Michele Bachmann

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thanks, I appreciate it. I want to go back to a little sign that Louie Gohmert held up at the State of the Union speech, or something, the joint session, that said, ``What plan?'' Remember the President, at the 7-hour infomercial that was supposedly a summit on health care, he had a 12-page proposal. There was no legislative plan, there were no words on paper, and we didn't know how much it cost. We Republicans are still in the dark, and I don't know if the American people know that. There is still no bill out there that we've been able to see. All these backroom deals that my good friend, John Fleming, is talking about, they're being cut on a bill not one of us has ever had a chance to read. Nobody has read the bill that these deals are being cut on. Every bit of this, every word in this bill is all behind closed doors, and these backroom deals. And no one is going to know about what all these deals are until it goes through. But just to give the American people a chance, let me read a couple more. Judith Kaminsky: ``To force unwanted, expensive, unconstitutional health care laws on the United States is not only a blow to capitalism, but a dismembering of our way of life and our rule of law. It's criminal to push so hard for something as unhelpful, unsafe, unpopular, and uneconomical as the current administration's want list. There are better ways to achieve a desirable outcome for the changes that might be necessary.''

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you. I appreciate my colleague, Mr. King, and also Mr. Gingrey. I will only be just a few minutes. I really wanted to be just a part of this discussion. I saw that you all were down here speaking on a very important topic that has captured a lot of people's attention this week, in particular with this event that happened yesterday. I think one thing that we have demonstrated very clearly is that those of us on the Republican side of the aisle from the beginning of this debate have always had positive solutions that we have wanted to address. I know Dr. Gingrey has even laminated on a little card that he carries in his breast pocket, ``Rules of the Road Going Forward on Health Care.'' And of course, he's a physician; he understands better than anyone how patients are impacted by what we do here in Washington, D.C., and I appreciate the work that he has done. We also have the Declaration of Health Care Independence that my colleague, Mr. King, has put up. Mr. Gingrey has contributed mightily to this document as well. It states, ``A Road Map Going Forward, The Rules of the Road on What We Need to Do Going Forward on Health Care.'' There are 10 items. Some of them include: Don't add to the crushing Federal debt that our Nation is currently experiencing; don't force people to violate their moral conscience and pay for other people's abortions; don't force taxpayers to pay for the health care of people who are residing illegally in the United States. It goes through a series of 10 items that we should at least be able to agree on. As a matter of fact, if I recall, I think the President himself has agreed on almost all 10 of these items about health care. So let's go ahead and sign. And I think about 100 Members of Congress so far, or thereabouts, have signed this document. We hope the President will, we hope the Members of the Senate will. We think this is a good roadmap going forward. But we also think, as an olive branch, we truly can have bipartisan health care reform. That's what we want to have because it's not about us, and it's not about Washington, D.C.; it's about people back home and what the costs are going to be in health care. Eighty-five percent of Americans really like their doctor, they like their health care--they just want it to be cheaper. We agree. Very simple plan that we can do. We can let any American buy any health care policy they want anywhere in the United States, number one. Do it with your own tax-free money. And beyond that, fully deduct on your income tax return any other expenses. That alone is a 32-page bill. Anyone can understand that. We can at least start there and bring the cost down on health care for all Americans. Why can't we at least start there? Do something to help the American people, but not create a big bureaucracy, not have the government take over one-sixth of the economy, all the things that the American people don't want us to do. But this is a great roadmap going forward.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding. I'm so thankful that you're bringing up the Declaration of Health Care Independence. I believe that viewers may be able to see that on your Web site at king.house.gov. Also it would be available at my Web site as well, which is bachmann.house.gov. We encourage viewers to go and view this document and take a look for themselves. As I understand, we have about a hundred Members of Congress that have already signed this. I understand that anyone can go ahead and take a copy of this bill and post it on their Web site. They can download it. They can do whatever they would like. They can take it to their Member of Congress, their Senator. Whatever they want to do they can do with this. I understand that some people have taken this and posted it on Web sites and have gotten at least 10,000 signatures of the American people. So it's interesting how this has captivated the imagination of the American people because going forward with this health care summit on Thursday, we need to have a roadmap. The President has indicated what his roadmap is, and many of us--I know that Mr. Gohmert, Mr. King, myself, other Members of Congress spent hours working on this Declaration of Health Care Independence. We labored over this, particularly Mr. Gohmert, particularly Mr. King, wordsmithing every word to make sure this was exactly right. That's why we're very proud to have the American people see this as a roadmap going forward on health care, unlike what we believe