Michele Bachmann

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. The percentage of people who believe in this Book of Revelations, End Times prophecy, the Book of Daniel, the Book of Ezekiel, the Book of Isaiah, the people who believe in the teachings of Christ that talk about end-time prophecy? These are people that our government should be watching out for? This administration needs to be ashamed of this. This is a piece of religious bigotry. That's what this is. This is religious bigotry. As a matter of fact, we were told we were going to deal with hate crime laws this week. I think this document is an example of hate crimes on the part of the Federal Government labeling its own citizens, practically calling American citizens criminals to be tracked down by an American government. And we have to keep in mind the statement that President Obama said on the campaign trail that he believed that a Federal police force should be created, just the same size of the U.S. military, unbelievable, and the media didn't pick up on it. The American people need to know.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Judge Carter, you are exactly right, because what you are doing is you are calling into question the judgment of President Obama by selecting this Secretary of Homeland Security to come out with a report. Insulting 80 percent of the American people within 90 days of assuming office? You are exactly right. On page 4 of this report, ``It says prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse.'' Aren't we all worried about that? Economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia. But then it goes on to say this. This is for people of faith. This is where people of faith need to perk up their ears because the report actually says this. It says, End Times prophesies could motivate extremist individuals and groups that stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings have also been linked with a radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian identity organizations.'' I find this offensive.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Again, I agree with Judge Carter of I think he is exactly right. I think the question we need to ask now is what's next, political show trials? That's the concern. When you have disagreement of political opinion, and then you set up the grounds for punishment for disagreement with political opinion, then the government creates what's called political show trials. In other words, kangaroo courts where people are put on trial for their political beliefs. So what's next? Is it political show trials? Well, shazam, wouldn't you know it, just this week President Obama, together with MoveOn.org, MoveOn.org running television adds by the way, this week calling for political show trials of those in the Bush administration that worked so hard to keep the American people free from terrorist acts, real terrorist acts, like trying to blow Americans up on American soil. The problem is the Homeland Security Secretary has now redefined real terrorists as foreign victims with Miranda rights and access to American courts with lawyers paid for by the American taxpayer, while at the same time the Homeland Security S has redefined pro-life gun- owning veterans who like smaller government and who believe America should secure our borders against invasion from illegal aliens as domestic right-wing extremists, as you have in the report upon the stand. Homeland Security, I think we should also note, has the Transportation Security Administration. Any of our constituents that go to the airport, they see people that have TSA on their shirts. You can't get on a plane in the United States, a commercial aircraft, without going through security. What's going to happen now? Will the Federal Government start IDing returning veterans, start IDing gun owners, start IDing pro-lifers and then pull us out of line for special searches at the airports before we are allowed to get on a plane because we could be considered a domestic right-wing terrorist while we would see Osama bin Laden and his friends skate by because they are not, because maybe they would be involved in a manmade disaster. But those who are pro-life gun owners, returning veterans on the other side, they are the real threat? This is an upside down Alice in Wonderland world. I can see why the American people are so upset right now. They are so upset. They look at what's happening. They shake their head. They say, is this America? Is this what we are used to? We are normal God-fearing people who love this country, and now we are the threat while Osama bin Laden and the people who seek to really bring us harm are let off scot free. And we are going to call them manmade disaster, we have got to be nuanced and so careful so we don't hurt their feelings? Has this Homeland Security Secretary gone absolutely stark raving mad? She needs to come before Congress. She needs to answer a few questions. I don't think Mr. Burgess is the only one with constituents that want to know. I think all of us have constituents that want to get some answers to these questions.

Mrs. BACHMANN. That's exactly right.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I also thank Mr. Brady for his remarkable words as well. I think, in answer to where do we go from here? We need look no further than the statements that were made by then candidate Obama during the election when he said this--this is a statement of President Obama during last year's election campaign that got remarkably little attention in the media, but he suggested the creation of a Federal police force comparable to the size of the military. And he made that statement, I believe, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. And so the question that we need to ask is, why would you need such an organization? There is no constituency calling for a Federal police force, there is no one out there doing it. But yet, Barack Obama made the suggestion himself that we needed to create and fund a domestic army that would be a Federal police force. Why would we need a Federal police force the size of the U.S. military? For what purpose? Would it be for this purpose? It is intriguing to me, we have a report now that says--as Mr. Brady said and as Judge Carter said--80 percent of the American people would be classified as ``right-wing extremists'' under this report. Couple that with a statement made by President Obama during the campaign that we need to have a Federal police force the size of the military. Add it up. No wonder people right now who are gun owners, who cherish their second amendment rights, are purchasing weapons and are purchasing ammunition. They see the handwriting on the wall. They know the Obama administration is looking at weapon bans and is looking at pulling back on gun ownership and registration of firearms, and they are rightly concerned about that. So what? They are purchasing firearms lawfully. They are purchasing ammunition lawfully. And yet this document would categorize these law- abiding citizens, which our Founders--as Judge Carter correctly stated, are exercising their second amendment right to own and bear arms. They are doing that, and now our government is calling them right-wing extremists? We need to be on this floor tonight. We need to be outraged. And furthermore, we need answers, as Mr. Brady said, from the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. What did she really mean? Does she agree with this report? Does she recant this report? If not, she should resign.