Michele Bachmann

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. There is a lot to contemplate when we're talking about this national takeover of health care. The gentleman has every reason to be concerned because, when the government takes over an area of American national life as we have seen, the American people are the ones who lose control and who lose choice over their economic destinies. Here is one thing we've been hearing about from the Speaker of the House. She has been talking about how this nationalization of health care will be paid for through prevention, that we'll have new prevention in place that will keep Americans healthier and that we will realize something like over $500 billion in savings in prevention. Well, where is it? Itemize it. What is it that we aren't doing now that we're going to see dramatically occur in prevention? It isn't there. It's not going to materialize because we know where the savings will come from. It will come from the Federal bureaucracy, and we have the Federal bureaucracy that's contained in the bill that the Democrats have put forward. This big mess that's on this chart shows 32 new Federal Government agencies. This is what will stand between any American and his doctor. So think of an American standing on that side of the paper with 32 bureaucracies. You've got to get through this labyrinth, Mr. Speaker, before you can get to your physician. Now, is this what Americans want? A study was just completed that showed that 89 percent of Americans today are happy with the health care that they receive. Another study that was done said 77 percent of Americans are happy with the health care that they receive. Now, that doesn't mean that our health care system is perfect. It isn't. One of the greatest things that we can do is to make all Americans' medical expenses deductible on their insurance. That would be something great that we could do for the American people because the biggest problem in health care today is not access; it's the cost. Health care premiums are going through the roof. Well, what can we do? We could change the Tax Code, and we could allow Americans to purchase their health care the same way they purchase their car insurance--across State lines, buy in pools, bring down the price, have true competition, and allow small clinics like the MinuteClinics, for instance in Minnesota, to be set up all across the United States. Have health savings accounts so that you control your own costs, and you take it with you. The government doesn't own your health care. You do. Mr. Speaker, this is the plan that President Obama wants for the American people, a great labyrinth of bureaucracy. How are you ever going to get your health care if you've got to go through this bureaucracy? One thing we know about bureaucracies is they justify their own existences, and they all make a lot of money. The average Federal employee today makes about $75,000 a year plus benefits. There are a lot of people out there who would love to make $75,000 a year. Well, we're creating 32 new bureaucratic agencies. This is nonsense. This is about a government-created welfare bureaucracy. That's what this is about. It's not about insuring more Americans, because even under the Democrats' own forecast, not all Americans are even going to be covered. Potentially, about half of the people who are uninsured now can afford to pay for that insurance. Of the other half who can't afford it, we have a good amount of people who are under 35 who are in very temporary situations. About a third of those people are illegal aliens. Truly, only somewhere between 12 and 16 million people aren't insured. That out of 305 million? Surely, we can find an answer for them. Why wreck the health care that 89 percent of Americans say they like so that we can give government control over 17 percent of the American economy? Why do we want to do this? This is President Obama's vision for American health care. It's not what Americans want. There is no savings extracted out of prevention, not to the level that they're talking about. We need to get real about health care, and that's why the American people need to melt the phone lines of their Members of Congress. They need to let them know what they think about this plan before it's too late. I yield back to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I'm wondering what he means by that, by 5 days. Does that mean that once the bill gets to the President, he'll allow it just to rest on his desk for 5 days? People would have a chance to comment? But it also seems, the public law that the gentleman from Iowa displayed, Members of Congress are supposed to be able to get a chance, too. I think this is wonderful that the President wants the American people to have 5 days to be able to read a bill, but I think it would be wonderful if Members of Congress could have 5 days to read a bill before we vote on it. After all, maybe we should all take an Evelyn Wood speed reading course, because if we have to read over 1,000 pages or 1,100 pages in a bill in 13 hours, we're going to need to have maybe those recordings where they're sped up a little bit so it sounds like Alvin and the Chipmunks reading a bill to us. I don't know what it's going to take, but Members of Congress should also have the opportunity to be able to read the bills, and to do that, we need to have time, too. So this doesn't say much. If President Obama says that a bill should just maybe be on his desk for 5 days, if Members of Congress aren't also given that courtesy, after all, we are the people's representatives. We're sent here on behalf of the people back home to read these bills, talk about these bills between Republicans and Democrats. Isn't that what we're supposed to do, talk to each other, talk about what our ideas are, what the ideas on the other side of the aisle are, make the bill a little bit better, then put it on the floor? Maybe part of the problem, I wonder, is the fact that we're just trying to do things a little too fast. That's what it seems like to me, that maybe this Congress is trying to rush through too much too fast. Maybe that's why we have a greater deficit than we've ever seen before. We ran out of money in April. Back in April, this Congress spent all the money that it had in its budget already in April. So every day we've been spending billions and billions and billions, every single day that we don't have. And so now, today, it's July, we're already over $1 trillion in deficit. We're going to be nearly $2 trillion in deficit. And here's something else I don't understand. The President is supposed to release, in mid-July, the budget update. We have the numbers already, but the President has said he's going to wait until mid-August to release his budget update. Now, this is a little concerning to me, a little fishy to me, because we're being told, Mr. Speaker, that in less than 2 weeks' time the President of the United States expects that we will pass legislation that would allow the Federal Government to take over 17 percent of the private economy. Now, there was an economist from Arizona State University 2 weeks ago on the front page of the Washington Times who wrote an article that said, we now have the Federal Government, for the first time, having control or owning 30 percent of all private business profits in this country. Thirty percent of all private business profits in America are owned or controlled by the Federal Government today. If President Obama and if the Democrat-controlled Congress gets their way, that will be an additional 17 percent. Now, this President's only been in office for 6 months, and already 30 percent of the private business profits are owned or controlled by the Federal Government. Now, by August 1st he wants to make that 47 percent? I certainly hope we can read these bills first before we're asked to do that. