Michele Bachmann

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Let alone the charitable organizations, large, well- known charitable organizations that have put money into ACORN. It's time these charitable organizations and the trustees of those organizations be held responsible for putting money into the account of a corrupt organization.

Mrs. BACHMANN. What is the section number?

Mrs. BACHMANN. I would also add to the gentleman, if we look at the legislation that came before us, the very beginning of this year, it was the expansion of AmeriCorps. Remember, that was a $5 billion bill. Part of that bill were volunteers--of course they're all paid--but these volunteers were also going to be health workers. So it would be curious to look at that language as well to see if they also paid money to community organizations to be workers under AmeriCorps, kind of to also link together with this particular provision, and then work with an ACORN as these volunteers under AmeriCorps all for the effort of putting together this plan. It really reminds me of the poster that the gentleman from Iowa has of the President with ACORN stitched onto his shirt with the windmills in the background. We're looking at a complete dominance and takeover of American society. Remember, it was just 1 year ago that we had the $700 billion bailout. Prior to that bailout, 100 percent of business profits were private. After that time, today, 30 percent of all private business profits today are owned or controlled by the Federal Government. And if the President gets his dream to come true and takes over 18 percent of health care, that means he will have taken over and controlled 48 percent of our private economy. And if his national energy tax, the cap-and-trade global warming tax, goes through, that's another 8 percent, or 56 percent of our private economy that he plans to take over. That is something that should give pause to every American. It's stunning. It's stunning, and it's frightening.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I would ask the question of the gentleman from Iowa, didn't the President say to us at the very beginning of this debate in early August that we needed to pass this health care bill, or I guess I should say in July, that we had to pass this bill by August 1 so we could hurry up and start saving money? Do you remember that? We are going to save money if we have the government take over health care in the United States. I'm wondering, to the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Iowa, how in the world does paying people ACORN, for instance, to do all of this assistance, how does that save money?

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, just as the United States is a symbol of hope and freedom around the globe, Israel stands as a symbol of freedom and democracy in an area historically rampant with violence and oppression. For this reason, I am compelled to voice my strong objections to the allegations made in a recent report commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Council and carried out by former South African Judge Richard Goldstone. The report alleges human rights violations on the part of Israel. Madam Speaker, 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. As you may know, Israel is the only country listed on the Council's permanent agenda, which examines only supposed Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights, while ignoring the threats or actions of terrorist groups, or the nations that support them, and their calls for the destruction of other U.N. Member States. 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. 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. In order to preserve and foster this relationship, I believe it is imperative for the United States to unequivocally reject the findings of the Goldstone Report. And while recent years have unfortunately been marked by escalating armed conflict between Israel and Hamas, 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. I'm so grateful for the gentleman from Iowa and the comments that he's been making regarding ACORN and the situation that they find themselves in. One thing that we have seen from the American people in a recent Gallup survey is that today, at the highest level ever in the history of our country, more people believe that government is wasting money than at any other time in modern times. Today the American people believe that the government wastes about 50 cents of every dollar. And as if these activities were bad enough that the gentleman from Iowa was speaking about, the stunning Steve King of Iowa, I think, Mr. Speaker, one thing we recognize is that the American taxpayer should not be paying for these activities. Now, this is stunning. This truly is a stunning feature, that you have an organization that's been the recipient of about $53 million since 1994. And you have a photo, I noticed, a poster, of the President with an ACORN emblem on his shirt. Since President Obama, who formerly was the attorney for Project Vote, yet one of the many affiliates of ACORN, since that time, he has made available to his patron, to ACORN, he has made available to them $8.5 billion. And if a bill that went through this House actually passes, that would be $10 billion that is available to this organization, who we have seen has been furthering the trafficking of illegal aliens, minor girls into childhood prostitution and child abuse. This is unconscionable. And this same organization has been educating individuals that they should take their money and bury it in a tin can in the backyard rather than paying taxes. And we're giving this organization $10 billion in tax money? How could this be? No wonder that the American people are saying, at the highest time ever, that they believe 50 cents of every dollar is wasted. We need an investigation, I believe, Mr. Speaker, into that fact. Do we know how much of our tax money is being wasted? The American people think it's 50 percent of every dollar. Perhaps it is if you have $10 billion going to an organization like this.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, the focus of my remarks over the next hour will be on the issue of health care. This is the issue that has really captured the attention of the American people over these summer months, and well it should. This for many States is one of the top spending priorities in their States and here for the Federal Government as well. We have learned, as we've looked through the budget this year, since President Obama has assumed the Presidency, under his leadership we have seen the Federal budget increase 22 percent at a time when the American economy is contracting. In one quarter alone we saw a 5 percent contraction rate. The private sector is contracting in this current economy, and yet what's government's response? Government is on a party. It is growing. Growing to the tune of 22 percent. That's almost a one-fourth level of increase. Imagine if any of us, Mr. Speaker, in our own lives, in our own businesses, in our family situation would increase our spending 22 percent when our income had fallen 6 percent. None of us would ever consider treating our own finances in that way. No business could consider treating its own finances in that way. It's only a government that looks to our pockets and to our resources to finance its party, only a government that's out of control, that has capitulated to practically fiscal hedonism, fiscal hedonism, to run up bills that are unconscionable for the next generation. I think we are looking at a time, Mr. Speaker, unlike any other in the history of the United States. That's why this health care debate plays into the center of where our economy is at. Mr. Speaker, I'm a former Federal tax litigation attorney, and I had done a study when I was in my post-doctorate program at William and Mary Law School down in Williamsburg, Virginia, back in the late 1980s. And at that time, the study came out that said the kids who are today about 22 years of age, when they get to be in their prime earning years, knowing what we know about the current demographics, the number of people who will be 65 or older, eligible for Medicare, those who will be 62 and older, eligible for Social Security, we know approximately how many Americans we have to support who will be age 62 when today's current 22 years olds will be in their peak earning years. And what this study showed, Mr. Speaker, is those now-22-year-old children, those born back in about the year 1987, will look at an unprecedented debt load out of their paycheck. And here it is: Those kids will be looking at spending approximately 25 percent of their earnings just for Social Security. So imagine 25 percent of your earnings goes just to pay for Social Security. What else do we know? We know that Medicare is also an obligation that