Michele Bachmann

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chair, last July an economist from Arizona State University had determined that since the inception of ``Bailout Nation'' in September of 2008, the Federal Government has taken ownership or control of 18 percent of our economy, and if President Obama gets his way and takes over the health care industry, that's another 18 percent of our economy, or 48 percent. Then, if President Obama and former Vice President Al Gore have their way and cause electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket by taking over the energy industry and imposing a national energy tax, that would mean the government takeover of another 8 percent of the economy for a total of 54 percent. As harmful to freedom as these bills are, they don't hold a candle to the government takeover and control of every financial transaction of the financial industry. And why? Because when government controls credit, when government rations credit and bails out its politically well-connected friends, that's gangster government at its worst, and that throws a net of government control over every financial transaction entered into in this country. Some experts say that is government control of another 15 percent of the economy for a total of 69 percent. This is stunning, nothing less than stunning. Could it be that not in our lifetime but in less than 18 months' time the Federal Government will take over or control nearly 70 percent of the American economy? And the majority has the audacity to berate this side of the aisle for suggesting the word ``socialism''? Heaven help the American taxpayer. Heaven help the American entrepreneur. Heaven help the maintenance of freedom for the sake not only of our people but for the sake of the continuance of the Constitution of these great United States.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I object.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I object, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I object, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I object.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing bill that will cut $500 million from Medicare and potentially collapse the economic economy.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, the American people overwhelmingly reject the government takeover of our health care. Last Friday, a couple from Hawaii decided the time is so short they needed to get on a plane, come to Washington to beg their Representative to vote ``no'' from Hawaii. What sacrifices freedom-loving Americans are making to get their government's attention and how big our government has gotten. They brought me this beautiful, precious lei, and I am reminded that the one who created this lei also created our freedom. Are we so insensible to the high cost our forebears paid to purchase our freedom? Tonight, would we foolishly bargain those freedoms away? The American people, our forebears, generations yet unborn, are crying out to us tonight for us to preserve their freedoms. Vote ``no'' on the government takeover of health care.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, it all begins with life and with protecting the most vulnerable among us, the unborn. Life is the watershed issue of our generation. How can one claim to call the destruction of innocent human life ``health care''? Orwellian statements aside, it is the duty of government to preserve and protect human life. If we do nothing else tonight, let's choose life.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Joe Larson of Washington County, for the more than 30 years he has served in the Washington County Veterans Service Office. As a veterans service officer over 3 decades, Joe has surely touched the lives of thousands of returning service men and women. It's a calling that requires perseverance, diligence and passion. As a veteran and Purple Heart recipient himself, Joe was uniquely qualified for this position. The instant bond among veterans was nurtured by Joe's experience and dedication to both his job and his fellow vets. For over 30 years, it has been his duty to file paperwork, make follow up calls and contact agencies on behalf of Minnesota's veterans. But for 30 years, Joe's calling was much higher. He was an advocate, a listener and a friend to so many veterans readjusting to life at home. His concern was genuine and his passion was unparalleled. And so I rise today, Madam Speaker, to give thanks to and honor Joe for the difference he has made to veterans scattered throughout Minnesota. And as he looks forward to his retirement, he can move forward knowing his was a job well done. He will be very truly missed by coworkers and veterans alike.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that we need to know about this health care bill that Speaker Pelosi is putting before the American people. It's what President Barack Obama's economic adviser Christina Romer said: simply this, if this bill passes it will mean 5.5 million job losses. That's probably why the Wall Street Journal has called this the worse bill ever. Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting, the Pelosi bill has it all, but even worse, in an already downbeat economy, 5.5 million jobs lost. Let's go with the positive alternative, which the Republicans have been happy to share with the President. Let's pass a positive alternative for the American people and not have job loss.