|
Ron Paul's Freedom Report
A publication of the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
Volume 4, No. 3 MAY 2000
Privacy Update
The Constitution does indeed protect privacy. That is the essence of liberty.
It is the purpose of the Constitution.
At the beginning of May, William Safire reported in the New York Times that one of my pieces of legislation protecting privacy, the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (H.R. 220), will soon receive a hearing in the House. I was subsequently contacted and scheduled to testify on May 11 before the Ways and Means Committee where this bill resides.
The government's war on privacy, the first real battle of which is now unfolding, could become the defining issue of the first decade of the 21st Century. To fully understand this, we must look at where the issue stands today.
When I hear President Clinton suggesting he is going to protect the privacy rights of Americans, I ask myself - 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?
Never mind that Bill Clinton has been a terrible custodian of the public records with which he has been entrusted, or that he allowed secrets to slip into the hands of the communist Chinese. This president has actually been found to be in violation of the Privacy Act by a federal court. What's more, we all know the sad story of "Filegate" where the White House improperly obtained private FBI files.
The point is, our Founding Fathers understood that privacy rights are held by individuals and they removed those rights from the federal government's grasp by protecting them in the Constitution. Mr. Clinton would have us believe that privacy rights are protected by the federal government and federal intervention into the "information economy" that is required. In true Orwellian fashion, Mr. Clinton would turn the intent of the Founders upside down.
Mr. Clinton's notion couldn't be further from the truth or more contrary to the ideas of liberty.
Whenever this president talks about "privacy protection" he means giving the federal government more power. Mr. Clinton would only restrict private-sector options, like actions involving companies selling names or information. While we certainly should not be subjected to the sale of our private information against our will, there already are existing methods to prevent such a thing from happening - we have both the freedom to contract and the power of state laws to curtail such activities.
If we really want to advance privacy, we would make sure federal bureaucrats have fewer records rather than giving them greater access to create more lists and police more private communications…all in the name of privacy protection.
Just take one issue as an example - the issue of identity theft. What too few people realize is that the single greatest contributing factor to identity theft is the government-mandated Social Security Number (SSN). Successful identity thieves routinely rely on the SSN as the "key" to unlock the records of their victims. Just as the burglar uses a crowbar to open windows, the identity thief's chief tool is the SSN.
If President Clinton were truly concerned with the invasion of privacy, he would spend less time making speeches attacking the private sector, or proclaiming that he is tough on crime, and join with me in working to pass H.R. 220. My legislation restricts the use of the SSN, as well as forbidding the creation of any other national ID card or number.
We have essentially allowed the SSN to become a de facto national ID number - a unique identifier necessary for all sorts of purposes. We need it to get a driver's license, open a bank account, get a job, travel on an airplane and more (there are over 40 non-social security related uses of the SSN authorized by federal law), all purposes well outside those originally intended.
Next - and I mean very soon - will come the "unique medical identifier" that will allow government to track and compile in one central database all our individual medical histories and private medical details.
The hearings on May 11 and others later in May, signaled the beginning of what will be a long and hard-fought war to roll back the "surveillance state" and stop Big Brother.
POLICEMAN OF THE WORLD
[The remainder of this Report deals with a single issue: the role of the U.S. military as policeman of the world.
The following are excerpts from Dr. Paul's floor statements pertaining to the administration's request for
$4 billion for U.S. military interventions in foreign countries, and from the debate on Dr. Paul's amendment
that led to a recorded vote on this critical issue.]
[WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2000]
Unnecessary Supplemental Appropriations and Unwise Military Adventurism in Colombia
Dr. Paul addresses the House:
Mr. Speaker, the current budget authorizes an expenditure of $1.789 trillion. One would think that would be enough. But the President has asked for an additional $4 billion. After the House leadership thought about it, they decided to give him $9 billion.
There is enough waste and fraud in the current budget to find $4 billion if this expenditure were necessary. If we ever cut back on unconstitutional spending, we would have plenty of funds to take care of additional expenditures with a lot left over.
Instead of spending our money on military adventurism, we should be taking this money and spending it to build up our military defenses. We should be using this money to pay our military personnel more, give them better housing and better education and better medical care.
What we do today, if we pass this bill, is move into another area of the world where we have no constitutional interest.
[March 29, 2000 continued…]
During the debate on 2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
It is said that we need to appropriate this money to fight the drug war in Colombia. We have been fighting the drug war for 25 years. We have spent $250 billion on the drug war. Some day we will have to wake up and recognize that the way we are fighting the drug war is wrong.
As a physician, I can tell my colleagues we have a serious problem. A lot of people suffer from drug use in this country. But when something is not working, why do we remain so determined to pursue that process that does not work?
Frankly, I am not sure that the real reason we are in Colombia has anything to do with drugs. But I do concede a lot of individuals will be voting for this bill out of the mistaken belief that it might help.