the Federal Government has made, a promise, if you will, that we have made to America's senior citizens. Medicare costs exceed those of Social Security. So if, then, America's young people, now 22 years of age, in their peak earning years have 25 percent of their income taken to support Social Security and if we know that Medicare is more than Social Security, those two components alone would consume 50 percent of the average person's paycheck in just a few years hence, 50 percent of the paycheck just going for Social Security and Medicare. That doesn't even contemplate Medicare part D, which is the pharmaceutical portion, a relatively new entitlement that has been put before the American people. So let's be very conservative and say 5 percent of that young person's paycheck. That would be 25 percent for Social Security. Government would take another 25 percent for Medicare. Now we're up to 50. Let's say another 5 percent for Medicaid part D, and that's very conservative. Now we're at 55 percent. Well, what about the Federal income tax? That doesn't even contemplate what an individual would pay in Federal income tax. Federal income tax could easily be another 30 percent of that young person's income. Now we're up to 85 percent. For an American born in 1987, we are up to 85 percent of their income check going to the Federal Government just to pay for entitlement programs. Well, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't include the State income tax program. In Minnesota, the State that I'm from, that could well be an additional 8 percent, which would add up to 93 percent of an American's paycheck. An American born in 1987, when they get in their peak earning years, could be looking at a minimum of 93 percent of their paycheck going to pay just Social Security, Medicare, Medicare part D, Federal income tax, and State income tax. But, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't include property tax. Mr. Speaker, that does not include sales tax. So property tax, sales tax, gas tax, every-time-you-turn-around tax. There won't be enough money, Mr. Speaker, in the next generation of young people that are only now just beginning to earn their first W-2 wage withholding. Those young people are looking at a burden no other generation has ever yet contemplated. In the middle of this financial crisis that we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, now comes forward the health debate. And what is the solution put forward by President Obama and by the majority that controls the House of Representatives, the Democrat majority? We have one-party rule in Washington, D.C. One party controls every level of power. And what is the solution? Well, let's just have government take over the rest of health care. As if we already haven't obligated ourselves on health care, now the proposal being advanced is that the government would take over the rest of health care. What would that mean? Well, we know at minimum, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it would be an additional, perhaps, $990 billion in expenses. That's according to President Obama's figures. Yet what were the initial figures we were given when we were told of and were talked to about this government takeover of health care? Mr. Speaker, it was $2 trillion, upwards of $2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Why do we think that this isn't stretching things, $2 trillion? Well, because we know, when President Johnson implemented the modern welfare state in 1965, President Johnson and those here in Washington, D.C., estimated that the cost of Medicare to Americans would be about $9 billion, adjusting for inflation by 1990. What was the actual cost? The actual cost was $67 billion. The Federal Government only undershot its estimate by a factor of 7, but it wasn't just on Medicare. It was on hospitalization insurance. You can go down the list. One new revision of Medicare after another undershot the true cost to the American people of what Medicare would cost them down the road, sometimes by as much as 17 to 1. The Federal Government was off by that much. Well, what has that done to our budgets? That has caused us to go into a deficit mode so severe that now the Chinese are lecturing Americans. Chinese Communists are lecturing American free marketers on our out-of-control spending and on our debt. Why? Because China owns so much of our debt. Mr. Speaker, what are the options, if you will, that the Federal Government has in front of itself when it comes to paying for these government programs? Well, there are three: The Federal Government can either increase taxes or it can increase borrowing from countries like China, countries which are a lot more reluctant to purchase our debt. When we were a producing country--when we were making washing machines and irons and cars--other countries were only too happy to purchase our debt; but now that our new industry is producing more welfare, countries like China aren't quite so interested because they know we aren't actually producing a good. We're providing government welfare benefits. Now China is not quite so interested in purchasing our debt. So we can raise taxes on the American people--that's not going to work in a down economy--or we can issue more debt. That's not working. China is calling for throwing over the American dollar as the international currency and means of exchange. Now China, now the U.N., now Russia, now Brazil, now South America, now country after country is calling for a new international, one-world currency. This is a new event, Mr. Speaker. This is a new happening. Why? Because this is the greatest country that has ever been in the history of man. In 5,000 years of recorded human history, there has never been a country greater or freer or more powerful than the United States of America. That is our richness and that is our legacy. Now, for the first time, we're hearing a call for the replacement of the U.S. dollar as the international means of exchange, to be replaced with a new international, one-world currency, probably regulated by a world regulator, perhaps under the International Monetary Fund. What would that mean for the dollar? What would that mean for the stability of our country economically? What would that mean for America's senior citizens who are dependent upon the Federal Government now for their health care through Medicare and for their Social Security/retirement? What does that mean for our senior citizens? Well, here is the third option that's available to the government when it comes to dealing with finances. Again, the government can tax our people. Ouch. That really hurt. The government is already whacking us a lot with our taxes. Then we talked about the area of borrowing. Well, other countries aren't too keen on that right now. What's the third option, Mr. Speaker? It's this: As a last resort, governments can do what the Weimar Republic did in the 1920s. They can print money. They can print money that's basically worthless. In some sense, the paper is worth more than what's printed on it. What that is and what that represents is the good faith, the hard work, the years, and the toil of the American people. Just this afternoon, I made a call to some constituents back in my district. One man named Richard told me that he was thinking about moving to Singapore. Richard said the reason he is moving to Singapore, Mr. Speaker, is that he spent his whole life working. He worked so hard. He took his American dollars, and he put them in the bank, and now he sees what our government has done. Our government has flooded the money supply with money that they've printed. From one of our leading financial papers, one gentleman told me that we had about $1 trillion in currency in circulation. We had about 1 trillion U.S. dollars in circulation here in the United States. Last year, the Federal Reserve pumped an additional $1 trillion into the currency. Well, what does that mean? If you had a dollar in the bank when your government flooded the money supply with an additional $1 trillion on top of the $1 trillion we had with no more goods and services backing that money up, that meant that an American's dollar was only worth 50 cents. Well, that's why Richard was upset. He said to me, Congresswoman, I don't want to hold onto American dollars if my government is going to inflate its way out of this current problem. If they do that to pay their bills--to pay their Medicare bills, to pay their Social Security bills--then we're all poorer. We're not richer. We're poorer. That brings us to the context, Mr. Speaker, of our debate in health care, and that's why I believe we are seeing the American people soundly rejecting the Federal Government's taking over of health care-- yet one more area where it seems that it's wasting money. Again, a Gallup Poll was just released that showed, for the first time, the