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for this moment just to be able to speak about what is happening here in Washington, D.C. I don't think anyone has ever seen anything like what we have seen in the recent months, and we can even trace it back to last fall when the Democratic Congress could not wait to get passed the TARP funding bill together with the former Bush administration. They were in a hurry, just like the gentleman from Iowa has stated. We are seeing that this is a Congress that is in a hurry, in a hurry because they have got an agenda. They are on a steamroller path. They are on a blitzkrieg path. They have to get everything done yesterday. We can't have time to read bills. We can't take time to truly count the costs, because we are in a hurry. There is an agenda that has to be performed. We heard the President of the United States tell the Democrat Caucus just last week, We can't miss this opportunity for reform. We have got to get it done. We have to do it now. We can't wait. We have got to do everything now. That is what we were told last fall. We were told that we would see economic Armageddon if we didn't pass the $700 billion TARP bill. What was that? That was a blank check. We were told, Just trust me. It was a ``trust me'' defense. We were told, Just trust the Treasury Secretary. They have to have $700 billion, or we will see an absolute collapse of the financial world. And so we were all pushed into it. I voted ``no'' on that bill. But the Democratic-controlled Congress passed the $700 billion bailout for the banking system and also for the foreclosure and the subprime mess that we are in. Well, where are we at today with the subprime mess? We are seeing foreclosures still at a record high. We are seeing unemployment still at a record high. Did this help us, this $700 billion blank check that went to the Secretary of the Treasury? What did that lead to? Well, President Obama was all for the TARP bailout when it came, when he was Senator Obama, and then we saw in December when he was President-elect Obama, he prevailed upon the President. He said, We can't wait, we have got to hurry. We can't wait until January until I'm sworn in as President. I'm asking you, President Bush, to release to the Automobile Task Force something like $17 billion so we can bail out GM and so we can bail out Chrysler, because it has to be done today. We can't wait until January when I'm sworn in. It has got to be done today. So President Bush gave that $17 billion to the Automobile Task Force at President-elect Obama's request. And we all know what happened. We saw what happened to Chrysler. It essentially collapsed in a shotgun wedding to Fiat. A foreign car company was brought in and forced to purchase and buy out Chrysler. We saw the bondholders, whose rights were virtually stripped away from Chrysler, and we saw the UAW instead jump in front of the bondholders and take advantage of that position, and now the Federal Government and the UAW and Fiat own that company. What happened to GM? We saw that UAW owns that company and the Federal Government now, as of the Friday before last, is the 61 percent shareholder. What did that get us? One hundred fifty thousand jobs lost. Because we saw pink slips go to 3,400 dealers of Chrysler and GM across the country, and 150,000 people, potentially, are out of work. Well, then we had to get the stimulus passed, the largest spending package in the history of our country, $1.1 trillion. Think of that: $1.1 trillion. But it had to be done today. And we didn't have time to read that bill, oh, no, sir. We can't read that bill because this is too important. President Obama told us we had to pass that bill. The bill was passed by Congress. I voted against it. Representative King voted against the stimulus bill. But President Obama had to have that bill. Well, did he sign it? No. He went to Chicago. He went to play basketball. He took 4 days, rather than passing this bill he had to have in his hands, because he had to have this $1.1 trillion stimulus bill. Well, we didn't get that bill very much ahead of time either, and it was a little bit embarrassing because of all the earmarks that bill contained. Oh, we weren't told they were earmarks, but they were earmarks nonetheless. All sorts of special projects were in that bill. Then we were told we had to pass the budget bill, an 8 percent increase over the previous budget bill. We had to pass it right away. We couldn't wait and have extra time for debate, no, no, no. We had to pass that bill now because otherwise bad things might happen. Well, what has happened? What happened as a result of the stimulus bill? We were told if we didn't pass that stimulus bill, we could see 8 percent unemployment. Wouldn't that be terrible? What is unemployment today? Nine point five percent. In the State of Michigan it is 15.2 percent. What about jobs? What about all the jobs that were created? Two million jobs have been lost since the stimulus bill was put forward. One hundred fifty thousand jobs were lost because the government got involved in GM and Chrysler and handed out pink slips. This isn't going real well for us. Then cap-and-trade, cap-and-tax, the ultimate authority that government could have over every person's life in the United States. Literally, every time we flick on a switch, it will be the government telling us how much we are going to pay to flick on that switch, or if we can even have the power to do that. Cap-and-trade, the mother of all bills, and we got that bill 13 hours before we passed that bill. Thirteen hours before, 1,100 pages, but don't worry, trust me. Trust me. It will bring good things to this country. And what will that give us? We already know. Two and one half million jobs a year leave the United States. We might as well call it the ``China-India stimulus plan'' because we are going to lose 2.5 million jobs, bye bye, away they go, out of the United States. And then what is the next bill we have in front of us? Well, an article today in the newspaper says that on this health care bill that we are looking at, that by the way, we have got to pass, it was revealed last week, here it was, 1,018 pages long, that the next day Members of Congress had to vote on it, and the House Ways and Means Committee revealed to the public that the next day we need to be prepared to vote on a 1,018-page bill. Mr. Speaker, it isn't that Members of Congress are lazy. And it isn't that Members of Congress are too stupid to be able to read these bills. It is the fact that the Democrat leadership in this House is unwilling to allow us to read the bills. We even had the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, probably in an accident, admit that if many Members of this body actually read the bills, there probably would be very few votes. