Michele Bachmann

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mrs. BACHMANN. Will the gentleman yield to answer your point?

Mrs. BACHMANN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chair, I would just end by saying I urge the people of this body to oppose this amendment, because as we stand in our fiduciary duty before the taxpayers, we need to make our vote clear--and our vote will say we either stand with the taxpayers of this great country, or we stand with ACORN. Mr. Chair, I would yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 382, which supports the goals and ideals of National Charter School Week. I know very well the great importance of charter schools in public education today as I helped establish one of America's first charter schools, the New Heights Charter School in Stillwater, Minnesota in 1993. This school is not only continuing its success today but has driven the establishment of other charter schools. And, today, children are educated at almost 3000 charter schools across the United States. With so many new charter schools opening since these past two decades, it is clear that these schools fulfill a real need for parents, students, and teachers alike. These schools are held accountable for the progress of their students and they continue to thrive because their students perform so well. Charter schools hold great importance in our educational system because they give parents options. They allow parents to choose from a variety of institutions to find the environment that will best help them succeed. The traditional public school is not always the right fit for every child. Because of charter schools, not only children from families with means have choices. Charter schools give underprivileged families choices that they might not otherwise have. Madam Speaker, charter schools have set students and teachers on a path to achieve their goals and are an integral part in our constant efforts to improve education in the United States.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 111, a resolution recognizing the 61st anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel. I believe it is important on this occasion to highlight the close bond between the United States and Israel. Just as the U.S. 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. On May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence, with the United States being the first country to formally recognize the new nation. Since that historic day, the United States and Israel have shared a close relationship of friendship and cooperation that serves as an example to the rest of the world. This relationship is strengthened with each successive year. One critical aspect of the U.S.-Israeli relationship is the role Israel plays in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East. Indeed, Israel has worked hard to develop friendly working relationships with its neighbors, Egypt and Jordan, setting an example of leadership and peace even as many around them spread hatred and terror. And while recent years have unfortunately been marked by escalating armed conflict between Israel and Hamas, the United States will stand steadfast in its commitment to a free Israel as the Middle East comes to embrace the liberties and freedoms of democratic societies. Mr Speaker, as a cosponsor of this resolution, it is my honor to recognize and congratulate the success of Israel on its 61st Anniversary. It is vital the United States continue to develop its strong relationship with Israel so that other countries around the world still oppressed and ruled by terror can see the true value of a free and democratic society.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 391, which recognizes May as National Foster Care Month. Today there are over 500,000 children in foster care across the United States, and my husband and I were privileged to have raised 23 foster children in our home. Madam Speaker, as a foster mother, I know too well the challenges. And I am dedicated to changing public policy and to raising awareness related to the very special and individual needs of foster children, so that families who support these children receive the resources they need to help these really great kids receive adequate support to help them to reach adulthood in a positive way.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Bolton and Menk Firm for their innovative design of a new Wastewater Treatment Plant in the City of Buffalo, Minnesota. Their fresh ideas earned them a place of honor in the American Council of Engineering Companies 2009 Engineering Excellence Awards Competition. This facility is the first of its kind in innovation and renewable resources for water treatment. The City of Buffalo, Minnesota asked for a state-of-the-art system and Bolton and Menk delivered. The facility provides a high quality treatment process and keeps the energy costs incredibly low to the city and its residents. By recycling and reusing, the wastewater treatment plant makes all biosolids disappear. Some of the biosolids are even reused in the community's road construction and repair. In the end, the City of Buffalo has one of the most eco- friendly and fiscally responsible wastewater treatment plants in America. In fact, estimated savings for the first year of operation are expected to exceed $90,000 and $500,000 in the next 20 years. The 2009 Engineering Excellence Award has found a worthy recipient and I rise today to commend both Bolton and Menk for their innovation and attention to the needs of today's communities and the people of Buffalo, Minnesota for vision and a real commitment to excellence.