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, the United States and Israel have shared a close relationship of friendship, cooperation, and strategic alliance that serves as an example to the rest of the world. I believe it is imperative for the United States to unequivocally reject the findings of the Goldstone Report, in order to preserve and nurture this relationship. The U.N. Human Rights Council has long been recognized for its anti- Israel bias, so it comes as little surprise they would rubber-stamp the ``Goldstone Report'' and its findings of ``crimes against humanity'' with regard to Israel's activities in Gaza. To quote Israel's Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, ``Israel basically was the equivalent of being summoned to a court in which its guilt was already presumed . . . I can't think of any country in the world which would participate in such a farce of justice.'' Indeed, while this report condemns Israel's actions, it ignores the precipitating causes of Israel's self-defensive actions, concluding that Israel's military operations were ``deliberate and systematic,'' and directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, failing to acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism, namely the thousands of rockets launched daily at its citizens. Moreover, the Goldstone Report ignores the extraordinary steps taken by Israel to minimize civilian casualties, often putting its own soldiers at greater risk to do so. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that recent years have been marked by escalating armed conflict between Israel and Hamas; however, I believe the United States should stand steadfast in its commitment to a free and secure Israel as the Middle East comes to embrace the liberties and freedoms of democratic societies.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, on November 3, 2009, I was unexpectedly detained and could not vote on H. Res. 867, calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the ``Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict'' in multilateral fora. Had I been present, as a cosponsor of this resolution, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn). She has done an outstanding job leading this Special Order tonight, and I thank you for what you are doing. We have so many women in our conference that wanted to be here tonight, and they can't all be here. The women in our conference understand one thing, and it is that women in the United States overwhelmingly make the health care decisions not only for their families, not only for their children, not only for their parents, but quite often women run a lot of the H.R., the human resources offices as well in business after business. I think one thing that people in business are understanding is they are going to have fewer choices before them rather than more. What we have seen from the bill that the Speaker of the House released last Thursday, on page 92, I believe, is that by the year 2013, no one will be able to purchase private insurance anymore. That's it. Now let that thought penetrate for a moment, Mr. Speaker. If we have to be frozen in time and we can purchase no new private insurance after 2013, what will happen? What will happen to our choices? What will happen to the plans that we really have? Well, it's interesting; a lot of people haven't been waiting around, they've been doing studies. One group called The Levin Group showed that by looking at the health care that we have in front of us, in all likelihood about 114 million Americans will be thrown off the current health insurance plan they have and onto the government system, which means about 114 million Americans won't have the health care that the President said we would all be entitled to keep. And we remember what the President said, he said, If you like your current health care plan, no problem, you can keep it. The only problem is, that's just not so. If you take 114 million Americans, throw them off the health care they already like, well, then they're stuck being in the government's plan. That means fewer choices. And that means the women of America don't get to make the choices anymore, it's government. I think the thing that all American women really get out of this is that there is going to be an enormous hassle factor. There is a big hassle cost that's in all of this. That's what we women deal with, we deal with hassles--hassles with our jobs, hassles with the kids, hassles with trying to make the books balance, and now the biggest hassle of all, life and death decisions because if government literally controls the health care decisions from cradle to grave--because it would be every single American--that means the hassle cost goes way up. That's kind of the last thing we women need right now. Women are tired, we're burdened, we have so many things on our plate. And I think especially women who are senior citizens, because they're watching this debate, and they get that $500 billion is going to be cut out of Medicare. That's what we know--cut out, gone. So what that means is scarcity, and that means less. So we are all going to be paying a lot more, but we are all going to be getting a lot less. The simple fact is we can do so much better. The Republican women here know that there are many positive solutions that we can do. We can really do a lot better. I will be real brief, and I will end with one positive solution we could take. I am a former tax lawyer. Rather than government owning your health care and making all the decisions, or rather than your employer making the health care decisions for you, we change the tax code so that you, every American, gets to make your own health care decision. You own it, you make the decision, it's a wonderful thing. So you own it, you make the health care decision, and you get to take your own money, tax free, purchase the health care plan of your choice--you're not limited to what government says you buy, you buy any plan anywhere. Anything that we don't cover out of your own tax-free money you get to fully deduct on your income tax return. Have true lawsuit reform that costs billions of dollars. In fact, that covers 95 percent of Americans. For the 5 percent who truly, through no fault of their own, can't