Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment is founded on the principle that Congress has a certain fiduciary duty and responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on ineffectual and inefficient government programs.

My amendment will require the Department of Energy's Inspector General to independently report to Congress on incidents of waste, fraud, and abuse occurring in programs created by this bill. Further, the Inspector General will be required to include recommendations to prevent additional waste, fraud, and abuse.

I would direct our attention, Madam Chair, to the poster that is to my left. This is a phony project that was sent by the Government Accounting Office to the Department of Energy for the purpose of determining whether or not the Department of Energy would actually certify this project. And yes, it is actually a feather duster that had been taped to a space heater. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy did certify this project for the Energy Star program.

My amendment, the Bachmann amendment, would require the Inspector General's report be submitted by July 1, 2012. And as such, Congress would have the opportunity to reevaluate the programs in this act and correct them if necessary. Utilizing Congressional Budget Office estimates, this amendment could enable the effective oversight of over 1.2 billion United States taxpayer dollars.

Madam Chair, in order to improve government accountability and to restore a measure of fiscal integrity in Washington, I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his support of my amendment, and I appreciate that, and urge my colleagues also to support the amendment as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce Small Business Person of the Year, and the Mark of Excellence and Entrepreneurial Success Award Recipients. These people and businesses have stood out to the Chamber as ``those who have the courage to aspire to a higher level.''

As the Small Business Person of the Year, Kip Cameron, President and CEO of Granite-Tops, LLC has shown dedication and innovation in his industry. Cameron is one of the founders of the Midwest Stone Fabricators Association and when the economy changed last year, he found ways to expand his market, despite consolidating his operations.

The Mark of Excellence Award, which honors a family owned business, is given to Dick Bitzan, owner of D.J. Bitzan Jewelers. In 1966, Dick's father's ``mission was to provide his customers with beautiful diamonds and unparalleled customer service.'' In a new location, with a new generation behind the counter, Bitzan's Jewelers is fulfilling its mission every day.

Paul M. Heath, M.D., and James M. Smith, M.D., of Midsota Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons are the recipients of the Entrepreneurial Success Award. Midsota was founded when the doctors saw a need to ``deliver high quality surgical and aesthetics services in a private, intimate setting in Central Minnesota.'' Dr. Heath and Dr. Smith share a passion for service and results and continue to shape their industry in Central Minnesota.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to congratulate these businesses and citizens. I ask this body to join me in recognizing Kip Cameron, D.J. Bitzan Jewelers and Midsota Plastic Surgeons for their contributions to Central Minnesota.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplished students who earned the Certificate of Congressional Merit for their exemplary citizenship and academic excellence. Eleven students from Minnesota's Sixth District were nominated by their schools for this prestigious award and it is a great privilege to be able to share their accomplishments with this Congress.

These students have shown that they can set and achieve goals, work as a team member or a leader, and contribute to a larger cause all while making time for study and friendships as well. They have made significant contributions to their schools and communities and stand out to faculty and staff as students that would never ask for recognitions for their efforts.

I rise today, Madam Speaker, to honor these 11 students for their successful high school careers and to wish them all the best in their bright futures: Kaia Larson, Meadow Creek Christian School; Kara Peterson, Becker High School; Danielle Liebl, Rocori High School; Taylor Haag, Paynesville Area High School; Matthew Vogel, Saint Francis High School; Zachary Johnson, Monticello High School; Duy Nguyen, Spring Lake Park High School; Travis Taylor, New Life Academy; Sandra Arnold, Delano High School; Emily Bloch, Immaculate Conception Academy; and Kelsey Vigoren, Kimball Area High School.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating these students for their hard work and wishing them the best of luck. As the Irish poet and Noble Peace Prize winner William Butler Yeats said, ``Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.'' In these students, a fire has been lit. They are the bright future we have to look forward to in Minnesota, and in our Nation.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa for laying out the history of where we are today in terms of the financial problem.

Really, the concern that I have on the bill that is being debated over on the Senate side right now is that it seems that this bill effectively wants to institutionalize the very bad government interventionist policies that got

us to the point at which we are now. Here are just a couple of things that this bill will do over on the Senate side:

Number one, it makes bailouts permanent. It's as though we had bailout 1.0, which no one really liked. It was a $700 billion bailout. I know Congressman King and I both voted against the original $700 billion bailout, but it would institutionalize and make permanent the bailouts.

This is something that is not generally known: With the first bailout--and it was under President Bush, unfortunately, that the first bailout was passed--the President had to come to Congress and ask us for our permission for the $700 billion fund to be created. Now, remember, this never had happened in the history of the United States whereby the Secretary of the Treasury was given a blank check for $700 billion. The Treasury Secretary virtually was able to do whatever he wanted to do with that $700 billion, and he had, effectively, no oversight from Congress. He got a blank check for $700 billion.

In good conscience, I could not give that kind of money to one single individual, because, if you give that sum of money, which had never before been given to any individual in American history, you know there is going to be waste; you know there is going to be fraud; you know there is going to be abuse. That is something that government tends to do when it spends too much money. So, of course, that's what we saw. We saw that the money went all over the place, and we still don't have a full accounting of where all of the TARP money is.

Yet what did that money fund? Think of it.

That money allowed the United States to purchase the largest banks in this country, and the United States Federal Government still owns those private banks--Citibank and Bank of America. That money also allowed the Federal Government to buy AIG, the largest insurance company in America.

Barack Obama, who is now our President, was elected in November of 2008. Shortly after his election, he went to then-President George Bush and said, President Bush, I would like to have something under $20 billion. I want to set up an automobile task force because, if we don't spend money now, Chrysler and GM could fail, and to prevent their failure and to prevent job loss, we need to have an automobile task force fund.

President Bush was on his way out the door. He was ending his Presidency. President Obama was about to begin his. He gave that amount of money over to President Obama and to his team to set up the automobile task force. We all know what happened. The automobile task force was set up. Literally, billions of dollars were pumped into Chrysler and GM.

What happened?

Chrysler filed bankruptcy. GM filed bankruptcy. In fact, it was so bad that GM stock was taken off of the New York Stock Exchange because the value of their stock plummeted so far. So, contrary to what President Obama said as to his being able to save the car companies with this bailout fund, the car companies went under. They failed.

