively understand that federal databases and ID numbers only serve to destroy personal privacy by making it easier for both government and the private sector to access their private medical history. Yet federal bureaucrats at the department of Health and Human Services, with the help of Congress, have succeeded in implementing regulations which place every American's medical records in the hands of the government. Worst of all, they have done so while claiming to protect our privacy! Only in Washington can so-called "medical privacy" regulations actually authorize such blatant invasions of privacy by the government. privacy Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats 18 June 2001    Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 4 ... Cached The most dangerous aspect of the new regulations is the implementation of a national medical record database. All health care providers, including private physicians, insurance companies, and HMOs, will be forced to use a standard data format for patient records. Once standardized information is entered into a networked government database, it will be virtually impossible to prevent widespread dissemination of that information. If the federal government really seeks to protect medical privacy, why it is so eager to have its citizens' medical records easily available in one centralized database? The truth is that a centralized database will make it far easier for both government agencies and private companies to access your health records. privacy Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats 18 June 2001    Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 6 ... Cached We should remember that private physicians have maintained patient privacy for centuries without government involvement, relying instead on personal conviction, the Hippocratic Oath, and professional standards. Patients once knew without question that anything they told their doctor would remain confidential. However, the physician/patient relationship is certain to change for the worse when control over patient records is transferred from medical professionals to government agencies. When patients know that their sensitive medical information will be turned over to government agencies or placed in a national database, they inevitably will be less open and honest when seeking medical care. Patients with drug and alcohol problems, mental illnesses, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, or other stigmatized health concerns will be especially reluctant to seek treatment. The inevitable result will be a decline in the standard of care delivered by doctors and an increase in health care costs. privacy Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats 18 June 2001    Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 7 ... Cached As a physician, I have vigorously opposed the new HHS rules since they first were proposed by the Clinton administration. I introduced legislation earlier this year to prevent their implementation, but unfortunately the deadline for Congress to act on my bill expired last week. However, the fight is not lost, as the rules do not become legally enforceable until 2003. Congress still has time to pass new legislation which prohibits the federal government from gathering your private medical information. I urge every American concerned with medical privacy and quality health care to join me in the fight to keep government out of our medical records. privacy Can Freedom be Exchanged for Security? 26 November 2001    Texas Straight Talk 26 November 2001 verse 4 ... Cached The"anti-terrorism" legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in a rush to respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate the bill despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy experts or others from fields outside of law enforcement. Normal congressional committee and hearing processes were suspended. In fact, the final version of the bill was not made available to members before the vote! These political games should not be tolerated by the American public, especially when precious freedoms are at stake. privacy Optimism or Pessimism for the Future of Liberty? 11 February 2002    Texas Straight Talk 11 February 2002 verse 5 ... Cached In the area of personal liberty, we face some very real dangers. Throughout our history, starting with the Civil War, our liberties have been threatened and the Constitution has been flaunted. Our government has grown with each national crisis, curtailing many freedoms in the process. The current war on terrorism has no easily defined enemy, and no real end in sight. This means that a return to normalcy with regard to our freedoms is not likely. The implementation of a national ID card, pervasive government surveillance, rubber-stamped search warrants, and the loss of financial and medical privacy will be permanent. If this trend continues, the Constitution will become a much weaker document. privacy Monitor thy Neighbor 22 July 2002    Texas Straight Talk 22 July 2002 verse 2 ... Cached Opposition to the Patriot Act, legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President last year, is growing. Americans are beginning to understand that many precious liberties have been put in jeopardy by the government’s rush to enact new laws in the wake of September 11th. Federal law enforcement agencies now have broad authority to conduct secret, warrantless searches of homes; monitor phone and internet activity; access financial records; and undertake large-scale tracking of American citizens through huge databases. We’re told this is necessary to fight the unending war on terror, but in truth the federal government has been seeking these powers for years. September 11th simply provided an excuse to accelerate the process and convince all of us to relinquish more and more of our privacy to the federal government. privacy Monitor thy Neighbor 22 July 2002    Texas Straight Talk 22 July 2002 verse 5 ... Cached If a government-sponsored snitch program sounds pretty bad to you, you’re not alone. Some commentators draw parallels between Operation TIPS and the citizen informants of the former East German Stasi secret police. Of