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Iowa has the quote of the majority leader, and it says ``If every Member pledged to not vote for the health care bill if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes.'' I would agree with the leader. I think that there would be very few votes if Members of Congress would read this bill. That is why the Obama administration and the Democrat leadership are steamrolling these bills through before anyone has time to be able to read it because they know, as was written in the paper today, this is by Christina Romer, President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman, she said that this bill will cost employers $300 billion. It will cost workers 5 million jobs. Well, let's think about that now. Five million jobs from health care loss, and that doesn't include the taxes that would be put on small businesses, so it is 5 million there, 2.5 million from cap- and-trade, that is every year though, and then 2 million from the stimulus, 150,000 from GM and Chrysler. I don't think we are going in the right direction. And this is from a President who said that he wouldn't be raising taxes on 95 percent of the American people. Unfortunately, it appears that that promise has already been broken. I yield back to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, all jobs are needed now in the United States. We need jobs here and we need jobs now. Unemployment stands at a 26-year high at 9.5 percent. And what is the response of Washington, D.C.? Government is increasing the costs on job creators. By the end of this week, Madam Speaker, government will have mandated that the price of the minimum wage will increase another $0.70 per hour. This comes when teenage unemployment stands at nearly 25 percent, nearly another record. Employers expect to be cutting more minimum wage jobs as a result of this action, not adding more jobs. Teenagers in my district are going from day to day to day, many of whom have given up now that it's the end of July, looking for work. Unemployment stands at a high for teenagers. They're competing with 40-year-olds for jobs at fast food companies. So what else does Washington do? Washington is passing a crushing debt burden on to the 19- and 20- year-olds with our $1.1 trillion stimulus plan. Clearly, the stimulus plan hasn't worked to create more jobs for Americans. Two million jobs have been lost since the stimulus law was passed earlier this year. The public was told that if Congress failed to pass the President's stimulus plan that we would see 8 percent unemployment. A lot of States today would love to see 8 percent unemployment. Try the State of Michigan. Last week they reported their unemployment stands today at 15.2 percent. We can do better, so much better. We have before and we can again. Let's ask every business owner in America, Madam Speaker, if it would help them if we would cut their costs of doing business with the Federal Government. Let's ask the average American if they would like to see government take less of what they make. Let's see if Washington would allow the American people the freedom to reclaim their lives, rather than waiting for a Washington bureaucrat to give them permission to move forward with their lives. This last weekend, I spoke to a Minnesota businessman who has created four dozen jobs in my district. He would love to provide health care for his employees, but he simply can't afford to. Why? It's because of the government mandates. Do his employees go without health care? No, they don't. Almost all of them have health insurance either through a spouse or they purchase health care on their own. What would his employees like to see? They would like to have help with the full deductibility of their health care costs on their tax returns; also if they could purchase health insurance in the same way they purchase their car insurance in a competitive, free-market manner. Many of them would like to see the increased use of health savings plans. They want to own their own health insurance because they want to be able to take it with them in case they want to be able to change jobs. Madam Speaker, fully 77 percent of all Americans respond that they prefer their present health insurance. They like what they have, and they want to keep it, but they think, Madam Speaker, that they will be shocked if they learn that they could lose their private health insurance, and they would be shocked to learn if their only option would be the government as their only health decision-making. Page 16 of the House Democrat plan that was revealed last week of the government takeover of insurance is quite a shocker. Page 16 says that no new private health insurance policies will be allowed to be written after the passage of the bill. Government insurance is expected to be subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of 30 to 40 percent. Approximately 114 million Americans are expected to leave private health insurance. Why? Their employers will drop the insurance because the taxpayer-subsidized plan will be 30 to 40 percent cheaper. This action will collapse the private health insurance market, and then the Federal Government will own the health provider game. The problem is that every American will have to hope that the government will act benevolently toward their cases. Why? Because government will be the only game in town. We can do better, Madam Speaker. We have done better. We can take a plan that truly does represent compassion and that does represent the best interests of the American people by offering them freedom and true options.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of members of the Minnesota National Guard who were killed in the line of duty this past week in the service of our great country. Minnesotans gathered together last evening in a silent vigil in my hometown in Stillwater where they remembered, cried and prayed for five brave members of our American military who willingly laid their lives on the altar of freedom. On Friday I spoke with the parents of one of these servicemen who only hours earlier received a knock on their door, the knock that no parent ever wants to answer. And in their conversation with me, Madam Speaker, the parents honored their son amidst their grief, their pride in his bravery swelling their hearts. May these families be comforted in their sorrow, and may the memories of these brave soldiers live in our hearts forever.