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 357, which recognizes the month of April as Financial Literacy Month. As a cosponsor of this important resolution, it is my goal to empower individuals with knowledge so they can make informed decisions and achieve financial freedom. During these tumultuous and unprecedented financial times, it is particularly important that Americans access available financial counseling and individuals pay close attention to details of all their financial agreements. These are surefire ways to ensure that families and individuals have the resources necessary to secure a solid future. Through a financial plan, we begin to dream. When we dream, we have the incentive to save; and through savings, we flourish financially. Financial stability is the foundation on which freedom and prosperity are built. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Financial Literacy Caucus, I am thrilled to cosponsor this resolution so that many Americans, some for the first time, can begin to dream of a life of financial security, and work to reach their highest goals and aspirations.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank so much my colleague, Steve King from Iowa--the ``stunning'' Steve King of Iowa, as he is known in the mainstream media, so grateful for your advocacy, and also for that of Judge Gohmert. And Judge Gohmert, I trust that you're a hanging judge down in the State of Texas. I just wanted to have a chance to speak just for a few moments on this hate crimes legislation. It truly is momentous, this rule that we will take up tomorrow. First of all, I just want to say, from my perspective, this appears to me easily to fit the definition of an unjust law. Why do I say that? Because this will bring to Americans more loss of freedom, more loss of rights than we have seen leave in this first 100 days here in Congress because it goes to the very heart of the Bill of Rights. When the Founders passed the Constitution, they would only pass it on one condition, and that is that the Bill of Rights would be passed next. This is the very first amendment--what many consider the most important amendment--our First Amendment right. And contained in that First Amendment right is the freedom of speech and expression of religious affiliation. And this goes to the heart of taking away American's right to speech and expression and sincerely held religious beliefs. I feel that this hate crimes legislation in some ways could be considered the very definition of tyranny because it gives government literally the key over deciding what the thoughts of Americans should be. And it says that Americans could only hold certain opinions and not others, and they can only express certain opinions and not others. Otherwise, it would be seen as a criminal act. And I think back over this last century of world history, and I think of nations where they called certain expressions of speech not only hateful, but criminal. And that is what this bill does, it regulates speech. Government regulates speech. And it just seems that it is one more chink resulting in the loss of American freedom. This bill, if it passes tomorrow, will have to be considered then a part of President Obama's 100-day legacy. And on his watch, if he chooses to sign this bill--and from all indications it appears he will--this will lay the foundation to further deny Americans First Amendment rights. I think it also, we could say, denies equal protection under the law. If you have an individual going through a crosswalk and a person is in their car and they hit that person in the crosswalk, it is up to the person who is hit to file the charge if it was a hate crime or not. So if the person is gay, and that is the status that is being protected, and the person driving the car is straight, would it be a hate crime if the person driving the car who is straight hit the person who is gay in the crosswalk? So does it say, then, that that life that was hit in the crosswalk is more valuable because it was a gay life versus if the person who was in the car, who is gay, who hits the person in the crosswalk, who is straight, does that mean that the straight person in the crosswalk doesn't have a cause of action against the person who is gay who is driving that car? It raises the question of whose life is valuable and whose isn't. That is the question that Mr. Gohmert raised earlier. Who will the government prefer? And who decides who gets protected? Are we protecting people on the basis of their behavioral actions; if they choose to have certain actions that are sexual in a certain manner, they get protected when others don't? Who decides who gets to be the good guy in this situation? Who gets to decide who is the bad guy in this situation? And I would ask this question, is it a moving target? If we give government this level of authority, then easily we can see that down the road government could amend this hate crimes law to say that now a new behavior will be protected. One thing that was mentioned by Mr. Gohmert earlier, that was brought up by Mr. King, that apparently people who are practicing pedophiles would be