As a matter of fact, President Obama then decided--I don't know where he got the power from--to fire the head of GM. Out of what power? No one knows. So here you have the President of the United States deciding that a CEO of a company is going to be fired. That is a jurisdictional issue. The President of the United States does not have the power to fire anyone in the private sector, but isn't it amazing what a whole lot of money will do for a person. That money put so much power into one man's hands that he was able to do virtually anything he wanted, including overturning about 150 years of bankruptcy law.

How was that? Because Chrysler bondholders, who are the people who invested money into the Chrysler car company, had an investment.

Let's say you put $100 into a company that your friend holds. That's your money that you put in. Then the company gives you a bond. It says, Hey, if anything happens to our company, we'll make sure that your $100 is paid back first before anyone else is paid back, and we'll pay you back all of your $100.

Well, unfortunately, President Obama and his team decided to turn upside down 150 years of bankruptcy law. What they did is they said, You bondholders who have a secured interest in your investment are no longer getting your secured investment. We are taking your money, and we are giving it to well-connected political people. We want to make sure they get that money. In that case, those people were their friends at the UAW, at the unions.

Yes.

That's right, and there is something else to know on secured creditors.

Usually, secured creditors take a lower interest rate. They get paid back at a lower rate because they are first in line. When Chrysler went under, what happened is that, rather than making the bondholders whole first, they actually had their secured interests taken away from them, and other creditors were made whole first.

How can you do that? That's an abrogation of contract law; an abrogation of bankruptcy law. And so we saw a violation of law. That's something that is foundational to the United States that gives us a good business climate. The rule of law is a good thing. The sanctity of contracts works. When we start violating the law and when we start penetrating contracts and violating contracts, that's when we get into trouble with our business climate. We saw that happen in this bailout.

Not only did the Federal Government take money that we don't have. Remember, we had to borrow money. So this wasn't money that we had sitting in a bank vault here in Washington, D.C., where we opened up the bank vault and we pulled out big wads of $700 billion that we could give to the Treasury Secretary to give out to whatever his favorite private business was or his favorite group was. No. We had to borrow that money from the Chinese or whoever we could go and sell our debt to. And so who's going to pay that back? That money is going to be paid back by the debt-paying generation. That gets us into a whole 'nother area.

The gentleman was talking about the financial mess we're in. You were talking about ACORN. You were talking about the subprime mortgages, where all of that's gone, Freddie and Fannie. And the point I guess that I'm trying to make is that the Federal Government with this TARP bailout ended up taking that money and, rather than making our economy whole, rather than creating jobs, because, remember, President Obama said, again, this is with the stimulus spending, $787 worth of stimulus spending, we were promised that we wouldn't see unemployment go above 8 percent, and we were promised that he would create 3\1/2\ million jobs.

I know my colleague Steve King knows that rather than creating 3\1/2\ million jobs, we lost 3\1/2\ million jobs. So the spread of error for President Obama is about 7 million jobs, let alone the fact that the debt-paying generation that will pay back the $787 billion, those today that are age 5 to age 30, that age cohort for the next 45 years of their work history will have to pay back the same amount of money as if they went to the store and bought an iPod for $300. So the 5- to 30- year-olds for the next 45 years of their work life will have to go down to a store, buy an iPod, at the end of the month crush the iPod under their heel; then buy another one the next month, crush it; buy one the next month. Every month for 45 years of work history, the debt-paying generation in America will have to

effectively buy an iPod and crush it and then replace it to equal what will be spent in this stimulus bill. That's just one of the egregious spending bills.

And when I think of the debt-paying generation, the 5- to 30-year- olds are saving up and would love to buy an iPod, just own one. But now they're condemned to, for 45 years of their life every month, going out and buying a brand new iPod and effectively giving it over to the Federal Government.

Also, remember, that's if every American is paying taxes and paying the debt. But one thing that we saw from this current filing of income tax is that 47 percent of Americans paid no taxes. Now, that doesn't mean that 47 percent of Americans are deadbeats, because they aren't. Many Americans don't have income because they're senior citizens living off of fixed assets. There are a number of reasons. But still the number remains true, that 47 percent of Americans aren't paying the taxes. An increasingly smaller group of people are paying a larger share of the taxes. And so the debt burden on particular Americans will be especially egregious.

If I could just add with Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation, he also did a study on welfare and increasing use of welfare in the United States. The trajectory that we're on with the growth in welfare is also unsustainable. And we also recall that shortly after President Obama came into office, one thing that he did is he rescinded all of the welfare reform regulations that were put into place by the Republican Congress after they won control in 1994. So all of the reforms that actually got people off of welfare and into working jobs and actually plateaued the cost of the welfare, now all of those restraints have been taken off. We're seeing a dramatic increase in the trajectory in welfare spending.

But something else that was interesting from Robert Rector, he said that if an individual on the full panoply of welfare benefits leaves welfare, that that individual would have to seek a job paying in excess of $44,000 a year to replace the welfare benefits that they're receiving from the Federal Government. That is the level of generosity of the welfare benefits that are currently available to people in the United States. There are people in my district that would love to be making an income of $44,000 a year. And yet that is what the United States is providing on average for welfare benefits across the United States. Of course there are exceptions to that, but that's on average. Again I would refer people, Mr. Speaker, to the heritage Web site and the work is by Robert Rector.

And you've got a home mortgage, a home mortgage that is subsidized by the taxpayers. Because, remember, this was a part of the problem with the amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act in the 1990s, and it was this: An individual could have no income, no assets, no job. With all of that, you could still get a mortgage just based on your welfare benefits. This was a complete change in the way mortgages were given out. And welfare is inherently unstable.

So to think that a 30-year mortgage is being given to someone on the basis of their welfare payments. We had never done that before in the United States. And so what we saw is a correlation with a very high rate of foreclosure. What inducement or incentive is there for an individual to save up to buy a house, save up for a down payment, be frugal, do what you need to do to have a good credit score to get into a house when if in fact because of the Community Reinvestment Act, banks were forced to not look at credit scores essentially and to give mortgages to people on the basis of their welfare checks?