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jacqueline Basney and the employees of Angelique's Bridal Salon in Blaine, Minnesota for their thoughtful commitment to the military families of Minnesota. For the second year, Angelique's has hosted a ``Military Extravaganza.'' This past weekend, they gave away 50 wedding gowns to women who are either serving or engaged to someone serving in the military at no cost to the couple. As owner of Angelique's, Jackie gives away the freshly cleaned and repaired sample gowns of discontinued styles. ``These dresses are like new and just beautiful,'' she says. Inspired after hearing of a similar event at another shop, Jackie went a step further by involving local vendors from the Twin Cities area to donate limo rides, photography sessions, tuxedo rentals-- everything needed for the perfect wedding. Even more, the event is a way of connecting families who share the same uncommon situation. One set of four women lined up at eleven o'clock the night before and by the time they had picked their dresses the next morning, they were good friends, taking photos and exchanging phone numbers and promising to stay in touch. You simply can't put a price tag on that kind of support--particularly for women so in need of a little extra friendship for the sacrifices they make for our nation. To take part in the event, couples submit letters and Jackie reads each one. Learning how they met and their plans for their life together lead her to tears at just the idea that she'll be a part of their wedding days. This year was especially moving when one lucky bride-to- be called her fiance in Iraq and he personally thanked Jackie for her special gift. But Jackie seeks no thanks, saying it's only their way of paying it forward as ``they pay us back double.'' While these service men and women are separated by time and distance, Angelique's is committed to making their big day the best it can be. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank everyone at Angelique's Bridal Salon in Blaine, Minnesota and especially Jacqueline Basney for helping the men and women in our military in this unique way. While many couples enjoy the luxury of planning and preparing together, this event brings families and strangers together in a way many never expected, but are eternally grateful to have experienced.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, 2 days after Independence Day, the remaining GM dealers in the United States received a letter from the General Motors National Dealer Council letting the dealers know that the National Dealer Council strongly opposes the Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009. It is also called H.R. 2743. The letter urged all remaining GM dealers to sign the letter immediately, by no later than 5 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7. They urged the dealers to fax it back to the National Dealer Council urging that they do not support passage of the restoration of economic rights. I have nothing personally against GM or Chrysler, Madam Speaker. These are great American companies. But what I do object to is the Federal Government effectively taking over these once great companies. Last Friday, GM emerged from bankruptcy, Madam Speaker, but do the American people even realize that they own a majority share in this company, effectively 61 percent, which is why many people now call it ``Government Motors''? Do they know that 3,400 privately owned dealerships were given pink slips essentially by the Federal Government? 3,400 dealerships were closed down all across the America, not because these dealers were failing? Hardly. In my district dealers were experiencing some of their best months ever for sales, high customer satisfaction and terrific service. Perplexed and bewildered, 3,400 automobile dealers across the United States were given pink slips essentially by the Obama Auto Task Force; 150,000 jobs are estimated to be at risk of vanishing by this move. And with these jobs goes a part of the American Dream for private property owners and business in our country. The remaining GM dealers carved up the spoils. Now let me be perfectly clear. I fault none of these existing remaining GM dealers. These actions weren't their fault. Our fear with government owning these car companies is that politics will control GM's remaining decisions, not business. And now with this letter, it seems that politics is prevailing. Existing dealers are urged by GM to work against restoring economic rights to the dealers who saw their businesses' value drained from them overnight. How can current GM dealers possibly stand up against GM when GM is the Federal Government? Again, dealers are urged to sign a letter that will disadvantage their disenfranchised former competitors. This is a bad business, Madam Speaker. And it perfectly illustrates why we don't want government to own, operate, or control private businesses.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I support the gentleman's amendment. We know, Madam Speaker, that this national energy tax will cost the American people $2 trillion. We know that. We know this will result in a loss of 2.5 million jobs every year for the American people. We know that. We know this will result in a reduced standard of living for Americans. We know that. What is the point and what's the benefit? But what is worse than this is the fact that now, because of this underlying bill, the Federal Government will virtually have control over every aspect of lives for the American people. It is time to stand up and say, We get to choose. We choose liberty or we choose tyranny. It's one of the two. The underlying bill represents the tyranny and the intervention of the Federal Government. Mr. Forbes' amendment represents liberty for the American people. It's our choice. What will we choose today? Will we choose liberty or will we choose tyranny? I choose Mr. Forbes' amendment.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, those who return home after serving our Nation, often changed and scarred by their experiences, deserve special recognition and honor. The Disabled Veterans Rest Camp at Marine on St. Croix provides a sanctuary and gathering place for veterans and their families to connect and heal with one another. I rise today, Madame Speaker, to honor the members of the Minnesota National Guard who have spent the past weeks helping to restore the Disabled Veterans Rest Camp so military families from across the Nation can continue to enjoy its tranquility. For the last several weeks, the Guard has volunteered their time and engineering expertise as part of their training to restore buildings, update facilities and address the needs that come with a nearly century-old campsite. I applaud these Guardsmen and women for giving back to their fellow uniformed service members. I also want to thank our Croatian allies that are sharing in this joint deployment with the Minnesota Guard. We are very grateful that they are able and willing to help our American veterans. The site started as a camp for World War I disabled veterans in 1926 and has seen expansion and contraction over the years. I first became familiar with it as a State Senator when it faced potential demise in 2005--a fate I was proud to have had at least a small hand in defeating. Maintaining this camp--which has a treasured place in my heart, as do the veterans it serves--as a place for disabled veterans to call their own is one of my proudest moments in my public service career. A board of representatives from veterans' organizations runs the site and is actively involved in preserving the purpose of the camp. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Minnesota Guard for paying it forward to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our country. The tireless hours they have given at the Veterans Rest Camp are just one representation of our duty to our veterans--to serve them with gratitude and respect. We should all take these citizen-soldiers' example to heart each day, as we live in a free and prosperous land and owe it all to our veterans.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Sara Meslow, founder and director of Camp Odayin, headquartered in Stillwater, Minnesota. With facilities in Crosslake, Minnesota, Camp Odayin is the only camp in the Midwest for children with heart disease. This amazing opportunity is made available for just $25 because of generous donations from individuals, local organizations and medical groups. Sara says, ``We wanted something associated with children's heart disease that doesn't have dollar signs after it.'' I would like to honor Sara and the team at Camp Odayin in front of this Congress that we all may be amazed at the opportunities she provides our children. Young heart patients from 17 states, Canada and Germany have been to Camp Odayin and many leave feeling completely different about the disease that will impact them the rest of their lives. The object of Camp Odayin, which means ``heart'' in Ojibway, is to connect kids with heart transplants, congenital defects, artificial valves, abnormal heart rhythms and many other conditions with one another. Sara shares a very personal connection with the Odayin campers. As a teenager, she learned that she had a heart condition that sometimes caused her heart to beat wildly and later received a Medtronic defibrillator to control the condition. After volunteering at a camp for children with heart disease in California and with some prodding from her mother, Sara began exploring options for a camp in Minnesota. Camp Odayin held its first session in 2001 with 53 campers. Now in their eighth summer, they have expanded to three sessions and are expecting 240 campers. The camp sessions are available for ages 8 to 17 and are as normal as any summer camp with swimming, archery, horseback riding, canoeing, crafts and of course, general fun. The advantage is that medical professionals and health specialists make up many of the volunteer staff allowing children needing extra attention and care to participate in activities they would otherwise sit out on at other camps. Nurses attend every activity, regularly monitor medications and staff an infirmary that is similar to a hospital intensive care unit. This level of medical care is not available at any other camp in the Midwest. I had the privilege of learning about Camp Odayin from one of the many children blessed with this opportunity. This young girl was just thrilled to have been to a camp where many of the kids were dealing with the same problems she had. It is obvious the joy that Sara has brought to hundreds of children and I rise today to honor and applaud her work empowering the children that are the future of America, regardless of their health, status or ability.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Sarah Yang of Ramsey, Minnesota. Sarah is serving as the Minnesota representative for the National History Day competition and it is my honor to call attention to the hard work and dedicated effort she has put into her project. Since October, Sarah has been researching information on Xang Vang, a Hmong community advocate in Minnesota, in concert with the competition theme of, ``The Individual in History: Action and Legacies.'' She was first selected as a winner from Anoka High School and then selected among 30,000 students from Minnesota. Her project, ``Restoring Roots: Xang Vang & the Regeneration of Minnesota's Hmong Economy'' has culminated in a website that chronicles the life and work of Vang. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Sarah Yang and all the students who have participated in National History Day. We're often told, ``We can't know where we're going until we know where we've been.'' Sarah is just one representative of thousands of students who have taken ambitious strides to learn the history that will guide them to a bright and successful future. Congratulations to Sarah for making it this far and I hope we will continue to see more students taking part in National History Day every year.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Samuel Kampa, who was recently selected as one of the top 10 finalists in the 2009 Holocaust Remembrance Project national essay contest. Mr. Kampa, a recent graduate of Dassel-Cokato High School, was chosen out of 7,000 entries for his essay on preserving the memory of millions of victims of the Holocaust. In his essay, Mr. Kampa wrote, ``I discovered that the Holocaust was not a distant, abstract occurrence that merely comprised yet another chapter in world history. Rather, the Holocaust forever transformed the actual lives of men, women, and children--human beings who were subjected to inhuman sadism.'' He continued, ``When the last survivor passes on, who will be there to share the stories and thus make Holocaust history tangible, accessible, alive, and meaningful? The answer is clear: we must take the next step, for it is absolutely imperative that we educate future generations and perpetuate Holocaust remembrance by reiterating their stories . . . Forgotten history profits nothing, and the mistakes of the past will become the mistakes of the present if we neglect to remember. When we forget the stories, it is easy to lapse into old sins.'' The recent anti-Semitic tragedy at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. reaffirms Mr. Kampa's timely essay. He reminds us of the need to continuously remember the tragedy and the events that led up to the disaster that ended the lives of millions of individuals and impacted so many more. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Sixth District of Minnesota, I want to commend Mr. Kampa not only for his impressive accomplishment, but for his insightful thoughts into how our world can avoid another monumental catastrophe, such as the Holocaust.