considered protected under this legislation, but not, I understand, veterans, not, I understand, pregnant women, not, I understand, 85-year-old grandmothers would be protected under this law. But who would be protected? A pedophile, someone who considers themselves gay, someone who considers themselves transgender, someone who considers themselves a cross-dresser? That is who is protected. And yet, think of the impossibility that we are tasking government with. We are asking government to peer into the mind of the individual who perpetrated the crime. Government somehow is so wise, so all knowing that now government can peer into the mind of the individual and can somehow discern if the individual in fact hated the person based upon, potentially, what their sexuality is versus the sexuality of the person who the crime was being perpetrated against. Won't that be a moving target? Depending on what the new behavior of the day--the behavior du jour, so to speak--that government approves or won't approve? Again, I think this is the very definition of tyranny because government's arbitrary decision will mean that more Americans will lose their First Amendment freedom of speech and expression. And this is something, again, that Mr. Gohmert had alluded to earlier. And that is when we can look, when this hate crime legislation has been put into place across the world, whether it is in Sweden, whether it is in Canada, whether it is in other nations, we can see what other nations have done with this type of legislation and what it has led to, the loss of freedom for individuals, citizens within those countries, and the citizens whose speech were protected. Then I look at the specter of our own Supreme Court. One of our Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said, again, we need to have more Supreme Court Justices in our country look at international laws and the laws of other countries when we define our own. Well, our judges could look at Sweden, they could look at Spain, they could look at Canada. And they could see that pastors and priests who spoke out and who just gave sermons behind their pulpit that promoted what the Bible says about sexuality--and homosexuality in particular--that was construed as a hate crime in Sweden, construed as a hate crime in Canada, in Britain, in Spain. And if that is the case, we will not allow pastors to even have freedom of speech and expression. As a matter of fact, we saw in Britain where there was a collision course in the EU Constitution between freedom of speech and expression and between exercising religious rights. When that clashed and came into contact with the hate crimes portion of the law internationally, which provision prevailed? They were both contained in the Constitution, hate crimes and religious liberties, hate crimes versus freedom of speech and expression. On every occasion, the law that prevailed was the hate crimes provision. In every case, the provision that lost was the provision that so-called protected a person's right of religious belief and expression. Do we think we will fair any differently here in the United States? I don't think so. I think the collision course that we are on this evening, Mr. Speaker, is one that probably should frighten Americans almost more than any other. And I say it because there is probably nothing more sacred in our Constitution than that very First Amendment that protects my conscience. And even if my beliefs or your beliefs or the beliefs of people that are listening to us have this debate this evening are antithetical to what all of us believe here this evening--someone might hold some very hateful beliefs, but we are America, shouldn't they be allowed to hold those beliefs? Shouldn't they be allowed to believe, in this country, things that are contrary to what government believes? But that is not going to be allowed anymore. And people's sincerely held religious beliefs can now be considered contrary to public policy. And we can see for the first time in our Nation that people would be disallowed from having their sincerely held religious beliefs. I think we are seeing a little bit of death today in this Chamber. We are seeing what our Founders bled and died for go away a little bit more in this Chamber tonight. We can hear Patrick Henry. We can hear echos of Jefferson, echos of Madison this evening in this Chamber. What would Daniel Webster say? And as much as they would rail against people assaulting other people on the basis of what they believed, certainly they would not elevate to a certain level an extra measure of protection for expression of that speech. I thank the gentleman, I thank Mr. Gohmert, and I thank the colleagues who are coming behind me because there is something that we should be fighting for. It's fighting for the idea that we are a Nation that is founded under God and that we have our rights emanating from a God who gave us unalienable rights, and we are losing that right tomorrow on this floor if this comes through.