I had an amendment that was not approved [by the Rules Committee and therefore could not be submitted]. What I would have done, had I been given the chance, would have been to take all the money from overseas spending - from Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, and the funds now sought for this new misadventure down in Colombia - and put them into building up our military defense. That is what we need. We need better salaries, better medical care, and better housing for our military personnel. But here we go again, spreading ourselves even more thinly around the world by taking on a new [mis]adventure which will surely lead to trouble and a lot more expense.
I guess there is one cynical hope about what might happen with our involvement in Colombia, and it is that usually, when we get involved, it's only supposed to be for a short period of time.
We were going to go into Bosnia for just six months. We have been there five years.
We were going to go to Kosovo for a short period of time. Now, it is open-ended.
We are in East Timor for who knows how long.
And we will soon be in Colombia.
Members have referenced the 65 helicopters that will be sent to Colombia. There was one time when we literally surrendered and ran with our tail between our legs because we went in with helicopters, and that was in Somalia. We sent our Blackhawk helicopters in and had two of them shot down in Mogadishu. Two others crash landed when they returned to the base. Within a couple weeks, we were out of there.
We did not send our Blackhawk helicopters into Kosovo because they would be shot down. Lets face it, it is not a good weapon. It will only lead to further involvement.
Who is going to fly the Blackhawk helicopters? Do my colleagues think the Colombians are going to fly them? You can bet our bottom dollar we are going to have American pilots down there very much involved in training and getting in much deeper than we ever should.
This could end up in a real mess. Maybe then we would have enough sense to leave. But we, in the Congress, ought to have enough sense not to go down there in the first place.
Whenever we get ourselves involved, whether it is the Persian Gulf or Bosnia or wherever, all we do is build up our enemies. We increase our exposure to terrorist attacks because we are not there in the name of security, and resentment toward America only builds.
Under the Constitution, we should have a strong national defense, and we should provide for national security. Going into Colombia has nothing to do with national security and only serves to undermine national defense.
Even those who build helicopters are pretty blunt about it. One lobbyist said, "It is business for us, and we are as aggressive as anybody. I am just trying to sell helicopters."
What about the oil companies who support this war as several oil companies do? They want investment security, so they want the military-industrial complex to come down there and protect their oil interests. The oil interests are very supportive of this war, as are the helicopter companies.
But the American people, if they were asked, would decline. A recent poll by Zogby showed that, essentially, 70 percent of the American people answered "No" to this particular question: Should the U.S. help defend militarily such-and-such country even though it could cost American soldiers their lives? It varied a little depending on which country was named, but basically, 65 to 75 percent of the American people said "No." The American people want us to mind our own business and not be the policeman of the world.
Can any Member come to this floor and absolutely assure us that we are not going to lose American lives in Colombia? We are certainly committing ourselves to huge numbers of dollars - dollars that we do not have, dollars that if we wanted, could come out of the current $1.7 trillion budget we already have.
So I would suggest to my colleagues… it is not really a war on drugs. By trying to reduce interdiction, the war on drugs does not work. It has not worked. It is not going to work. It is only an excuse. It is an excuse for promoting military intervention in Colombia to satisfy those who are anxious to drill there for oil and for the military-industrial complex to sell weapons.
It's amazing to me to see this administration that is so strongly opposed to law-abiding American citizens owning guns for self defense be such a promoter of the big guns of war throughout the world.
I ask for a "no" vote.
[THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2000 ]
Fiscal 2000 Supplemental Appropriations/DEA Funding Cuts Amendment
"If you are sick and tired of America being the patsy, sick and tired of us picking up the bill,
sick and tired of our troops being exposed around the world, this is the amendment to support"
- Rep. Ron Paul.
[Editor's note: The House Rules Committee would not allow Dr. Paul to submit his amendment that
would have redirected any additional funding from foreign military interventions to address the critical
needs of military personnel and enhance U.S. security. Instead, Dr. Paul was allowed to offer an
amendment that would reduce some expenditures and limit the uses of whatever new money
was approved, as detailed in the following statement.]
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment [that] deals with what I consider a monster. That monster is the careless foreign military interventionism in which we engage too often, and in which we are getting ready to further engage now, in Colombia.
I am convinced that when most Members go back to their districts, they never brag and say that, I go to Washington, and I always vote for the United States to be the policemen of the world. I enjoy deferring to the United Nations and NATO forces and for us to pursue some of their policies overseas. Frankly, I believe most of us go home and say that we do not believe that the United States should be the policeman of the world.
Earlier, we debated the issue of whether or not our allies are paying their fair share, and it is obvious they are not. So not only do we defer to them for policy and extend ourselves throughout the world, we actually end up paying the bill, as most American citizens know.
Last year, when we were dealing with our initial involvement in Kosovo, we had several votes on the floor to determine the sentiment of the Congress. For the most part, the sentiment was strongly opposed to our military troops being placed in Kosovo.
But when it came time to deal with the funding, we were all too anxious to permit and authorize and appropriate the money to go into Kosovo. Today we are continuing to fund our activities in Kosovo as well as in Bosnia and East Timor, and now we are planning to go into South America, principally Colombia.