And a lot of these mortgages that were given would give cash back to people. Then people went out and took home equity loans against their home and they had virtually nothing in the home. No wonder we're in the problem we're in. If you change your banking standards to ones that don't even rank up with a comic strip level of regulations, you're going to get disastrous results. That's what we're in the middle of living with now.

Unfortunately the bill that's going through the Senate is institutionalizing the worst aspects that there are about government policy that led to the financial meltdown.

What we have witnessed in the last 18 months is effectively an economic coup. Because as you have correctly stated with Fannie and Freddie, today the Federal Government owns over 50 percent of all private home mortgages in this country. So over 50 percent of the homes, they aren't owned by the people occupying them paying the mortgage. It's really owned by the Federal Government. Not only that, for anyone going to secure a mortgage today for a home, nine times out of 10 they have to go to the Federal Government to get their mortgage. So that number will swell for the number of homes that are owned by the Federal Government.

According to an economist from Arizona State University, if you add up all of those sectors of the private economy, we've gone from, 18 months ago, 100 percent of the private economy, private, now we have over 51 percent of the private economy effectively directly owned or controlled by the Federal Government.

But President Obama isn't done. He is demanding that the Federal Government effectively control the energy industry. That's another 8 percent of the economy. He also wants to have the Federal Government control the financial services industry. Some people calculate that at 15 percent. So that would take us from 51, an additional 8 with cap and trade, to 59 percent. Then if we add the financial services sector on, that would take us then up to 74 percent.

President Obama hasn't even been in office 18 months, and we're already at the point where we could be at effectively nearly three- fourths of the private economy under the thumb of Uncle Sam, which is why we absolutely have no choice. This fall we have to see constitutional conservatives retake both the House and the Senate, and then 2 years from now we need a President who will be a constitutional conservative President so we can repeal the government takeover of health care and truly unwind the Federal Government getting out of owning or controlling private businesses.

We have no choice, because otherwise we will go the way of the rest of the world. And all we have to do is take a page out of Greece. Greece is effectively a bankrupt country that's being bailed out by the European Union. Because of the bailouts that the European Union is giving to Greece, the Euro is dropping in value.

The same thing with the United States. We can't think that just because we have been the greatest power and the greatest Nation the world has ever known that we will always continue that way. If we change our economic policies so they have more in line with left of socialist nations, if that's our economic policy that we are embracing, then should we be surprised if the result is analogous to that of countries that are left of socialist-embracing economies? That's not who we are. It's not our character as a people.

And I think it would shock the American people to realize, Mr. Speaker, that today the Federal Government owns or controls 51 percent of the private economy. That cannot be. And I know Congressman King joins me in putting his marker in the ground, saying that on his watch in Congress he will do everything he can, as I will do everything I can, to get the Federal Government in its proper realm of jurisdictional authority.

The government doesn't have sovereignty over private business. Only private business has sovereignty over private business.

It even gets more minute than that because under the bill that's being debated right now over in the Senate, if a person has a transaction where it's four payments or more, so presumably if you buy braces for your child and you are paying by payments for your child's braces. If you have four payments or more that's a financial transaction that could come under the purview of the Federal Government. So the orthodontist would then have to conform with regulatory requirements from the Federal Government. That's how insidious this is getting.

As a matter of fact, the bill I believe on the House side would give the Federal Government the authority through a new pay czar that has been selected who would establish the wages of like a bank teller in Peoria, Illinois. So the Federal Government isn't just getting into big things, they are getting into every small area of our life. And I think we just haven't begun to see the levels of involvement.

The other thing you had mentioned, Congressman King, and Madam Speaker, is that you had wondered about President Obama and where he is going. There is no exit strategy because this current financial reform bill that we are looking at is all we need to know about where President Obama and the Democrats that control Congress want to go. They want more Federal Government intervention. They want more Federal Government spending, which necessitates more Federal Government borrowing, which will mean more taxes.

But what are those taxes? The President has punted that issue to his new commission. But we all know a boatload of taxes needs to be raised. And we are in all likelihood looking at a new form of a national sales tax with a VAT tax, which would mean every item we purchase would have a tax of about 25 percent attached to it. So if you go through the value drive-in meal at McDonald's or a fast food place, although I guess we aren't going to be allowed to eat fast food anymore, it looks like that's the road we are going down next, instead of paying a dollar for that item, now we are going to have to pay $1.25.

All of this means real consequences for real people's lives. It means fewer choices we can make. And apparently what President Obama and the Democrats who control Congress believe is that the American people have too much discretionary income and the American people shouldn't have that discretionary income. They really are the party of big government and of government making the choices over our lives.

The Republicans have a different view. We believe that people make the better choices, and we want them to keep their money. But unfortunately, President Obama has laid all his cards down on the table, as have the Democrats that run Congress, and they have made a decision. It's very clear. We know because their bills are already before us. Anyone can read them online. And they want to be involved in the smallest financial transactions of our lives. And ultimately they want to decide who will get credit in this country and who won't. That will stifle every one of us in this country. And it won't mean job growth, it won't mean job creation. But we can do far better than that.

Madam Speaker, yesterday was a historic day. We saw the passage of the job-killing government takeover of health care, 18 percent of our economy. But we want the American people to know that today many of us are introducing the identical legislation.

I have introduced already the repeal of yesterday's law, as has my colleague Steve King, as will many other of my colleagues today. We will not stand for the Federal Government taking over 18 percent of the health care sector.

From the inception of Bailout Nation in September of 2008 until last night, the Federal Government has taken over an astounding 48 percent of the private economy in the last 18 months. This is unprecedented. We will not allow this to stand. That is why we have introduced this important legislation.

This fall we will take back a constitutional conservative majority, and after the next Presidential election we will repeal this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this dangerous health care bill.

I thank you to the gentleman from Iowa. He has done a wonderful job explaining the context of the health care debate that we are in today. We also have a neighbor to the south joining us as well, Louie Gohmert from Texas, and he has a lot that he wants to add to this debate.

I just wanted to focus for context purposes, to begin with, on what the President has demonstrated thus far that his understanding of economics has been when he had been in the United States Senate. He was an advocate for the $700 billion bailout of the banks and the financial meltdown. All through the 1990s and then in the early 2000s, there were continual bailouts that occurred. This was nothing new. This is yet one more bailout. They didn't work before.