will be seen this coming Thursday. I just want to let the American people know ahead of time. It's now Monday; so we're within the 72-hour window of when this health care ``summit'' will occur. I say it's summit in name only because I say be prepared, America, Mr. Speaker. I say be prepared, because we probably had more substance come out of the beer summit that was at the White House than we will in all likelihood see come out of 6 hours of TV cameras on Thursday coming up. Why do I say that? I say that because this dog and pony show that is planned for this upcoming Thursday needs to be about what the American people want it to be about, and the President is demonstrating, in essence, a very deaf ear to what the American people have asked for. The American people overwhelmingly have repudiated the Democrat job- killing government takeover of health care. Again, as Mr. King has said, this is the government's taking over one-sixth of the American company, or 18 percent of the private sector. Just like that, in one fell swoop, taking it over so that rather than the American people having the say over their health care decisions, now the say goes to the Federal Government so the Federal Government gets to decide. So egregious is this bill, in fact, it's not even a bill. It's an 11- or 12-page proposal that the White House just put up online today. It says in essence the Federal Government would be able to price-fix on health insurance policies. We've been down this road before. This is an old movie. It's a B movie at that. It's been repeated over and over. Any time government gets the wise idea of putting its hand in on price fixing any commodity, any service, any wage in the United States, inevitably the result, and it's always been this way, is scarcity. So now think of that in terms of health insurance. The Federal Government says how much a policy can be in the United States. Inevitably there will be less of that product. Why? Why would a private organization decide to put a product out and can only spend so much on that product? The only option this organization would have would be to offer less of it. Fewer options, less care. In other words, the Federal Government is going to mess up health care even more than they already have done. We know this because the President has decided he's going to begin on Thursday with a plan that already the American people have repudiated. The American people have said clearly what they want in all of this is lower costs and more competition. That isn't done at all. As a matter of fact, the President's own economic adviser, Christina Romer, has already said if the President's plan goes through, it's 5\1/ 2\ million jobs lost. Now, things haven't gone real well already by the estimates from the President's advisers. They said if we passed the stimulus plan when we had 7.6 percent unemployment that we wouldn't rise above 8 percent. They said if we do nothing, it will go up to 9 percent unemployment. Well, we're now millions of jobs lost later and we're still hovering at 10 percent unemployment. And the President's own economic adviser says if we put his plan in place, we'll lose another 5\1/2\ million? I think that alone is reason enough to reject his plan. But that isn't enough. This plan also we know is massive tax increases in violation of what the President promised the American people. It's also massive job killing, as the President's own economic adviser said. And it cuts half a trillion dollars out of Medicare. That's right, Mr. Speaker. While we will be adding in about 47 million more people into receiving services, we're going to cut $500 billion out of Medicare. Who's going to be hurt by all of this? Senior citizens. Senior citizens are so smart. They have been on to this from the beginning, and that's why overwhelmingly senior citizens have said, Mr. President, don't do this thing. I'm the one that's going to pay the price. That's right. Only every American will pay the price because all of us will see tax increases. All of us will suffer from these job-killing actions. This will force Americans again to pay for other people's abortions, and it will force Americans to pay for people's health care that aren't in this country legally. Every word in the health care bill was negotiated by Democrats behind closed doors. In fact, they said today that if the Republicans won't go along with their bill, they're going to go forward with it anyway. Well, then what in the world are we going to this summit in name only for? If the Democrats have already said we've figured out our legislative trick, according to the chief negotiator for Speaker Pelosi, we've got our trick, we know how we're going to trick the American people and pass through a bill that two-thirds of the American people said they don't want. Well, if that's the case, what's this about? Well, we know what this is about. Today the White House Communications Director gave a quote, and he said that they want the American people to see the negotiations played out on TV among Democrats and Republicans. And why do they want that to happen? Well, Mr. Pfeiffer said, ``The fact that the summit,'' and I quote, ``will be on TV and that the legislation is posted online will help take away a little of the concern of this being something hatched behind closed doors.'' Well, I hate to break it to you, but this has already been done behind closed doors. As Mr. King said, while the snow shut down Washington, D.C., that didn't shut down the Democrats, who control every lever of power in Washington, from staying behind closed doors. Remember, every minute of this health care bill, every minute, has been negotiated behind closed doors with all the special interest groups who don't want to get whacked by the President. Except for the American people. They did not get access behind those closed doors. It's been negotiated behind closed doors. It's going to result in tax increases. It's going to result in less health care. And it's going to hurt senior citizens the most.

