Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Whereas the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Mrs. Bachmann

submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules to H.R.

3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas the said gentlewoman's amendment would have

protected American taxpayers by prohibiting funds made

available in the Act from being used to fund any organization

that has been indicted for violations of state or federal

election laws--or that employs people who have--such as the

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

(ACORN);

Whereas a similar provision was adopted by the House in

2008 during consideration of H.R. 3221, the Housing and

Economic Recovery Act of 2008, and became law on June 30,

2008, but does not currently apply to all programs funded in

the underlying bill;

Whereas the gentlewoman's amendment complied with all

applicable Rules of the House for amendments to

appropriations measures and would have been in order under an

open amendment process, but regrettably the House Democratic

leadership has dramatically and historically reduced the

opportunity to protect American taxpayers on this Floor; and

Whereas the Speaker, Mrs. Pelosi, the Democratic

leadership, and the chairman of the Committee on

Appropriations, Mr. Obey, prevented the House from voting on

the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments

made in order under the rule for the bill: Now, therefore, be

it

Resolved, That H. Res. 669, the rule to accompany H.R.

3288, be amended to allow the gentlewoman from Minnesota's

amendment be considered and voted on in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's so important for the American people to understand that right now in Congress this is considered contraband. This is very controversial. Even though this represents the Democrats' health care plan, we are not, as Members of Congress, allowed to put this chart up on our Web sites. We're not allowed to send this chart out to our constituents across America.

What are the Democrats worried about, Mr. Speaker? Could it be because this is the latest board game in the United States, that the American health care consumer stands on this side of 31 bureaucracies and they have to figure out how to get through 31 bureaucracies before they can get to their doctor? Or could it be, Mr. Speaker, because this will cost 5 million jobs? Or could it be, Mr. Speaker, because this will cost $2 trillion in additional deficit?

I can understand why the Democrats wouldn't want the American people to see this, but I don't understand how you can make the claim that this is the most transparent Congress in the history of this country, if you won't even let the American people see that there are 31 bureaucracies that stand between average Americans and their doctor.

Mr. Speaker, it's time that the American people get to see the truth. This shouldn't be contraband.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Captain Shawn Warneke, a true patriot and a member of the St. Cloud Civil Air Patrol. Capt. Warneke has received the Disaster Relief Commendation ribbon for his extraordinary work and leadership during the severe flooding in North Dakota this spring. I recently supported House Resolution 415 and commended all Civil Air Patrol members for their unprecedented efforts in Fargo and Moorhead, and now it is my privilege to highlight Capt. Warneke's individual contributions that helped lead to the successful sandbagging that saved hundreds of homes.

The devastating floods in the Fargo-Moorhead communities inspired hundreds of volunteers to take time off work and help their neighbors. Capt. Warneke's unique background set him apart from many volunteers. As Lead Security Officer for the Transportation Security Administration at the St. Cloud Regional Airport, Capt. Warneke's experience allowed him to effectively transport, supervise and assist C.A.P. cadets and senior members during the sandbagging efforts. He also helped local citizens with evacuation and provided security to the area.

Capt. Warneke has made service to our nation a daily routine. As the Deputy Commander of his squadron, Capt. Warneke trains the C.A.P Color Guard. He is a graduate of the Blue Beret Leadership Academy and soon will be certified as an official Civil Air Patrol Mission Pilot. Captain Blaine Pierson, Squadron Commander of the St. Cloud Composite Squadron, said this about Capt. Warneke: ``His dedication to Civil Air Patrol, Homeland Security and his country is constantly evidenced by his attention to duty and the responsibilities entrusted to him.''

I rise today to honor Capt. Shawn R. Warneke in front of this Congress for his service to his country, as a sign of my appreciation and gratitude. Capt. Warneke has dedicated his life to ensuring freedoms and security for all individuals as a part of our Homeland Security defenses and a volunteer member of the Civil Air Patrol. His commendation ribbon is a fitting display of the compassion with which he carries out those duties every day.

If the gentleman will yield.

Well, you know, it's very interesting. I think the gentlemen that are here in the Chamber tonight--I think probably everyone here considers themselves pro-life. And you remember during all of the arguments and debates that there has been on this issue of women making a decision about whether or not to have an abortion, one of the main arguments that was proffered was, No government should get between a woman and her doctor. The government should not get between the woman and her doctor when she comes to making that decision.

Yet it's so curious. When you look at these 33 new bureaucracies that are created, when it comes to that decision about an abortion, you've got 33 new bureaucracies now that are created. I recognize those who are here are probably pro-life in this Chamber. But for those women who aren't pro-life, that's something that they need to consider very seriously. The government is going to be between them and their doctor in a whole new way, a big way, a 33-bureaucracy way. That's one thing women understand. Women consume health care. They purchase most of the health care in this country. They take care of their elderly parents. And women will be the ones that are stuck filling out the paperwork, making call after call after that call.

