|
Ron Paul's Freedom Report
A publication of the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
Volume 5, No. 7, SEPTEMBER 2001
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2001
Dr. Paul Introduces The Patient Privacy Act
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act, which repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 [HIPAA] authorizing the establishment of a "standard unique health care identifier" for all Americans, as well as prohibits the use of federal funds to develop or implement a database containing personal health information.
Establishment of such a medical identifier, especially when combined with HHS's [Department of Health and Human Services] 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 citizen's record simply by entering the patient's identifier into a health-care database.
When the scheme to assign every American a unique medical identifier became public knowledge in 1998, there was a tremendous outcry from the public. Congress responded to the public outrage by including language in the federal budget for the past three fiscal years forbidding the expenditure of funds to implement or develop a medical identifier. Last year my amendment prohibiting the use of funds to develop or implement a medical ID unanimously passed the House of Representatives.
It should by now be clear to every member of Congress that the American public does not want a uniform medical identifier. Therefore, rather than simply continuing to extend the prohibition on funding for another year, this year Congress should repeal the authorization of the national medical ID.
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 a patient knows that any and all information given his doctor will be placed in a database accessible by anyone who knows the patient's "unique personal identifier?"
I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding an emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?
Many of my colleagues will admit that the American people have good reason to fear a government-mandated health ID card, but they will claim such problems can be "fixed" by additional legislation restricting the use of the identifier and forbidding all but certain designated persons to have access to those records.
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 the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government to assign a unique number to any citizen.
The second and most important reason legislation can't "fix" what the American people fear about a government-mandated health ID card 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 well as ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people.
The only effective way to protect 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."
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.
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 relationship, 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.
[The Patient Privacy Act, H.R. 2615, was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Government Reform.]
WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2001
Dr. Paul offers his Amendment to Defund the U.N.
[During consideration of Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary Appropriations for 2002.]
Mr. Chairman, let me read the amendment because it is just three lines. It says, "None of the funds appropriated in this act may be used for any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations." It would defund the United Nations. It would take away the dues that we pay the United Nations as well as the amount of money that we are paying to pay our back dues.
I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the reasonableness of our support for the United Nations. The government of the United States has continued to grow as the sovereignty of the individual states has gotten much smaller. Now we are also losing a lot of sovereignty to an international government, the United Nations.
Just recently, the United States was humiliated by being voted off (by secret ballot) the U.N. Human Rights Commission, while Sudan was appointed in our place. How could anything be more humiliating? Democracy ruled, our vote counted as one, which gives our vote the same value as the vote of Red China or Sudan. The whole notion that we would be put off the Human Rights Commission, while Sudan, where slavery is practiced, would take our place on the Human Rights
Commission, should be an insult to all of us.
In [the International Relations] committee, we dealt with this problem. We said, "Well, if the U.N. straightens up, then we'll pay our dues this year; but maybe we'll withhold our dues next year." That is very, very weak; and it does not show any intent or show any rejection of what is going on in the United Nations.
It was mentioned earlier in debate that the U.N. is currently meeting up in New York dealing with the gun issue. In fact, there have been explicit proposals made at the United Nations to have worldwide gun control. No, they are not taking guns away from governments. They are taking guns away from civilians.
If anybody understands our history [at all], they know that taking guns from civilians is exactly opposite to what the Founders intended. In a nation like Afghanistan, for instance, citizens were able to defend against invasion by the Soviet Union because individuals had guns. Likewise, the Nazis were murdering the Jews after the Jews had been denied the right to own guns. Now we are talking about the United Nations having international gun laws.
Furthermore, there have been proposals made for an international tax on all financial transactions. Yes, it is true, it has not been passed, but these are the plans that have been laid and are continuing to be discussed. They are moving in that direction.
Today we have an international government that manages trade through the WTO [World Trade Organization].
We have an international government that manages all international financial transactions through the IMF [International Monetary Fund].
We have an international government that manages welfare through the World Bank.
Do any of these institutions really help the poor people of the world? Hardly. They help the people who control the hands of power in these international institutions, and generally they help the very wealthy, the bankers, and the international corporations.
