The event was called by Rep. Barr to introduce the Federal Agency Protection of Privacy Act, a bill Barr says was drafted to "improve the regulatory process and protect Americans from unjustified or unintended invasions of privacy."

According to Rep. Barr (the bill is not posted on the Internet yet), the bill would ensure that federal agencies consider the impact of proposed regulations on individual privacy by requiring agencies to include an initial privacy impact analysis with proposed regulations that are circulated for public notice and comment. Agencies would then be required to include a final privacy impact analysis that describes the steps that were taken to minimize the significant privacy impact of proposed regulations and that justifies the alternative with respect to privacy that was chosen by the agency. Judicial review of the adequacy of an agency’s final privacy impact, similar to that provided by the Regulatory Flexibility Act for small businesses, would also be allowed. And, agencies would be required to periodically review rules that have either a significant privacy impact on individuals or a privacy impact on a significant number or individuals.

Barr says the bill will not unduly burden agencies in the development and issuance of proposed rules, because it only requires a privacy impact analysis when an agency is already required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.

"With continued advances in technology and citizens’ personal information increasingly up for sale to the highest bidder, we must hold the federal government accountable for ensuring the protection of Americans’ personal privacy," Rep. Barr reports on his web site.⁽²⁾ "All Americans deserve to know how new rules or regulations passed by the government will affect their right to privacy. From medical records to surveillance cameras, and from government snooping on the Internet to recent calls for a national ID, we are seeing firsthand, each day, the importance of guarding our right to privacy. This is good government legislation to reform the regulatory process, and make government more accountable to the people. I look forward to moving it through the Congress."

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) echoes Barr, telling the Washington Times: "In the wake of the events of September 11, Congress acted promptly to provide law enforcement with the tools they needed to more effectively fight terrorism. Because some of these tools could have an adverse impact on privacy rights, it’s essential that federal agencies provide thoughtful consideration from a privacy perspective and focus on the privacy rights of our citizens."

Rep. Nadler said he also thought that privacy protections are important "even in this time of enhanced fears of terrorist attacks," reported Washington Times. "It is important that the individual liberties of our citizens are not sacrificed to the war on terrorism. We can have both privacy and security. We just have to strike the proper balance between the two."

Rep. Chabot admitted that privacy rights "have too often been an afterthought in the regulatory process." As Chabot told the Washington Times:

"We’ve seen attempt after attempt by federal agencies to implement ominous regulations that allow the government to invade the privacy of American citizens. From financial information to medical records, the federal government has sought access to highly sensitive information without regard to the privacy implications. This proposal would force agencies to open their eyes to legitimate privacy concerns."

Without being too inconvenient here, we cannot help but wonder how all these regulatory bureaucracies can be justified in the face of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Originally, when FDR tried to begin this regulatory agency labyrinth, the U.S. Supreme Court knocked it down as the un- Constitutional scheme it is. It wasn’t till FDR browbeat and intimidated the Court (and appointed enough of his own socialists to the Court) that the regulatory scheme received judicial approval.

Just because there were five socialist justices sitting on the Court to approve the federal regulatory scheme back then does not make it any more Constitutional. Those in the administrative and legislative branches should know that. They should also honor their oath of office and abolish the regulatory agencies.