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. You're absolutely right, Congresswoman Schmidt. They are all across America and they are doing a fabulous job. They do it on very little money. They aren't receiving money from the Federal Government the same way that Planned Parenthood does. Planned Parenthood receives well over $300 million a year in grants from the Federal taxpayer. We don't see that for these pro-life centers. And these are centers who people give donations to. And for women who find themselves in a situation where they're torn, trying to figure out what they should do about this unplanned pregnancy, Mrs. Schmidt is exactly right, because they offer not only just the sonogram and just a pregnancy test, but they offer clothes if you need maternity clothes. They offer baby clothes. They offer a little bassinet. They might offer a stroller, a little baby carrier, free diapers. They are there to help women at their most vulnerable time. And you will find in a Planned Parenthood that a woman walks in and they say that they're full service, but there is actually only one option usually when you go into Planned Parenthood, and that's to end the life of that little baby. And what the pro-life centers try to do is offer women life-giving choices and to let them know they can keep their dignity. Whether they choose to keep their baby or not, they can keep their dignity, but they can give the greatest gift they can ever give, and that's that they give the gift of life to the next generation. It's one of the most beautiful decisions than can ever be made. You've had the pleasure of being a mother. I've had the pleasure of being a mother, and it is truly one of the greatest treasures anyone can ever have, to be entrusted with giving life to the next generation. So I think as we start this discussion on abortion, on what it means, and there are a lot of opinions on either side, but one thing we have seen that has occurred recently, the American people, for the first time, the public opinions show that over 51 percent of Americans claim they are pro-life. This is one of the highest ratings we've ever seen. Part of that, I think, is because of science, because science shows us the human development of the unborn child. And the more that we learn about the unborn child, the fascination, the intricacy, the beauty of the unborn child, the more we embrace giving life to this beautiful treasure and to this beautiful gift. And that brings us to our subject this evening, dealing with D.C., and there are a few things I wanted to mention in my remarks. The taxpayer funding of abortion also increases the number of abortions. So when we put tax money into the equation, we'll get more abortions. And it makes sense. It's practical. And that's according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. The Guttmacher Institute also routinely reports showing that when public funding is not available, 30 percent fewer women who receive Medicaid have abortions. Now, this is interesting because it means 30 percent more babies whose mothers receive government-subsidized health care survive because of abortion-funding restrictions. And this is, I think, particularly important for women and men in the African American communities, in the Latino communities. In communities of color, we see a very high percentage of abortions. And I know one of our colleagues, Congressman Trent Franks, speaks about this often. He has a tremendous heart, as we do as well, for unborn children in the minority community because such a grossly high percentage of babies in the African American/Latino community are aborted, and we don't want to see that. These babies add to the richness of the American fabric just as Caucasian babies do. All babies are valuable, but what we're seeing is an even higher percentage of babies who are losing their lives in the minority community. In particular, we see this with minorities as they access Medicaid funding. If they have Medicaid funding, government funding, we'll see more abortions, and we'll see that particularly in the minority communities. This is a common-ground issue, I think, that we can share with those who embrace a pro-abortion view and with those who embrace a pro-life view because the polls have shown very clearly that the majority of Americans do not support taxpayer-funded abortion. They don't support it. We are here to represent the will and the interests of the American people. That's not where the American people are right now. They don't want to see us spending their money when we don't have much, when this government is in the red--in red ink up to our eyeballs. We don't have money to pay for the intentional murder of unborn children. The Obama budget changes this Dornan amendment, as my colleague Mrs. Schmidt has said, to the Financial Services' appropriations bill, so the publicly funded abortions will, once again, be available in the District of Columbia. Right here where we stand this evening, this is the District of Columbia. So now, once again, President Obama is expanding abortion. Instead of making it rare, instead of making it safer, this is making more abortions, particularly for pre-born babies of color. The District of Columbia has a record of abusing taxpayer funds for abortion. It's bad news, but it's true news. In the 80s when the District had the most permissive abortion funding policy in this country, abortions were funded for anyone, not just for Medicaid recipients. Elizabeth Reveal was the D.C. budget director at the time. She confirmed that the District's government has a policy of funding abortion on demand and does not attempt to determine the circumstances of the pregnancy. D.C. allows minors--that's children--to receive abortion services without the consent of their parents. So imagine that. Here in D.C., children can receive abortions without their parents' consent, which means that the American taxpayer will be funding abortions, paying for them for children, and minors could easily be brought in from other States. Remember, D.C. is only about 10 miles square, so minors could be transported across State lines and brought to D.C. from other States to have abortions paid for by the American taxpayer right here in Washington, D.C. to avoid the parental notification laws in their home States. That's according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. According to Planned Parenthood, they don't have accurate numbers on abortions in D.C. due to women from other States coming to D.C. for abortions. There are problems here with this, deep problems with this measure. That's why we had the Dornan amendment. It made sense. It was only reasonable. So, unfortunately, under the Obama administration, we are taking the Band-Aid off this problem and are exposing it to even more infection. The infection is more money, and we know that more money will lead to more abortions and particularly to more abortions for babies of color. This is really a sad story. We don't want to just talk about sad stories, because life is such a wonderful story. We would love to just be here this evening and talk about the positive story of life--and it's a beautiful story--but this is a really ugly story because it's about expanding more abortion; it's about more misery for women who are forced into abortions often against their will, who are given incomplete and inadequate information and who may be headed for a lifetime of addiction, depression or of a sense of loss and grief that they may have to deal with for 10, 15, 20 years. We don't want this to happen. We want women to be dignified. We don't want women to be brutalized. That's why we're here this evening, because we really believe in women, and we believe in women's choices and in empowering women. This doesn't empower women to put them in a situation where they're forced to do something quite often by pressure from boyfriends who are careless or from parents who don't want to be bothered. So I just want to, again, thank Representative Jean Schmidt. She has a heart of love. She has a heart of love on this issue. With her courage and with her dignity, she has brought together this group of men and women here on the House floor this evening who believe very strongly that American women will be hurt by this bill. Certainly, American children will be hurt by this bill. I thank you for your courage in bringing this forward this evening.