afford health insurance, we can take care of them and we will take care of them, but we won't break the bank to do it. We have great solutions. Let's try that rather than burdening the American people, and especially women who don't need those burdens. And I yield back to the very kind gentlelady who's doing an outstanding job tonight, Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I rise today, Madam Speaker, to honor Staff Sergeant Mike Mills of Freeport, Minnesota, who is the first Minnesota recipient of The American Patriot Award. He joins an exclusive group of only 8 American heroes who have been recognized by the American Patriot Project, comprised of nine volunteer organizations united by love of our national pastime, baseball, and a desire to honor those who have served in uniform. Mike was wounded in 2005 in Iraq while serving with the Minnesota Army National Guard. On June 15, 2005 an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) exploded near Mike's vehicle. In the explosion he suffered a cracked clavicle and scapula bones, a dislocated shoulder and burns on more than 30 percent of his body. With extraordinary inner strength and the love and faith of his family and friends, he walked the long road of recovery. There are few awards that could properly acknowledge his service. Given Mike's incredible experience, it would be understandable if he had turned to bitterness, sadness and anger. But, Mike turned around what he had gone through to help other veterans discharged or retired with injuries. He helps them turn their feelings of guilt, shame and failure into hope, pride and joy through his Web site, www.fortheveteran.com. By sharing his own powerful story through words and pictures, Mike has said to every veteran you are not alone and you will never be alone. It is a lesson that far too many veterans never hear, leaving them with feelings of isolation and guilt and depression. His Web site should be required reading for any returning citizen- soldier. Like many veterans, Mike is the definition of a hero. But Mike stands out for his bravery and his sacrifice for our freedoms in a land thousands of miles away. I pray that Mike, his wife, Suki, and their children will continue to be a blessing to one another and to other veterans facing difficult times. I am so humbled to honor him today to this Congress, Madam Speaker.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans were just castigated for being the party of ``no,'' and I would submit that it is just the opposite, and this is why. The President of the United States, in a historic move, gave a speech to the joint session of the House. He said, If any Republicans have positive ideas, they need to come to me, and I'll be happy to sit down with them. Well, I wrote a letter to the President, taking him up on that wonderful offer, and said, I have a positive alternative, Mr. President. Could I sit down and share that with you? I'm still waiting by my desk for that return phone call, and I have yet to receive the courtesy reply as have multiple of my Republican colleagues offered to the President to share with him their positive alternatives. The party of ``no'' is the party that locks the door on Republicans to even prevent them from coming into a committee room to offer our positive alternatives. We have them. What has the majority offered? They've offered to cut Medicare to senior citizens by $500 billion. Is that a positive alternative? We have loads of them. We're the party of ``yes.'' Stop being the party of ``no.''

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Iowa and appreciate all that he has contributed to this conversation this evening, as well as my colleague, Mike Burgess from Texas, who did the very kind favor of coming to Minnesota and speaking as an expert on the health care issue. I know my constituents still tell me how much that meant to them, and I appreciated it as well. I was very interested when the gentlemen were speaking about the lack of bipartisanship on this current bill. I would agree. I recall when all of us were filling this Chamber during the President's joint session to Congress, and he stood here in this room, addressed us, and he said if any of us have suggestions, we should come in and sit down with him, and he wants to hear those suggestions. I was so pleased, I took him up on that. I wrote him a letter, told him about positive alternatives that I had, bills that I had presented. I still haven't had the courtesy of a reply yet. I know there are a number of other Members that took the President up on that offer as well. I don't know what the President would be waiting for. I'm here. I'm ready. A lot of other Members have been anxious to go and meet with the President and give our positive alternatives. There's one that is actually fairly simple that we can do and it's this: Rather than the government owning our health care, rather than our employer owning our health care, we could change the Tax Code so that every American could own their own health care. Quite simply, we would erase the boundaries between the various States. People could purchase any health insurance policy from any State in any amount. People could do that with their own tax-free money that they have set aside, and any expenses over and above what's in the tax-free account that they fully fund themselves, they can fully deduct on their income tax return. People can take their tax-free money, roll it over year after year and, upon their death, will it to their children. Then we have true lawsuit abuse reform. That takes care of over 95 percent of the people in this country without spending trillions of dollars and getting our country more bankrupt than what it already is. Those who truly, through no fault of their own, can't afford to purchase health care, that's something we can take care of. Not a