January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E7 

warrants, and a czar-like overseer are among 

the principles necessary for us to extend Federal assistance. This legislation, however, 

could have been better, tougher, and as a result more likely to succeed, if we had taken 

the time to get it right. I remain concerned that 

American taxpayer money could be used in a 

way that might outsource American jobs because the Congress did not include a specific 

prohibition preventing such an action. 

So, I question whether the oversight of the 

disbursement and allocation of all government 

funds is sufficiently strong. As for executive 

compensation, even though the CEOs have 

agreed to annual $1 salaries, the Big Three 

could have been forced to pay their top 20 executives no more than their leaner, more-profitable foreign counterparts are paid. 

Furthermore, we failed to establish what will 

occur in the event of a disaster scenario, in 

which the companies burn through this money 

and the hoped for results are not attained. We 

made some progress in planning for contingencies, but we should have done more. We 

could have created in legislation a structured 

bankruptcy system for the automakers. 

We could have also relied more on the 1979 

Chrysler bailout law for insight and guidance. 

That plan included a ‘‘certainty of success’’ 

formula and required more frequent reporting. 

Unfortunately, this precedent received far less 

attention than it deserved. Finally, I believe 

that we ought to have considered a buy-in incentive program, whereby Americans would 

hold a vested interest in the success of these 

companies. 

Unfortunately, these and countless other potential provisions never saw the light of day 

because the Congress succumbed to the idea 

that emergencies, however real, preclude us 

from operating under regular order. The two 

are not mutually exclusive. I concede that the 

American automakers need money, and fast. 

But, in the three weeks it took the companies to produce at least reasonable viability 

proposals, the Congress could have considered numerous drafts of bills, could have held 

additional hearings, and could have marked 

up legislation. In addition to producing a better 

legislative product, each of those activities 

probably would have built a stronger consensus and lessened partisan discord. Going 

forward into the 111th Congress, it is my sincere hope that the Congress will return to regular order so that we produce better laws and 

establish a more collegial, deliberative body. 

That said, voting against this bill today simply was not an option. The industry might well 

have vanished in a matter of weeks, unemployment would have skyrocketed, and the 

economy would have sunk deeper. Let us 

hope that the money is allocated wisely, that 

the executives act prudently, that all stakeholders make some sacrifices, and that longterm viability is pursued tirelessly. 

f 

INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY 

THEFT PREVENTION ACT 

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This 

act protects the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. 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 5 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 

Social Security Administration. Social Security 

numbers issued before implementation of this 

bill shall no longer be considered valid federal 

identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s 

original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system. 

Madam Speaker, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem because it 

was Congress that transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier. Thanks 

to Congress, today no American can get a job, 

open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a driver’s license without 

presenting his 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! 

One of the most disturbing abuses of the 

Social Security number is the congressionallyauthorized rule forcing parents to get a Social 

Security number for their newborn children in 

order to claim the children 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 that inspired this Nation’s 

founders. 

Congressionally-mandated use of the Social 

Security number as an identifier facilitates the 

horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to 

Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply 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 had their credit destroyed as a result 

of identity theft. Yet the federal government 

continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a 

uniform ID! 

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 among American citizens. In 

2005, this body established a de facto national 

ID card with a provisions buried in the ‘‘intelligence’’ reform bill mandating federal standards for drivers’ licenses, and mandating that 

federal agents only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID. 

Nationalizing standards for drivers’ licenses 

and birth certificates creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of this 

scheme claim they are merely creating new 

standards for existing State IDs. However, imposing federal standards in a federal bill creates a federalized ID regardless of whether 

the ID itself is still stamped with the name of 

your State. 

The national ID will be used to track the 

movements of American citizens, not just terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance 

diverts resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists in favor of needless 

snooping on innocent Americans. This is what 

happened with ‘‘suspicious activity reports’’ required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Thanks to 

BSA mandates, federal officials are forced to 

waste countless hours snooping through the 

private financial transactions of innocent 

Americans merely because those transactions 

exceeded $10,000. 

Turning State-issued drivers licenses into 

federally controlled national ID cards is yet another federal usurpation of State authority and 

another costly unfunded mandate imposed on 

the States. According to a report issued by the 

National Conference of State Legislators, turning drivers licenses into national ID cards will 

cost the States more than $11 billion. 

Madam Speaker, no wonder there is a 

groundswell of opposition to this mandate. 

Several State legislatures have even passed 

laws forbidding their States from complying 

with this mandate! The Identity Theft Prevention Act not only repeals those sections of the 

federal law creating a national ID, it forbids the 

federal government from using federal funds 

to blackmail States into adopting uniform federal identifiers. Passing the Identity Theft Prevention Act is thus an excellent way for this 

Congress to show renewed commitment to 

federalism and opposition to imposing unfunded mandates on the States. 

This legislation not only repeals those sections of federal law creating the national ID, it 

also repeals 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—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 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 doctors will 

be placed in a government accessible database? 

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. 

Some 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 jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect 

the freedom of the American people, not to 

make privacy invasion more efficient. 

Madam Speaker, while I do not question the 

sincerity of those members who suggest that 

Congress can ensure that citizens’ 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. Legislative ‘‘privacy protections’’ are inadequate to 

protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of 

reasons. 

First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with REMARKS
E8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks January 6, 2009 

theft is more effective in protecting 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 reputations as a result of identity 

theft. 

Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping, private criminals, but these laws have 

not even stopped unscrupulous government 

officials from accessing personal information. 

After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of 

personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or 

the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations. 

In one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, thousands of active-duty soldiers and 

veterans had their personal information stolen, 

putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine 

the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the 

universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans simply by 

breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one government database? 

Second, the federal government has been 

creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of 

phony privacy protection is the ‘‘medical privacy’’’ regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law 

enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth 

Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, ‘‘privacy protection’’ laws 

have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the 

one seeking the information. 

Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily 

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.’’ 

Madam Speaker, those members who are 

not persuaded by the moral and constitutional 

reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the American people’s opposition to national identifiers. The numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses 

of the Social Security number show that Americans want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by 

the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID. 

In conclusion, Madam 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 threaten all Americans by exposing 

them to the threat of identity theft by private 

criminals and abuse of their liberties by public 

criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real 

threats to public safety. In addition, 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 

Identity Theft Prevention Act. 

f 

HONORING BRIAN MICHAEL 

BIRCHLER 

HON. SAM GRAVES OF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly 

pause to recognize Brian Michael Birchler of 

Kansas City, Missouri. Brian is a very special 

young man who has exemplified the finest 

qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1261, and earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout. 

Brian has been very active with his troop, 

participating in many Scout activities. Over the 

many years Brian has been involved with 

Scouting, he has not only earned numerous 

merit badges, but also the respect of his family, peers, and community. 

Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join 

me in commending Brian Michael Birchler for 

his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of 

America and for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout. 

f 

TO REAUTHORIZE THE TROPICAL 

FOREST CONSERVATION ACT 

AND EXPAND THE PROGRAM TO 

INCLUDE THE CONSERVATION OF 

ALL FORESTS AND CORAL 

REEFS AND ASSOCIATED COASTAL MARINE RESOURCES 

HON. MARK STEVEN KIRK OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today I introduce a bill to reauthorize and expand Rob 

Portman’s landmark legislation, the Tropical 

Forest Conservation Act. This reauthorization 

will help developing countries reduce foreign 

debt and provide comprehensive environmental preservation programs to protect forests and endangered marine habitats around 

the world. 

Since enacted in 1998, Tropical Forest Conservation Act programs have generated more 

than $162 million over 10 to 25 years to help 

conserve 50 million acres of tropical forests in 

Asia, the Caribbean, Central and South America. But the rate of deforestation continues to 

accelerate across the globe in all types of forests. 

Similarly alarming is the rapid rate of coral 

reef and coastal exploitation. The burden of 

foreign debt falls especially hard on the smallest of nations, such as island nations in the 

Caribbean and Pacific. With few natural resources, these nations often resort to harvesting or otherwise exploiting coral reefs and 

other marine habitats to earn hard currency to 

service foreign debt. According to the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 60 

percent of the world’s coral reefs may be destroyed by the year 2050 if the present rate of 

destruction continues. 

The Forest and Coral Conservation Act will 

credit qualified developing nations for each 

dollar spent on a comprehensive reef preservation or management program designed to 

protect these unique ecosystems from degradation. This legislation will make available 

resources for environmental stewardship that 

would otherwise be of the lowest priority in a 

developing country. It will reduce debt by investing locally in programs that will strengthen 

indigenous economies by creating long-term 

management policies that will preserve the 

natural resources upon which local commerce 

is based. 

This legislation has enormous consequences for the existence of critical ecosystems, the health of our planet and the livelihoods of millions of people across the globe. 

I am proud to introduce the Forest and Coral 

Conservation Act with Representative ALCEE

HASTINGS (D–FL), which will help preserve the 

world’s most precious natural resources. 

f 

RECOGNIZING CONNIE PASQUALINO OF SPRING HILL, FLORIDA 

HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. 

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Connie 

Pasqualino of Hernando County, Florida. 

Connie will do something later this year that 

all of us strive to do, but that very few of us 

will ever accomplish, celebrate her 100th birthday. 

Connie Pasqualino was born June 28, 1909 

in Brooklyn, New York. While she was never 

married and has no children, Connie did make 

a career in advertising, attending the Pratt Institute of Design in Brooklyn. In fact, Connie 

said her proudest moment was the day she 

graduated from school. Following school she 

went on to work at BBD and O Advertising 

Company. While she did not pursue a career 

in design, if she had it all to do over again she 

would have spent her career as a fashion designer. 

As someone who lived in New York for 

many years, Connie remembers going to see 

the Pope perform Mass at Shea Stadium. She 

said that it was raining before he came onto 

the stage and as he came to the stage, the 

rain stopped and the sun shined brightly. She 

described it as a little miracle. 

Although she has never met her, Mother Teresa is Connie’s second cousin. Once, Connie 

and her family were going to visit Mother Teresa in New Jersey when she was visiting relatives there, but there was a blizzard and they 

had to cancel their trip. 

Moving with her sister Nancy to Hernando 

County in 1990, Connie said she made the 

switch because of the great Florida weather. 

She and Nancy also lived with their sister Margaret, who was ill and needed extra care, and 

her nephew Joseph. 

Today Connie lives in Hernando County 

near her centenarian sister, Nancy. She gets 

the most pleasure out of taking care of and 

playing with her pet Quaker parrot, named 

Jade. Connie’s advice to young people is to 

listen to their parents’ advice and get a good 

education. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with REMARKS