We all know what it's like if you call the Department of Motor Vehicles and you have a problem, or you call some other government department if you have a problem. You know what you have to go through. We still have gentlemen who have served valiantly in World War II who still can't get medals. They're still trying to get through to get access.

Now we're looking at women having the hassle factor of having to get through to a bureaucrat.

There is one thing I wanted to mention. I just finished watching President Obama in his press conference when he was talking to the Nation about his health care reform and about his health care proposal. I listened to every question that was asked by all of the reporters. I found it very curious. President Obama was adamant. He said his health plan, his government takeover, will not add to the deficit in the next 10 years. He made it as a guarantee, as a promise. He will not add to the deficit in the next 10 years. Not one reporter who asked a question brought up the independent Congressional Budget Office, the testimony by Doug Elmendorf, where he stated unequivocally that we will see rising costs and a rising deficit if President Obama's plan goes into effect. There was not one question by the reporters. Not one question contradicted President Obama's statement.

The other thing that surprised me was that President Obama has not

given to the public what every previous President gives out, which is, in mid-July, a budget update about where the budget is. Well, guess what. President Obama said he's going to delay putting that mid-budget assessment out until mid-August when all of the Members of Congress are back home, presumably after we take this vote on health care. Is this the most transparent Presidency that we've had? That's the claim.

This is transparent.

But he doesn't even want us to see the budget numbers. He doesn't even want to be asked about the CBO estimate. He said, Where are we going to find the money, and how is this not going to cost more by adding millions more?

He said it's from waste. We're going to wring waste out of the system. Well, if that's so, why do we have a chart equal to this one showing all of the specifics of how they're going to take waste out of the system? Let's go ahead and start with that. Let's start getting these hundreds of billions of dollars out of the system by wringing out waste.

It's because he knows. He knows what's going to happen. Doctors are going to turn into GS-15s, government employees. Doctors are going to take drastic reductions in payments. Nurses will take drastic reductions in payments. Hospitals will take drastic reductions in payments. What does that mean for the American people? Drastic reductions in quality of care if you can get care. That's what we need to consider.

Will the gentleman talk about what ``rationing'' is? Talk about what ``rationing'' is. What does that mean?

9.5 percent.

But it's going to cost jobs. That's the other problem. By President Obama's own estimates, this health care plan will cost nearly 5 million jobs. His porkulus bill has cost us 2 million jobs. The takeover of GM/Chrysler cost another 150,000 jobs. The energy bill you just talked about is 2.5 million jobs every year. This alone is 5 million jobs. So it's already a huge cost in terms of job loss out of the United States.

The President said that tonight, too.

But the President did say something that I think, perhaps, we should listen to.

He said tonight in his press conference that the United States spends about $6,000 more per person on health care. He wants to reduce that. So we need to listen to that now. He wants to reduce that by about $3,000 per person. Well now, how is he going to do that? Let's take him at his word. If he is going to reduce health care expenses by $3,000 per person, that goes back to how we define ``rationing.''

``Rationing'' means if your baby daughter were born with a heart condition, would she get the pacemaker? If your 85-year-old mother had a problem with her hip, would she get a replacement? If, perhaps, your daughter had kidney problems, would she get the help?

That's the way you reduce the costs by something as dramatic as by half per person. Let's face it, President Obama's plan for Americans is that we're getting less health care, not more.

Remember, it's a good time for ACORN. They've received $53 million in direct Federal grants since 1994, but now they've hit it big. The slot machine is paying off now because now they have access to $8.5 billion. Fifty-three million was chump change for ACORN. Now they have potentially access to $8.5 billion.

The gentleman from Iowa was talking a few moments ago about how much the Federal Government is getting more and more control over our private economy. Two

weeks ago there was a front page story in the Washington Times written by an economist from Arizona State University, and he said this. I found it astounding. He said since bailout Nation began, since the inception, just at the end of 2008 with the United States going in and owning banks, AIG, mortgage companies, Chrysler, and GM, and the various things that have been nationalized, just since that time--we're talking a matter of months--today the Federal Government, the economist said, either owns or controls 30 percent of the American economy.

So if you take that 30 percent and then do what President Obama hopes to accomplish, have the Federal Government take over 17 percent of the wealth of this country that is created by private health care, that's the Federal Government taking over nearly half of the American economy either through owning it or through controlling it.

How do we remain a free market capitalist country? This is the deconstruction of free market capitalism. And the President's only been in office about 6 months, and we're already looking potentially at half of our economy owned or controlled by the Federal Government. How do we ever get it back again?