problem. But why not offer and why not embrace first, before we build yet one more big government bureaucracy, why not try a simple, positive alternative that is free market oriented, that makes sense to people. Everywhere I go in Minnesota and talk to people about this option they say, Yes, why not offer that? Why not do it? Why not? Why not do that first before we embrace something that will cost so much money? There are really two questions that we need to ask ourselves. With the current Democrat proposals that are before Congress, we just ask ourselves this: Will this bill give me more control over my health care? Or will it give government more control? The bill that Dr. Burgess held up in the air was about this thick. What was that, about 6 inches, perhaps, thick? That bill would give government almost all, virtually all control over a person's health care, rather than the individual. Then let's ask ourselves this question, and I think Congressman King alluded to this: Will this cost me more money or less money? Well, the government plan we know will cost more money. Estimates that have come out so far have said people's health insurance premiums could be estimated to rise by as much as $4,000 a year; $4,000 a year more. How is this going to benefit the average family? The average family would be getting less health care, more rationing of care, and they would spend $4,000 a year more. What about senior citizens? Senior citizens are paying attention to this debate. They're hearing that the Democrats that control the Senate, the Democrats control the House, the Democrats control the White House, they control every lever of power in Washington as Congressman King rightly said. The Republicans aren't the one holding this bill up. We don't have the votes. The Democrats have the majority of votes. But what do they plan to do? They plan to cut Medicare. That's right, Mr. Speaker, they plan to cut Medicare by $500 billion. What does that mean for citizens? Less care, more cost, less care, rationing. That is not the future that they want to have. What about people under 30? What do they have to look forward to in this bill? People under 30 are looking at having, perhaps, 8 to 12 percent of their income taken away to go to pay for health care. That's a direct new cost that government would impose on young people. What about businessmen? Businessmen are looking at an 8 percent payroll tax. Most businesses don't even have an 8 percent profit margin. They don't know where they are going to get that 8 percent to pay for that additional amount. What about the job creators in our country? They are looking at a 5.4 percent surtax on their income. That won't help right now and also, a 40 percent tax on insurance premiums. How do you like them apples? That doesn't do anything to help anyone in this country bring down costs and expand care because here's the context of our time. Congressman King had mentioned we are currently sitting at 9.8 percent unemployment, and the White House has told us that we will see probably 10 percent unemployment by the end of 2009, and we will see this level of employment on into next year. The White House is telling us, high unemployment is the new normal. Well, maybe for this White House it's the new normal, but not for those of us on the Republican side of the aisle. We know it's possible to have lower unemployed and to create jobs in this country, and we can do it by having government spend less money and cut taxes. Well, this bill would add 5\1/2\ million to the unemployment rolls if it goes through. Also, we have seen that the dollar has dropped 16 percent in the last 7 months in value. We have seen China, Russia, the United Nations call to take the dollar away as being our international currency and create some new form of currency. That's going to increase the lowering of our dollar. We saw this year that the government has spent $1.4 trillion more than what they took in. That's more debt than all previous 43 Presidents put together. President Obama increased the size of the spending in the Federal Government 22 percent this year. In fact, he is increasing what we are spending on welfare next year by a third. How big is that number? That increase is more than what we spent on 8 years of the Iraq war. In fact, it's 25 percent more than what we spent on the Iraq war. We are burying ourselves and our kids in debt, and we are getting nothing to show for it. In fact, the Inspector General said in a report last week that there are untold billions of dollars that he can't account for out of that $700 billion bailout that went to the banks and the auto companies and AIG. Billions. They can't even account for it. In this context, we are going to give Members of this Congress 3 days to read the bill, and it might be over 6 inches high. This is not only an insult to Congress, this is an insult to the American people. We should have 3 months to read this bill so that we can truly debate and see, will this help America or will this hurt America? Will this take us out of debt? Will this put us more in debt? Will this give the average American more control over their health care or less control? Will this cost the average American more in their income or will it allow them to save? That's the context that we need to discuss this in and not just Republicans in the Chamber, but Democrats working together to truly craft the best possible solution that we could have. But right now what we need to do is fix our economy and get people back to work. The rest of this will take care of itself. There are people out there tonight, Madam Speaker, who are suffering. They don't know if they are going to have a job tomorrow. They don't know where they are going to go to find food for the table. Well, let's rev up this economy. We can do that with our positive solutions, and let's move forward in the debate. I will now hand it back to Stunning Steve King of Iowa.