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

Mrs. BACHMANN. That's because no one has seen this bill. It's not online. How do we know that? Today the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Douglas Elmendorf, said, We can't score how much this bill is going to cost. Why? We don't have the legislation. In fact, he said, We don't even have enough details out of this, quote, little 11-page proposal to even say how much the thing is going to cost. So we don't know exactly who the players are that are going to go to this summit in name only on Thursday. We don't have a bill yet that we can negotiate. Yet this is going to impact every American, raise taxes, kill jobs. We don't even know what the bill is. We don't even know who the players are that are going to be in the room. And somehow this is a negotiation when the President has already said through his mouthpiece, his spokesmen, they have already said, well, it doesn't matter if the GOP turns it down, we're going to go our own way anyway. So agree with us. That's your option, Republicans. Agree with us or take a hike. Doesn't that make the American people feel good? I thought the Declaration of Independence said that we rule by the consent of the governed; that we pass laws with what our constituents want. I spoke to Steve King earlier; I spoke to Louie Gohmert earlier. They were both home over these last 2 weeks in their respective districts. Their constituents told them, We don't want this job-killing government takeover of health care. That's what my constituents told me. I was just this weekend in St. Cloud, St. Martin, in Stillwater, in Woodbury. I was up in Anoka County. Everywhere I went people said, Michele, please, you don't think they're going to pass this health care, do you? Well, President Obama plans to. He must have his fingers in his ears or something must be happening, with all due respect, because that's not what my people are telling me in my district. All I can say is, Mr. President--Mr. Speaker, I am speaking through you. Mr. President, I beg you, listen to the heart cry of the American people. They don't want this clunker, for cash or otherwise. They don't want this thing. Let's start over and have a true legitimate negotiation. Let's not insult the intelligence of the American people. That's all this summit in name only is. There is more respect for the beer summit than there is for this so-called ``summit'' in name only on Thursday. It's a travesty.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a sacred memory in our Nation's history. It was 67 years ago today when a terrible event occurred and a brilliant event occurred. It was 67 years ago, February 3, 1943. We now call this memory the Four Chaplains Day and honor this day in our Nation's memory because of the valor and because of the strength that was exhibited by four members of our armed services, four chaplains. It was the U.S.A.T. Dorchester. The ship was a coastal liner converted to a U.S. Army troop transport for World War II, and it was with more than 900 men on board. It was a freezing night when the Dorchester, one of three ships in a convoy, was torpedoed. It was freezing, and it was about 1:00 in the morning when a terrifying shot was fired by a Nazi submarine 100 miles off the frigid coast of Greenland, and the ship quickly began to sink in the cold, cold waters. Many Americans were killed by the explosion. Others were trapped below deck. As everyone started to panic, the four chaplains on board remained calm. They quickly passed out life vests to the young troops on board. They helped the wounded. They prayed with the troops that were on board. But then, tragically, when all the life vests had been distributed, there were more men than life vests, and the four chaplains, without skipping a beat, removed their own life vests that they had on their bodies and they handed them to the young troops who had none. And as the ship went down, the four chaplains linked arms. And witnesses said they saw the chaplains, as young soldiers, fighting against the cold, swimming in the water. They saw the four chaplains with linked arms who embraced each other in a circle in the waters. They prayed for the troops who lost their lives and for those who would survive, and they prayed until the chaplains were no more. The four chaplains were a Catholic, two Protestants, and a Jewish rabbi. Their names were Father John Washington, Catholic; Reverend Clark Poling, Dutch Reformed; Rabbi Alexander Goode, Jewish; Reverend George Fox, a Methodist. These four chaplains gave more than their spiritual guidance to the troops. They gave their lives on February 3, 1943. It was a decade later that President Dwight Eisenhower remarked, he said, and I quote: And we remember that only a decade ago aboard the transport Dorchester, four chaplains of four faiths, together, willingly sacrificed their lives so that four other Americans might live. In the three centuries that separate the Pilgrims of the Mayflower from the chaplains of the Dorchester, America's freedom, her courage, her strength, and her progress have had their foundation in faith. Eisenhower concluded: Today, as then, there is need for positive acts of renewed recognition that faith is our surest strength, our greatest resource. And in 1960, Mr. Speaker, Congress created a special Congressional Medal of Valor, never to be repeated again, and gave it to the next of kin of the immortal four chaplains. The Distinguished Service Cross and the Purple Heart were awarded posthumously in 1944. May the greatest example of this greatest love fulfilling scripture that says, greater love hath no man than this, but that he lay down his life for his friend, may this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, this Congress, and the American people never forget the sacrifice of the four great chaplains. And may God forever bless and extend to them his peace for their memory.