What they did is they laid the groundwork, the moral hazard, if you will, for the same players, the same investment banking houses on Wall Street to make very bad bets because they knew the chump would be Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam would come along and pick up the pieces if they made mistakes.

What did they care. They rolled the dice. They took the risk. They risked their investors' money. And, when the deals went south, they came crawling back to Uncle Sam here in D.C., and Uncle Sam said, Sure, I will bail you out. That history was available for everyone to see.

Then-Senator Barack Obama should have known about those deals. After all, he served as a lawyer for Project Vote, Project Vote being an affiliate for ACORN, and ACORN was the organization pushing for all the relaxed lending standards that led to all of the toxic mortgages with the subprime loans that led to the mortgage-backed securities that were bad, that were starting to fail. And he was also a part of that effort suing, suing and threatening to sue so that banks and financial companies would relax their standards and make loans to people with no income, no assets, no jobs. The President had that in his background.

After that, he decided when he became President to deal with the financial crisis. Rather than tightening up those lending standards, he wanted to spend $1 trillion. And he came here and he told all of us in the United States

Congress we had to spend $1 trillion, because if we wouldn't, unemployment could go as high as 9 percent or 8 percent. I think he said it could go as high as 8 percent.

8.5 percent, it could go that high. So that is what the $1 trillion was supposed to do.

The $1 trillion was allocated. We saw unemployment soar above 8 percent, soar above 8.5, and now Americans are sitting at about a permanent level of near 10 percent. The White House came out and said, Get used to it. This is our new normal. We are looking at these elevated levels of high unemployment.

Well, America isn't used to this, Mr. Speaker. American people don't want to be used to these elevated levels of unemployment. They actually like to work, and they actually like high prosperity.

Also, when President Obama was a Senator, he wanted to devote our entire U.S. budget--he wanted to devote 1 percent or 1.5 percent of our U.S. budget to redistribute wealth to the rest of the world. Knowing that our country was already trillions of dollars in debt, his goal was to have us, every year, devote at least 1 percent of the U.S. budget to redistribute the wealth. We should have known where President Obama was going with this. We can't say that we weren't warned.

Next, the President offered cap-and-tax or cap-and-trade. That is the government takeover of the energy industry. In other words, the government would take control of 8 percent of the private economy.

After that, he was proposing amnesty for illegal aliens, saying that that was something he wanted to do, but the people were pushing back.

So what did we see happen? We saw 30 percent of the private economy taken over by the Federal Government. In fact, Senator Obama wasn't even sworn in yet as President of the United States, and he was already pushing President Bush, You have to give me $17 billion, $19 billion for the automobile task force, because, guess what, GM and Chrysler, they might go bankrupt if we don't get $17 billion to $19 billion. We have got to prop these businesses up, or they are going to go bankrupt.

President Bush, he was going out the door, President Obama was going in, so he gave that money to President Obama to create the automobile task force.

What did we get out of that deal? We got Chrysler bankrupt. We saw the bondholders shafted, losing their equity interest. We saw the UAW come in and scoop up a big share of that company so that they got their retirement plans and their health insurance plans, not fully, but funded at the expense of the bondholders, and the United States Government now is a shareholder. The same with GM. It is Government Motors. We all know that story.

And we also know the other thing the automobile task force did. They put 150,000 people out of work, with what? Pink slips to 3,400 mostly viable dealerships across the Nation.

This is the level of economics that we were treated to just in the very first months of the Obama administration.

After all of that groundwork was laid, after banks were taken over, AIG, the largest insurance company, Freddie and Fannie, the secondary mortgage market, which today the Federal Government owns over 50 percent of all of America's mortgages. That, the student loan industry, Chrysler, GM, 30 percent.

What did President Obama propose? Not to lower costs in health care, as my colleague Steve King has suggested, by allowing people to buy across State lines. No. His suggestion was let's have the Federal Government take over 18 percent more of the private economy and put it under government's control. That is the solution.

And so here we are, on a Friday night. America has spoken. Three out of four Americans have weighed in and said, We don't want any part of the Federal Government taking over our private health care system. We don't want it.

The doctors have said that. Investors Business Daily, 45 percent of all doctors surveyed said they would leave the profession if the government takes over health care. New England Journal of Medicine this week, 35 percent of all doctors surveyed, We will leave the medical profession.

But no, no, no. What does Speaker Pelosi want to do? What does President Obama want to do? Ram this bill through. Pass it, without even the courtesy of the Members of this body voting for the bill.

My name, Michele Bachmann, will not be listed in the journal with a ``yes'' or a ``no.'' Why? Because Speaker Pelosi, Mr. Speaker, wants to presume my vote. When she presumes my vote, Mr. Speaker, she has stripped the people of my district from their voice, because the people of my district made a choice, sent me here to vote on their behalf. And, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you with complete confidence, the overwhelming number of people in Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District want nothing to do with this government takeover of health care. They want nothing to do with it, because the more they have heard, the more fearful they become.

So let's call it for what it is, Mr. Speaker. This is pretty clear. This administration and this Congress wants to have the Federal Government take over private industry, because if they win on Sunday, the American people lose. If they win, they will have taken over, effectively, one half of the American economy from September of 2008 until March 20, 2010. We are talking less than 2 years, something like 18 months time. This is stunning. This is a coup, if you will, an economic coup of our free market system, half of it being taken over.

Mr. Speaker, someone came in, it almost feels like, in the middle of the night and has stolen away America's future and America's promise. That is why we are here tonight. There is no exit strategy out of this.

And then we learned that the IRS will be the enforcement agency for this new health care system. It will be up to the IRS to verify, on a monthly basis, that 300 million Americans have purchased insurance that is acceptable, not to the Americans, acceptable to government. Because every American, Mr. Speaker, all 300 million Americans are forced to purchase a product or a service that they may not want. But government wants them to have it, so they are forced to buy it.

So who is the enforcer? Well, it is the IRS. Doesn't that make everyone feel great? About 16,500 new IRS employees are about to be employed at a cost of $10 billion, because they have got to breathe down the neck of every American every month to make sure that they have applied with government-approved health insurance. And, in order to do that, they have got to pry into private business. They have got to go into the books of every private business every month, find out how many employees that private business has, what the wages are that business is paying. All that information with the IRS, that is confidential taxpayer information, and now they will be sharing that with the Department of Health and Human Services.