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt. She is the head of the Women's Pro-Life Caucus, and she has done such a remarkable job for us. There aren't that many women who are pro-life women here in the United States Congress, and Jean has done a wonderful job taking that effort forward. Thank you, Jean, for hosting the hour this evening, and I appreciate the honor of being with you and Ms. Foxx and with my colleagues this evening to be able to address this important issue. I come here tonight as a female Member of Congress, as a strong pro- life Member of Congress, and also as a mother. I have been gifted to be able to bear five children, and I'm grateful for that honor, grateful to have known what it's like to be able to hold a little baby and be able to know what it's like to carry a little baby to full term. It is a thrill. It is a blessing. And I know for many women across America, they've made decisions in their lives regarding abortion that have affected them, that have affected them for good and for not so good. And for women who are abortion-minded, who have made that decision to abort their baby, they know what I'm talking about. They have made a decision that has radically altered their life. And whether that's a memory that they've tried to put under the carpet or whether it's a memory they are still dealing with, they know in the center and in the core of their being that something huge happened when they made that decision. And I don't stand here this evening, Mr. Speaker, condemning any women that have made that decision. To the contrary, what I am saying is that there is a way out for women who have made that decision. They can find peace. They can find forgiveness. But we also want to tell the truth about abortion. We want to tell the truth, that it leaves a gaping hole in the soul of a woman when she makes that decision. Many women are pressured to make that decision, pressured by a boyfriend who tells them they'll leave the woman if they don't make the decision, pressured by parents who are embarrassed or who don't want their daughter to have to deal with a baby or maybe who themselves don't want to deal with a grandchild that they're just not quite prepared to deal with. And I think part of the message that we want to give tonight is that there are alternatives. There are positive alternatives for women and for men who find themselves in that situation. There are loving alternative pregnancy centers in nearly every community in the United States who will offer free pregnancy testing, who will offer free sonograms or ultrasounds so that you can hear your baby's heartbeat and see your baby on a screen and make that decision. And I think what we're trying to let a lot of American women know across this country this evening is that choosing life is probably one of the most gratifying decisions any woman, any man can make. We want to let them know they're not alone.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise to share in the nation's shock, outrage, and sorrow at the tragic shooting today at the U.S. Holocaust Museum here in Washington. My heart and prayers go out to the family of the young security guard, Stephen Tyrone Johns, who was killed in this senseless crime. Senator Frank Lautenberg, who serves on the board for the museum, noted the irony that this hateful act took place in this beautiful, peaceful place; a sort of thoughtful sanctuary dedicated to ensuring that the evil of the holocaust never again gains a foothold on this earth. How right he is. How many times must this museum serve to teach the world about the horrible power of hate? Earlier this week, this body considered two resolutions, one condemning the killing of Dr. George Tiller and one condemning the killing of Army Private William Long and the wounding of Army Private Quinton Ezeagwula. Like today's killing, these acts were simply reprehensible. The taking of innocent life cannot be justified. Our society has traveled down a road that should never have been trodden. Human life has been devalued. Violence has been glorified. The gift of living has lost its meaning. In accepting his Nobel Prize, Dr. Martin Luther King said, ``Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.'' As a people, we must promote life, we must celebrate this miracle. And, as a Congress, we must lead the way with laws that protect all, particularly the most vulnerable amongst us, and that encourage loving, life-affirming ways.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. This particular family, Congressman, had put $5 million into this dealership just prior to receiving this notice. They were slated to adding another Jeep dealership to the Chrysler business that they already had. Significant amount of money, and they produced tax revenue to the amount of $3 million every year on that 5-acre parcel that they utilized.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I do. I had met with dealers in my district before from Chrysler, and they looked me in the eye and they said they were just flabbergasted. They couldn't believe that they got a pink slip that they were going to be out of business by the end of the month. All the cars that they had on their lot they'd have to sell. They were going have to wrap up and go out of business by the end of the month. And they told me that they were one of the most successful Chrysler dealerships, not just in Minnesota, but in the Nation. They performed 160 percent better than the top performers in the country. They met all the criteria for staying open for Chrysler, and still they were pink- slipped. No one could understand.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for calling this together so that we could call attention to the job losses that are happening all across the United States. It's in your district. It's in my district. It's every one of our districts here that are represented this evening. And I was absolutely shocked, as I've been watching this play out, of the Federal Government jumping in and taking over private businesses, beginning with Chrysler and then now with General Motors. We're seeing something that we haven't seen. I don't know if we ever have seen anything like this in the history of our country, and I am still livid over the conversation I had today.