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank you, Judge Carter, for holding this important forum this evening. I think, just as Mrs. Foxx said of North Carolina, we absolutely can hardly believe that we're in this day and time when our own United States Government and our own Secretary of Homeland Security is illustrating a very different definition of words. I think a lot of us were shocked when about a month ago the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, came out and said that she would no longer call terrorists, what we know as terrorists, what the average American knows as terrorists--Osama bin Laden, people who actually committed and planned terrorist attacks on American soil and have, in fact, committed those attacks on American soil--she said for purposes, and I quote--she was in an interview with a German paper, and she was asked about the word ``terrorism'' and she said that she never--the questioner said, ``You never mentioned the word `terrorism.' Does Islamic terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?'' And the Secretary said, ``Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech although, I did not use the word `terrorism.' I referred to man-caused disasters.'' And I think it's important for the record to note she said that with a straight face. She decided not to use the word ``terrorism'' but ``man-caused disaster.'' ``That is, perhaps,'' the Secretary said, ``only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.'' Now, that's pretty interesting because the Secretary of Homeland Security was very careful to nuance her words. She didn't want to upset other countries, she didn't want to upset the terrorists by calling them ``terrorists.'' So our Secretary of Homeland Security was very, very careful that she would no longer use the word ``terrorism'' and that she would very carefully nuance her words. Well, while she was making that statement, we could only presume a report was being issued, and the report that was being issued by Secretary Janet Napolitano's Department and it's called--we have it here. It's available to Americans now, and we will all be linking to it on our Web sites, I am sure--Right-Wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. Now, this is interesting. Here we have the specter of our own Homeland Security Secretary who is very reluctant to call actual terrorists ``terrorists,'' so we're all told now we have to wipe that dictionary definition clean. We have to call them manmade disasters, and we have to call acts of war ``overseas contingencies.'' So we're now being told to alter and change our definition of words. While on the same hand she, under her authority, is issuing a right-wing extremism guide. This is an assessment. This was just released. I was really curious about this. It was released the day before all of the TEA parties occurred here in the United States talking about right-wing extremism. What is very interesting is there was no reluctance to have any nuancing of any words in this report. I didn't see any, and I am sure that the judge from Texas, Judge Carter, I don't see you saw any extremist, any willingness to have nuance of these words. As a matter of fact, as I was going through this document--and I invite every American to please go through this document--I am reading the words, ``domestic right-wing terrorists.'' She is presuming that those who are on the right wing who hold conservative views apparently are not only terrorists, they are domestic terrorists here in this country. And she goes on in item after item in this document, right-wing extremists, right-wing extremists, domestic terrorists, right-wing extremists. This sounds pretty serious. It must be that Osama bin Laden's guys got through the border. They are here. That must be the domestic terrorists she is talking about. Or maybe she is talking about those violent Mexican gangs. Maybe they got over the border. Maybe those are the domestic right-wing terrorists. Or perhaps the Secretary of Homeland Security is talking about those detainees down in Gitmo that are going to be released from Gitmo and put here on American soil. Maybe that's who the Secretary of Homeland Security is talking about. But I don't think so. And the reason I think Mrs. Foxx doesn't think so and why Mr. Carter doesn't think so, why Mr. Brady doesn't think so, why Mr. Burgess doesn't think so is because of the words that the Homeland Security Secretary states in this article. Now, it's unclassified, but it is for official use only. I don't think the Department of Homeland Security had any idea that the American people were going to have access to this document because it says quite simply this, that who they are concerned about are returning military veterans. Now can you believe this? Every one of us, I think, are horrified when we hear this. Probably some of the most patriotic people that we know of are returning military veterans. They laid their lives down for you and for me and for this great country. No one has more love for this country than a returning military veteran. And here we have our own Department of Homeland Security calling these people potential domestic extremists, terrorists? This is unbelievable. I don't think any of us can believe it. And I think we're at the point now where we need to have a hearing, we need to have our Director of Homeland Security in front of the Members of Congress, call her to account, ask her why on multiple occasions in this document she calls people who believe in the sanctity of life, who believe in owning firearms, who believe in serving their country in the military and coming back who are very concerned about the policies that this Nation is embarking on, spending too much money, taxing too much, it's all listed right here. These are the domestic right-wing extremists. That is so frightening that we need to have the Secretary of Homeland Security before the Members of Congress and ask her, does she really believe this? Is this really her opinion? But if it is, I think it would be imperative and incumbent upon us to ask for her resignation. It is not too soon to do that. Because to consider whole blocks of the American electorate somehow a threat to American security--because I didn't notice any nuance in this document. There was no being careful. There was no saying, you know, we need to recognize and understand that there might be a difference of opinion, that there might be diversity of public opinion on these issues. There is no nuancing about that in this document. It is like a hammer coming down on interest group after interest group that apparently the Obama administration perceives as a threat.

Mrs. BACHMANN. That's exactly right.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give tribute to the all- American public library upon completion of National Library Week. It was a week filled with activities and celebration designed to highlight the important role libraries and librarians play in our lives. Based on a theme of ``Worlds connect @ your library,'' libraries across the nation hosted contests and presentations to educate and entertain readers of all ages. Since 1958, National Library Week has been part of the American Library Association's goal of ``encouraging people to read in their increasing leisure time.'' It was and has been an impressive goal and today we see libraries full of readers, taking on new challenges and expanding the education of their communities. This week was an opportunity to bring in new library patrons and to encourage reading as part of everyday life. Former First Lady, Laura Bush, herself a librarian by profession, once said this of our libraries: ``Libraries allow children to ask questions about the world and find the answers. And the wonderful thing is that once a child learns to use a library, the doors to learning are always open.'' Mr. Speaker, I speak today to honor the work libraries and librarians provide not only children but all in their communities. They are more than buildings that house books and people that help us find resources. They are places to discover and imagine with neighbors gladly serving their fellow citizens in an expanding and challenging world.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my support to H. Con. Res. 101 that would forever honor America's 40th President, Ronald Reagan. Both as Governor of California and as our nation's Chief Executive, Reagan faced domestic and international struggles with optimism and decorum that assured us all, ``It's morning again in America.'' President Reagan captured the hearts and minds of Americans by following in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers in advocating less government, private enterprise and a managed budgetary approach. At a time when we are unsure of our economic future and deal precariously with the nations of the world, a figure of Reagan would serve as a simple reminder that confidence in our country's potential is necessary to our success today. President Reagan once told us, ``I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise to show my support for honoring President Reagan in this way. It is a gesture appropriate to the legacy he left us as a leader and as an American.