It was said the United Nations may have been set up to help preserve peace and help poor people, but that just does not happen. The poor pay the taxes and the international corporations gain the benefit.
The U.S. has taken a very strong position against endorsing the International Criminal Court. Our argument is legitimate. It says that, oh, someday the International Criminal Court may arrest Americans because it just may be that Americans may pursue illegal acts of war, like bombing other countries and killing innocent people. So, we do not want the international court to apply to us.
But with our money, our prestige and our pressure, it is ok to endorse the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. By doing so we can go in there and arrest the leaders that we have decided were the bad guys and leave the good guys alone (as if there were not bad guys on both sides in Yugoslavia).
We are missing the point with the presumption on our part that we can control the United Nations and arrest only those individuals that we do not like, while allowing the other ones to go free, and acting like this will never apply to us. This is a dangerous trend. You say, well, yes, but we are powerful. We have the money and we have the weapons and we can dictate to the United Nations. They will not arrest us or play havoc with us. Yet we have just learned that with a democratic vote, the U.N. Human Rights Commission can kick us in the face, and in fact, has kicked us off the commission.
This is a time to think very seriously about whether it is wise to continue the funding of the United Nations. A statement ought to be made, and I think that the American people would agree overwhelmingly. We should say that it is about time we quit policing the world and paying the bills at the United Nations - bills that are way out of proportion to our representation - while at the same time being humiliated by being kicked off these commissions by majority vote.
[Dr. Paul's amendment H. Amdt. 190 to H.R. 2500 was not accepted by a vote of 62-364 on July 18, 2001.]
THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2001
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
[Dr. Paul addresses the House on the merits of the President's Faith-based Initiative]
Mr. Speaker, no one familiar with the history of the past century can doubt that private charities, particularly those maintained by persons motivated by their faith to perform charitable acts, are more effective in addressing social needs than federal programs. Therefore, the sponsors of H.R.7, the Community Solutions Act" [commonly known as promoting so-called "faith-based initiatives"), are correct to believe that expanding the role of voluntary, religious-based organizations will benefit society.
However, this noble goal will not be accomplished by providing federal taxpayer funds to these organizations. Instead, federal funding will transform these organizations into adjuncts of the federal government and reduce voluntary giving on the part of the people. In so doing, H.R. 7 will transform the majority of private charities into carbon copies of failed federal welfare programs.
Providing federal funds to religious organizations gives the organizations an incentive to make obedience to federal bureaucrats their number-one priority. Religious entities may even change the religious character of their programs in order to please their new federal paymaster.
Faith-based organizations may find federal funding diminishes their private support. People who currently voluntarily support religious organizations may assume they "gave at the (tax) office" and will thus reduce their levels of private giving. Thus, religious organizations will become increasingly dependent on federal funds for support. Since "he who pays the piper calls the tune," federal bureaucrats and Congress will then control the content of "faith-based" programs.
Those who dismiss these concerns should consider that H.R. 7 explicitly forbids proselytizing in "faith-based" programs that receive funds directly from the federal government. Religious organizations will not have to remove religious icons from their premises in order to receive federal funds. However, I fail to see the point in allowing a Catholic soup kitchen to hang a crucifix on its wall, or a Jewish day-care center to hang a Star of David on its door, if federal law forbids believers from explaining the meaning of those symbols to persons receiving assistance. Furthermore, proselytizing is what is at the very heart of the effectiveness of many of these programs!
H.R. 7 also imposes new paperwork and audit requirements on religious organizations, thus diverting resources away from fulfilling the charitable mission. Supporters of H.R. 7 point out that any organization that finds the conditions imposed by the federal government too onerous does not have to accept federal grants. It is true, no charity has to accept federal funds, but a significant number will accept federal funds in exchange for federal restrictions on their programs, especially since the restrictions will appear "reasonable" during the program's first few years.
Of course, history shows that Congress and the federal bureaucracy cannot resist imposing new mandates on recipients of federal money. For example, since the passage of the Higher Education Act, the federal government has gradually assumed control over almost every aspect of campus life.