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Miss Amelia Leuer of Albertville, Minnesota, for being chosen as a national winner in the Letters about Literature Reading Contest. Miss Leuer, a senior at St. Michael-Albertville High School, was chosen as one of six winners in a national competition with 55,000 students for her letter to poet Linda Paston. After studying the piece, ``Caroline,'' Miss Leuer chose to write a letter to the author expressing the positive impact the poem provided as she dealt with the tragedy of loosing her sister in an accident. ``I personally attribute a great deal of that peace to your poem, `Caroline,' '' Miss Leuer wrote. ``I realize we can endure this pain only because of small miracles we experience every day. `Caroline' is one of those miracles.'' The panel of judges gave Miss Leuer a perfect score for her ``original, emotional, genuine, and inspiring response,'' and Target donated a $10,000 grant to St. Michael Catholic Library on her behalf. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Sixth District of Minnesota, I want to congratulate Amelia Leuer for her talent and national achievement. I wish her the very best as she graduates high school and pursues what are sure to be bright endeavors in her future.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, hydrocephalus, or water on the brain, is a medical condition that results in an abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the ventricles, or cavities, of the brain. Sadly, the prognosis for individuals afflicted with hydrocephalus is difficult predict and often fatal. Moreover, while this condition affects approximately 1 in every 500 births, very few people are aware of it. Indeed, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) is currently conducting research related to hydrocephalus prevention and treatment. However, more must be done at the community level to educate individual Americans about this surprisingly prevalent disorder. Recognizing September as National Hydrocephalus Awareness Month will bring this disease to the public's attention and encourage the discussions necessary to more effectively address the devastating effects of this disease and provide support to families who live with it each day. For example, currently, the most common form of treatment for hydrocephalus involves the insertion of a shunt in order to maintain the flow of CSF from the brain. This outdated practice often results in complications that can jeopardize the life of the, often very young, patient. Through increased awareness and education, we will take the steps needed to modernize the treatment of hydrocephalus and move toward a cure. As one parent summarized, ``My son, and all the other children who suffer from Hydrocephalus, are literally 12-15 hours from irreversible damage, if not death, if a shunt failure was to go undetected or left untreated. There has got to be a better treatment out there, if not an outright cure, we just have to find it.'' I'd like to share the thoughts of a father whose toddler son suffers from Hydrocephalus, Michael Illions: ``Our son Cole was born on July 25, 2005. We were prepared for his diagnosis of hydrocephalus since March of that year when we learned about it at a routine ultrasound. We interviewed Neurosurgeons and discussed our options for the treatment of the hydrocephalus for Cole which in his case would mean brain surgery at 1 day old. The most common treatment for hydrocephalus is the placement of a shunt into the ventricles of the brain to drain excess Cerebral Spinal Fluid. Cole had his first shunt surgery on July 26, 2005 at just one day old. 10 more brain surgeries and hospitalizations would follow in the next year, including 2 major shunt infections. Life with a child living with hydrocephalus is very unpredictable. We have had to alter our lives in many ways. For the first year, we literally slept with a change of clothes right near the bed and the car keys on the night stand, just in case we had to make a late night visit to the ER. As parents, you are constantly observing your child for shunt failure and things that regular parents go through like stomach viruses and fevers could mean death for your child if not acted on immediately. We never travel to far from home for fear that we will need our hospital and Neurosurgeon in an emergency and when we do venture away, we always know where the closest hospital is. Cole has experienced development delays due to his hydrocephalus, multiple surgeries and so much time spent in the hospital during his first year of life. He didn't walk till he was nearly 3 years old and he still doesn't talk. However, he started Preschool in September and is doing amazingly well. He runs, plays, laughs, and plays with other children just like any other 3 1/2 year old boy. Yet, as common as hydrocephalus is; 1 in 500 births, there are still so many people who have no idea what it is. The experience of having a child with this condition has enriched our lives beyond measure. We have met hundred of wonderful people, started our own support group in our state, and just recently started the Pediatric Hydrocephalus Foundation, Inc. It is our goal to educate the rest of the United States about this condition and the millions of people living with it.''

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. They didn't live through the Jimmy Carter years.

Mrs. BACHMANN. And your dollar is worth half of what you thought it was worth.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Pretty soon your money is worth half.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I guess, according to that thinking, then, they ought to spend more money. Do you think that's what the prescription should be for the American people?

Mrs. BACHMANN. What happened, Judge?