This is nothing more than an all-out war against private wealth creation. And not only a war against private wealth creation, but an all-out war and assault against retaining and owning the private wealth that we created. At that point, we lose the incentives. At that point we lose the American Dream.

Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to encourage the next generation of 19- and 20-year-olds to go out, succeed, take risks, sacrifice, work hard in medical school? Are we going to see the best and brightest go to medical school? We have the best and brightest here--Dr. Broun, we have numerous doctors here. The best and brightest. Will we see that in this country?

Those are questions we will have to answer.

Mr. Chair, last week the House voted on legislation, H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2010, which included an important provision to reinstate the economic rights of auto dealers whose franchise agreements were recently terminated by GM and Chrysler. Along with 242 of my colleagues, I am a cosponsor of two pieces of legislation that are similar to that provision: H.R. 2743 and H.R. 2796, both known as the Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009.

Unfortunately, I was unable to support the overall appropriations bill, H.R. 3170, due to concerns entirely unrelated to the auto dealer provision. For instance, I am concerned that the bill allows for publicly funded abortions in Washington, DC. For years, there has been a prohibition on taxpayer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia--a ban which restricted the use of both federal and local tax dollars for abortions. However, this bill makes taxpayer funded abortion quite possible.

The legislation also eliminates the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, a school voucher program which has successfully improved the DC public school system since its inception. Under the bill, no new students will receive funding for this program, which aids low-income children by giving them scholarships of up to $7,500 to attend nonpublic schools in Washington, DC. The bill also removes the current ban on legalizing medical marijuana in DC.

I strongly believe that the franchise rights of hundreds of dealers across the nation were wrongfully violated throughout the course of the automakers' restructuring, and I believe that the heavy hand of government which

clearly influenced the proceedings had a lot to do with that. I continue to call upon Congressional leadership to bring H.R. 2743 or H.R. 2796 to the floor for an up-or-down vote on their own merits. It should not be tucked into unrelated legislation, from which it can be plucked in conference committee. This is a serious issue and it requires our full attention.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Heidi Reitz of Sartell, Minnesota, one of this year's Angels of Adoption. As you know, this prestigious award from the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute honors people who have given so much of themselves to help children and families find one another.

Even without this award, Heidi would deserve acknowledgment for her extraordinary work bettering the lives of orphans in China as Director of Programs for Love Without Boundaries. I am honored, as a foster mother myself, to make known her hard work to this Congress. Because of Heidi's volunteer efforts, more than 300 children are in loving homes.

The inspiration for her tireless dedication can be found in her own home. Her husband has helped Love Without Boundaries with cleft palate surgeries and two of her six beautiful children were adopted from China. As a volunteer, Heidi has arranged trips for two cleft-lip orphans and helped start a cleft healing home where children awaiting surgery to correct this difficult condition can be properly cared for. Heidi is working to make sure each of these special children are adopted into homes ready and prepared to care for them.

Madam Speaker, Heidi Reitz has done such a service for all of mankind through her tireless dedication to orphan children in China. As families from every country wait to be united with their adopted parents and children, Heidi is giving them every opportunity to complete their family. The Love Without Borders website uses the anonymous quote, ``To the world, you might be one person . . . but to one person you might be the world.'' To the hundreds of children and families, Heidi is ``the world'' and an Angel in Adoption Award is just a small way we can show our appreciation for her efforts.

Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?

As a Senator, President Obama supported the $700 billion bailout Nation strategy that today we're learning will cost the American people potentially $24 trillion. But where are the jobs?

President Obama pushed the trillion dollar stimulus that cost our economy 2 million in job losses. No jobs.

President Obama took over GM and Chrysler, and he gave pink slips to 3,400 car dealerships that cost 150,000 jobs. No jobs.

President Obama's national energy tax will double our electricity bills in Minnesota and will cost 2.5 million job losses every year.

Now President Obama's economic adviser tells us that the government takeover of our private health care insurance will cost us 5 million jobs. No jobs.

This may be called the China-India stimulus plan, but the President isn't doing so well for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, let's have real change so the American people can have real jobs.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of members of the Minnesota National Guard who were killed in the line of duty this past week in the service of our great country. Minnesotans gathered together last evening in a silent vigil in my hometown in Stillwater where they remembered, cried and prayed for five brave members of our American military who willingly laid their lives on the altar of freedom.

On Friday I spoke with the parents of one of these servicemen who only hours earlier received a knock on their door, the knock that no parent ever wants to answer. And in their conversation with me, Madam Speaker, the parents honored their son amidst their grief, their pride in his bravery swelling their hearts.

May these families be comforted in their sorrow, and may the memories of these brave soldiers live in our hearts forever.

Madam Speaker, all jobs are needed now in the United States. We need jobs here and we need jobs now. Unemployment stands at a 26-year high at 9.5 percent.