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, today the majority leader just committed himself and the Speaker of the House to giving the public and Members of Congress 72 hours--or 3 days--to read the bill that will require the government takeover of health care. Three days. How magnanimous of them. A bill that will destroy America's health care system, and doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, insurance companies, families, and individuals will have 3 whole days to read this bill and then call their Member of Congress to weigh in. Three months to read this bill would be an abbreviated amount of time. This bill will soon become Medicare for all. Medicare, as we know, will be bankrupt inside of 8 years, and as the ship is taking on water and sinking, this Congress wants to pour more water into the boat. And they think it's magnanimous to give us 3 days to read the bill? Please. Three months would be a minimum.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The House bill to have government take over health care contains section 2511 which would put clinics in our schools. Minnesota has experience with these clinics. Here is one girl's testimony: ``Hi. My name is Jamie. I hope my personal story and experience with the West Suburban Teen Clinic will convince you that bringing this clinic into the school campus will endanger the health of many students. ``At age 14, I was what you could describe as a rebellious teen. My parents had rules, like all parents, and tried their best to instill moral values in my life they hoped would guide me down the right road. But I chose a path that led to the West Suburban Teen Clinic. It was there I learned how easy it was to get birth control, morning-after pills, exams, condoms, or whatever else I needed to have sex and not tell my parents. I didn't even have to go to a real doctor. ``At the clinic, I was told my parents didn't have to know about any of my visits or what birth control the school clinic was giving me. The clinic made it so easy for me to have sex. They made it so easy to hide things from my mom and dad. After all, since it was my right not to tell them about birth control, they didn't need to know anything else about my life either. The teen clinic opened the door for me to lie and supported me in my deception. Looking back, I can see that their counseling affirmed a continuous pattern of lying, secrets, and cover- up. This destroyed any mutual trust between my parents and me. ``The West Suburban Teen Clinic convinced me I was doing a good thing by going there because I was practicing safe sex. Was it safe to break the trust with the only people who really truly protected and cared about me? Was it safe when the clinic jumped at the chance to give the morning-after pill to a 14-year-old without revealing to me any of the negative health-risking side effects? ``They didn't even care who I was having sex with. Imagine, a 14- year-old. I could have been having sex with an older man. It could have been rape. Anything. They never once took the time to ask me. I was so young. All I thought was, oh, I won't be getting pregnant if I take this morning-after pill. I was never given the facts about side effects. ``I went to the West Suburban Teen Clinic multiple times to get the morning-after pill. They would ask me if I needed a couple of back-up pills to keep in a friend's house just in case, or to hide at my own house so I wouldn't have to ride all the back way back to the clinic. ``I can honestly say that the clinic visits also had a very negative effect on my education. As I became more involved sexually and had more visits to the clinic, I would sit in class thinking about what courses and classes I could miss so I could make my school clinic visit for more pills and condoms before the end of the school day. It made it difficult for me to focus on my class assignments when I was thinking about a pelvic exam or the thought of having an STD or being pregnant. ``Now I'm 20 years old. I'm very concerned about the long-term damage to my health thanks to this so-called safe-sex clinic. They not only helped me hide things from my mom and dad, they hid the truth from me. The West Suburban Teen Clinic didn't care that I was a minor teen. They didn't care what the side effects of these pills would do to my reproductive system. And my body is messed up. They gave me pills and condoms and they left it to my parents to pick up the pieces. ``If only I knew what I know now, how the West Suburban Teen Clinic's advice and pills damaged me physically and emotionally, I could have prevented so many of the problems with my parents and my family. If only I had never gone there. And now you are bringing these clinics to all the high schools? ``You need to protect kids. You need to uphold the desires of parents, not the wishes of clinics that make money off kids' mistakes. My parents tried to protect me. The clinic took that right away. They took over the role that my parents were intended to have and they hid everything from them, the people who loved me the most. ``Please stop this clinic from coming in and ruining more kids' lives. I wish I could warn all the students at high schools about these clinics. They need to know about the physical and emotional damage that can be done by a pattern of pills and promiscuity. I wish I could tell them. I know the West Suburban Clinic won't.'' Madam Speaker, this is a story of tragedy by one girl in Minnesota. Minnesota has experience with the school-based sex clinics that are being proposed in the bill that would have government take over health care in this country. Surely we can do better by our children than encouraging them to gain experience in a lifestyle that will bring them only heartache and perhaps physical devastation.