[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 262-263]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  FREEDOM AND PRIVACY RESTORATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 6, 1999

  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.
  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!''
  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.
  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.
  One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is 
the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social 
Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as 
dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state 
is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the 
dreams of a free republic which inspired this nation's founders.
  Since the creation of the Social Security number in 1935, there have 
been almost 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security 
number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs! 
Many of these uses, such as the requirement that employers report the 
Social Security number of new employees to the ``new hires data base,'' 
have been enacted in the past few years. In fact, just last year, 210 
members of Congress voted to allow states to force citizens to produce 
a Social Security number before they could exercise their right to 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the section of this bill prohibiting the federal 
government from using identifiers to monitor private transactions is 
necessary to stop schemes such as the attempt to assign every American 
a ``unique health identifier'' for every American--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?
  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.
  Many of my colleagues will claim that the federal government needs 
these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal 
activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in 
order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal 
activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the 
presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no 
right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their 
relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In act, 
criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments 
by the Constitution's Tenth Amendment.
  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.
  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?

  Secondly, the federal government has been creating property interests 
in private information for certain state-favored third parties. For 
example, a little-noticed provision in the Patient Protection Act 
established a property right for insurance companies to access personal 
health care information. Congress also authorized private individuals 
to receive personal information from government data bases in last 
year's copyright bill. The Clinton Administration has even endorsed 
allowing law enforcement officials' access to health care information, 
in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. Obviously, ``private 
protection'' laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal 
information when the government is the one providing or seeking the 
information!
  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.''
  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

[[Page 263]]

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.
  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.

                          ____________________