And what is the response of Washington, D.C.? Government is increasing the costs on job creators. By the end of this week, Madam Speaker, government will have mandated that the price of the minimum wage will increase another $0.70 per hour. This comes when teenage unemployment stands at nearly 25 percent, nearly another record. Employers expect to be cutting more minimum wage jobs as a result of this action, not adding more jobs. Teenagers in my district are going from day to day to day, many of whom have given up now that it's the end of July, looking for work. Unemployment stands at a high for teenagers. They're competing with 40-year-olds for jobs at fast food companies.

So what else does Washington do?

Washington is passing a crushing debt burden on to the 19- and 20- year-olds with our $1.1 trillion stimulus plan. Clearly, the stimulus plan hasn't worked to create more jobs for Americans. Two million jobs have been lost since the stimulus law was passed earlier this year. The public was told that if Congress failed to pass the President's stimulus plan that we would see 8 percent unemployment. A lot of

States today would love to see 8 percent unemployment.

Try the State of Michigan. Last week they reported their unemployment stands today at 15.2 percent. We can do better, so much better. We have before and we can again.

Let's ask every business owner in America, Madam Speaker, if it would help them if we would cut their costs of doing business with the Federal Government.

Let's ask the average American if they would like to see government take less of what they make. Let's see if Washington would allow the American people the freedom to reclaim their lives, rather than waiting for a Washington bureaucrat to give them permission to move forward with their lives.

This last weekend, I spoke to a Minnesota businessman who has created four dozen jobs in my district. He would love to provide health care for his employees, but he simply can't afford to. Why? It's because of the government mandates.

Do his employees go without health care? No, they don't. Almost all of them have health insurance either through a spouse or they purchase health care on their own.

What would his employees like to see? They would like to have help with the full deductibility of their health care costs on their tax returns; also if they could purchase health insurance in the same way they purchase their car insurance in a competitive, free-market manner. Many of them would like to see the increased use of health savings plans. They want to own their own health insurance because they want to be able to take it with them in case they want to be able to change jobs.

Madam Speaker, fully 77 percent of all Americans respond that they prefer their present health insurance. They like what they have, and they want to keep it, but they think, Madam Speaker, that they will be shocked if they learn that they could lose their private health insurance, and they would be shocked to learn if their only option would be the government as their only health decision-making.

Page 16 of the House Democrat plan that was revealed last week of the government takeover of insurance is quite a shocker. Page 16 says that no new private health insurance policies will be allowed to be written after the passage of the bill. Government insurance is expected to be subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of 30 to 40 percent.

Approximately 114 million Americans are expected to leave private health insurance. Why? Their employers will drop the insurance because the taxpayer-subsidized plan will be 30 to 40 percent cheaper. This action will collapse the private health insurance market, and then the Federal Government will own the health provider game.

The problem is that every American will have to hope that the government will act benevolently toward their cases. Why? Because government will be the only game in town.

We can do better, Madam Speaker. We have done better. We can take a plan that truly does represent compassion and that does represent the best interests of the American people by offering them freedom and true options.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for this moment just to be able to speak about what is happening here in Washington, D.C. I don't think anyone has ever seen anything like what we have seen in the recent months, and we can even trace it back to last fall when the Democratic Congress could not wait to get passed the TARP funding bill together with the former Bush administration.

They were in a hurry, just like the gentleman from Iowa has stated. We are seeing that this is a Congress that is in a hurry, in a hurry because they have got an agenda. They are on a steamroller path. They are on a blitzkrieg path. They have to get everything done yesterday. We can't have time to read bills. We can't take time to truly count the costs, because we are in a hurry. There is an agenda that has to be performed.

We heard the President of the United States tell the Democrat Caucus just last week, We can't miss this opportunity for reform. We have got to get it done. We have to do it now. We can't wait. We have got to do everything now. That is what we were told last fall. We were told that we would see economic Armageddon if we didn't pass the $700 billion TARP bill.

What was that? That was a blank check. We were told, Just trust me. It was a ``trust me'' defense. We were told, Just trust the Treasury Secretary. They have to have $700 billion, or we will see an absolute collapse of the financial world. And so we were all pushed into it. I voted ``no'' on that bill. But the Democratic-controlled Congress passed the $700 billion bailout for the banking system and also for the foreclosure and the subprime mess that we are in.

Well, where are we at today with the subprime mess? We are seeing foreclosures still at a record high. We are seeing unemployment still at a record high. Did this help us, this $700 billion blank check that went to the Secretary of the Treasury? What did that lead to?

Well, President Obama was all for the TARP bailout when it came, when he was Senator Obama, and then we saw in December when he was President-elect Obama, he prevailed upon the President. He said, We can't wait, we have got to hurry. We can't wait until January until I'm sworn in as President. I'm asking you, President Bush, to release to the Automobile Task Force something like $17 billion so we can bail out GM and so we can bail out Chrysler, because it has to be done today. We can't wait until January when I'm sworn in. It has got to be done today.