Mrs. BACHMANN

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

Mrs. BACHMANN

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

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, on January 26, 2010, I was unexpectedly detained and could not vote on H. Res. 990, expressing support for designation of January 2010 as ``National Mentoring Month.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I also have so much esteem for my colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Roe, and also my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey. They are just wonderful examples, and they enlighten all of us who aren't medical professionals. But they've been there, done that. They have skin in the game, and they know what's at stake. They know what's at stake for those who have put so much into becoming physicians, who have put their life on the line to be healers, but also the people they serve. They see the real cost in human health, in terms of misery that is down the road if we embrace this system. I come at it a little bit differently. My background is that I am a former Federal tax lawyer, and I see how egregious tax costs can destroy businesses, destroy families, individuals, farms and creativity. And also as a business owner. My husband and I have started two businesses. We're not a big deal; we've employed 50 people, but we do know what it is to take and start a business from scratch using our own equity, our own capital. We have to be disciplined and make a lot of good decisions. We have to get it right every time so that we can make a profit. My husband told me that he spoke to a number of other small businessmen that have said to him they will have to cut jobs with their small businesses if this health care bill goes through. There are a lot of small business employers that would love to provide health insurance, but they can't because currently health insurance is so expensive. I think one thing that cannot escape this discussion that we're having tonight among colleagues, whether we're health care professionals or tax lawyers or small business owners, is this; President Obama's Chief Economic Advisor, Christina Romer, said herself that if President Obama's plan would go into effect, that America would see 5.5 million jobs lost if we adopt his plan. Not only would it cost us trillions of dollars that we simply don't have, but it would cost us 5.5 million American jobs. It isn't that those jobs wouldn't be done, but they wouldn't be done in America. It's another 5.5 million jobs that would go offshore. I yield to the gentleman from Tyler, Texas, Lou Gohmert.