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I thank you for clearly laying out what the problem is and what some of the solutions are that are being offered by the Democrat majority that controls both the House and the Senate and the White House. As the gentleman stated, we're looking at about 85 percent of the American people who have health care who, in survey after survey, have demonstrated that they are happy with their health care; they have no desire to change that system that they're currently able to receive. They're very worried, though, because they know that the Federal Government very likely will cause their current insurance system that they have to go away. And they're right. President Obama has made three things abundantly clear: one is that if we have current insurance, we won't lose it; we will be able to hold on to it. We know that's patently false from the legislation that the House has taken up, H.R. 3200. It states quite clearly that within 5 years, insurance programs would all have to conform with the Federal Government. And that's individual insurance plans, which are only 8 percent of all outstanding insurance plans. Other programs are employer-sponsored plans. So overwhelmingly within 5 years, all insurance plans will have to come under the one-size-fits-all option. And isn't it interesting with the proposal of the public option, pretty soon that will be like the blob that ate New York City. The public option will be the only option for the American people. It happened with the student loan situation 2 weeks ago. The last vote we took was to have the Federal Government take over the student loans in this country. Twenty-five years ago, all student loans were private. Then the government introduced a public option. Well, that one choice, just as Representative King of Iowa said, adding that one choice to 1,300 insurance companies was like having the Federal Government add one choice to multiple hundreds of banks across the country that were already making loans privately to students. But here's the problem. Let's be serious and let's be honest with the American people. The government doesn't like competition. It didn't like competition when it came to the student loans that were offered. It wanted all of the revenue that potentially could come out of that, and it thought it could do a better job, even though on the private sector more people chose to go with private student loans than the public student loans. It didn't matter. The Federal Government wanted to have the whole market to itself, and it captured that market. It's the same thing now with health care. The President of the United States is suggesting that he wants a public option. As a matter of fact--and this shouldn't shock anyone--during the course of his campaign when he was running for President, he clearly stated that he wanted to see the Federal Government have a single-payer plan where the Federal Government would be the provider of all of the health insurance in the United States. Knowing that, it's no shock that this is the direction that this body wants to go. We know that. Let's be honest. Let's not dance around this. Members within this body on the other side of the aisle--meaning the Democrats in this body--numbers of them have said they want a single-payer plan. What's that? Government takeover of health care. That's the ultimate goal, Mr. Speaker, to have the government take over health care. What's the result? Health care will cost far more than it ever did in the past. It will be more expensive to individuals, more expensive to businesses, and it will provide less services. We know that. We know that's exactly what's going to happen despite the fact that the President has said if you have health care, you will get to keep it. Wrong. Then the President said each American would be able to save about $2,500 a year. In other words, we'd see cost savings of about $2,500 a year. There is no estimate anywhere that has ever verified that wild statement that the President made. Then the final statement that the President has made over and over and over again, people making $250,000 a year or less would not see any tax increases. Well, that's verifiably false. We know exactly that Americans will see tax increases. But there's something that hasn't been talked about much, and it's the whole idea of school-based clinics in schools all across America. And that's in H.R. 3200. Now, this would raise the hackles on the necks of school parents all across this country when they understand section 2511 of H.R. 3200. The House government takeover of health care bill has a section called school-based health clinics. It would allow a nonprofit health agency-- just say Planned Parenthood because that's what this is written for. Again, we need to be serious. Planned Parenthood is an organization that is the largest abortion provider in the United States. And written into this bill is a provision whereby Planned Parenthood could become the proprietor for school-based clinics in every school across the United States. These have been more accurately called school sex clinics. One of the very first school sex clinics that was put into this country was in St. Paul, Minnesota. And it was told to the families and the parents that this would actually reduce pregnancy. Of course we knew it wouldn't reduce pregnancy. It increased pregnancy. It increased sexually transmitted diseases. It was a disaster for young women in St. Paul public schools. The greatest, kindest, most compassionate gift we could give to our young people--whether it's young girls or young boys--is to teach them and tell them the travesty that they can encounter with early onset of sexual activity. It really is an epidemic now in this country. For so many girls across this country now, 25 percent of girls have sexually transmitted diseases, potentially