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last few weeks, President Obama made the statement while in a foreign country that we are not a Christian Nation, that we are not a Jewish Nation or a Muslim Nation. He said we are citizens with shared values. Upon President Obama's return to the United States, he went to Georgetown University, a great Catholic school of higher learning. His staff, it is reported, requested that the Catholic university cover up the image of Christ on the cross before President Obama would give his speech at Georgetown. I don't know that any previous President, Mr. Speaker, has ever made such a request. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if President Abraham Lincoln, one of President Obama's heroes, would have said overseas that he believed America was a Nation of secularists, or would President Abraham Lincoln have said, America is a Nation which tolerates all faiths, but which is populated primarily by Christians. President Lincoln felt quite differently than President Obama. Rather than proclaiming the United States a Nation of secularists, President Lincoln warned the people of America to not forget God. In fact, it was on May 30, 1863, that President Abraham Lincoln said, as part of his proclamation for a National Day of Prayer and Fasting, and I quote, Mr. Speaker: ``We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own . . . It behooves us then,'' said President Lincoln, ``to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.'' And, Mr. Speaker, likewise, as President Obama insisted a Catholic university cover the image of Christ during the Easter season while he spoke at that school, George Washington, our first President, demonstrated that he was not offended by the image of the risen Christ. In fact, our Nation's first President let his views be known quite clearly on his inauguration by a prayer which George Washington himself gave at his inauguration. He said, and I quote, Mr. Speaker: ``Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large. And finally, that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.'' Mr. Speaker, our first President, George Washington, insisted on his inauguration day as the first President of this great country, that unless the citizens of our country imitate the example of Jesus Christ, that we would not be a happy Nation. What a clear contrast between our first President and our current President. And with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think it's so important, on behalf of the Prayer Caucus of this Congress that, as the National Day of Prayer approaches, that all American citizens do what our first President prayed in his inaugural prayer, and what President Lincoln prayed as well in his address and in his proclamation, that we would do well to imitate the life and example of Jesus Christ, and we would do well to humbly not forget God, but to humble ourselves before an Almighty God and not expect that it is we ourselves that have created these blessings for our country, but that it is a gracious heavenly God who holds our Nation in His hands.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, in Minnesota, we have had, historically, a very low level of unemployment. However, now, with the economy in the condition it is in, Minnesota is very unusual; we are upwards of 8 percent unemployment. In my largest city, we are looking at approximately 10 percent unemployment. In one of my great rural counties, we are also at about 10 percent level of unemployment. In Minnesota, that is absolutely unheard of. And I would also refer to the map that the gentleman from Indiana is holding. This is a wealth redistribution scheme--some people would call that socialism. This is a wealth redistribution scheme. The reason why I say that is because the individuals in the United States that live in the heartland will be paying the tax, much of which will be redistributed to States on the coast, which will be paying negligible tax. And so all of that money will be taken out of the area in the United States that is very hard hit by this economy and transferred to Washington, D.C. and redistributed to other States. This is adding insult to injury to an already painful process that a lot of people are going through. And that is why no one can understand this right now. I think no more clear statement needs to be said than that which our President stated perhaps about 4 or 5 weeks ago when he stated, he will have--this is a nonnegotiable. He wants this cap-and- tax. This is President Obama's highest priority. He wants this passed. But he also said that our economy couldn't take the imposition of this tax right now; it couldn't take it because our economy is vulnerable. So he is saying that he wants to delay imposition of this tax until 2012. What does that tell the American people? The American people are smarter than that. They recognize this is a tremendous burden on their pocketbook and a job killer and, therefore, it should be a deal killer here in the Congress. And I know for you this is, for me this is. We have got to get to a better solution. Thank God we have one.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank so much my colleague, Mr. Pence from Indiana, for yielding to me for 5 minutes. And I want to recognize and honor our colleague, Mr. Pete Olson.He's a wonderful freshman, and he's focused exactly on where we should be focusing, and that's on solutions. We have a great solution to America's current energy crisis, and we do have one. And the great news is that the answer is here in our backyard. We have more coal in the United States than any other country in the world. We have abundant sources of natural gas. We have abundant sources of hydropower. We have abundant sources of wind, of solar. We have oil reserves. We have so much here in our backyard. Instead of talking about a negative, draining our economy with the new cap-and-tax proposals, we could be here on this floor this evening talking about how we can create millions of new American jobs, high- paying jobs; be the lead exporter in the world of energy. That is the American story, and that's part of America's greatness. Unfortunately, the Obama administration, Mr. Speaker, as well as the Democrat majority that runs this body, is proposing a quite different solution. It's the new cap-and-tax proposal. But people talk about cap-and-tax and they aren't sure exactly what we're talking about. Let's get back to step one: What is the problem? Why did we have to have this tax in the first place? It's about carbon dioxide. Well, what is carbon dioxide? Let us just go to a fundamental question. Carbon dioxide, Mr. Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular life cycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can't even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that's on the Earth, to the fowls that fly in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as a part of the fundamental life cycle of Earth. As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful, but there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. There isn't one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas. It is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful. It is a part of Earth's life cycle. And yet we're being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the Earth. We're told the crux of this problem is human activity. It's human actions that are creating more carbon dioxide. Is that true or false? Well, carbon dioxide is a natural part of the Earth's atmosphere. But carbon dioxide is perhaps 3 percent of the total atmosphere that's in the Earth. So if you take a pie chart and all of Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide is perhaps 3 percent of that total. What part of human activity creates carbon dioxide? If carbon dioxide is a negligible gas and it's only 3 percent of Earth's atmosphere, what part is human activity? Human activity contributes perhaps 3 