And if the IRS, Mr. Speaker, discovers that an American has failed to purchase government-approved insurance, well, then that American is subject to a fine of $2,250 or 2 percent of their income. The same with the businesses. The businesses also will be subject to fines, penalties, interest.

I don't remember, Mr. Speaker, on the President's team and the Cabinet, all of the people that had tax problems who weren't paying taxes who repaid their taxes, I don't recall too many of them paying taxes, penalties, and interest. They just paid their tax liability.

But that is not good for the American people. They don't get that sweetheart deal. No, no, no, Mr. Speaker. The American people and American private industry, they are paying the interest and the penalties and the taxes.

The IRS, Mr. Speaker, in this scenario, has now become the collection agency for the insurance companies. President Obama has been saying the Republicans are sold out to the insurance companies. Well, Mr. Speaker, now we know the truth. Behind those closed doors, President Obama struck a deal with these insurance companies so that every American is mandated to buy their product, and now the IRS is the collection agency and will be the enforcer and will send about one-half trillion dollars to the insurance companies.

And the poster says, as my colleague Steve King is pointing, ``Why does the Democrat bill subsidize health insurance companies?''

Here is the strong arm of the IRS shaking money out of the average American taxpayer and sending that money straight in to the insurance companies, which, by the way, we know will be collapsing, because ultimately that was the purpose. One of our colleagues in this body even said as much himself. He said this is a temporary step, because what they want is government to own it all.

Let's realize, Mr. Speaker, who are the hogs in this situation? Who are the pigs here? Who wants to soak up the people's money? It is the same culprit, Mr. Speaker. It is those who embrace Big Government. The big winner in the stimulus, the big winner in the TARP, the big winner in every bailout we have ever had, and the big winner in this health care bill is Big Government.

And, as my colleague shows, the loser in all of this is the forgotten man of the American taxpayer, the American worker, the American boy and girl who may not grow up to realize their American Dream of a better life than their parents. The biggest loser again, Mr. Speaker, is the forgotten man of the senior citizen who will have to potentially go without with their Medicare funding.

Well, not if we have anything to say about it, Mr. Speaker. Not if we have another breath in our body will this happen.

And so we are here. We are here, because this is all we can do, to fight until our last breath to make sure that this monstrosity does not make it over the finish line.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor AnneMarie Kaul of Woodbury, MN, for her heroic, life saving measures on February 25th, 2009. AnneMarie is being awarded the Lifesaving Certificate of Merit from the American Red Cross and it's my honor to recognize her today.

In February of 2009 a man collapsed in the lobby of a fitness center after a game of racquetball. As a direct result of her Red Cross training, AnneMarie asked the receptionist to call 911 and proceeded to check on the man. She found no vital signs and immediately began CPR and used the automated external defibrillator at the center. AnneMarie continued with CPR efforts until the ambulance arrived and a pulse could be found. If it was not for AnneMarie's swift and heroic actions, the man would have almost certainly lost his life.

``Over a year later and because of her brave actions, AnneMarie is being presented with the highest award available from the American Red Cross. It is presented to an individual or team of individuals who have saved or sustained a life using the very skills and knowledge taught to them by the American Red Cross. According to the American Red Cross, `this action exemplifies the highest degree of concern of one human being for another who is in distress.'

Madam Speaker, AnneMarie Kaul is a perfect example of whom this award was created to recognize. Please join with me in honoring her lifesaving efforts.

I'd love to. Thank you so much. I appreciate the gentlelady from Ohio for inviting me. I also want to honor her for her service as the head of the Pro-Life Women's Caucus here in the United States Congress. We benefit greatly from your leadership, and we appreciate all that you do.

This is the first issue that all of us have to deal with, the issue of life, going all the way back to the Declaration of Independence. If you look at the Declaration, the inalienable rights, the rights that no government can give, that no government can take away, that were given to each one of us, a very personal right by our Creator, the first one is life. And that's why this issue is central in every debate that we have--how will we as an American government and society deal with vouchsafing life. Because in the Declaration it goes on to say that governments were instituted to secure the inalienable right of life. That's why we're here--to make sure that life is a value that we uphold and that we save.

I appreciate so much the chart that the gentlelady has put up to demonstrate that 70 percent of Americans oppose funding for abortions. That's what we're going to see in this health care bill going forward. I'm sure my colleague, Dr. Roe, had addressed that very well: that Americans don't want to have their tax dollars pay for other people's abortions and have their consciences violated. That's why we have seen the Catholic bishops all across the country so heavily involved in this health care debate, because they know what will happen.

The Alan Gutmaker Institute tells us that there will be more abortions if we have government-subsidized abortions. As a matter of fact, there will probably

be a good 30 percent increase in the number of abortions that we currently have today. That wouldn't be good for the women of America, abortion-minded women, and it certainly wouldn't be good for the next generation.

You know, in so many countries across the world today, whether it's Russia or in Eastern Europe or Western Europe, certainly Italy--Greece has a population replacement rate of 1.3--all of those nations are not replacing themselves. There is a very high level of abortion that is occurring in those nations. We don't want to see that here in the United States. We are at replacement, but our population levels could fall. It's not good when a Nation's population levels fall below replacement. The countries now, like Russia and in Western Europe, are dealing with that fact.

It's also a vital interest, just for the sake of abortion-minded women, that they have alternatives. All too often what we see are women that are put into a position that they don't want to be in by their parents, by pressuring boyfriends, to tell them, Have an abortion because it will cost me money. It will cost me embarrassment. But it's the woman who pays the price. The woman pays the price emotionally.

I have just looked at some figures that said that women who have an abortion have a higher risk of death and are six times more likely to commit suicide. That's such a terrible, horrible outcome for women. There are things that we can do for women who find themselves in an unplanned pregnancy.

We have pro-life centers all across the Nation that would love to help women, whether it's with free pregnancy tests, free ultrasound tests where they can see their unborn baby alive, moving within their womb. And then there is also help, whether it comes from free clothing during the pregnancy, free help with baby supplies once the baby comes.

