|
Ron Paul's Freedom Report
A publication of the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
Volume 5, No. 6 AUGUST 2001
Editor's note: the fight to stop, if not roll back, the excesses of ever-growing central government is never-ending. This is a war made up of many individual battles, and several key issues have been selected for this issue of the Freedom Report. Although the subjects are familiar, Dr. Paul's statement before the House, his testimony delivered during congressinal hearings and formal correspondence focuses attention on the disease we must cure - not on the symptoms that are a result of too much government in the first place.
Dr. Paul's Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
Congressman Ron Paul
May 23, 2001
Dear Secretary Thompson:
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 because they allow the government increased access to medical records.
According to a Gallop survey commissioned by the Institute for Health Freedom, 92% of Americans oppose allowing government agencies to have access to medical records without patient consent. The American people are more opposed to government agencies having unfettered access to medical records than any private party, with the one exception of financial institutions, having access to their medical history. Yet HHS's rule increases the power of government agencies to seize medical records without consent!
Violation of the Fourth Amendment
HHS should ensure that the [so-called medical privacy] regulation complies with the letter and spirit of the Fourth Amendment by requiring that law-enforcement officials obtain a valid search warrant before seizing private medical records. The requirement that law-enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government's power to seize an individual's private documents. While the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law-enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.
Doctor-Patient Confidentiality is Destroyed
HHS should also eliminate those sections which require physicians to provide the federal government with personal medical records for purposes of monitoring compliance with the rule. HHS should only collect information if the physicians or the federal government have obtained written permission from the patient allowing HHS to obtain their records.
HHS should also repeal those sections of the regulations that provide private parties with a right to access private medical records for reasons unrelated to treatment. Particularly offensive are those sections which allow medical researchers to access private records without individual consent.
While researchers claim to be able to protect the autonomy of their unwilling subjects, the fact is that allowing third parties to use medical records for research purposes runs the risk of inadvertent identification of personal medical information. I am aware of at least one incident where a man had his identity revealed when his medical records were used without his consent. As a result, many people in his community discovered details of his medical history that he wished to keep private!
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.
Violation of the Fifth Amendment
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."
In a free society, such as the one envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance "important social goals." Rather, it should be up to the individual, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to his personal property, including his personal information.
To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically determined "common good," they are incompatible with a constitutional government that respects individual liberty.
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!
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.
For Liberty,
/s/ Ron Paul
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001
Protecting Privacy and Preventing
Misuse of Social Security Numbers
Dr. Paul testifies before the House Committee on
Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social Security
I wish to thank the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Ways and Means Committee for holding this hearing on the misuse of the Social Security number.
The transformation of the Social Security number into a de facto uniform identifier is a subject of increasing concern to the American people. This is, in large part, because the use of the Social Security number as a standard identifier facilitates the crime of identity theft. Today, all an unscrupulous person needs to do is obtain someone's Social Security number in order to access that person's bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and have had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft.
The responsibility for the misuse of the Social Security number and the corresponding vulnerability of the American people to identity crimes lies squarely with the Congress. Since the creation of the Social Security number, Congress has authorized over 40 uses of the Social Security number. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a drivers' license 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 his in order to get a fishing license!
Because it was Congress which transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem. In order to protect the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers which facilitate identity crimes, I have introduced the Identity Theft Prevention Act, H.R. 220. (H.R. 220 was introduced on January 3, 2001 - the first day of the 107th Session.)
The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to the Social Security program.
Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill will no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration will be able to use an individual's original Social Security number to ensure efficient transition of the Social Security system.
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.
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.
Presumed Innocence
Many of our colleagues will claim that the federal government needs [the powers H.R. 200 would deny them] to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution's Tenth Amendment.
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 [the Congress] are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
Mr. Chairman, while I do not question the sincerity of those Members who suggest that Congress can ensure that a citizen's 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.
Legislated "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 way to protect 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.
Second, 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?
Third, any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation is insufficient 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."
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 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.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I once again thank you and the other members of the subcommittee for holding a hearing on this important issue. I hope this hearing will lead to serious congressional action to end the federal government's unconstitutional use of national identifiers which facilitate identity theft by passing HR 220, the Identify Theft Prevention Act.
[On January 3, 2001, H.R. 220 was introduced and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and to the House Government Reform Committee.]