percent of the 3 percent. In other words, human activity is maybe 3 percent contributing to the 3 percent of carbon dioxide that's in Earth's atmosphere. It's so negligible; it's a fraction of a fraction of a percent. It can hardly be quantified. But let's go ahead and give those who believe in the global warming theory, let's give them their due. And let's say that former Vice President Al Gore is completely right in all of his premises. Let's give him his every premise that he believes on carbon dioxide and that emissions are rising here on planet Earth. Let's give him every premise. And as we give him every premise, let's also give former Vice President Gore every solution that he believes the United States should embrace to address global warming: that we need to reduce our standard of living, tax our people, hike up the taxes. Let's say we put into place every solution that Vice President Gore has put forth for our country. Even if we give Vice President Gore his premise, even if we give him his solution, what will be the result? Under his own figures, under Al Gore's own figures, we would reduce the amount of carbon emissions in Earth's atmosphere by the year 2095--the end of this century--we would reduce them by less than seven-hundredths of 1 percent. In other words, the temperature of Earth would drop less than seven-hundredths of 1 percent by the year 2095, and we would be essentially bankrupting our economy to do that. Certainly we would be dramatically lowering the American standard of living. What will this mean? As my colleague, Mike Pence, has said, the American people will be paying not once for their electric bill; they will be paying twice. The American people will be paying double. They will be paying double for their electric bill; they will be paying increased prices at the gas pump, increased prices at the grocery store. They will be paying increased prices when they go to Target or Kohl's to buy clothing or goods for their family or to Wal-Mart. When they go to buy furniture, the prices will be included. Why? Because energy touches every part of American life. There is no part of American life or life anywhere on the planet that energy doesn't touch. What will that mean? That will mean dramatic job losses. As a matter of fact, a study in Spain was concluded and it talked about new green jobs that were created. For every green job that was created in Spain, 2.2 jobs were lost in Spain. Is that what we want in the United States, create green jobs only to see a dramatic reduction in American jobs? As my colleague, Mr. Pence, said, the American heartland--I represent the great State of Minnesota--we can't afford that. And the chart that Congressman Pence pointed to stated in the Heritage Study that Minnesota would lead the Nation in job losses if this new cap-and- tax situation was put into place, is that what America wants? I don't think so. When you look at the fact that carbon dioxide is a natural Earth substance, part of Earth's life cycle, that human activity only contributes 3 percent of 3 percent, so negligible that even if we give the global warming enthusiasts every premise and put into place every prescription, that even so, by the year 2095, we will only reduce carbon dioxide emissions less than seven-hundredths of a percent. And we are willing to export American jobs to do that and do that in spite of knowing that China and India have already declared, We're not in. We're not in. So you might as well call President Obama's and the Democrats' cap-and-tax plan the ``India and China job stimulus plan'' because that's exactly what this will mean for the American economy. We can do so much better. As our colleague, Pete Olson, said, we can, instead, embrace American energy solutions and create more natural gas, more oil, more coal, cleaner ways of heating and electrifying our Nation. That's not the way President Obama wants to go. President Obama said you can build a new coal plant but we will bankrupt you. As my colleague, Mike Pence, said, your electricity prices will skyrocket. It doesn't have to be that way. I am so excited about solutions that we can have in our country, and that would be to make life better for the average American by reducing America's energy cost. This is reality. This is the good news. It's available to you, and the Republicans have a plan to do just that. I yield back to my colleague from Indiana to tell more of the positive solution and the concerns that we have about this new cap-and- tax. As we go forward in the next weeks, we want to let the American people know, Mr. Speaker, that there are solutions to this problem, that we don't have to reduce America's standard of living. With that, I would yield back to my colleague and thank him with much appreciation for hosting this remarkable hour this evening.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Marvin Buchholz of Ham Lake, Minnesota for his 40 years of dedicated service to the Ham Lake Fire Department. A resident of Ham Lake his entire life, Marvin is the last remaining charter member of the department. Since its inception in 1969, the Ham Lake Fire Department has seen many firefighters come and go, but every one of them has known Marvin. Marvin's first firefighting experience was as a high school student. As his school bus passed by a grass fire, members of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources asked the bus riders to help put the blaze out. As the close-knit community expanded, the fire department was established and its responsibilities grew. They started with grass fires and are now trained to handle natural disasters and domestic terrorism. In a way familiar to many Ham Lake residents, Marvin explains, ``The fire department is advancing further and further and further than just putting the wet stuff on the red stuff.'' Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Marvin Buchholz for demonstrating honor and loyalty to the Ham Lake Fire Department for 40 years. As a District Chief, Marvin has seen more calls to service than any other department firefighter and deserves our sincerest appreciation.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share the inspirational story of Carol LaFleur, a resident of Brooklyn Park, MN who changed her life and is now working to change others' lives for the better as well. Mrs. LaFleur has experienced a great deal of hardship throughout her life, but after discovering the gift of education, she completely turned her life around. Mrs. LaFleur uses her life experiences to guide others and advocate for education. In her time outside of the classroom, she speaks and mentors on issues of mental health, sexual abuse, and disability. In addition, she volunteers for these and multiple other causes. She sets a great example for all Americans, giving her time without asking for anything back. In addition to all of her accomplishments and hours of volunteerism, she has found an outlet in writing about her experiences. She has been honored by the Arts in Recovery Program, who chose her essay to be in its exhibit booth online and at the St. Paul Art Crawl. Madam Speaker, Carol LaFleur is an inspiration, a positive influence for so many who need hope, and a true public servant. She is a great example of the enduring American spirit.