If a mother chooses that she would like to have her baby adopted, there are services that are available that are free, open to women to help them with the adoption, and situations where women can actually help and choose the family that her baby will be raised in. There are great options for life. My husband and I have been involved in foster care, helping children as well who are in less than ideal circumstances.

I thank Dr. Roe for all the very strong work that he's done with the pro-life movement, and also my colleague Congresswoman Jean Schmidt.

And if I could just add, I think that it's so important that you have offered this opportunity for us to honor and recognize Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mattie Brinkerhoff, Victoria Woodhull, Mary Wollstonecraft, Alice Paul, among many other women who stood strong for women's rights and for the value of women in the country, but also, to be clear, that these women also stood for the unborn. They weren't on a wild tear to make sure that women could have the right to an abortion. They stood strong for women's rights, understanding that it's all women, born and preborn, that need to have their rights secured.

So I am very grateful that you posted this Women's History Month, and especially highlighting the fact that our foremothers who went before stood for life, just as we stand for life today. So I thank you, and I thank Representative Dahlkemper.

Thank you so much. Congressman Akin, you were also involved with the Declaration of Health Care Independence. I believe every Member here was involved with putting that document together. This weekend I was with Congressman Gohmert, and one of his constituents walked up to me and handed me another thousand signatures that she gathered to sign the Declaration of Health Care Independence. Just in her sphere in east Texas, she got a thousand people to sign. I thought one voice that hasn't been heard real loud in the health care debate is that of the American people. She gave me not only a thousand signatures, she also took comments from the people. I wanted, if I could, just to read one page as my contribution tonight, because I think it is important here in the most important democratic body in the history of the world, the United States House of Representatives, the American people should have their voice heard tonight because they haven't had it.

So with your permission, let me read a few of those comments.

This is from Cheri Hamilton, who said, Stop trying to destroy this country. The health care system can be fixed without a takeover. Listen to the American people. Stop this socialist agenda.

Ted Mesjak: ObamaCare is a can of socialized medicine worms.

Duane Anderson: My wish for signing this petition is that it adds more fuel to fight the government takeover of my health care. The despair is that the government so far has not listened to my views or the views of others who share the same viewpoint.

Kathleen Somers: I do not want the current health care reform bill. It will put this country into further debt, and Obama and his administration need to work with Republicans.

Herbert Rudolph: As a senior citizen, I am absolutely sick and tired of the Federal Government interfering in my personal life.

Kerry Ferguson: It is our President and his congressional bullies began respecting the will of the American people. Please keep up the good fight for intelligent health care reform. We must get this right.

Mike Tarbert: Stop these idiots and have them change their meds.

Beverly Harper: This bill is a travesty.

Mary Baptista: I do not want the inefficiency of the DMV and the compassion of the IRS to be part of my health care. Less government and more freedom to choose.

They have a good sense of humor in east Texas.

Lorrie Breed: Let the States handle this. Governors can do this if the Feds will get out of the way.

Shirley Wahl: I expect that the Congress will vote what the American citizens want, and set aside their preferences in favor of their constituents.

Nancy York: Hear, hear.

And this goes on for a thousand different comments from people across the country.

And today I heard that a lot of the Blue Dogs, the so-called conservatives here in Congress, are starting to weaken. Their spines are starting to go. We all know this is going to break the bank, this bill, and yet it is these dear, sweet people from all across America who have been begging and fighting their own government to get their government to listen to what they want. And no less than CNN has reported that three out of four Americans don't want this current health care bill.

Time magazine last week reported, not exactly a right-wing news source, that the Obama administration is laying the foundation that within 10 years, we will have to pay double taxes before this health care bill passes.

So the American people have been desperately trying to get into this debate and get the American Congress to hear them, and the President. I think it is important, Mr. Akin, that the American people know that we have tried to let their voices be heard here in the House. We are hearing them and we are trying to speak back to the American people. We hear you. We are fighting. Don't give up. We are not giving up.

I still believe it is not inevitable. If the people call, if the people go to their Member's office, we can still defeat this. I really appreciate you leading this Special Order tonight.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I want to go back to a little sign that Louie Gohmert held up at the State of the Union speech, or something, the joint session, that said, ``What plan?'' Remember the President, at the 7-hour infomercial that was supposedly a summit on health care, he had a 12-page proposal. There was no legislative plan, there were no words on paper, and we didn't know how much it cost.

We Republicans are still in the dark, and I don't know if the American people know that. There is still no bill out there that we've been able to see. All these backroom deals that my good friend, John Fleming, is talking about, they're being cut on a bill not one of us has ever had a chance to read. Nobody has read the bill that these deals are being cut on. Every bit of this, every word in this bill is all behind closed doors, and these backroom deals. And no one is going to know about what all these deals are until it goes through.

But just to give the American people a chance, let me read a couple more. Judith Kaminsky: ``To force unwanted, expensive, unconstitutional health care laws on the United States is not only a blow to capitalism, but a dismembering of our way of life and our rule of law. It's criminal to push so hard for something as unhelpful, unsafe, unpopular, and uneconomical as the current administration's want list. There are better ways to achieve a desirable outcome for the changes that might be necessary.''

Thank you. I appreciate my colleague, Mr. King, and also Mr. Gingrey. I will only be just a few minutes. I really wanted to be just a part of this discussion. I saw that you all were down here speaking on a very important topic that has captured a lot of people's attention this week, in particular with this event that happened yesterday.

I think one thing that we have demonstrated very clearly is that those of us on the Republican side of the aisle from the beginning of this debate have always had positive solutions that we have wanted to address. I know Dr. Gingrey has even laminated on a little card that he carries in his breast pocket, ``Rules of the Road Going Forward on Health Care.'' And of course, he's a physician; he understands better than anyone how patients are impacted by what we do here in Washington, D.C., and I appreciate the work that he has done.

We also have the Declaration of Health Care Independence that my colleague, Mr. King, has put up. Mr. Gingrey has contributed mightily to this document as well. It states, ``A Road Map Going Forward, The Rules of the Road on What We Need to Do Going Forward on Health Care.'' There are 10 items. Some of them include: Don't add to the crushing Federal debt that our Nation is currently experiencing; don't force people to violate their moral conscience and pay for other people's abortions; don't force taxpayers to pay for the health care of people who are residing illegally in the United States.