So President Bush gave that $17 billion to the Automobile Task Force at President-elect Obama's request. And we all know what happened. We saw what happened to Chrysler. It essentially collapsed in a shotgun wedding to Fiat. A foreign car company was brought in and forced to purchase and buy out Chrysler. We saw the bondholders, whose rights were virtually stripped away from Chrysler, and we saw the UAW instead jump in front of the bondholders and take advantage of that position, and now the Federal Government and the UAW and Fiat own that company.

What happened to GM? We saw that UAW owns that company and the Federal Government now, as of the Friday before last, is the 61 percent shareholder. What did that get us? One hundred fifty thousand jobs lost. Because we saw pink slips go to 3,400 dealers of Chrysler and GM across the country, and 150,000 people, potentially, are out of work. Well, then we had to get the stimulus passed, the largest spending package in the history of our country, $1.1 trillion. Think of that: $1.1 trillion. But it had to be done today. And we didn't have time to read that bill, oh, no, sir. We can't read that bill because this is too important. President Obama told us we had to pass that bill.

The bill was passed by Congress. I voted against it. Representative King voted against the stimulus bill. But President Obama had to have that bill. Well, did he sign it? No. He went to Chicago. He went to play basketball. He took 4 days, rather than passing this bill he had to have in his hands, because he had to have this $1.1 trillion stimulus bill.

Well, we didn't get that bill very much ahead of time either, and it was a little bit embarrassing because of all the earmarks that bill contained. Oh, we weren't told they were earmarks, but they were earmarks nonetheless. All sorts of special projects were in that bill.

Then we were told we had to pass the budget bill, an 8 percent increase over the previous budget bill. We had to pass it right away. We couldn't wait and have extra time for debate, no, no, no. We had to pass that bill now because otherwise bad things might happen.

Well, what has happened? What happened as a result of the stimulus bill? We were told if we didn't pass that stimulus bill, we could see 8 percent unemployment. Wouldn't that be terrible? What is unemployment today? Nine point five percent. In the State of Michigan it is 15.2 percent. What about jobs? What about all the jobs that were created? Two million jobs have been lost since the stimulus bill was put forward. One hundred fifty thousand jobs were lost because the government got involved in GM and Chrysler and handed out pink slips. This isn't going real well for us.

Then cap-and-trade, cap-and-tax, the ultimate authority that government could have over every person's life in the United States. Literally, every time we flick on a switch, it will be the government telling us how much we are going to pay to flick on that switch, or if we can even have the power to do that. Cap-and-trade, the mother of all bills, and we got that bill 13 hours before we passed that bill. Thirteen hours before, 1,100 pages, but don't worry, trust me. Trust me. It will bring good things to this country. And what will that give us? We already know. Two and one half million jobs a year leave the United States. We might as well call it the ``China-India stimulus plan'' because we are going to lose 2.5 million jobs, bye bye, away they go, out of the United States.

And then what is the next bill we have in front of us? Well, an article today in the newspaper says that on this health care bill that we are looking at, that by the way, we have got to pass, it was revealed last week, here it was, 1,018 pages long, that the next day Members of Congress had to vote on it, and the House Ways and Means Committee revealed to the public that the next day we need to be prepared to vote on a 1,018-page bill.

Mr. Speaker, it isn't that Members of Congress are lazy. And it isn't that Members of Congress are too stupid to be able to read these bills. It is the fact that the Democrat leadership in this House is unwilling to allow us to read the bills. We even had the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, probably in an accident, admit that if many Members of this body actually read the bills, there probably would be very few votes. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Iowa has the quote of the majority leader, and it says ``If every Member pledged to not vote for the health

care bill if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes.''

I would agree with the leader. I think that there would be very few votes if Members of Congress would read this bill. That is why the Obama administration and the Democrat leadership are steamrolling these bills through before anyone has time to be able to read it because they know, as was written in the paper today, this is by Christina Romer, President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman, she said that this bill will cost employers $300 billion. It will cost workers 5 million jobs. Well, let's think about that now. Five million jobs from health care loss, and that doesn't include the taxes that would be put on small businesses, so it is 5 million there, 2.5 million from cap- and-trade, that is every year though, and then 2 million from the stimulus, 150,000 from GM and Chrysler. I don't think we are going in the right direction.

And this is from a President who said that he wouldn't be raising taxes on 95 percent of the American people. Unfortunately, it appears that that promise has already been broken.

I yield back to the gentleman from Iowa.

If the gentleman would yield.

I'm wondering what he means by that, by 5 days. Does that mean that once the bill gets to the President, he'll allow it just to rest on his desk for 5 days? People would have a chance to comment?