Mrs. BACHMANN. It eliminates them, and I think one can understand why. We saw a chart or a graph that was recently produced several weeks ago. It plotted all of the private-sector experience in the Presidents from the last 100 years. It showed that in President Obama's Cabinet, in his administration he has less private-sector experience in real job creation than any other administration: 7 percent experience. No wonder every answer that comes out of this administration is more spending, higher taxes, more government. But the last seven economic recessions, every blooming one of them we have come out of the recession--from government? No. From small business creation. We would love, in our small business, to create more jobs, but I will tell you this, from the other small business job creators that I know in Minnesota: Right now they are scared to death. They don't want to add more jobs because they know if they add more jobs, they're stuck with more costs that they may not be able to take. They don't want to hurt the existing people they have now that they hired. They don't want to have to close their doors and fold up. A great business in our State, Home Value stores, just announced last week that they were closing their doors after over 35 years in business. Why? Because of this job-killing, bone-crushing debt that's coming out of Washington, D.C. Let's reject that. The American people last night rejected President Obama's decision because if there is one headline that would encapsulate all of 2009 it would have to be this: ``The Federal Government takeover of private industry.'' That's what last year was all about. The American people said no way; we believe in America, we believe in job creation, we believe in prosperity. And that's what last night's poll numbers reflected.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Absolutely. Yes, I would. I would agree with that.

Mrs. BACHMANN. It would. And that's what I am so worried about as a tax lawyer, that this will mean diminished opportunities for Americans because we will see increased taxes in defiance of President Obama's promise to the American people.

Mrs. BACHMANN. It would be irreparable harm. It would be very difficult to come back from.

Mrs. BACHMANN. If I could just respond on the tax portion. Government can directly mandate that you must pay a percentage or a fee, which is a direct tax. But if government requires you to do something or purchase a health insurance policy in conformity with what government says must be the items in that policy, that's just as much a tax as if government says you must pay a percent or an exact amount. The final result is the same because the taxpayers' pockets are picked for what government mandates it must be picked for. It is a tax, pure and simple. That's the point.

Mrs. BACHMANN. It's not the same.