It goes through a series of 10 items that we should at least be able to agree on. As a matter of fact, if I recall, I think the President himself has agreed on almost all 10 of these items about health care. So let's go ahead and sign. And I think about 100 Members of Congress so far, or thereabouts, have signed this document. We hope the President will, we hope the Members of the Senate will. We think this is a good roadmap going forward. But we also think, as an olive branch, we truly can have bipartisan health care reform. That's what we want to have because it's not about us, and it's not about Washington, D.C.; it's about people back home and what the costs are going to be in health care.

Eighty-five percent of Americans really like their doctor, they like their health care--they just want it to be cheaper. We agree. Very simple plan that we can do. We can let any American buy any health care policy they want anywhere in the United States, number one. Do it with your own tax-free money. And beyond that, fully deduct on your income tax return any other expenses. That alone is a 32-page bill. Anyone can understand that. We can at least start there and bring the cost down on health care for all Americans. Why can't we at least start there? Do something to help the American people, but not create a big bureaucracy, not have the government take over one-sixth of the economy, all the things that the American people don't want us to do. But this is a great roadmap going forward.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding.

I'm so thankful that you're bringing up the Declaration of Health Care Independence. I believe that viewers may be able to see that on your Web site at king.house.gov. Also it would be available at my Web site as well, which is

bachmann.house.gov. We encourage viewers to go and view this document and take a look for themselves. As I understand, we have about a hundred Members of Congress that have already signed this. I understand that anyone can go ahead and take a copy of this bill and post it on their Web site. They can download it. They can do whatever they would like. They can take it to their Member of Congress, their Senator. Whatever they want to do they can do with this. I understand that some people have taken this and posted it on Web sites and have gotten at least 10,000 signatures of the American people. So it's interesting how this has captivated the imagination of the American people because going forward with this health care summit on Thursday, we need to have a roadmap. The President has indicated what his roadmap is, and many of us--I know that Mr. Gohmert, Mr. King, myself, other Members of Congress spent hours working on this Declaration of Health Care Independence. We labored over this, particularly Mr. Gohmert, particularly Mr. King, wordsmithing every word to make sure this was exactly right. That's why we're very proud to have the American people see this as a roadmap going forward on health care, unlike what we believe will be seen this coming Thursday. I just want to let the American people know ahead of time. It's now Monday; so we're within the 72-hour window of when this health care ``summit'' will occur. I say it's summit in name only because I say be prepared, America, Mr. Speaker. I say be prepared, because we probably had more substance come out of the beer summit that was at the White House than we will in all likelihood see come out of 6 hours of TV cameras on Thursday coming up.

Why do I say that? I say that because this dog and pony show that is planned for this upcoming Thursday needs to be about what the American people want it to be about, and the President is demonstrating, in essence, a very deaf ear to what the American people have asked for.

The American people overwhelmingly have repudiated the Democrat job- killing government takeover of health care. Again, as Mr. King has said, this is the government's taking over one-sixth of the American company, or 18 percent of the private sector. Just like that, in one fell swoop, taking it over so that rather than the American people having the say over their health care decisions, now the say goes to the Federal Government so the Federal Government gets to decide. So egregious is this bill, in fact, it's not even a bill. It's an 11- or 12-page proposal that the White House just put up online today. It says in essence the Federal Government would be able to price-fix on health insurance policies. We've been down this road before. This is an old movie. It's a B movie at that. It's been repeated over and over. Any time government gets the wise idea of putting its hand in on price fixing any commodity, any service, any wage in the United States, inevitably the result, and it's always been this way, is scarcity.

So now think of that in terms of health insurance. The Federal Government says how much a policy can be in the United States. Inevitably there will be less of that product. Why? Why would a private organization decide to put a product out and can only spend so much on that product? The only option this organization would have would be to offer less of it. Fewer options, less care. In other words, the Federal Government is going to mess up health care even more than they already have done. We know this because the President has decided he's going to begin on Thursday with a plan that already the American people have repudiated. The American people have said clearly what they want in all of this is lower costs and more competition. That isn't done at all. As a matter of fact, the President's own economic adviser, Christina Romer, has already said if the President's plan goes through, it's 5\1/ 2\ million jobs lost.

Now, things haven't gone real well already by the estimates from the President's advisers. They said if we passed the stimulus plan when we had 7.6 percent unemployment that we wouldn't rise above 8 percent. They said if we do nothing, it will go up to 9 percent unemployment. Well, we're now millions of jobs lost later and we're still hovering at 10 percent unemployment. And the President's own economic adviser says if we put his plan in place, we'll lose another 5\1/2\ million? I think that alone is reason enough to reject his plan.

But that isn't enough. This plan also we know is massive tax increases in violation of what the President promised the American people. It's also massive job killing, as the President's own economic adviser said. And it cuts half a trillion dollars out of Medicare. That's right, Mr. Speaker. While we will be adding in about 47 million more people into receiving services, we're going to cut $500 billion out of Medicare. Who's going to be hurt by all of this? Senior citizens.

Senior citizens are so smart. They have been on to this from the beginning, and that's why overwhelmingly senior citizens have said, Mr. President, don't do this thing. I'm the one that's going to pay the price.

That's right. Only every American will pay the price because all of us will see tax increases. All of us will suffer from these job-killing actions. This will force Americans again to pay for other people's abortions, and it will force Americans to pay for people's health care that aren't in this country legally.

Every word in the health care bill was negotiated by Democrats behind closed doors. In fact, they said today that if the Republicans won't go along with their bill, they're going to go forward with it anyway. Well, then what in the world are we going to this summit in name only for? If the Democrats have already said we've figured out our legislative trick, according to the chief negotiator for Speaker Pelosi, we've got our trick, we know how we're going to trick the American people and pass through a bill that two-thirds of the American people said they don't want. Well, if that's the case, what's this about?

Well, we know what this is about. Today the White House Communications Director gave a quote, and he said that they want the American people to see the negotiations played out on TV among Democrats and Republicans. And why do they want that to happen? Well, Mr. Pfeiffer said, ``The fact that the summit,'' and I quote, ``will be on TV and that the legislation is posted online will help take away a little of the concern of this being something hatched behind closed doors.''