American people believe that this government wastes 50 percent of every dollar it gets, which is why we should have an investigation. Truly, what amount of money does Congress waste? What actually goes to a true and a beneficial purpose? What are the alternatives for us as we look at health care? Today, 85 percent of Americans have health insurance. They like it. They enjoy it. One of our Democrat colleagues was on the floor here earlier this afternoon, and he said that the majority of doctors in our country support the government takeover of health care. Only he didn't call it the ``government takeover of health care,'' Mr. Speaker. He called it the ``public option,'' which is the government takeover of health care. Well, that isn't true. That isn't what doctors in this country believe. Surveys were sent out. There was a survey sent out by Investors Business Daily that has been reported for the last 7 days. They received surveys back from 28,000 physicians in the United States. They sent the surveys out to all physicians, and physicians responded back--28,000 physicians. Of those physicians, two-thirds of them said that they believe that the government takeover of health care will lead to diminished care in the United States. They believe that senior citizens will be worse off if the government takes over their health care. That's exactly what I'm hearing from my constituents as well and from senior citizens who don't care if it's a Republican plan or a Democrat plan. They don't care. They're very smart, Mr. Speaker. America's senior citizens are very smart. They're watching this debate carefully. They're watching. They're paying attention. They're listening to what the conversations are because they know they have the most to lose in this system. Why? President Obama was here, speaking to the 535 Members of Congress in a speech to the joint session of Congress. He spoke to all of America when he said he will be cutting the Medicare Advantage program. That's about $149 billion out of Medicare. He also said that he will have about $500 billion in savings from Medicare. Well, what does that mean? It means $500 billion that America's seniors will no longer be able to count on. That's not what we want to do to America's senior citizens. We can do so much better than this. We have a great option, great plans that do not put the government in charge. That is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that I would say to America's young people, to America's middle-aged and to our senior citizens. In the middle of the debate on health care, Americans really need to ask one question, and it is this: Once this health care bill goes through and is passed, will it give more power to the government and more control to the government over my health care or will it give me more control over my own health care? Will I have more options or will I have fewer? With every plan put forward so far by the Democrat majorities that run Washington, D.C.--whether it's our Democrat President or the Democrats who control the House or the Democrats who control the Senate--they've all run to the left, to the liberal option. They've all said there is only one way to handle this health care problem: Me. You need me. You need more government. That's what the liberals are saying in Congress, that government needs to be the one to take this over. Well, I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. The American people don't think so. They think this Congress wastes 50 cents of every dollar. They may be right. The American people are some of the sharpest people in the world, and they know when they've been had. We don't have to go down that road. There is a positive alternative which we can embrace and which can immediately bring down costs. Again, 85 percent of the American people already enjoy health care, and they enjoy the health care that they have. For those who don't have health care today, a large percentage are illegal aliens. We have no business as American citizens being forced to subsidize and to pay for the health care of illegal aliens, of people who are in our country against our law. We have no obligation to pay for that health care. We also have a large segment of our population, Mr. Speaker, which makes over $75,000 a year. They could purchase their own health care. They simply choose not to. They choose to spend their money on other items. It's not their priority. We have a huge segment of our population which makes over $50,000 a year, which also chooses not to purchase health care. Many people in that category are between the ages of 18 and 35. They are, perhaps, without health care maybe for 4 months, so they roll the dice and think maybe they'll be healthy for the next 4 months and won't need it. Mr. Speaker, I've been in that situation. My husband and I were in that situation when we had children. We had a few months where we didn't have health care coverage, and we simply could not afford the very high rate that we would have had to have purchased by ourselves to have been able to cover ourselves and our children, so we rolled the dice. A lot of Americans do that. Yet there is a segment of our population which truly can't afford health care, and we have safety net after safety net after safety net that this body has put into place for people who truly, through no fault of their own, can't afford to purchase health care. There certainly are people in that category. We will always have that safety net. What can we do? We have a positive alternative. It's very simple. This is what we can do: Every American can purchase and own their own health care. Today, it's not that way, but we could be that way. Today, we have American employers owning most people's health care. So it's either our employer who owns our health care or it's the Federal Government or it's the State government--one of the two. It's either the government or an employer who owns our health care. Very few Americans actually own their own health care, but they would like to. It's the same way they own their car insurance. It's the same way they own their homeowners' insurance. It's the same way when they go out and purchase any other item. They would like to be able to purchase their own health insurance. We can make that possible for them. So this is where we start: We start by letting every American purchase and own their own health insurance coverage. How do we do that? We allow Americans to band together with anyone they want to. Maybe it will be with people who live in their communities. Maybe it's all teachers. Maybe it's farmers. Maybe it's Realtors. You can band together. Maybe it's other senior citizens. You can band together so you can have a large purchasing power. It's like a credit union would act. It's with people in the geographical area. Maybe you live in a rural area, Mr. Speaker. People could band together, and they could purchase health insurance as a pool. They own it. They purchase it as a pool, together in a big, large group so that they can have better purchasing power. It's just like if you go to Sam's Club or if you go to Costco. They're able to offer cheaper prices because they buy such a large volume of the product. Well, let's let American citizens do that. If it's good enough for Sam's Club, if it's good enough for Costco, why can't it be good enough for the average American person? You have banded together with whoever you want, buy your own insurance. Then, Mr. Speaker, we let people buy whatever level of coverage they want. Maybe they want to buy a policy that is expensive that has all the bells and whistles on it. Or maybe, Mr. Speaker they only want a small amount of coverage. Maybe they only want hospitalization. So in case something happens to them, they have to go to the hospital for a heart attack or for cancer treatments or they get laid up somehow and they have to go to the hospital. They only want catastrophic coverage, truly catastrophic. That would be a very inexpensive plan. Why don't we allow people to do that? In my home State of Minnesota, Mr. Speaker, we are the most, if not the most, we are one of the most heavily mandated States in the country. In other words, our State legislature, where I used to be a State senator, we have about 70 different mandates. In other words, 70 different requirements before any insurance company can sell an insurance policy. An insurance company might decide I would like to sell this low-cost, low-frills insurance plan. I think that maybe I could sell it for, oh, $60 a month. Well, in my State, an insurance company can't do that. Why? They are prohibited by law. Because my State mandates that an insurance company has to have 70 different requirements before they can sell the policy. In other words, they have to sell a Cadillac policy rather than a Kia. No offense to Kia owners, no offense to Cadillac owners. But the point is simply this. We should allow insurance companies to sell truly a wide variety of products. Isn't that what President Obama said when he was here in this Chamber? He said he wants choice. He wants competition. Well, his words don't line up with his actions. There is a little problem here with what the President has said. How is it choice and competition if government is the choice, if, after 5 years time, as the House bill has said, all insurance plans have to look exactly like the government plan? You could have 45,000 different insurance plans but so what? If they all look exactly the same, and if the Federal Government controls what you would spend on premiums for that policy, this is nonsense. The thing is, Mr. Speaker, the American people are too smart. They are seeing through the rhetoric from the President and from the majorities that dominate this Congress. That's why, Mr. Speaker, the American people are embracing our plan, which has rested on the groundwork of freedom, which is about the American people owning their own insurance policy, banding together with whomever they want to, to purchase whatever level of coverage they want from any State in the country. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, you will see States all across this great country change the number of mandates that they require on insurance policies. Their State can be the go-to State for issuing insurance policies, and from there, as a former tax lawyer, I would recommend this: I would recommend that every American be allowed to set aside, tax free, in an account, money that every American believes that they want to set aside to pay for their own health care. It's completely tax free. No taxes paid on it. If they have a catastrophic event, where their expenses out-pace their tax-free money, they can fully deduct the cost of their premiums, of their copays, of their medicines, of their medical devices, of their surgeries, of their hearing aides, of their chiropractic care, of their acupuncture care. Whatever it is, they would be allowed to fully deduct that on their income tax returns. In other words, truly own and take responsibility for your own health care. Then from there, finally, true lawsuit reform. Everybody knows this. You ask a doctor what do we need to do? Lawsuit reform, without a doubt. Eighty-three percent of all doctors sued in this country today are found not liable for the alleged problem. What's happening? We are seeing now today people filing lawsuit after lawsuit. And rather than go through the hassle and worry about a jury award, doctors are settling, Mr. Speaker, when they don't want to settle, when they know they are innocent, when they know they didn't do anything wrong. This isn't helping anyone, not anyone, not even the trial lawyers. Because, why? It's bringing down this great country. We truly do have the finest health care that has ever been offered to people ever in the history of the world. From my State of Minnesota, we are a leader in medical ally and medical devices. We have Medtronic. We have Boston Scientific. We have Guidance. We have great companies in Minnesota that have contributed mightily to medical advances and breakthroughs. And now what? Now the government wants to impose a 10 percent tax on these medical devices? Why would we do this? Who gains? Who gains from all of this? We have a positive alternative. Rather than the government taking it over, rather than the government ramping up expenses, rather than taking away choice from America's most vulnerable citizens, we could instead embrace a positive alternative where Americans own their own health care, ban together with more people so they have purchasing power, purchasing any level of care they want from anyone they want in any State they want, putting aside tax-free money, deducting on their income tax return, their orthodontia, their hearing aids, their eyeglasses, truly owning their health insurance. Then they finally get rid of these evil lawsuits that are eating up so much of America's substance. This is a positive alternative. It won't break the bank. When our country is functionally bankrupt now, this won't break the bank. It will cause our country to turn itself right-side up so we can get back on track, get people back to work. We want to be able to see this positive alternative. Right now, Mr. Speaker, I am joined by two great physicians here in our body. One is Dr. John Fleming, and he is a new Member of Congress with great ideas. Another Member in our Congress is Dr. Phil Gingrey, who we are just so proud of for his courage. He offered an amendment in his committee that would keep illegal aliens from having access to taxpayer- subsidized health care. President Obama told America that illegal aliens will not receive taxpayer-subsidized health care. That was after the Democrats in this body rejected Dr. Gingrey's amendment that would have denied taxpayer subsidized coverage to illegal aliens. We have a lot we can talk about. I want to now turn over to my colleague, Dr. John Fleming.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank the gentleman so much for his remarks and for his comments. It is tremendous credibility to be able to come here on the floor and speak as a physician. You've had years of service treating and healing patients all across the United States. You look into the eyes of your patients and know the fear that they feel, knowing that they may lose some of the finest health care ever. And we don't want to see our physicians have their hands bound. As a matter of fact, I just want to refer to, again, Investors Business Daily, which did a seven-part series, and they have said that 45 percent of American doctors may leave the profession if government takes over health care. As a matter of fact, doctors, more than anyone, detest the current status quo and the role played by insurance companies. They want to see us change health care, which we agree. But this is not the route to go. And physicians are telling us that. As a matter of fact, two-thirds of practicing physicians said that senior citizen care will suffer under the government's plan. Three of five doctors think that drug development of new drugs will also be thwarted. Also, they see that fewer doctors will be entering the new profession of medicine. Before I hand this over to my colleague, Dr. Gingrey of Georgia, I would like to just add something that we saw happen. There was an article in The Wall Street Journal. This just happened. Now we have a directive last week from one of our Senators, Mr. Baucus. He has ordered Medicare regulators to investigate and likely punish Humana for trying to educate their enrollees in their Advantage plan about the fact of the Medicare Advantage. This is very concerning. We're seeing a United States Senator calling for an investigation of a company that is communicating with its enrollees in its companies. So a company with its customers is simply communicating material and now a company is given a gag order by the government? Well, this didn't occur with the AARP. The government isn't telling the AARP, which also offers Medicare Advantage plans. They aren't putting a gag order on them. This is really concerning, Mr. Speaker, because we can't have the Federal Government engaging in censorship. That's what this is, pure and simple. The Obama administration and Democrat Senators are calling for censorship. They want to stop insurance companies from communicating with their customers about what government takeover of health care might mean for them. This is unconscionable. Who would have ever thought we would live in a time when government would be calling for censoring a company because the company is not communicating the message that government wants it to communicate. Well, with that, I want to hand the next few minutes over to my colleague from Georgia, the great Dr. Phil Gingrey, who courageously has offered amendment after amendment after amendment in committee to try and make it clear that no bureaucrat should ever come between you and your doctor, and also that no illegal alien should ever receive taxpayer-subsidized health care. These issues were all brought up by the President in his joint session speech. Dr. Gingrey put Members of Congress on record. And that's why the American people are concerned--and rightly so. Dr. Gingrey.