But it also seems, the public law that the gentleman from Iowa displayed, Members of Congress are supposed to be able to get a chance, too. I think this is wonderful that the President wants the American people to have 5 days to be able to read a bill, but I think it would be wonderful if Members of Congress could have 5 days to read a bill before we vote on it. After all, maybe we should all take an Evelyn Wood speed reading course, because if we have to read over 1,000 pages or 1,100 pages in a bill in 13 hours, we're going to need to have maybe those recordings where they're sped up a little bit so it sounds like Alvin and the Chipmunks reading a bill to us. I don't know what it's going to take, but Members of Congress should also have the opportunity to be able to read the bills, and to do that, we need to have time, too. So this doesn't say much.

If President Obama says that a bill should just maybe be on his desk for 5 days, if Members of Congress aren't also given that courtesy, after all, we are the people's representatives. We're sent here on behalf of the people back home to read these bills, talk about these bills between Republicans and Democrats. Isn't that what we're supposed to do, talk to each other, talk about what our ideas are, what the ideas on the other side of the aisle are, make the bill a little bit better, then put it on the floor?

Maybe part of the problem, I wonder, is the fact that we're just trying to do things a little too fast. That's what it seems like to me, that maybe this Congress is trying to rush through too much too fast. Maybe that's why we have a greater deficit than we've ever seen before.

We ran out of money in April. Back in April, this Congress spent all the money that it had in its budget already in April. So every day we've been spending billions and billions and billions, every single day that we don't have. And so now, today, it's July, we're already over $1 trillion in deficit. We're going to be nearly $2 trillion in deficit.

And here's something else I don't understand. The President is supposed to release, in mid-July, the budget update. We have the numbers already, but the President has said he's going to wait until mid-August to release his budget update.

Now, this is a little concerning to me, a little fishy to me, because we're being told, Mr. Speaker, that in less than 2 weeks' time the President of the United States expects that we will pass legislation that would allow the Federal Government to take over 17 percent of the private economy.

Now, there was an economist from Arizona State University 2 weeks ago on the front page of the Washington Times who wrote an article that said, we now have the Federal Government, for the first time, having control or owning 30 percent of all private business profits in this country. Thirty percent of all private business profits in America are owned or controlled by the Federal Government today.

If President Obama and if the Democrat-controlled Congress gets their way, that will be an additional 17 percent.

Now, this President's only been in office for 6 months, and already 30 percent of the private business profits are owned or controlled by the Federal Government. Now, by August 1st he wants to make that 47 percent? I certainly hope we can read these bills first before we're asked to do that.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa.

There is a lot to contemplate when we're talking about this national takeover of health care. The gentleman has every reason to be concerned because, when the government takes over an area of American national life as we have seen, the American people are the ones who lose control and who lose choice over their economic destinies.

Here is one thing we've been hearing about from the Speaker of the House. She has been talking about how this nationalization of health care will be paid for through prevention, that we'll have new prevention in place that will keep Americans healthier and that we will realize something like over $500 billion in savings in prevention.

Well, where is it? Itemize it. What is it that we aren't doing now that we're going to see dramatically occur in prevention? It isn't there.

It's not going to materialize because we know where the savings will come from. It will come from the Federal bureaucracy, and we have the Federal bureaucracy that's contained in the bill that the Democrats have put forward. This big mess that's on this chart shows 32 new Federal Government agencies. This is what will stand between any American and his doctor. So think of an American standing on that side of the paper with 32 bureaucracies. You've got to get through this labyrinth, Mr. Speaker, before you can get to your physician.

Now, is this what Americans want?

A study was just completed that showed that 89 percent of Americans today are happy with the health care that they receive. Another study that was done said 77 percent of Americans are happy with the health care that they receive. Now, that doesn't mean that our health care system is perfect. It isn't. One of the greatest things that we can do is to make all Americans' medical expenses deductible on their insurance. That would be something great that we could do for the American people because the biggest problem in health care today is not access; it's the cost. Health care premiums are going through the roof. Well, what can we do?

We could change the Tax Code, and we could allow Americans to purchase their health care the same way they purchase their car insurance--across State lines, buy in pools, bring down the price, have true competition, and allow small clinics like the MinuteClinics, for instance in Minnesota, to be set up all across the United States. Have health savings accounts so that you control your own costs, and you take it with you. The government doesn't own your health care. You do.

Mr. Speaker, this is the plan that President Obama wants for the American people, a great labyrinth of bureaucracy. How are you ever going to get your health care if you've got to go through this bureaucracy?

One thing we know about bureaucracies is they justify their own existences, and they all make a lot of money. The average Federal employee today makes about $75,000 a year plus benefits. There are a lot of people out there who would love to make $75,000 a year. Well, we're creating 32 new bureaucratic agencies. This is nonsense. This is about a government-created welfare bureaucracy. That's what this is about. It's not about insuring more Americans, because even under the Democrats' own forecast, not all Americans are even going to be covered.