Mrs. BACHMANN. Judge, I thank you, and I thank you for holding this Special Order hour this evening on the first 100 days of the Obama administration. This has been a great leap that we've seen. We have different historical shifts that occur in our Nation's history. This one has to be at least, not a shift but, I think, more a great leap that we've seen. To me, the question shouldn't be as much How is President Obama doing? as much as it should be How are the people doing? How are the American people doing after these first 100 days? We were made great promises of hope, great promises of change. Yet I was listening over the weekend to the President's man, Larry Summers, and to what he was saying. He was saying it may be next year, 2010, before we see any shift in this economic climate. We were led to believe that we would see great change, immediate change, and all we're seeing is a prolonged effort, which is just what happened in the 1930s with FDR. The more the government spent, the more the government regulated, the more the government put up tariff barriers--trade barriers--and the more government intervened, the longer the recession occurred. As a matter of fact, the recession that FDR had to deal with wasn't as bad as the recession Coolidge had to deal with in the early twenties. Yet, from history, the prescription that Coolidge put on that is lower taxes, a lower regulatory burden, and we saw the roaring twenties where we saw markets and growth in the economy like we had never seen before in the history of the country. FDR applied just the opposite formula-- the Smoot-Hawley Act, which was a tremendous burden on tariff restrictions, and then, of course, trade barriers and the regulatory burden and tax barriers. That's what we saw happen under FDR. That took a recession and blew it into a full-scale depression. The American people suffered for almost 10 years under that kind of thinking. Here we are now, boosting forward to the year 2009--the beginning of hope and change. So, again, the question is: How are the people doing? Credit is tight. Banks aren't lending the way people had hoped they would lend. Job losses are going into the double digits. We have college and we have job losses approaching 20 percent in their districts. Minnesota, the State that I represent, is a fairly diverse State economically. We tend to have low unemployment. In areas of my district, I have unemployment of 10 percent. That may not seem like a lot, but that's a lot in the State of Minnesota. I wrote down just a couple of things, Mr. Carter, that we've seen just in the time that President Obama has been in office. He said quite often after he came into office that he inherited this mess. Now, one thing that we remember is that President Obama actually voted for all of these measures that got us into this mess. He voted for the bailout. He voted for all of these expenditures whether it was for Freddie and Fanny or Bear Stearns. He was voting for all of these measures all throughout 2008, but just since the time of his election in November of 2008 to the present day, he has increased the burden, and he has increased spending by 75 percent on his watch. So it's one thing to say you've inherited a mess. It's another thing to increase that mess by 75 percent. How has he done it? Well, he passed an over-$1 trillion stimulus measure that he was only too happy to sign. He also proposed that we spend $75 billion in direct foreclosure money. Then he proposed $200 billion to banks for more mortgage bailout money. Hey, I thought that's what that $700 billion was supposed to go for. That wasn't enough. He proposed and passed another $200 billion. Then we saw our Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, go over to Europe and before the G-20 say that we needed to get behind another $1 trillion of spending for the International Monetary Fund--$1 trillion of spending--and also have an international financial regulator so perhaps, for the first time in the history of our country, the U.S. would subsume our economic system under an international regulator. This is unheard of. Then we also heard talk about global currency called ``special drawing down rights'' on the International Monetary Fund. The Treasury Secretary assured me, personally, in the Financial Services Committee that he would categorically renounce taking the United States off of the dollar and moving us toward international global currency. Within 24 hours, the Treasury Secretary went 180 degrees different and said he would be open to an international global currency. Then we saw the firing of the president of General Motors, and we saw the changing of the board of directors of General Motors. We saw this administration tell Chrysler they had to get married to another company, Fiat, and they had to have this all happen before June. We saw yesterday again, as Dr. Gingrey said, national debt day, and again, what this means for the people back home, is that the United States, as of Sunday, as of April 26, we spent it all. We've spent everything that we planned to bring in. It's like you made out your household budget for the year for a hundred thousand dollars, and you have already spent it by this point. So at this point, now it's the credit card. And it's not a credit card that you and I are paying; it's a credit card that our kids are going to be paying. That's why I am concerned. And that's why I am so glad you brought this up about this first 100 days with President Obama, because I think it has more to say, Judge Carter, about what the kids under 30 years of age will have to live with than even more what you and I will have to live with, because this is a pretty big spending spree that we've seen happen in this last 30 days, one so big we can't possibly bail ourselves out of it even this year.