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you to the gentleman from Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I think that is something that we wanted to consider when the President was here was speaking to the joint session of Congress. He made it clear there were some large details that had yet to be worked out. Essentially what that is is the President saying to the American people, Trust me. Trust me. Not only the American people, but to the Senators and the Members of Congress that were here serving as representatives of the people in this Chamber. Trust me. Because the details aren't worked out. There are so many vagaries. We don't know, for instance, how the bill will be paid for. Trust me, the President says. Then the President talks about various commissions that will be set up. We know another health care czar will be set up in the bill. A czar? The American people are already saying government is wasting too much money. The American people's opinion is that 50 percent of every dollar we spend is wasted, and now we are supposed to give authority to a health care czar to basically write the bill over a 4-year period because as the current bill, H.R. 3200, is written, it is very interesting, who is the enforcer of this bill? Well, none other than the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS. That's the enforcer of this bill. Loads of new taxes larded onto the backs of the American taxpayer. Loads of new taxes enforced by the IRS. My goodness, Mr. Speaker, could we add insult to injury to the American people? It is amazing. And the taxes would be scheduled to go in place January 1. In just a few months, the taxes will go into effect on insurance companies, on individuals, on businesses. The taxes will go into place January 1, 2010. Well, what about the care? What about all of the new care that people are going to get? Oh, that doesn't go into effect for another 3, 4 years down the road. What? So we are paying for this with larded new taxes to the Federal Government for 3 or 4 years, and then the care comes down? And we are supposed to trust this administration? We are supposed to trust this Democrat majority that they will figure it all out and somehow it won't cost any money and we won't have to worry about it. We are going to bring another 47 million people into the system, not add any new doctors, and we are going to actually cut costs? That is like saying you can eat a chocolate cake and it has no calories. This doesn't add up. That's why there is no credibility on the government takeover of health care, which is why our colleague, Dr. Gingrey, offered his very simple amendments, put up or shut up. Will illegal aliens be covered or not? Oops, Democrats apparently think they will. Will abortion be covered by taxpayers? Our colleague, Joe Pitts, put that in. Oops, I guess that it will because they didn't take it out. What about bureaucrats? Will bureaucrats be able to substitute their decisions for you and those of your doctor? Will a bureaucrat get between you and your doctor? That was offered by Dr. Gingrey. Oops, I guess it is up to a bureaucrat now, not a doctor. There is a reason why the American people are panicking on this issue, and we are right there with them. Because we think you deserve better than that. Because, Mr. Speaker, this is the American people's money; and because, Mr. Speaker, this is about life and death. That's why we have such a great alternative. That's why we say to the American people, you own your own insurance policy. You ban together with whoever you want to buy that policy. You buy it from anyone you want to buy it from. You buy it in any amount you want to buy it, and you buy it anywhere in the United States. And that's why we say buy it with your own tax free money and deduct the rest on your income tax return. And then let's truly have lawsuit reform. That is 95 percent of the problems; done just like that. What does it cost the Treasury? I guarantee it doesn't bankrupt it, not the way that this $2 trillion monstrosity will do. That is why we are here this afternoon, because we have a positive alternative to the government takeover of health care. We can do far better. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mrs. BACHMANN. There are 1,018. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Iowa. Clearly, the American people know we can do better. That is what we will do.

Mrs. BACHMANN

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

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the most passionate families I have ever met, Gary and Lisa Walters and their children, Jackson (age 15) and Jessica (age 14). They are passionate about making a difference in their community. To raise awareness and funds for Kinship Partners, a mentoring program that relies only on donations, the Walters Family traveled from Brainerd, Minnesota to our capital, Washington, DC. But unlike most Americans who travel to Washington, D.C. for a cause, they chose an unusual mode of transportation. Gary and Jackson both rollerbladed across the country, while Jessica biked along side them. From August 13th to September 7th, Gary and Jackson woke up and strapped on their trusty rollerblades, Jessica hopped on her bike and together, they embarked on this heart-warming adventure. They were sore; they were tired; but they were not discouraged by challenges. For the past 7 years, in fact, Gary has put himself through some rigorous challenges to raise awareness for Kinship Partners, including walking the length of Minnesota, biking to New Orleans and camping out on the Brainerd, Minnesota water tower for more than a week. It is his unwavering dedication to Kinship Partners that has helped raise over 100,000 dollars and kept the program strong. Kinship is a mentoring program in north-central Minnesota that matches children with caring adults based on mutual interests. For a few hours a week, they get together and spend time doing whatever it is they like. It's not a complicated formula, but it is a somewhat new take on mentoring programs. And Kinship Partners is seeing success stories in 24 Minnesota communities as a result of their back-to-basics strategy. In fact, there is even a waiting list. When children know that there is someone who is absolutely crazy about them and committed to their well-being, there are no limits to their success.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I must have my cape on. To the stunning gentleman from Iowa, the great Steve King, I want to thank you for allowing me to be a part of this discussion that you're broaching. And you've done a wonderful job all week on different occasions talking about the true depth of this problem and the positive alternatives. I appreciate the fact that you've tried to lay context about truly how many people are in need of insurance and how many people are without coverage. That's a very important part. We can't make true decisions unless we actually have the facts on the table. And I'm also extremely grateful that you're trying to give a positive alternative. We're looking at a couple different options here to deal with health care. One would be President Obama's option, and the option that's been offered here in the House with essentially about a trillion dollars of spending on health care, and in the Senate, with something like $850 billion worth of health care from Senator Baucus that was just released. Senator Baucus' plan so far has not engendered much bipartisan support. I think there's a reason for that. It's because of the tremendous tax burden on the middle class of the Senate plan, and I'm sure we'll be talking about that as we go forward. But here's a part of our positive solution. We can have one plan that will burden future American taxpayers with trillions of dollars in unfunded mandates, trillions of dollars of spending, borrowing, taxing, and that is a burden as we go forward when our country can least afford it. Or, we can take an alternative that would free up our economy and give free choices to the American people and not add to the burden of our Treasury. It's very simply this: As my colleague Steve King of Iowa has said, we want freedom for the American people. We want the American people individually to own their own health care. Just like they own car insurance, just like they own their house insurance, we don't want the government to own their insurance policy. We don't want the government to call the shots or have control over people's health care decisions, or their employer. We want people to own it individually. Then, next, we want people to have the freedom to band together with whomever they prefer, whether it's Realtors or teachers or farmers or maybe a community, like a credit union. You come together in a geographic area. You join together with whomever you want to buy or purchase a policy. So you have purchasing power. Next, we want people to have freedom to buy any policy they want, anywhere they want in the country, from anyone they want to purchase the policy from. True choice in purchasing insurance. Then, as my colleague Steve King said, we want people to be able to set aside in an account, whether it's $5,000 a year or $10,000 a year or $15,000 a year, tax free. In other words, you take that money out of your earnings or out of your savings and you put it tax free in an account up to a certain amount. If you