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2001
Intervention in Sudan
Dr. Paul addresses the House
Mr. Speaker, with HR 2052, the Sudan Peace Act, we embark upon another episode of interventionism, continuing our illegitimate and ill-advised mission to police the world.
It seemingly matters little to this body that it proceeds neither with any constitutional authority nor with the blessings of such historical figures as Jefferson who, in his first inaugural address, argued for "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."
Unfortunately, this is not the only bit of history which seems to be lost on this Congress. Apparently, it is also lost on this Congress that the Constitution was a grant of limited power to the federal government from the citizens. In other words, the Constitution was not designed to allow the government to restrain the people, but to allow the people to restrain the government.
The Games Congress Plays…
Of course, customary lip service is given to the Constitution insofar as the committee report for this bill follows the rule of citing constitutional authority. It cites Article I, Section 8, which is where one might look to find a specific enumerated power.
However, the report cites only Clause 18, which begs some further citation - because Clause 18 contains the "necessary and proper" language that limits Congress to enacting laws necessary and proper to one of the foregoing, specifically enumerated powers. However, no such foregoing authority is cited by the advocates of this bill [because none exists].
Without Constitutional authority, this bill goes on to encourage the spending of $10 million of U.S. taxpayers' hard-earned money in Sudan…but for what purpose?
From the text of the bill, we learn that "The United States should use all means of pressure available to facilitate a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan, including (A) the multilateralization of economic and diplomatic tools to compel the Government of Sudan to enter into a good-faith peace process [note that it says "compel…good-faith peace"]; and (B) the "support or creation of viable democratic civil authority and institutions in areas of Sudan outside of government control."
I believe we used to call that nation building before that term became impolitic.
How self-righteous a government is ours which legally prohibits foreign campaign contributions (again with no constitutional authority to regulate campaigns), yet assumes it knows best, and hence, supports dissident and insurgent groups in places like Cuba, Sudan and around the world. The practical problem here is that we have funded dissidents in such places as Somalia who ultimately turned out to be worse than the incumbent governments. Small wonder the U.S. is the prime target of citizen-terrorists from countries with no real ability to retaliate militarily for our illegitimate and immoral interventions.
The legislative "tools" to be used to "facilitate" this aforementioned "comprehensive solution" are as frightening as the nation-building tactics.
For example, "It is the sense of the Congress that…the United Nations should be used as a tool to facilitate peace and recovery in Sudan." One can only assume this is the same United Nations which booted the United States off its Human Rights Commission in favor of, as Canadian Sen. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein called them recently, "Those exemplars of human rights nations…Algeria, China, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Armenia, Pakistan, Syria and Vietnam."
The bill does not stop there, however, in intervening in the civil war in Sudan. It appears that this Congress has found a new mission for the Securities and Exchange Commission, who are now tasked with investigating "the nature and extent of…commercial activity in Sudan" as it relates to "any violations of religious freedom and human rights in Sudan."
It seems we have finally found a way to spend those excessive fees the SEC has been collecting from mutual fund investors (read: retirees) despite the fact we cannot seem to bring to the floor a bill to actually reduce those fees which have been collected in multiples above what is necessary to fund this agency's previous (and again unconstitutional) mission.
Corporate Welfare
There is more, however. Buried deep within the bill in Section 9 we find what may be the real motivation for the intervention - OIL.
It seems the bill also tasks the Secretary of State with generating a report detailing "a description of the sources and current status of Sudan's financing and construction of infrastructure and pipelines for oil exploitation, the effects of such financing and construction on the inhabitants of the regions in which the oil fields are located." Talk about corporate welfare and the ability to socialize the costs of foreign competitive market research on the U.S. taxpayer!
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this bill truly has it all:
- an unconstitutional purpose,
- the morally bankrupt intervention in dealings between the affairs of foreign governments and their respective citizens in our attempt to police the world,
- more involvement by a United Nations proven inept at resolving civil conflicts abroad,
- the expansion of the SEC into State Department functions, and alittle corporate welfare for big oil, to boot.
How can one not support these legislative efforts!
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill for the each of above-mentioned reasons.
I leave it to the ingenuity, generosity, and conscience of each individual in this country to make their own private decision as to how best to render help to citizens of Sudan, or to any country where human rights violations run rampant.
|