Potentially, about half of the people who are uninsured now can afford to pay for that insurance. Of the other half who can't afford it, we have a good amount of people who are under 35 who are in very temporary situations. About a third of those people are illegal aliens. Truly, only somewhere between 12 and 16 million people aren't insured. That out of 305 million? Surely, we can find an answer for them.

Why wreck the health care that 89 percent of Americans say they like so that we can give government control over 17 percent of the American economy? Why do we want to do this?

This is President Obama's vision for American health care. It's not what Americans want. There is no savings extracted out of prevention, not to the level that they're talking about. We need to get real about health care, and that's why the American people need to melt the phone lines of their Members of Congress. They need to let them know what they think about this plan before it's too late.

I yield back to the gentleman from Iowa.

Will the gentleman yield?

That was the aspect of the Hillary plan. It was an outlawing of all private insurance. The one thing we know from page 16 of the 1,018-page bill is that no more private insurance policies can be written--never, nada. You can't write any more private insurance. Of course, if the public option is subsidized by government at 30 to 40 percent less than the private insurance plans, what we know from the Levin Group is that 113 million Americans will be collapsed out of private insurance and will be put over into the government option, thus collapsing the private insurance industry. It will all be government, and that's within 5 years that we will see the end of private care in the public.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jacqueline Basney and the employees of Angelique's Bridal Salon in Blaine, Minnesota for their thoughtful commitment to the military families of Minnesota. For the second year, Angelique's has hosted a ``Military Extravaganza.'' This past weekend, they gave away 50 wedding gowns to women who are either serving or engaged to someone serving in the military at no cost to the couple. As owner of Angelique's, Jackie gives away the freshly cleaned and repaired sample gowns of discontinued styles. ``These dresses are like new and just beautiful,'' she says.

Inspired after hearing of a similar event at another shop, Jackie went a step further by involving local vendors from the Twin Cities area to donate limo rides, photography sessions, tuxedo rentals-- everything needed for the perfect wedding. Even more, the event is a way of connecting families who share the same uncommon situation. One set of four women lined up at eleven o'clock the night before and by the time they had picked their dresses the next morning, they were good friends, taking photos and exchanging phone numbers and promising to stay in touch. You simply can't put a price tag on that kind of support--particularly for women so in need of a little extra friendship for the sacrifices they make for our nation.

To take part in the event, couples submit letters and Jackie reads each one. Learning how they met and their plans for their life together lead her to tears at just the idea that she'll be a part of their wedding days. This year was especially moving when one lucky bride-to- be called her fiance in Iraq and he personally thanked Jackie for her special gift. But Jackie seeks no thanks, saying it's only their way of paying it forward as ``they pay us back double.''

While these service men and women are separated by time and distance, Angelique's is committed to making their big day the best it can be. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank everyone at Angelique's Bridal Salon in Blaine, Minnesota and especially Jacqueline Basney for helping the men and women in our military in this unique way.

While many couples enjoy the luxury of planning and preparing together, this event brings families and strangers together in a way many never expected, but are eternally grateful to have experienced.

Madam Speaker, 2 days after Independence Day, the remaining GM dealers in the United States received a letter from the General Motors National Dealer Council letting the dealers know that the National Dealer Council strongly opposes the Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009. It is also called H.R. 2743. The letter urged all remaining GM dealers to sign the letter immediately, by no later than 5 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7. They urged the dealers to fax it back to the National Dealer Council urging that they do not support passage of the restoration of economic rights.

I have nothing personally against GM or Chrysler, Madam Speaker. These are great American companies. But what I do object to is the Federal Government effectively taking over these once great companies.

Last Friday, GM emerged from bankruptcy, Madam Speaker, but do the American people even realize that they own a majority share in this company, effectively 61 percent, which is why many people now call it ``Government Motors''? Do they know that 3,400 privately owned dealerships were given pink slips essentially by the Federal Government? 3,400 dealerships were closed down all across the America, not because these dealers were failing? Hardly. In my district dealers were experiencing some of their best months ever for sales, high customer satisfaction and terrific service.

Perplexed and bewildered, 3,400 automobile dealers across the United States were given pink slips essentially by the Obama Auto Task Force; 150,000 jobs are estimated to be at risk of vanishing by this move. And with these jobs goes a part of the American Dream for private property owners and business in our country. The remaining GM dealers carved up the spoils.

Now let me be perfectly clear. I fault none of these existing remaining GM dealers. These actions weren't their fault. Our fear with government owning these car companies is that politics will control GM's remaining decisions, not business. And now with this letter, it seems that politics is prevailing. Existing dealers are urged by GM to work against restoring economic rights to the dealers who saw their businesses' value drained from them overnight.