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank Mr. Dreier, the gentleman from California, for yielding. It is clear and it is true for the American people we have a very clear choice. It could not be more crystal clear, the future that is being offered to the American people by the Democrats, the future, Madam Speaker, that is being offered by the Republicans. And it is illustrated by this chart. This is the future that the Democrats have planned for the next generation. And I would put one word out before this body and before the American people: it is the word ``compassion.'' When we look at children and when we look at the next generation and we think of the word ``compassion,'' what does compassion have to do with children when we look at this? This is the future for our children? Debt levels that will be so high that we are literally on this floor forging shackles and chains for today's 5-year- olds, 5-year-olds who, when they come into their peak earning years, would be paying tax rates of 65 percent; who, if they are a business owner, will be paying 85 percent; who, if they are at the lowest income strata, will be paying income tax rates of 25 percent. Who, Madam Speaker, would be getting out of bed in the morning to go and put their capital at risk and their lives at risk working 14 hours a day to pay this government 85 percent of their income? And that is before, Madam Speaker, this budget is put into effect. Or, Madam Speaker, I ask the question on compassion, on compassion for today's 5- year-olds, is the budget alternative the Republicans are putting forward the more compassionate budget? Is this not, in fact, the budget that gives hope for America's 5-year-olds and opportunity for America's 5-year-olds? Where they could, instead of paying a tax rate that would be 85 percent or 50 percent, see their tax rate, in fact, lowered, so the United States would no longer be the country of punishing debt burden but the country of opportunity for today's 5-year-olds.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Senate Amendments to H.R. 1388, the GIVE Act. I cannot vote for a bill that authorizes millions of dollars to programs which the Office of Management and Budget deems as ``Not Performing: Results Not Demonstrated'' and ``Not Performing: Ineffective.'' But I would like to recognize some of the positive programs that are caught up in this bad mix, especially the Foster Grandparent Program and mentoring programs for foster youth. The Foster Grandparent Program provides a great service to children who may not have a cohesive family to provide them with reliable mentors. The participants in this program give their time to mentor, tutor, and share experiences with children who need a positive adult figure in their life. I commend Senator Mary Landrieu for drawing attention to a worthy program to mentor foster youth with her amendment. As with the Foster Grandparent Program, it is essential for young people to have a consistent outlet and source of advice in their life. My husband and I were foster parents for 23 troubled teens. These programs provide a great service to children who may not otherwise have a consistent guide in their lives. I would be amiss to not acknowledge the positive, effective programs included in this bill. Regrettably, the good is far outweighed by the bad and I must oppose this misguided legislation.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield, I think it is even more than just taking a look at another bailout. There is certainly another bailout on the horizon. The President even indicated as much in his remarks today. He has already told these companies what it is going to be. Chrysler would get $6 billion if Chrysler, essentially, goes away and lets Fiat buy them out. That is what is going to happen. The American people need to realize this. Under President Obama's plan, Chrysler will be history, and Fiat will come in. A foreign company will come into the United States, will purchase Chrysler, and then we taxpayers are expected to pony up $6 billion to a foreign company to give them the capital that they need. Just so the American people know, these are President Obama's words today: He said, ``But just in case there's still nagging doubts, let me say it as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you'll be able to get your car serviced and repaired just like always. Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been because, starting today, the United States Government will stand behind your warranty.'' So how do you like them apples? Here we have, Mr. Speaker, the United States of America standing up almost like a used car dealer, saying, ``Don't you worry. The United States Government is going to back the car warranty on your car. So go down to the GM. Buy yourself an Impala because the United States Government is going to stand by your 3-year warranty, and if you're really good, maybe it will be a 5-year warranty.'' So here you have the United States Government intervening, not only like the Wall Street Journal said--by lopping off the head of the CEO of General Motors, now called Government Motors--but now we have the Federal Government deciding it's going to be the pitchman, and it's going to back your warranty. In fact, not only that, but President Obama said, ``We recognize there's a weakness in our economy.'' He said, ``To support demand for car sales in this period, I am directing my team to take several steps. Here is the first one: We're going to take money from the stimulus to purchase government cars as quick as we can for Federal bureaucrats.'' So this is going to give a lot of aid and comfort to the American people in knowing that their bureaucrat is going to be driving a brand new car, purchased at government expense. So their taxes are going to have to go up to buy cars for bureaucrats. ``Number 2: We're going to accelerate our efforts through the Treasury Department.'' Now, I thought the Treasury Department had quite a bit on its plate right now. They're not even able to fill positions in their office, but now they're going to open up a brand new consumer lending department rather than have the car companies', like GM's auto finance. They are gone. The Treasury Department, which is the new investment bank in the United States, is now the new consumer and business lending initiative. Our Treasury Secretary, who, apparently, doesn't have enough to do is now going to be the new loan officer for the cars in the United States, but it gets better. Third, the IRS, which is now our new friend under President Obama, will be the new marketing arm of the Federal Government because they are going to launch a campaign to alert consumers of a new tax benefit for car purchases made between February 16 and the end of this year. If this doesn't sound like an ad you would see on late night TV: If you buy a car this year, we will deduct the cost of sales and excise taxes. In fact, we think we will sell 100,000 new cars. Mr. Speaker, Detroit sells millions of cars every year. So we are going to have the Federal Government take over these two car manufacturers so they can sell 100,000 new cars? That would be a bad day for Detroit if that's what they would all sell, but that's not the end of it. Then the President went on to say today, ``Several Members of Congress have proposed an even more ambitious incentive program to increase car sales while modernizing our fleet.'' That is really going to comfort the American people in knowing that Congress has come up with a plan to sell cars to the American people, and such fleet modernization programs will provide generous credit to consumers who turn in old, less fuel-efficient cars and who purchase cleaner cars. Again, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this is so pathetic to think that now Congress is going to come up with a way to sell cars better than the private markets and that we are going to have bureaucrats driving new cars while the American people are limping along in their old cars. They cannot afford to buy cars. This is unbelievable. I urge the American people to download the President's remarks from today. This has very little to do with the free market. It has everything to do with failed Eastern European industrialized policy. This is not what the American people want. They want their taxes cut. They want jobs in the United States, and they want to be able to have less burdens on their backs from regulations. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you so much, Mr. Gingrey. We have several other things to talk about that occurred today, one of which was talked about, I think, in almost every paper across the United States, as well as every media outlet. On the Wall Street Journal today the headline today was ``Government Forces Out Wagoner at GM.'' This really is unprecedented. And Mr. Speaker, I just need to read the first opening paragraph. It says, ``The Obama administration used the threat of withholding more bailout money to force out General Motors Corporation chief executives, which marked one of the most dramatic government interventions in private industry since the economic crisis began last year.'' Now, this is in the United States. We have the presidency, under some authority, pushing out a CEO, the head of the largest car manufacturer in the United States. This goes on to say, ``The government has demanded the ouster of the head of AIG, American International Group, but only as it took a majority shareholder position.'' In this case, in GM, the administration has ousted a major CEO as part of an ongoing restructuring. When we thought we couldn't be outraged any more, when we thought we wouldn't see anything more audacious, we see it yet again. Here is a company, Mr. Speaker, where we have the President deciding who's going to lead the company and who isn't going to lead the company. And I was so curious today, I listened to President Obama's remarks that he made. This is from the White House. I encourage all Americans to go and read these remarks for themselves. It's remarks by the President on the American automotive industry. I don't think we've ever seen anything quite like this. It's emblematic of where this administration is taking the American taxpayer in this budget. Now we're seeing the President and the Democrat-controlled Congress wanting to run virtually every aspect of American's lives, from health care, every aspect of health care, which is 18 percent of our economy, to running the banking system, to running the largest insurance company in the United States, to running the secondary mortgage market, and now to running the largest automobile company in America and the second largest automobile company in America. Today, President Obama said, ``We cannot and must not, we will not let our auto industry vanish,'' which is great. And I'm wondering how he'll do it. With cutting taxes? I've read his speech. There's nothing here about cutting taxes. With cutting regulations maybe. That might help Detroit. There's nothing in here about cutting regulations. How about cheaper energy? Wasn't that a big problem last July when gas prices were soaring over $4 a gallon on their way to 6, 8, who knows what? Maybe cheaper energy. Maybe we'll be able to start getting that oil, the shale oil out of the Western Rocky area. Maybe cheaper oil. No, there's nothing in these remarks about cheaper American oil. Nothing at all. In fact, what we see is just the opposite. We see the President of the United States intervening personally to topple the head of GM. And then we see the President intervening personally to take a hand at rewriting the restructuring of these two once great American car companies. And as a matter of fact, he goes on to say that he's made a decision to have these car companies become, telling them what they're going to produce with their products with the new clean car companies. And, in fact, he goes on to say that the car industry isn't moving in the right direction. He's going to decide what that direction is. And it's not moving fast enough. The President is going to decide how fast it's going to move. He goes on to say, the United States government has no interest in running GM. But then in the next line he says, but we're going to give GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes. He goes on to say that General Motors, which I think now we'll have to call Government Motors after this move, that the new General Motors is going to have to work together with the Obama administration to clean up their balance sheets, consolidate unprofitable brands, and figure out what future investments they're going to make. But then he goes on to Chrysler, and the President says this. ``The situation at Chrysler is more challenging. It's with deep reluctance that we've determined, after careful review, that Chrysler needs a partner to remain viable.'' And we find out that the President has already worked with an international car manufacturer, Fiat Motors, and he wants Fiat Motors to come in, merge with Chrysler. And then, upon a successful merger, under President Obama's plan, then the American taxpayer will be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to come in with $6 billion. And now the company will be owned by Fiat, a foreign company, located in the United States, but with $6 billion in American taxpayer money. Mr. Speaker, the President's remarks today are nothing more than industrial policy that you would see in Eastern bloc nations. I urge every American to download the President's comments that he made today. This is the future that we are looking at in the United States. It is not good enough to have the Federal Government just take over banks, to just take over insurance companies, to just take over secondary mortgage markets, to just bankrupt our country, and to punish with new energy tax increases. Now the American Government is thinking it is smarter than car companies, and they are going to approve plans, decide which product, and then the American people are going to come in and buy the cars--buy fleets for bureaucrats. That is in President Obama's remarks. American people will be buying new cars for bureaucrats. That is how we are going to bail out Detroit. Now, this would be humorous if it were not so serious. This is all part of President Obama's plan. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: this has absolutely nothing to do with free markets. Nothing. That is why the Chinese Communists are very nervous right now about the American economy, because they kind of like the way our free markets work. Otherwise, they would have invested in Communist countries; they would have invested in socialist countries, but they chose to invest in a free market country, but now the Chinese Communists are nervous, and they are telling President Obama, we're not too sure about your investments, and European socialists are saying the same thing: We're not too sure about your investments, because what is it that the President now, Mr. Speaker, is embracing? He is embarking upon an industrial policy that this country was smart enough to have nothing to do with. I encourage the American people: you need to download President Obama's remarks today that he made from the White House on the United States essentially taking over and running roughshod over GM and Chrysler. With that, I would like to hand it back to my colleague from Georgia.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) because in Investor's Business Daily today, they had a chart that perfectly illustrated what you were saying with the Great Depression. If you look at the skyrocketing prices that we will see under a tariff-based system and the skyrocketing taxes and the job losses, those three together are the great indicators of another Great Depression. We are not here fear-mongering. That is not what we are interested in doing. But what we are doing is laying the table for the Obama administration's budget. The Democrats control the House and Senate. They are laying out the budget this week for this body to take a vote on. And the specter of having leakage, which is massive outsourcing of jobs, high taxes and high prices, that is not what the American people are asking for. We are joined this evening by Dr. Phil Gingrey, a gentleman from Georgia who is a tremendous advocate for free markets and for free markets and health care who is down here on the floor helping us frequently on these measures. And Dr. Gingrey, I now yield to you so we can go back and forth. We would love to hear what you have to say on this subject of the budget.

Mrs. BACHMANN. They will jack up.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Actually, that was in the Wall Street Journal today and also in Investor's Business Daily, the Energy Secretary, Mr. Chu, had made that comment about tariffs. Now this is incredible, because if you look back in history to the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of the biggest problems that led to prolonged depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Now this is something that is being suggested by our Energy Secretary, Mr. Chu, new tariffs. And what he is suggesting is that if other countries don't participate in this new cap-and-tax system, then the United States would charge tariffs equal to what those countries would have to pay in cap-and-tax systems. So we are looking at erecting profound new tariffs that will completely change the United States economy.