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor CentraCare Laboratory Services in St. Cloud, Minnesota as the second runner up for the Medical Laboratory Observer's Medical Laboratory of the Year Award. Laboratories across the nation were judged on achievement in nine areas with the winners and two runners up, including CentraCare, being featured in the Medical Laboratory Observer, a peer-reviewed journal resource that has been used by laboratory professionals since 1969. Today's medical care relies heavily on laboratory services that provide fast and high-quality answers to doctors. CentraCare has demonstrated excellence in many ways. They achieved standardization of the equipment in all their labs to eliminate confusion by physicians ordering tests from different labs. They also implemented new labeling guidelines to ensure patient safety and have reduced specimen collection errors to practically zero through an automated pneumatic collection system. These improvements were also acknowledged by the Quality Resources Patient Safety Committee of St. Cloud Hospital. When it comes to healthcare and the medical community, CentraCare Laboratory Services has been a beacon for quality and patient safety. They are a great resource not only for their patients, but for other laboratories that can learn from their example. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate all of CentraCare's employees for their attention to efficiency and high standards of excellence that has resulted in this prestigious accomplishment.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Miss Amelia Lever of Albertville, Minnesota, for being chosen as a national winner in the Letters about Literature Reading Contest. Miss Lever, a senior at St. Michael-Albertville High School, was chosen as one of six winners in a national competition with 55,000 students for her letter to poet Linda Paston. After studying the piece, ``Caroline,'' Miss Lever chose to write a letter to the author expressing the positive impact the poem provided as she dealt with the tragedy of losing her sister in an accident. ``I personally attribute a great deal of that peace to your poem, `Caroline,' '' Miss Lever wrote. ``I realize we can endure this pain only because of small miracles we experience every day. `Caroline' is one of those miracles.'' The panel of judges gave Miss Lever a perfect score for her ``original, emotional, genuine, and inspiring response,'' and Target donated a $10,000 grant to St. Michael Catholic Library on her behalf. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Sixth District of Minnesota, I want to congratulate Amelia Lever for her talent and national achievement. I wish her the very best as she graduates high school and pursues what are sure to be bright endeavors in her future.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I believe it is important that we all remember the past, whether it relates to people's positive actions or their negative. The saying that those who do not know their past are doomed to repeat it holds much truth. For that reason, today I rise to recognize a tragic event in human history that resulted in the loss of the lives of nearly 1.5 million Armenians during World War I. On April 24, 1915, the then-Ottoman Empire began the systematic execution of Armenians, an event now known as the Armenian Genocide. While a large number of Armenians were killed outright, many others suffered and died of starvation and diseases which spread through their concentration camps. By 1923, the entire Armenian population previously inhabiting the landmass of Asia Minor and West Armenia had been eliminated. As a Member of Congress, I have joined with nearly one hundred of my colleagues in support of legislation affirming the United States record on the Armenian Genocide and urging the President to ensure U.S. foreign policy reflects an understanding of the human suffering relating to this genocide. I appreciate the efforts of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, which recently appealed to President Barack Obama requesting that he remain true to his previous statements and, as President, recognize the Armenian Genocide as, ``a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence.'' Madam Speaker, the United States serves as an example to the world of what can be achieved when basic human rights are protected and nurtured. It is in this role that we must recognize this methodic extermination of over one million Armenians during World War I. Moreover, I believe that through appropriate recognition, we can work to ensure that atrocities such as the Armenian Genocide are remembered, and not relived.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Less than 100 days, within 90 days.

Mrs. BACHMANN. That's skewed thinking. We had a man who beheaded his wife in upstate New York. Not a word was said about that. The media didn't cover it, I didn't see anything here about religious groups where maybe something like that would happen, it's unbelievable the accusations that are made in this document.

Mrs. BACHMANN. That's right, a man-caused disaster.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Yes. What she said in her interview exactly, ``I did not use the word 'terrorism,' I referred to man-caused disasters. That's perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear,'' from the politics of fear.