spend more than that account, then you can deduct those health care savings off of your income tax return. That would include eyeglasses, dental work, hearing aids, chiropractic care. Whatever your health care would be, you get to fully deduct that. Finally, we want lawsuit reform so that we don't have unnecessary spending so that doctors can try to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits. These are very simple, commonsense solutions. And you notice not one of these solutions requires a vast infusion of Federal tax money. That's because it's called freedom. That's the American way. And that will solve about 95 percent of our health care problems. Will we need a government supported safety net? Always. We will always have one because there will always be people who, through no fault of their own, have physical conditions that won't allow them to work, that won't allow them to be able to pay their premiums or pay for their health care. We can afford--and we must pay for those people. But for the vast, overwhelming majority of people we can make health care affordable. That's why the proposal that was just offered by Senator Baucus is so concerning on the Senate side. Congressman Steve King has made an excellent case against the House measure, H.R. 3200, and he made an excellent case why this option is so expensive and so burdensome on the individual. The reason why the Senate plan is equally negative in our eyes is for this reason. I take this out of the Wall Street Journal. It said: The centerpiece of the Obama-Baucus plan--because, remember, it was just a week ago here in this Chamber when President Obama essentially backed the Senator Baucus version of the health care plan. But this is what the Wall Street Journal has to say today: The centerpiece of the Obama-Baucus plan is a decree that everyone purchase heavily regulated insurance policies or pay a penalty. Now, imagine that. I don't even think this survives a test of constitutionality. The Federal Government would make the American people purchase a product or service that people don't want to buy, and the government would fine them and tax them with penalty of going to jail if they don't buy the product or service that the government tells them they have to buy. Think of how incredible this is. The enforcement of this mandated, brute force health care policy would be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service. So we would be forced to buy services and products we don't want to buy at a cost we can't afford, and the Internal Revenue Service would be the enforcement mechanism. This is not what the American people want to have, which is why the Republicans' positive alternative makes so much sense. You own it, you band together with anyone you want to purchase in any amount of policy from anyone you want, anywhere you want, with tax-free money or money that you deduct on your income tax policy, and then we have lawsuit reform. I think it's a great alternative, and I yield back to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, prayer has been an important part of our country since the founding of our great Nation, and attempts to take prayer away from the American people are attempts to take away the essential freedoms that have been guaranteed to every American since the beginning of our United States Constitution. I thank Mr. Forbes for bringing this to the attention of this body, and I share his shock, I share his dismay that criminal charges were brought on behalf of Mrs. Winkler, Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman for the simple act of engaging in prayer. As the court explained in Santa Fe, not all religious speech that occurs in public schools or at school-sponsored events is speech attributable to government. There were no students present at either event. Additionally, the court held the proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to sensor is not complicated. The Supreme Court held that ``there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the establishment clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the free speech and free exercise clauses protect.'' In no way were these individuals trying to associate the school with prayer. They were offering the prayer, one at a privately funded event, the other at an event with private donors. The court held that ``private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the free speech clause as secular private expression.'' Teachers and administrators, when they act in their official capacity, may not encourage or discourage or participate in prayer with students. However, teachers may take part in religious activities before or after school or during lunch since the context makes clear they are not acting in an official capacity. Although schools may not direct or endorse religious activities, students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Mr. Speaker, the problem is that this displays a trend and a tendency that we are seeing where groups like the ACLU strike at one school district after another, one public display of religious expression after another, until they have reached their ultimate goal, which is to purge the marketplace of ideas of any semblance of religious expression. At that point, Mr. Speaker, we will have turned the First Amendment on its head, and the Founders in turn will be rolling in their graves.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate two schools from my state of Minnesota. Both Delano High School and the Math and Science Academy in Woodbury have been recently recognized as ``Blue Ribbon Schools'' by the U.S. Department of Education. The Blue Ribbon Program honors public and private middle, junior and senior high schools that demonstrate academic superiority, especially with minority populations. This is a great honor to the teachers, faculty and administration of these schools. And, in particular, Delano's Principal Matthew Schoen and Woodbury's Director Paul Simone, should be exceedingly proud of their efforts. Their dedication to foster a positive learning environment encourages families and students across the nation. Through the Blue Ribbon School program, other educators have a set of ``Best Practices'' in classroom tactics, school programming choices and administrative strategies like none other. These schools are shining stars in America's education system. It is my honor to recognize two of these schools, Delano High School and the Math and Science Academy in Woodbury, before this Congress today. I encourage every school in America to look at these Blue Ribbon winners not only as a resource but also a reminder of what our schools can be.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, it was 1 year ago today that Lehman Brothers collapsed. And as we mark this 1-year anniversary, it is also with trepidation that we remark that the Federal Government today is the leading insurer, the leading lender, and the leading carmaker in the United States, the Federal Government. Since the inception of Bailout Nation less than 1 year ago today, an economist from Arizona State University has documented, today the Federal Government owns or controls 30 percent of private business profits. That's right, 30 percent. And if President Obama gets his way and nationalizes an additional 18 percent of private wealth in the health care industry, that would be nearly 50 percent of private business profits. Think of that, 50 percent of private business profits nationalized in less than 1 year's time. We can do better. Let's enjoy freedom. Let's embrace freedom and let's say no to Bailout Nation and to the Federal Government taking over the private economy. And let's investigate ACORN.