Just as bad money drives out good, government-funded charities will overshadow charities that remain independent of federal funding. After all, a federally-funded charity has the government's stamp of approval and also does not have to devote resources to appealing to the consciences of parishioners for donations. Instead, government-funded charities can rely on forced contributions from the taxpayers. Those who dismiss this as unlikely to occur should remember that there are only three institutions of higher education today that do not accept federal funds and thus do not have to obey federal regulations.
We have seen how federal funding corrupts charity in our time. Since the Great Society, many organizations, which once were devoted to helping the poor, have instead become lobbyists for ever-expanding government, since a bigger welfare state means more power for their organizations. Furthermore, many charitable organizations have devoted resources to partisan politics as part of coalitions dedicated to expanding federal control over the American people.
Federally funded social welfare organizations are inevitably less effective than their counterparts, because federal funding changes the incentives of participants in these organizations. Voluntary charities promote self-reliance, while government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.
Accepting federal funds will corrupt religious institutions in a fundamental manner. Religious institutions provide charity services, because they are commanded to by their faith. However, when religious organizations accept federal funding, promoting the faith may take a back seat to fulfilling the secular goals set by politicians and bureaucrats.
Some supporters of this measure have attempted to invoke the legacy of the Founding Fathers in support of this legislation. Of course, the Founders recognized the importance of religion in a free society, but not as an adjunct of the state. Instead, the Founders hoped a religious people would resist any attempts by the state to encroach on the proper social authority of the church. The Founding Fathers would have been horrified by any proposal to put churches on the federal dole, as this threatens liberty by subordinating churches to the state.
Obviously, making religious institutions dependent on federal funds (and subject to federal regulations) violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. Critics of this legislation are also correct to point out that this bill violates the First Amendment by forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious organizations whose principles they do not believe. However, many of these critics are inconsistent in that they support using the taxing power to force religious citizens to subsidize secular organizations.
The primary issue both sides of this debate are avoiding is the constitutionality of the welfare state. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the Founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people's money that is being stolen through confiscatory taxation. After all, in the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, that money is "Not Yours to Give."
Instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should focus on returning control over welfare to the American people. Marvin Olaksy, the "godfather of compassionate conservatism," and others have amply documented that before they were crowded out by federal programs, private charities did an exemplary job of providing necessary assistance to those in need. These charities not only met the material needs of those in poverty, but also helped them break many bad habits (such as alcoholism) taught them "marketable" skills, or otherwise engaged them in productive activity and helped them move up the economic ladder.
Therefore, it is clear that instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should return control over charitable giving to the American people by reducing the tax burden. This is why I strongly support the tax cut provisions of H.R. 7, and would enthusiastically support them if they were brought before the House as a stand-alone bill.
I also proposed a substitute amendment which would have given every taxpayer in America a $5,000 tax credit for contributions to social-services organizations which serve lower-income people. Allowing people to use more of their own money promotes effective charity by ensuring that charities remain true to their core mission. After all, individual donors will likely limit their support to those groups with a proven track record of helping the poor, whereas government agencies may support organizations that are only more effective at complying with federal regulations, or acquiring political influence, than actually serving the needy.
Many prominent defenders of the free society and advocates of increasing the role of faith-based institutions in providing services to the needy have also expressed skepticism regarding giving federal money to religious organizations. Among them: the Reverend Pat Robinson, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, Star Parker (founder and President of the Coalition for Urban Renewal [CURE]), Father Robert Sirico (President of the Acton Institute for Religious Liberty), Michael Tanner (Director of Health and Welfare studies at the CATO Institute), and Lew Rockwell (founder and President of the Ludwig von Misses Institute). Even Marvin Olaksy, the above-referenced "godfather of compassionate conservatism," has expressed skepticism regarding this proposal.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 7 extends the reach of the immoral, unconstitutional welfare state and thus threatens the autonomy and the effectiveness of the very faith-based charities it claims to help, I urge my colleagues to reject it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over charity to the American people through large tax cuts and tax credits.
[H.R. 7 passed by a vote of 233 - 198.]
|