How can current GM dealers possibly stand up against GM when GM is the Federal Government? Again, dealers are urged to sign a letter that will disadvantage their disenfranchised former competitors. This is a bad business, Madam Speaker. And it perfectly illustrates why we don't want government to own, operate, or control private businesses.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I support the gentleman's amendment.

We know, Madam Speaker, that this national energy tax will cost the American people $2 trillion. We know that. We know this will result in a loss of 2.5 million jobs every year for the American people. We know that. We know this will result in a reduced standard of living for Americans. We know that. What is the point and what's the benefit?

But what is worse than this is the fact that now, because of this underlying bill, the Federal Government will virtually have control over every aspect of lives for the American people. It is time to stand up and say, We get to choose. We choose liberty or we choose tyranny. It's one of the two.

The underlying bill represents the tyranny and the intervention of the Federal Government. Mr. Forbes' amendment represents liberty for the American people.

It's our choice. What will we choose today? Will we choose liberty or will we choose tyranny?

I choose Mr. Forbes' amendment.

Madam Speaker, those who return home after serving our Nation, often changed and scarred by their experiences, deserve special recognition and honor. The Disabled Veterans Rest Camp at Marine on St. Croix provides a sanctuary and gathering place for veterans and their families to connect and heal with one another. I rise today, Madame Speaker, to honor the members of the Minnesota National Guard who have spent the past weeks helping to restore the Disabled Veterans Rest Camp so military families from across the Nation can continue to enjoy its tranquility.

For the last several weeks, the Guard has volunteered their time and engineering expertise as part of their training to restore buildings, update facilities and address the needs that come with a nearly century-old campsite. I applaud these Guardsmen and women for giving back to their fellow uniformed service members. I also want to thank our Croatian allies that are sharing in this joint deployment with the Minnesota Guard. We are very grateful that they are able and willing to help our American veterans.

The site started as a camp for World War I disabled veterans in 1926 and has seen expansion and contraction over the years. I first became familiar with it as a State Senator when it faced potential demise in 2005--a fate I was proud to have had at least a small hand in defeating. Maintaining this camp--which has a treasured place in my heart, as do the veterans it serves--as a place for disabled veterans to call their own is one of my proudest moments in my public service career.

A board of representatives from veterans' organizations runs the site and is actively involved in preserving the purpose of the camp. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Minnesota Guard for paying it forward to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our country. The tireless hours they have given at the Veterans Rest Camp are just one representation of our duty to our veterans--to serve them with gratitude and respect. We should all take these citizen-soldiers' example to heart each day, as we live in a free and prosperous land and owe it all to our veterans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Sara Meslow, founder and director of Camp Odayin, headquartered in Stillwater, Minnesota. With facilities in Crosslake, Minnesota, Camp Odayin is the only camp in the Midwest for children with heart disease. This amazing opportunity is made available for just $25 because of generous donations from individuals, local organizations and medical groups. Sara says, ``We wanted something associated with children's heart disease that doesn't have dollar signs after it.'' I would like to honor Sara and the team at Camp Odayin in front of this Congress that we all may be amazed at the opportunities she provides our children.

Young heart patients from 17 states, Canada and Germany have been to Camp Odayin and many leave feeling completely different about the disease that will impact them the rest of their lives. The object of Camp Odayin, which means ``heart'' in Ojibway, is to connect kids with heart transplants, congenital defects, artificial valves, abnormal heart rhythms and many other conditions with one another.

Sara shares a very personal connection with the Odayin campers. As a teenager, she learned that she had a heart condition that sometimes caused her heart to beat wildly and later received a Medtronic defibrillator to control the condition. After volunteering at a camp for children with heart disease in California and with some prodding from her mother, Sara began exploring options for a camp in Minnesota.

Camp Odayin held its first session in 2001 with 53 campers. Now in their eighth summer, they have expanded to three sessions and are expecting 240 campers. The camp sessions are available for ages 8 to 17 and are as normal as any summer camp with swimming, archery, horseback riding, canoeing, crafts and of course, general fun. The advantage is that medical professionals and health specialists make up many of the volunteer staff allowing children needing extra attention and care to participate in activities they would otherwise sit out on at other camps. Nurses attend every activity, regularly monitor medications and staff an infirmary that is similar to a hospital intensive care unit. This level of medical care is not available at any other camp in the Midwest.

I had the privilege of learning about Camp Odayin from one of the many children blessed with this opportunity. This young girl was just thrilled to have been to a camp where many of the kids were dealing with the same problems she had. It is obvious the joy that Sara has brought to hundreds of children and I rise today to honor and applaud her work empowering the children that are the future of America, regardless of their health, status or ability.