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, the context of my remarks is engaging the issue of the current financial situation that the United States finds itself in. Mr. Speaker, it was less than 1 year ago that the government began Bailout Nation, which was $700 billion in tax money that was given to the United States Treasury Secretary for the purpose of stabilizing America's financial situation. Let's take just a brief history of what has happened in the United States in just less than 1 year's time. This Congress appropriated essentially a blank check to the Treasury Secretary of $700 billion, a blank check. The Treasury Secretary literally could do anything he wanted to do with that $700 billion. That $700 billion went to the Treasury Secretary. It's gone to bail out banks. It's gone to bail out an insurance company, and it has gone to set up the automobile task force. In that time we have seen $700 billion go not only for that bailout; we also saw $29 billion go to Bear Stearns to shore up that investment banking house. We also saw $200 billion go for Fannie and Freddie, the secondary mortgage company, because, remember, all of this began with a meltdown in the housing industry. So we thought, first of all, money needed to go to bail out the secondary mortgage provider. Almost all loans today in the United States are now backed up by the Federal Government. This is amazing what has happened to our country in less than 1 year's time. We saw over $100 billion of our tax money go to bail out the largest insurance company in the United States, AIG. Still the United States taxpayer has yet to be repaid the money for AIG. We have yet to be made whole. We have yet to be made whole for the money that was extended to General Motors and Chrysler. That's tens of billions of dollars that were given to the car companies. We were told that we had to give them tens of billions so they wouldn't go into bankruptcy. Well, lo and behold, what happened? Both GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy. We were told that we had to give all of this money to Freddie and Fannie so that they won't go into bankruptcy, and we continue to pour taxpayer money into Freddie and Fannie. Not only that, the American taxpayer was told to give another $75 billion in mortgage bailout money. At what point do we say enough is enough? Two hundred billion dollars for the secondary mortgage company, another $75 billion for mortgage bailout. But that wasn't enough because the American taxpayers were told we needed to give a trillion dollars in stimulus programs. A trillion dollars. That money hasn't been completely let out, thank God. Every penny that hasn't let out at this point should be reeled back in, and we shouldn't be committing any more of that money. We also agreed in this body to spend another $400 billion in an end- of-the-year budget gap that we were able to shore up. At this point we know the Congressional Budget Office has said that our country will be in deficit $1.6 trillion this year, and it may get worse. How do we know that? Unemployment is at 9.7 percent, and President Obama's own economic adviser has said if we pass his version of the government takeover of health care, we will lose 5.5 million more jobs. We have lost 4 million jobs. If we pass President Obama's health care reform, by his numbers, we will lose another 5.5 million jobs. And if we pass his national energy tax, the cap-and-trade bill, this energy tax, by President Obama's own numbers, will cost our economy an additional 2.5 million jobs lost every year going forward. This doesn't seem to be working for us as we look at this 1-year anniversary of Lehman Brothers collapsing. So now the Federal Government owns or controls 30 percent of all private business profits. And if President Obama gets his way and takes over another 18 percent of our economy in health care, that means the Federal Government will own or control 48 percent of private business profits. Just think, a year ago 100 percent of private business profits were private. Today we're looking at the specter of 48 percent of private business profits owned or controlled by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, that's why the American people are nervous. That's why they don't want government to own or control any more of our economy.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I could never hold a candle to the stunning Steve King of Iowa, so I thank you for deferring to me for a few minutes, and I am extremely grateful for the gentleman's comments on the floor so far this evening. One thing that has been brought to my mind from your comments is you'd recalled that you'd remembered that President Obama came to meet with House Republicans down in the bowels of the Capitol building, just below where we're standing now, and he gave a private speech to us where there were no members of the press. One thing that I recall from that meeting with the President is the President had said to us he would prefer to enact his full agenda and be a one-term President rather than not enact his agenda and be a two-term President. I think that the American people cannot underscore enough the fact that the President is very determined in his desire to enact this health care legislation, and perhaps never again will one party hold the type of cards that have been dealt in their hands as they hold right now. That's why I think the American people recognize that, with an overpowering one-party domination, we see an intention to enact this government takeover of health care that literally will lead to life- and-death decisions. You talked about three different areas where the government has gotten involved, and it reminded me of yesterday, when I was meeting with a group of constituents, and a gentleman told me this story. He said he'd just purchased from what is now known as ``government motors'' in our country--because the Federal Government has taken over not one but two car companies. The United States Government is now the largest car manufacturer in the United States. Well, government motors--and again, this is nothing derogatory against our dealerships. Our dealerships, through no fault of their own, are in the current situation that they're in. We know 3,500 car dealerships have received pink slips from our government, putting out of work about 150,000 good American-paying jobs. Well, in the midst of this, a gentleman told me yesterday he went to what's now called Government Motors, fondly. He purchased a top-of-the- line vehicle, brand new. His dashboard split, so he has a brand-new dashboard in this top-of-the-line vehicle from Government Motors. He went down to the good dealership, excellent dealership that he purchased the car from. Dealership said, sure, it's under warranty, we will take care of that for you. The gentleman waited. He didn't hear back. He said, hey what's up with my dashboard, brand-new car, top of the line, Government Motors? It's under warranty, what gives? I am calling all around the country. This wonderful local dealer turned over every stone that he could. And do you know what he discovered? In the entire country, in the United States, there isn't one single dashboard available to replace this brand-new top-of-the- line dashboard in the car he just purchased. What am I going to do?, he said. Well, since the Federal Government took over GM, suppliers have been let go. No new suppliers are in place. So here this gentleman purchased a car. It's the last of its series. How many suppliers are going to be out there bidding for a car that will never be built again? That's part of the problem when government takes over. Because does government really have to worry about customer satisfaction the same way that a private business has to worry about government satisfaction? I think that's what the American people in their innate genius understand in the middle of this health care debate. They understand that when government is in charge, government doesn't necessarily have to worry about customer satisfaction unless you are an elected official. Then you know you have to go back to your constituency. You have to answer for the votes that you cast and the decisions that you make. But if you are government and you own the company and you dominate the company, what do you worry about customer satisfaction, especially if you are not only the car maker, but you also control the contracts with the dealerships and you are the lender? Because, let's face it, now the Federal Government is also the lender when it comes to car sales. And the Federal Government is backing a lot of the credit card loans that are out there now. So where is the public going to go, and who does the Federal Government have to answer to? And this is what people know, because now it's about my health care and my child's health care, and my elderly mother's health care. And I really care about my mother, but will a bureaucrat, a nameless, faceless bureaucrat give a rip if my mother can't get her hip replacement or she can't get the pacemaker? Remember, that question was asked of President Obama. He held a townhall meeting in the White House, and, recall, there was a woman who stood up and said, President Obama, my mother was 100 years old. I couldn't get one doctor to give her the pacemaker she needed until finally I found a doctor who said your mother has a lot of spirit. I will get her a pacemaker. He did, and her mother was still living 5 years later, doing very well with her pacemaker. President Obama's response? He said, Well, you know, maybe a pill would be the better answer than surgery. Well, the woman didn't need a pain pill. What she needed was the surgery. And this is exactly the point. Will we have bureaucrats and politicians looking at their bottom lines in their constituencies rather than having a doctor who, really, his best interest is to make sure that patient is healed and becomes well? Who will make the decisions in this upcoming scenario? That's really what the American people want to know.