life-threatening sexually transmitted diseases. Boys as well. This isn't the kind of country that we grew up in, but today where we have almost a patting on the back of telling young people, It's your choice; do whatever you want to do. Now the Federal Government is going the final step, and they're saying, Let's put sex clinics in our schools. Can you believe this, Mr. Speaker? Let's put sex clinics in our schools, and let's put Planned Parenthood in charge of these sex clinics, because the bill requires under this provision, Planned Parenthood would be authorized to serve as a sponsoring facility for the Nation's schools. As a matter of fact, the bulk of this health care bill is scheduled to go into effect in 2013. Remember, all the taxes will start this coming January, Mr. Speaker. Right away, at the time we can least afford it, the taxes will go into place, but the provisions of this bill actually go into effect in 2013. Not the school-based sex clinics. They would go into effect next summer so that these clinics would appear in public schools next fall, and it would require that the school-based sex clinic would provide on- site access during the school day when school is in session and have an established network of support and access to services with back-up health providers when the school is closed. Can you imagine what this would cost, Mr. Speaker, if every school in the United States had a built-in health clinic? And this health clinic, parents won't have access to. How do we know that? Parents are going to be excluded from Planned Parenthood as they write these clinics because the bill orders that these clinics protect patient privacy in student records. What does that mean? It means that parents will never know what kind of counsel and treatment that their children are receiving. As a matter of fact, the bill goes on to say what's going to go on--comprehensive primary health services, physicals, treatment of minor acute medical conditions, referrals to followup for specialty care. Is that abortion? Does that mean that someone's 13-year old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back, and go home on the school bus that night? Mom and dad are never the wiser. They don't know any different. As a matter of fact, the bill also provides for mental health planning. This is very concerning. In our State in Minnesota we've done a lot of research on this. Mental health; mental health assessments; crisis intervention; counseling; treatment; referral to a continuum of services, including emergency psychiatric care, and mom and dad can't know what's going on? Mr. Speaker, I am almost without words to think that we have come to the time when the Democrats that control Washington, D.C.--and, make no mistake, they control every level of power in this city. Now they want the taxpayers, if they haven't been beleaguered enough, to pay for sex clinics all across the United States. Planned Parenthood, which takes in a billion dollars a year, $300 million of which is taxpayer subsidies--hey, that was just the prologue. This is the gravy train. Because now it would be billions and billions and billions on into the future. What did the President say earlier this week or last week? He wants America's schools to have longer school days and longer school years. Where in the Constitution does it say that the President decides how long the school day is or how long the school year is? And now we're going to have the sex clinics in the schools and they're essentially going to take over the health care services of our kids? I don't know about you, Representative King, but this is highly offensive to me as a parent to think the audacity--the audacity of the President and of this Congress stepping into this area of privacy of family life.

Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield, Planned Parenthood has a real problem on their hands--a big problem on their hands--almost on the level of ACORN and the problems that ACORN has had. It's simply this. There's a case that's been filed in California, and Planned Parenthood apparently, allegedly, has been overcharging the Federal Government tens of millions of dollars, because what is alleged is that Planned Parenthood has fraudulently marked up the birth control pills that they have been giving out to people. So they have been giving out birth control pills free to people in California and charging the Federal Government for those pills. They aren't charging the going rate, allegedly, according to this complaint. They've overcharged the Federal Government. Well, the President stood in this Chamber and said that he was planning to pay for this big health care extravaganza by getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system. Easily, Planned Parenthood can be considered a part of ``the health care system.'' Why? The President considers abortion part of health care. He considers abortion, what he calls reproductive rights, which is a code word for abortion, he considers that essential health care. Well, by the President's own definition, Planned Parenthood is a part of his essential care. And this is the payoff. This is the payoff to Planned Parenthood. They would be given free access to our kids all day long, and this is an organization that allegedly has overcharged the Federal Government tens of millions of dollars. Here's another opportunity for the IRS; here's another opportunity for them to go after a 501(c)(3) organization. Again, they brought in a billion dollars last year. They received probably $300 billion worth of benefits, meaning they didn't pay any taxes, but they received $300 billion of taxpayer money. This is an organization that should be investigated by the IRS; very, very likely should lose its 501(c)(3) status, as should ACORN; and they should have all taxpayer subsidies pulled everywhere across the United States.

Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield, just to add to that, Planned Parenthood was one of the organizations that gave money to ACORN for the purpose of voter registration before this last election. And it wasn't just Planned Parenthood. It was also the teachers' union. We've seen videos coming out in these last 2 weeks of little schoolchildren, kindergarten schoolchildren, on videos, they're all across the Internet, where little children are being taught praise of the United States almost in a personality cult-like worship in video after video after video. Again, this is concerning because we have a teachers' union--there's nothing wrong with unions--but we have a teachers' union that came out and gave money to ACORN for the purpose of voter ID. It's interesting how you can link Planned Parenthood with ACORN, with the President. And there's a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Staging materials. That was a big problem for the President during, of course, the election because he had falsely listed on his FEC report that money that was given was for staging materials. That was very concerning. That was brought to the attention of the campaign. They changed that once they found out about that. But, again, this is over $800,000 that was transferred from the Obama campaign to ACORN. But you were correct when you went back in history, and actually the President back in 1991 took time off from his law firm to run a voter registration drive for Project Vote and an ACORN partner that was soon fully absorbed under the ACORN umbrella. This is in a Wall Street Journal article written by John Fund: The drive registered 135,000 voters. It was considered a major factor in the upset victory of Democrat Carol Moseley Braun over incumbent Democrat Senator Alan Dixon in the 1992 Democrat Senate primary. Congressman King, I wonder if you can comment on this. This is something I don't understand. Why in the world would ACORN have a tax- exempt status? Why in the world would ACORN be receiving taxpayer money when they worked consistently in election after election to elect one political party--the Democrat Party? Why are the taxpayers paying allegedly for the election of Democrats?

Mrs. BACHMANN. Was this prior to the election?

Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman will yield, in my home State of Minnesota, it was 41,000 voters who were registered by ACORN. And of course we know year after year, election after election, State after State, the polls' rolls are flooded with false and fraudulent voter registrations, and there's a reason for that. If you have that many, it is very difficult for those who are in charge of the voter registration polls to be able to make accurate counts. Plus, once a person casts their vote--let's say you register the day before you cast your vote-- that vote stands. That vote isn't thrown out. So there is method in the madness for ACORN. Again, you take a look at tax money going in, tax-exempt status, and you see one political party being benefited. How is this allowed? I don't understand it. And what's amazing to me is there hasn't been one investigation yet, not from the Department of Justice. We haven't seen one from the Department of Housing. ACORN, after all, was the organization that was literally shaking down banks, shaking down mortgage companies. This was also at the behest--our President, again, was involved in ACORN during this time. All of this agitating was going on for the purpose of relaxing lending standards, lowering lending standards. But for the work of ACORN lowering those lending standards, would we have had the disaster in housing that we have today? I mean, these are very serious questions. And nobody's investigating? Not the IRS, not the Department of Justice, not the Department of Housing. We've been hearing that the IRS will be investigating ACORN, but there have been no investigations. As a matter of fact, as you and I stand here, has there even been a defunding of ACORN? There have been votes, but has one dime been cut off from that? That's why the American people know that something doesn't smell right now, and they have to continue to call their Member of Congress. They have to continue to call their Senator and demand a full and complete investigation. Has an audit occurred? Does the gentleman know? Has any audit occurred? I believe the gentleman told me that there is something like 361 affiliate organizations under the ACORN umbrella. Has a full audit occurred?

Mrs. BACHMANN. Do we have a Federal investigation? These are Federal dollars that are going in. Again, ACORN has received $53 million from 1994 forward. But since the President of the United States, Barack Obama, came in, a former employee under ACORN with Project Vote, he now has given access to this organization of $8.5 billion, an unheard of amount of money. Certainly the taxpayer has the right to demand that investigation occur. Yet when George Stephanopoulos did an interview with the President and asked him about ACORN, the President didn't seem to know. He didn't seem to know much about the votes we took in the House and the Senate. He didn't know much about ACORN. Maybe it's because he's working on going to Copenhagen to get the Olympics in Chicago. I don't know, but he certainly didn't seem to know much about ACORN.