My amendment deals with this. It would strike these funds, and it would permit funds to be used in Kosovo to bring troops home.
Some people argue that if we strike funds for areas like Kosovo, we will be deserting our troops and it will be detrimental to their morale. Quite the opposite. I think it would absolutely be helpful, because the morale of our servicemen cannot get much lower.
The morale is low because they do not know what their real function is in areas where we're involved. They have become policemen dealing with local laws as well as Peace Corps-type operators.
Morale would be tremendously helped by bringing these troops home. This is what this amendment deals with, and it strikes the funding for the expansion of our efforts in Central America.
There are a lot of weapons in Colombia already, and we are responsible for 80 percent of them. There is one irony about this bill that strikes me. This administration and many here on the floor who vote for these weapons are the same individuals who are anxious to prohibit the right of an American citizen to own a cheap weapon in self-defense. But at the same time they are quite willing to tax these same citizens and take their money to spend it on the weapons of war around the world and become involved in no-win situations.
I cannot think of a worse situation for us to get further involved in than where there is a four-way faction - as in Colombia. Buying 63 helicopters is bound to cause trouble. Some will be shot down, thus requiring even more involvement by American troops.
It is time to reassess this policy; to come home. We should not be the policemen of the world. A recent poll has shown [t]he American people are not interested in us placing United States troops under the command of U.N. and NATO forces.
This is a good time for the Members of the Congress to …vote clearly and say to the American people, I do not endorse the concept that we should have an open-ended commitment to the world, to be the policemen of the world. This is what this amendment says. The large majority of the American people are strongly supportive of this position.
Some say this amendment deals with a principle of foreign policy, and we should defer to the President. That is not correct. Under the Constitution, the words "foreign policy" do not exist. All the obligations fall on the Congress, especially with the power of the purse. The President is the Commander in Chief, but he should never send troops around the world without permission, which all Presidents have done in the last 50 years. This amendment addresses that subject.
I would have preferred an amendment that struck some of these funds from overseas and placed them into beefing up the military, increasing the pay of our military personnel, giving them better housing and better medical care, as well as having some of those funds spent here at home. But that amendment was not permissible under the rule. However, that point, if my colleagues are anxious to make it, can be made by voting for this amendment. If you are sick and tired of America being the patsy, sick and tired of us picking up the bill, sick and tired of our troops being exposed around the world, this is the amendment to support.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe for one minute this is a surrender in the drug war. This is an acknowledgment that the $250 billion we have spent over the last 25 years has not worked; that the strategy against drugs is wrong.
Why continue a war that does not work? This is money down a rat hole…totally wasted money and, as far as I am concerned, only an excuse to sell helicopters and go into Colombia to protect oil interests. That is the real reason why we are down there.
[My colleague] suggests that this would mean that there would be no more building and no support for our troops in Korea. But my amendment only deals with the money in this supplemental. What about the current year's budget? Those funds can still be spent. But it also suggests that we should question how long we are going to be in Korea. It is time to start thinking about these matters. It is time to bring these troops home.
It is the farthest stretch of the imagination to believe that what we are spending here on this budget…has anything to do with national security. This is special-interest spending. This is conservative welfarism; that is what it is.
We condemn all the welfare from the left, but we always have our own welfare on the right, and it is not for national defense. We should do less of this military adventurism overseas and put the money into national defense - take better care of our troops, which would boost morale, and increase our ability to defend our country. But, instead …we subsidize our enemies - to the tune of many billions of dollars for a country like China. At the same time, when China is aggravated and annoyed with Taiwan, we send more weapons to Taiwan. Then we promise to send American servicemen to stand in between the two of them.
Some day we should ask the question of whether this policy is good for us. I am frightened to think that this practice will only change when we are in such a mess - a lot worse than Vietnam - or we totally go broke, or both.
We should not wait. We should speak out and do what is best for our country. We have a good guideline as to what we should do in foreign policy, and it comes from the Constitution. Certainly, we should note the unconstitutional trend of the last 50 years. The Constitution gives us the guidance to pursue a proper foreign policy.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and recorded as Roll No. 92. There were 45 ayes, 376 noes, and 22 not voting. For the record, those supporting Dr. Paul's position that the U.S. military should not police the world were: Archer, Brown (OH), Campbell, Cannon, Chabot, Coburn, Collins, Combest, Cook, Danner, Deal, DeMint, Dickey, Duncan, Ewing, Gekas, Graham, Gutknecht, Hill (MT), Hilleary, Hoekstra, Hulshof, Jones (NC), Largent, Linder, Manzullo, Metcalf, Moran (KS), Paul, Peterson (MN), Petri, Pitts, Ramstad, Rohrabacher, Royce, Salmon, Sanford, Scarborough, Sensenbrenner, Shadegg, Simpson, Stark, Tancredo, Terry, Toomey.
|