Mrs. BACHMANN. And now that has been amended to $2 trillion because the President's chief deputy on this issue, Jason, I can't remember his last name, his senior aide on the issue of the new global warming energy tax, cap and tax, made the statement last week that it isn't $646 billion that the place marker is at. It is actually $2 trillion in new taxes.

Mrs. BACHMANN. So that means out of a dollar, Mr. Garrett, that 27 cents of every dollar that is spent in the United States is spent by government?

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that privilege. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to be here this evening and the opportunity to be able to address the American people. We had a rather extraordinary day yesterday and today with what we have seen happening in our Nation that has really been extraordinary throughout 2009. We have seen such tremendous differences take place. The American people are very concerned, and rightly so, about our economy. They are wondering how the economy will turn around, when it will turn around, when their own personal fortunes will change; and they have seen some extraordinary things take place, Mr. Speaker. The American people have seen the stimulus plan that came through, which was about $1.1 trillion in spending that was passed by this body, signed by the President of the United States, an extraordinary historic level of spending that we have never seen before just to goose our economy, get it going so that we can get back to where we need to be, to get job creation. That is what people want to see. We all the want to see that. But we all held our breath. I voted against the stimulus bill. We held our breath thinking, how in the world would we ever begin to replace all of that money that we are about to spend? Because, as everyone knows, there is no vault here in Washington, D.C., that holds $1.1 trillion that we can just send out to the American people. There is no money there. We have to go somewhere to get that money. We either have to tax it from the American people and bring it to Washington, D.C., and then spread it around so that other people can have it, or we have to borrow it from other countries like China, for instance, who, quite recently, has said to our President that China is very concerned. The specter of the Chinese communists lecturing the United States on whether or not they feel comfortable about their investment here in the United States is really quite a first. And now, we have seen the European socialists also lecture the United States saying they are worried. As a matter of fact, we saw the Premier from Czechoslovakia say that the road the United States is taking, in his words, is the road to hell. He doesn't want to see the European socialists go down that road as well. So as the G-20 is about to come together in London to meet and talk about this global economic meltdown, we have seen quite a specter occur. We have seen the Prime Minister from England come here to the United States, as a matter of fact, stand here in this body and address a joint session of Congress and essentially call for a global cooperation to have a global answer to this stimulus. That makes a lot of Americans quite nervous when we hear that kind of rhetoric. Then, just recently we heard also from a leader down in the Latin American countries say that it is people with blonde hair and blue eyes that have caused this economic meltdown. Of course, that is an outrage to make a statement like that. All of these things the American people have been seeing, and they have been thinking about them, wondering, what does all of this mean? And they saw again this body spend $1.1 trillion, and then shortly after that spend $410 billion in a budget spending bill that will just spend through this year of 2009. But in that bill, they saw almost 9,000 earmarks in that bill. And the American people said: Now, wait a minute. I can't spend that kind of money. As a matter of fact, the American people said: Look, I saved 5 percent of my income in January, a historic high of savings for Americans. Just a year ago or so, Americans had a negative savings rate of .1 percent. Now, Americans have been doing just the reverse. They have been doing what most normal people do when they are in an economic situation of fear. They decide to pull back on their spending, they pull in, and they say, I had better think twice before I buy that fancy cup of coffee. I had better think twice before I decide to plunk down money and buy a new car. They think twice about what they are going to do about changing their home environment and their situation, because they are worried. They are worried about whether they will have a job next week or next month or next year. So it is very difficult right now, Mr. Speaker, for the American people to make financial commitments when they look at the level of spending that is going on around them. So what are they doing? They are saving. Just this last month we saw that the American people in the month of February were saving at a rate of 4.5 percent. That is a good thing. I think it is a good thing the American people are showing the example for the United States Congress and for the President to say, this is what we need to do. Instead of spending money we don't have on a personal level, on a Federal level, on a State level, on a local level, the American people are living through their own lifestyles and their own choices what they wish their government would replicate, and that is this: Start pulling back on the spending. And what has this government done? What has the Obama presidency done, Mr. Speaker? What has this body done, Mr. Speaker, the House and the Senate? We have done just the opposite of what the American people are doing. The Democrat-controlled Congress and the President have made an unprecedented decision to spend money hand over fist, $1.1 trillion on stimulus spending money, $410 billion on budget spending for the rest of the year, along with all of the other money that has been going out the door. Now, this week we have the President asking the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to spend, get this, $4 trillion; commit the American people to spending $4 trillion in the upcoming budget. This is almost beyond comprehension, $4 trillion. What does that work out to? For 300 million Americans, that is an immediate debt burden of $13,000 per American. Every man, woman, and child in America would have that immediate debt burden placed on their shoulders when they can't begin to afford what the Congress has already been spending, historic levels of spending. $4 trillion? And it isn't just the spending alone; it is what is being spent on. We are looking at socialized medicine for the first time in the United States, socialized medicine coming in through this bill. And in one vote, the Speaker of the House and the President are asking this body, the people's House, the United States House of Representatives to spend $4 trillion of their money for socialized medicine. So serious is socialized medicine that we need to spend some time on that issue, we need to spend some serious time. Mr. Speaker, I just downloaded off of the Internet today stories about just two countries where socialized medicine was passed into the law and implemented, in the United Kingdom in England and Scotland and Wales, and also in Canada. I have just this many stories chronicling just the last year or so of headlines of what socialized medicine has looked like in those English-speaking neighbors of ours, in Canada to the north and in the United Kingdom. I think it is instructive for the United States Congress to take a look at what the experience has been of other countries, and I hope we have time to get into some of these stories about what socialized medicine has looked like in these other English-speaking Nations. Well, that isn't all, Mr. Speaker, socialized medicine and the grand leap forward into socialism. We are also looking at the specter of tremendous new taxes, punishing new taxes, not just for some, not just for 5 percent as President Obama had promised, but for 100 percent of the American people. When the President of the United States stood here in this body, stood right there at the lectern looking out at the joint session of Congress where Cabinet members were present and where the American people watched in a historic number, 40 million Americans watched, heard the President of the United States say quite clearly to them in a straightforward manner he would not increase taxes on 95 percent of the American people. And in the same evening and in the same address to the American people, the President contradicted himself, Mr. Speaker, with these words when he said he was committed to putting into place the cap-and-trade system, the new global warming energy tax, which will now be a tax on 100 percent of all Americans. And how is that? It will be felt in the form of our energy bills. Whether we have electric bills every month that we pay or whether we have gas bills that we pay every month, those bills in many parts of the country will in fact double. I come from the State of Minnesota. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, we are expected to have 12 inches of snow in Minnesota. We have had quite a week. We had a horrible flood situation up in the Fargo-Moorhead region. Thank God, we saw that recede a little bit. It wasn't as bad as we thought it was going to be. People's prayers were answered. On the front page this morning of the Twin Cities newspaper we saw a beautiful picture of the Assemblies of God Church up in the Fargo-Moorhead region; they had been praying all weekend that God would withhold the waters. And God clearly answered those prayers, Mr. Speaker. Those cities have not been devastated as much was we once thought they would be. But the devastation that we are looking at now again is in this area of taxing. And in Minnesota, as I said, we are seeing 12 inches of snow in the Twin Cities area and in southern Minnesota in particular, maybe 10 inches in northern Minnesota. But in Minnesota, Mr. Speaker, the people don't have a choice. Just like in many regions across the United States, the people don't have a choice. They have to turn on their air conditioning in the summer and they have to turn on their furnaces in the winter; otherwise, life is simply unbearable. And what will President Obama and the Democrat's budget look like here in this Chamber? Well, this week, Mr. Speaker, President Obama and the Democrats that control the House and the Senate are forcing a vote on this body that would mandate that we would have increases in everyone's electric bills. And whether it comes in this budget bill or in a separate bill, President Obama made it clear; he made it very clear last week when he had his press conference, Mr. Speaker, when he said this: It is not negotiable to leave out this energy tax. He is insisting that the American people pay the energy tax. And in Minnesota, we are calculated to see a doubling in our energy bills. A doubling, Mr. Speaker. This is unheard of. I don't know where people in Minnesota will go. We are experiencing very high, unusual rates of unemployment. Minnesota is a diversified economy. We are such a great State with awesome employers, but for the first time in perhaps 25 years we have seen unemployment in a State as diverse as Minnesota spike. In one of my largest cities, Mr. Speaker, I was told last week by one of my constituents that, in my largest city, that we are seeing unemployment now at 9.8 percent. In one of my counties, Mr. Speaker, I was told that one of my counties has unemployment now reaching 10 percent. Where are these people going to go, Mr. Speaker, when this body decides to pass a budget that will tax them $4 trillion, that will impose out a doubling on their energy bills? What are families going to do? My husband and I are in a couple's Bible study, Mr. Speaker. And I was so sad to learn this winter in this couple's Bible study that another couple in one of the family members' churches was turning their heat down to 55 degrees. That is cold, Mr. Speaker. They have little children in their home. And this couple told us their daughter didn't want to go over after school and play in this family's home because it was going to be too cold for her. The last time she had been there visiting her girlfriend, the house was set so cold she was uncomfortable. But this family didn't know what to do. They were worried, they were afraid, they were scared because the husband had lost his job and the wife had lost their job, and they were trying to keep their kids warm. But they had a very difficult time doing it, so they were turning their heat down. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, if I have to go back to the sixth district of Minnesota and tell the people in my district that President Obama and the Democrats that run this Chamber have asked me to vote on a bill that would double their energy tax bill? They are at home now, Mr. Speaker, with 55 degrees just trying to keep their kids warm, figuring out some way to get through this very long winter, and now I have to go home and tell them that this body wants to impose a burden on them that would double their tax bill? I can't do that. And I won't do that. I won't vote for a measure like that. It won't happen. And my bet is that a lot of other Members are going to see it that way too. My bet is, Mr. Speaker, that when we go home after this week and talk to our constituents, they are going to look at us, Mr. Speaker, and they are going to say, are you crazy? Were you crazy in this economic climate to heap yet one more burden on me? It reminds me of that Biblical story, Mr. Speaker, where Pharaoh said to the Hebrew children, who were slaves in Egypt, when he said to them, tell them to make bricks, but don't give them straw. Let them find their own straw to make bricks. That's what it seems like President Obama and the Democrats that are running the House and the Senate are doing to the American people right now, heaping burdens on them to such an extent that now they are being told that they must find their own straw to make their bricks, when they already are turning their thermostats down so that they can just survive and get through the winter. This is not the United States of America that we grew up in. We don't do this, Mr. Speaker, to our people. I see that I have two colleagues that have joined me this evening. I would like to defer now to my marvelous colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Scott Garrett. He serves with me, Mr. Speaker, on the Financial Services Committee. He hails from New Jersey and he is doing a wonderful job on behalf of his constituents working so hard to ensure that this Congress doesn't spend too much, doesn't tax too much and certainly doesn't borrow too much so that those who are yet unborn and without jobs will have to be laboring away to be able to pay for these profligate spending bills. I defer now to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Scott Garrett .

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the students at Anoka High School. These students are taking their talents to the next level and joining with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to help fellow students that are afflicted by this lifelong disease. Using the Tony Award-winning musical, Aida, as well as their reputation as one of Minnesota's best high school musical theater programs, students at Anoka High School are learning more than choreography and stage cues. They'll be raising money and awareness for juvenile diabetes. Through the ``Kids Showing They Care'' program, teens are able to be involved in a larger cause that affects their community and have the opportunity to use their talents and skills to help others. They can also see the growing impact of their seemingly small efforts and understand the importance of a collective effort in a successful production. I rise today to honor the students at Anoka High School who have taken on an ambitious endeavor today, producing a school musical, that will have a lifelong impact on themselves and others. I commend them for their desire to help others in need and their very mature sense of community.