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Last weekend my family sat down and we were watching the commercial movie ``Titanic.'' And as I was listening to Dr. Burgess from Texas talk about the debt and the burgeoning debt load that the United States takes, once the ice gash came in the side of the Titanic, which we all remember was called the ``unsinkable Titanic,'' we think of the United States. Nothing can possibly sink the United States. We will always be a superpower. But one thing that has kept us a superpower has been freedom, free market economists. We are in the process of watching the deconstruction of free market economists before our very eyes, something we have never seen. But as the ice ripped that hole in the Titanic, water started being taken on, and the engineer came out and brought the blueprint of the Titanic. Water came into the first chamber, spilled over to the second, spilled over to the third, and by the time it filled up so many chambers, it was over. It was impossible to resurrect that ship. That's, I think, Mr. Akin, what you have been bringing before this body this evening. You've been showing to the American people that at a certain point when we have such excessive levels of spending that in turn leads to such excessive level of taxation that in turn leads us to excessive levels of borrowing that at a certain point we wonder what that tipping point will be if the United States will not be able to recover. We do have an alternative, as Dr. Broun said. We have a positive alternative that next quarter we could already see growth in our economy. But this plan that President Obama has put forward is the kind of plan that we could watch last night, or last weekend on TNT in the movie ``Titanic.'' If we follow that plan that President Obama has put before us, we know what that outcome will be and a lot of very innocent people may go down with that ship.

Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield, the Founders went so far as they began a revolution over a stamp tax, over a stamp tax. This is the actual outright taking of someone's personal property. And the Founders were unwilling to pass the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. And as the gentleman knows, the Bill of Rights was to protect individuals, people, not to protect government, but to protect people from the encroachment of big government upon their leaders. And the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right of your personal property. Big government cannot come in, they are prohibited from coming in and taking your personal property without just compensation. Here is a perfect example of violation of these citizens' Fifth Amendment rights.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. And I'm very concerned again about these motor takeovers from the Federal Government. One thing that I am very concerned about, a story came out today where there's been approximately 1,500 letters that have gone out to GM dealerships. One story that came out today, there is a dealership that I know of that applied to their Democrat Senator to appeal for help so that they could stay open. That Senator was able to arrange a meeting between the dealer and the officials at GM. We all know GM is now Government Motors because it's owned by the American people. It's been nationalized. There is no private corporations the way we used to think of GM. Now, the main stockholder is the American Government. So this Democrat Senator who was applied to for help was able to secure a meeting with General Motors and a car dealership, and they were able to get their dealership back. Well, that's great, that's wonderful. There is also another article I saw today where a constituent had contacted one of the representatives, a Democrat representative here in this Chamber, Representative Barney Frank. Barney Frank was able to go and talk to the right people and get this dealership back open. Is that what we have come to in this country, that rather than a private business with a private contract with another private corporation, they're no longer able to work out their agreements because, as columnist Michael Barone has called, he said, Now we've moved into the realm of gangster government. We have gangster government when the Federal Government has set up a new cartel and private businesses now have to go begging with their hand out to their local--hopefully well politically connected--Congressman or their Senator so they can buy a peace offering for that local business. Is that the kind of country we are going to have in the future? When I was on the phone today for over an hour with one of my local dealers, the very first thing out of her mouth was this, she said, This is the most un-American thing I have ever seen in my life. I can't believe that I lived to see the day that my country would come to this point where, having my dealership for 90 years, I get a letter FedExed to me that tells me I have until Friday to sign this document to not only give up my company that was made worthless--worth $15 million, made worthless overnight--now GM is demanding that she hand over her customer list, her service customer list to GM. Why? GM most likely will use those customer lists, they will give it to her former competitors. What is she getting for this? What is her remuneration? She had the rug pulled out from her and from her husband. They virtually lost everything overnight to what? To what Michael Barone calls a gangster government. We need to call this for what this is, my colleagues. We need to call this for what this is. Call it out. The American people need to get outraged and figure out that it could be them next. No business is safe when you see the administration appoint czars--car czars, wage czars-- there's over 20 czars that have been appointed. And what do those czars do? They bypass the Congress. We are the people's elected representatives; we have been bypassed. We now have an imperial presidency where the President has appointed various czars reporting directly to him. And now he is reaching into the confines of private businesses and overnight rendering them virtually worthless--unless, unless they have a special tug, a political tie to a local Democrat Congressman. Is that what we've come to? And I yield back.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Was worthless. Now the only thing that their dealership is worth today is the underlying property that the building sits on. They put all sorts of money into building their building, which is now free and clear. They worked hard to make sure they could pay for it, and now it's a dealership building. And as most Americans know who are listening to us speak this evening, if you have a dealership building, you can't use it for much else other than a dealership. And trust me, there's no one out there right now who's too interested in buying an old used dealership building because there's not new car dealers going up out there.

Mrs. BACHMANN. There's a recent appraisal done on this dealership, very successful dealership. They have all the debts paid. They own everything outright and clear, and the appraiser said this dealership is worth $15 million.