Well, I hate to break it to you, but this has already been done behind closed doors. As Mr. King said, while the snow shut down Washington, D.C., that didn't shut down the Democrats, who control every lever of power in Washington, from staying behind closed doors.

Remember, every minute of this health care bill, every minute, has been negotiated behind closed doors with all the special interest groups who don't want to get whacked by the President. Except for the American people. They did not get access behind those closed doors. It's been negotiated behind closed doors. It's going to result in tax increases. It's going to result in less health care. And it's going to hurt senior citizens the most.

Exclusively by Democrats. They have been the only ones behind closed doors with these negotiations. So don't for a moment suffer the delusion to think that what's going to happen this Thursday in a 6-hour time period--remember, the President on Saturday in his weekly radio address said that when we have these negotiations, he doesn't want to see any political theater. Oh, really? He also said that he wants to go through section by section a 2,700-page bill. In a 6-hour period, Mr. President, you're going to go through section by section a 2,700-page bill, which, by the way, none of us have seen yet?

Mr. Gohmert, have you seen this bill? Mr. King, have you seen the bill?

That's because no one has seen this bill. It's not online. How do we know that? Today the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Douglas Elmendorf, said, We can't score how much this bill is going to cost. Why? We don't have the legislation. In fact, he said, We don't even have enough details out of this, quote, little 11-page proposal to even say how much the thing is going to cost.

So we don't know exactly who the players are that are going to go to this summit in name only on Thursday. We don't have a bill yet that we can negotiate. Yet this is going to impact every American, raise taxes, kill jobs. We don't even know what the bill is. We don't even know who the players are that are going to be in the room. And somehow this is a negotiation when the President has already said through his mouthpiece, his spokesmen, they have already said, well, it doesn't matter if the GOP turns it down, we're going to go our own way anyway. So agree with us. That's your option, Republicans. Agree with us or take a hike. Doesn't that make the American people feel good?

I thought the Declaration of Independence said that we rule by the consent of the governed; that we pass laws with what our constituents want. I spoke to Steve King earlier; I spoke to Louie Gohmert earlier. They were both home over these last 2 weeks in their respective districts. Their constituents told them, We don't want this job-killing government takeover of health care. That's what my constituents told me. I was just this weekend in St. Cloud, St. Martin, in Stillwater, in Woodbury. I was up in Anoka County. Everywhere I went people said, Michele, please, you don't think they're going to pass this health care, do you? Well, President Obama plans to. He must have his fingers in his ears or something must be happening, with all due respect, because that's not what my people are telling me in my district. All I can say is, Mr. President--Mr. Speaker, I am speaking through you. Mr. President, I beg you, listen to the heart cry of the American people. They don't want this clunker, for cash or otherwise. They don't want this thing. Let's start over and have a true legitimate negotiation. Let's not insult the intelligence of the American people. That's all this summit in name only is. There is more respect for the beer summit than there is for this so-called ``summit'' in name only on Thursday. It's a travesty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a sacred memory in our Nation's history. It was 67 years ago today when a terrible event occurred and a brilliant event occurred. It was 67 years ago, February 3, 1943. We now call this memory the Four Chaplains Day and honor this day in our Nation's memory because of the valor and because of the strength that was exhibited by four members of our armed services, four chaplains.

It was the U.S.A.T. Dorchester. The ship was a coastal liner converted to a U.S. Army troop transport for World War II, and it was with more than 900 men on board. It was a freezing night when the Dorchester, one of three ships in a convoy, was torpedoed. It was freezing, and it was about 1:00 in the morning when a terrifying shot was fired by a Nazi submarine 100 miles off the frigid coast of Greenland, and the ship quickly began to sink in the cold, cold waters. Many Americans were killed by the explosion. Others were trapped below deck.

As everyone started to panic, the four chaplains on board remained calm. They quickly passed out life vests to the young troops on board. They helped the wounded. They prayed with the

troops that were on board. But then, tragically, when all the life vests had been distributed, there were more men than life vests, and the four chaplains, without skipping a beat, removed their own life vests that they had on their bodies and they handed them to the young troops who had none.

And as the ship went down, the four chaplains linked arms. And witnesses said they saw the chaplains, as young soldiers, fighting against the cold, swimming in the water. They saw the four chaplains with linked arms who embraced each other in a circle in the waters. They prayed for the troops who lost their lives and for those who would survive, and they prayed until the chaplains were no more.

The four chaplains were a Catholic, two Protestants, and a Jewish rabbi. Their names were Father John Washington, Catholic; Reverend Clark Poling, Dutch Reformed; Rabbi Alexander Goode, Jewish; Reverend George Fox, a Methodist. These four chaplains gave more than their spiritual guidance to the troops. They gave their lives on February 3, 1943.

It was a decade later that President Dwight Eisenhower remarked, he said, and I quote: And we remember that only a decade ago aboard the transport Dorchester, four chaplains of four faiths, together, willingly sacrificed their lives so that four other Americans might live. In the three centuries that separate the Pilgrims of the Mayflower from the chaplains of the Dorchester, America's freedom, her courage, her strength, and her progress have had their foundation in faith.

Eisenhower concluded: Today, as then, there is need for positive acts of renewed recognition that faith is our surest strength, our greatest resource. And in 1960, Mr. Speaker, Congress created a special Congressional Medal of Valor, never to be repeated again, and gave it to the next of kin of the immortal four chaplains. The Distinguished Service Cross and the Purple Heart were awarded posthumously in 1944.

May the greatest example of this greatest love fulfilling scripture that says, greater love hath no man than this, but that he lay down his life for his friend, may this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, this Congress, and the American people never forget the sacrifice of the four great chaplains. And may God forever bless and extend to them his peace for their memory.

Madam Speaker, on January 26, 2010, I was unexpectedly detained and could not vote on H. Res. 1003, expressing support for the designation of January 10, 2010, through January 16, 2010, as National Influenza Vaccination Week. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, on January 26, 2010, I was unexpectedly detained and could not vote on H. Res. 1011, recognizing the importance of cervical health and of detecting cervical cancer during its earliest stages and supporting the goals and ideals of Cervical Health Awareness Month. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''