course, suggesting the obvious- that citizen spy programs are incompatible with a free society- invites denunciations and sharp reminders that "we’re at war." Remember, however, that wars have been used throughout modern history to justify rapid expansion of state power at the expense of personal liberty. We cannot remain free if we allow the endless, undeclared war on terror to serve as an excuse for giving up every last vestige of our privacy. privacy The Homeland Security Monstrosity 18 November 2002    Texas Straight Talk 18 November 2002 verse 2 ... Cached Congress spent just a few short hours last week voting to create the biggest new federal bureaucracy since World War II, not that the media or even most members of Congress paid much attention to the process. Yet our most basic freedoms as Americans- privacy in our homes, persons, and possessions; confidentiality in our financial and medical affairs; openness in our conversations, telephone, and internet use; unfettered travel; indeed the basic freedom not to be monitored as we go through our daily lives- have been dramatically changed. privacy Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution 11 August 2003    Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 4 ... Cached Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights- rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas. privacy A Texas Platform for the GOP 30 August 2004    Texas Straight Talk 30 August 2004 verse 4 ... Cached The Texas party platform is similarly bold when it comes to terrorism, civil liberties, and privacy. Rather than promoting the current mantra that security is our ultimate goal, the platform reminds us that liberty is our most important value. The platform calls for repealing portions of the Patriot Act, calls for less information gathering by government, opposes property seizures without due process, and opposes the creation of a national ID card. The platform asserts that "A perpetual state of national emergency allows unrestricted growth of government,” and "We believe the current greatest threat to our individual liberties is overreaching government controls established under the guise of preventing terrorism.” You won’t hear this kind of language at the national Republican convention. privacy Reject the National ID Card 06 September 2004    Texas Straight Talk 06 September 2004 verse 5 ... Cached A national identification card, in whatever form it may take, will allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every American. History shows that governments inevitably use the power to monitor the actions of people in harmful ways. Claims that the government will protect the privacy of Americans when implementing a national identification card ring hollow. We would do well to remember what happened with the Social Security number. It was introduced with solemn restrictions on how it could be used, but it has become a de facto national identifier. privacy It Can't Happen Here 20 December 2004    Texas Straight Talk 20 December 2004 verse 6 ... Cached Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don’t believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions. But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority- all in the name of security. Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. We tolerate inconveniences and infringements upon our liberties in a manner that reflects poorly on our great national character of rugged individualism. American history, at least in part, is a history of people who don’t like being told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents to run our lives. privacy It Can't Happen Here 20 December 2004    Texas Straight Talk 20 December 2004 verse 9 ... Cached After all, proponents argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don’t have anything to hide, they ask, what are you so afraid of? The answer is that I’m afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should hold dear. I’m afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing. Most of all, I’m afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government. privacy The National ID Trojan Horse 14 February 2005    Texas Straight Talk 14 February 2005 verse 8 ... Cached What will this mean for us? When this new program is implemented, every time we are required to show our drivers’ license we will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric information, information which is connected to a national and international database. This will further degrade our precious privacy, which is the hallmark of a civilized society. As Ayn Rand said, the “Savage’s whole existence is public.” privacy Stop the NAIS 29 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2006 verse 8 ... Cached NAIS also forces livestock owners to comply with new paperwork and monitoring regulations. These farmers and ranchers literally will be paying for an assault on their property and privacy rights, as NAIS empowers federal agents to enter and seize property without a warrant-- a blatant violation of the 4th amendment. privacy Stop the NAIS 29 May 2006    Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2006 verse 11 ... Cached NAIS means more government, more regulations, more fees, more federal spending, less privacy, and diminished property rights. It’s exactly the kind of federal program every conservative, civil libertarian, animal lover, businessman, farmer, and rancher should oppose. The House has already acted, but there’s still time to tell the Senate to dump NAIS. Please call your Senators and tell them you oppose spending even one dime on the NAIS program in the 2007 agriculture appropriations bill. privacy Amnesty Opponents Are Not Un-American 11 June 2007    Texas Straight Talk 11 June 2007 verse 9 ... Cached I strongly disagree with the president that opposing this legislation is unpatriotic. I believe we have an obligation to reject any legislation that promises amnesty to those here illegally, and that undermines the sovereignty and privacy of American citizens. Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance. Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see. Home Page    Contents    Concordance   E-mail list.