Mrs. BACHMANN. If I could add to that, the one thing that doesn't get talked about very much here is the iron ceiling on wages that was contained in this bill. If you have a double-income couple with no kids and if their combined income is $64,000 a year or more, at that point they lose all Federal subsidy. So what they have to do is go out, and if their employers pay the 8 percent fine to the government and don't provide health insurance, they have to go with after-tax dollars and purchase health plans, which, in Minnesota, would cost about $14,000 a year. So you'd have a couple making $64,000 a year who has to go and buy a plan out- of-pocket; but if the couple made $63,000 a year, Uncle Sam would pay their way. That's the iron ceiling on wages. There is no incentive to make a dollar more, because you would be so heavily penalized by going out of the subsidy, and that kills the American Dream. Why would we have a couple of people here in this Chamber make a decision for over 300 million people? Let's free up decision-making for 300 million people to make the cheapest and best choices for themselves. I yield back.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank the gentleman from Tyler, Texas, Louie Gohmert, for the wonderful job that he has been doing. I caught some of the gentleman's remarks briefly, and I was so pleased that you talked about this whole concept of the greatest terrorist recruiting tool, Gitmo or U.S. weakness. You are exactly right in your description of what we are looking at now with Gitmo. What we are looking at the President's idea of closing Gitmo is actually a fiction. And the gentleman may have already addressed that issue, but it can't be underscored enough in my mind: Gitmo will not be closed. Yes, it may no longer be in its current physical location off of U.S. soil, but Gitmo will simply be packed up into boxes, a moving van is going to show up, and that moving van will be taken across water and across land. And, guess what? Gitmo is going to have a new address. It will fill out a change of address form for the worst of the worst terrorists that we know of that are enemy noncombatants against United States citizens, only now these enemy noncombatants, rather than being held safely and securely off U.S. soil, will be brought on to U.S. soil, where they will be on U.S. soil in Thompson, Illinois, in the heartland of this great country, whereby they will have opportunities potentially to do what we know terrorists have been doing for the past several years, and that is recruiting through the U.S. prison system for more people to become radicalized in their Sharia-compliant view of jihadist extremism. Is this going to make anyone safer in the United States? Ultimately, that is the final question that we as Members of Congress have to satisfy ourselves: Will we be safer bringing these terrorists from Gitmo onto U.S. soil or will we be safer keeping them secure where they have been all along, on Gitmo? I think it is keeping them on Gitmo. Something else I would like to bring up if I could, just for a minute, just to divert, and it is the issue of this underwear bomber on Christmas Day. This is such a horrible travesty that was averted simply because the incompetence of this terrorist. But for his incompetence, we would have this Chamber filled with Members of Congress screaming about, What happened? Why weren't we secure? We would be having lively discussions every night. Thank God this terrorist was not successful. But he came so close to taking out nearly 300 innocent lives. We have seen this path before, and there is a common thread that occurs. The common thread are people who are sold out to radicalize Sharia-compliant jihad. That is the thread. Why aren't we as a government looking for people with that profile? Oh, I guess I said a bad word. Profile? Is that a politically noncorrect word now? We are not supposed to say it? Well, let's talk about what we need to do to keep safety foremost. Not political correctness. Safety of the American people. That is what this is about. The American people are right to be outraged when they think that their government is lifting up the tenets of multiculturalism over the tenets of the safety and security of the American people. Oh, that the day would never come when, in the name of political correctness, Americans would die needlessly in tragedies like the one thankfully that was averted on Christmas Day. May that never be. And for my money, one of the worst things that happened is that when this underwear bomber was taken off of the plane, he had a small interrogation, then was given his Miranda warnings, was given a defense lawyer, and that is the end of it. Now duct tape is over his mouth. The United States will never again benefit from what this terrorist--I suppose we are supposed to say ``alleged terrorist''--what this fellow intended against American citizens and other citizens from other nations of the world. This is a travesty. He should not have been given his Miranda warnings, in my opinion. He should have been fully vetted and interrogated for what he was, because, let's remember, we have to make a decision. Are we going to take this war seriously or are we going to treat this as a criminal act akin to breaking and entering? This is war. You can't have anything more clear. Someone who comes intending to bomb a plane, a Northwest Airlines plane over Detroit, this is an act of war. This is not a breaking and entering. This should not have been a Mirandized situation, given full rights to a lawyer and told forever and ever, You don't have to say a word. Now we are giving you all the rights, privileges, and immunities of an American citizen even though you aren't one. You are a Nigerian, and you planned evil intent for a lot of innocent people. This is beyond belief to me. I just can't believe it. That is why I am so grateful to the gentleman from Tyler, Texas, because you are asking exactly the right question: Is Gitmo a recruiting tool or U.S. weakness? When you lawyer up and Mirandize actual terrorists in the midst of a terrifying event, an act of war against America, you don't Mirandize. You treat them for what they are. You treat them for what they are. You interrogate them. Why? Because at the end of the day will the American people be safer or will we be more at risk? Closing Gitmo, that location, moving it to Thompson, Illinois, opening it up, it's still Gitmo; now it's just Gitmo North rather than Gitmo South, and that equals U.S. weakness. With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Tyler, Texas.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Absolutely.

Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This is an extremely important point. Again, the mastermind of 9/11, who achieved his goal of killing 3,000 innocent Americans in the World Trade Center bombing, he got his way. Why would we give him his way by bringing him to New York City at over $200 million a year taxpayer expense to give him a show trial when he's already pled guilty and already asked to be executed? What happened? Did the President, did the Attorney General say to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Now wait a minute; you don't want to plead guilty. Wait a minute; you don't want to be executed. You want to come to New York City. You want to have the trial just like you asked for in the first place. Why would we do that? Because the only message we will be sending to future terrorists will be you, too, can have a show trial in the city of your choice if you come to America. Or, if you try a terrorist activity, you, too, can be Mirandized and be part of the American legal system. I yield back to gentleman from Texas.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3326, the Fiscal Year 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, as amended by the Senate. However, while I applaud the hard work of House leadership in bringing this much needed legislation to the floor, I regret that an opportunity to more fully address the threat posed by suspected terrorists currently under detention by the United States government has been missed. The United States military is responsible for keeping Americans safe. And in light of the challenge that we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Federal Government's commitment to our soldiers has never been more important. As such, I'm pleased we're working to ensure that the promises we've made to those who serve in our Armed Forces are kept. Whether it's the 3.4 percent military pay increase or the $104 billion to improve military equipment, I believe we must ensure our troops receive the support they deserve for the great sacrifice they have made by serving our country, and clearly this bill represents a strong show of that support. However, while H.R. 3326, as passed, is a strong bill, I was disappointed that one of the most troubling issues of the day was not addressed. Critical to ensuring individual Americans' safety is the future treatment of the dangerous enemy combatants housed at the Guantanamo detention facility. Rather than allowing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be tried in New York City through our civilian court system and transporting Guantanamo detainees to Thomson Correctional Institution in Illinois, Congress should unequivocally restrict enemy combatants to trial by military commission and permanently deny funding to transport them into our country. Madam Speaker, we are at a critical juncture in our nation's history. However, as we work to bolster a strong national defense, we cannot ignore the ever-present threat posed by those rogue agents who wish to do us harm. I believe a cornerstone of addressing this threat is to remove the current legal ambiguity with regard to detainee treatment. By trying these detainees in a civilian setting, we are allowing them to exploit our judicial system for personal gain and undermine the work of our military commissions, which have served our nation for centuries. So while I am pleased to be here on the floor today supporting our troops, it is my sincere hope that the questions surrounding America's prosecution of enemy combatants will be answered in a way that best ensures our national security.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Millie Klapel of Andover, Minnesota, on the occasion of her upcoming 100th birthday this December 20, 2009. As friends and family gather to celebrate her life, I am pleased to share her accomplishments with this Congress today. Millie has lived the American dream. She worked for one of Minnesota's favorite department stores, Dayton's, in the monogram department. In her free time Millie volunteered at her church and taught Sunday school class for over 60 years. She also visited shut-ins and served as a prayer warrior for those in need of support during difficult times. In her 90's, she was honored as runner up for Sunday School Teacher of the Year from the Assemblies of God churches. Millie is an inspiration to her family, friends and community and has always put others first. Even at 100 years old, she still lives on her own and maintains her independence. Madam Speaker, again, I'd like to wish Millie Klapel a happy 100th birthday and I ask this Congress to join with me in celebrating Millie's life.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives once again sidestepped its constitutional obligation to fund our Nation's Federal priorities in a responsible manner and railroaded a massive spending bill through the House without allowing an open and honest debate that American taxpayers deserve. While I believe this legislation contains important funding for many programs administered by Federal agencies, spending bills and the projects they fund must be considered individually on their merits, and not obscured by being tucked into a giant ``omnibus'' spending package. Right now, the national debt has already ballooned to a whopping $12.1 trillion and Democrats are ready to increase the debt limit by another $1.8 billion to accommodate their rabid spending habits. But at a time when American families are struggling to make ends meet and Federal deficits are skyrocketing at a record pace, it is absolutely necessary for Congress to fully commit to fiscal responsibility and scrutinize how every tax dollar is spent. While I understand the difficulty associated with such a large task, I, like so many of my colleagues, believed the Democrat majority when they pledged to ``create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.'' I was hopeful that their stated commitment to open government would entail the individual consideration of each of the 12 annual appropriations bills, setting a path towards restoring the confidence and trust of the American people. Unfortunately, the actions taken today indicate that our leadership is content with the status quo, and will avoid difficult decisions that should be made in order to prevent saddling future generations with debilitating debt. By combining half of the total appropriations bills into one measure, this majority has shown that it has no interest in real transparency and is more focused on growing government to accommodate their tax-and-spend agenda than being good stewards of the taxpayers' money. Congress should show the American people that it is serious about making the same tough choices American families make every month. But this bill's 24 percent increase in government spending ignores the realities of our limited budget and assumes the taxpayers will just pick up the tab in future years. While the bill includes some of Minnesota's local priorities, it strays far from representing anything but a big government spending bill that lacks any consideration of our massive budget deficit. Indeed, in the same manner as households across America set a budget, Washington needs to set a budget, and stick to it. However, the tax and spend approach to government being exhibited this year serves as a haunting indication that no amount of spending or government control is too much for the Democrats. That said, it is my sincere hope that as Congress moves forward with next year's budget and spending priorities, strict attention will be paid to protecting the American taxpayer and fostering an atmosphere of bipartisan cooperation and fiscal responsibility.