Mrs. BACHMANN. That's right.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Let's go back to the crux of this issue, and it is the economy, what's happening in the United States economy. And as we have seen, the Federal Government comes in and effectively nationalizes about 30 percent of our economy, and they are on a deep, long drive to make sure that they can nationalize another 18 percent by taking over health care. And what's more, with the national energy tax, they want to take over even more of the national economy so that the Federal Government would effectively own or control well over 50 percent of the private business profits earned in this company. What has it yielded for the economy? And I just looked at an article today that was in the Hill newspaper. And it said President Obama's chief economist has said, today, the jobless rate will remain high despite economic growth. She voiced worry that the economic growth expected in the coming years won't be enough to bring down the unemployment rate to pre-recession levels. Christina Romer said, in 2010, that's next year, Representative, next year, the economy will likely grow, but the jobless rate will peak at 10 percent. We are at 9.7 percent unemployment now. It's going to grow, according to the President's chief economist, up to 10 percent. It won't start falling at a rapid clip. In fact, the administration, independent economists expect next year steady but not over-the-top GDP growth of between 2 to 3 percent. That will bring unemployment down slowly, but not by big movement; Unemployment on the right trajectory, but not coming down. This is incredible. We were told we had to pass in 3 days a trillion- dollar stimulus plan because the President said otherwise we would go to 8 percent unemployment. We could only wish we had 8 percent unemployment. We are at 9.7 percent. The President's chief economist said we are going to over 10. And according to the President's chief economist, if this health care plan goes into effect, we will lose another 5.5 million jobs. If we put his national energy tax into plan, it will be another 2.5 million jobs lost every year. The President is bent on a China-India jobs stimulus plan. We are losing American jobs, ceding them to our national competitors, and the Americans aren't gaining anything for it. That's why last week the flash point, when President Obama stood here in this Chamber and gave a speech to the joint session of Congress, there was one story that overshadowed the entire night, and that was one of our colleagues, Mr. Joe Wilson of South Carolina who had made a statement to President Obama. And in the midst of that statement, Representative Joe Wilson became effectively the point at the tip of the spear on this debate. And it was over the issue of whether the President was accurate in his statement that illegal aliens would be receiving health care benefits coequal with other Americans that are here lawfully in our country and at the expense of taxpayers. That was really the flash-point issue. And what we found out last Friday night, we saw Democrat Members of Congress saying we are willing to put that verification in the bill, in other words proving that our colleague, Joe Wilson, was right, which makes it almost incomprehensible to me to believe that the Democrat majority plans to bring about a resolution tomorrow in this very Chamber condemning our colleague for his words. He has already apologized for his lack of decorum, everyone agrees with that. But to think that you would say to one of our colleagues, who the Democrats have already proved right by admitting that they are going to take the provision out of the bill that Representative Wilson was referring to? It's almost uncanny to me that we would live to see such a day when that would happen.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Which is why I thank the gentleman from Iowa, Representative Steve King, for penning a letter asking others of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join that letter in support of our colleague, Joe Wilson. I was very happy to sign on to your letter. But you, Steve King, the stunning Steve King of the State of Iowa, you took the initiative on that front. You were right to do so. And I am extremely grateful for your leadership on this issue. Because this is the point. When we're talking about this, it isn't about the President; this isn't about any Member of Congress. This is about the American people. Will the American people continue to enjoy the finest health care system that the world has ever known or will we lose our freedom of choice over health care and will Americans lose the control over another 18 percent of private business profits. This is a big deal. This is a really big issue. Because, since the inception of Bailout Nation less than a year ago, 30 percent of private business profits are now owned or controlled by the Federal Government. If President Obama gets his way, that's another 18 percent--almost 50 percent. This is the issue right now. Will our economy be better off by government taking over the economy. No? Are you kidding. We've already seen demonstration of that in the last few months. Surely, we would not be better off with President Obama nationalizing health care and the energy industry.

Mrs. BACHMANN. That's exactly right, Representative. Again, we know President Obama's intention is to effectively nationalize the energy by giving the Federal Government control over the use and distribution of energy. Remember, we had a conversation earlier. Then-candidate Obama, Senator Obama, made the statement during the course of his campaign. He said, Americans can't think that they can drive SUVs, set their thermostats at 72 degrees, or eat as much as food as they want, and think the rest the world will be okay with that. Well, let's take a look at the report card since President Obama has come into office. By taking over GM and Chrysler, what we're seeing is the diminution of the SUV. We're seeing a lot of these high-end vehicles now being phased out, and instead we're seeing the new cars that the President wants to have put in place by Government Motors. That's the SUV portion. What about setting our house temperature at 72 degrees and buildings like this one at 72 degrees? Well, once we have the government effectively nationalizing energy, people won't be able to afford to set their thermostats at 72 degrees. They will be sitting at home shivering at 55 degrees in winter, and in summer most likely won't even be able to turn on the air-conditioning. And what about food? President Obama said we can't eat as much food as we want and think the rest of the world will be okay about that, as if that matters to freedom-loving Americans. Well, we just heard last week that the Federal Government now under the Obama administration is calling for a reordering of America's food supply. What is that going to mean? Now will the White House decide how many calories we consume or what types of food we consume? You're from an agriculture State, I'm from an agriculture State. My farmers are very concerned about this. Our farmers are some of the greatest geniuses the world has ever seen. When you think of the percentage of farmers that we had in this country producing the food when the Nation first began, we're now at less than 2 percent of our population produces all of the food that Americans consume. Not only that, a good portion of the world as well.

Mrs. BACHMANN. That's right.

Mrs. BACHMANN. If the Representative would allow me to intervene, there is one want that we don't have to worry about any more, and that's one organization in the United States that has been given a great abundance, and that's the organization ACORN. I know that you have done a great deal of work in trying to expose the nefarious activities of ACORN. We learned last week that ACORN, which has a persistent record of voter fraud indictments across the country, was brought under indictment for 11 counts of voter fraud down in the State of Florida. And then there were videos that came out showing that ACORN, which is a grand recipient of Federal money, was found facilitating bringing in underage girls illegally across not only State lines but across our country's borders into the United States for the purpose of prostitution. ACORN was not only enabling this illegal criminal business, they were also coaching people on how to avoid their tax payments that they would have to pay and how to go into federally funded housing. That's why I have been writing letters to the Census Bureau, to the Housing and Urban Development Agency, to call on them to stop all current and future grants and to investigate all past grants. ACORN has been a recipient of $53 million in Federal funds since 1993. Now, since President Obama, who is a former employee of ACORN, since he has become the President, now ACORN has access to $8.5 billion. And in another bill that passed through the House, an additional $1 billion--a billion dollars, $8.5 billion ACORN has access to.