Michele Bachmann

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. You know, I would say that this heavy tax burden that the Obama administration is laying upon the American people has more to do with involuntary servitude than the fact of a woman who has the opportunity to carry an unborn child to term and to give life to that baby. Most women consider that a privilege and a blessing, and they pray for that opportunity so that they can have the chance to share in the joy of motherhood together with their husband, to be able to bring life and to cooperate with God and bring life into the world. Life is a beautiful thing. It is precious. It is something not to be wasted. It certainly cannot be equated with involuntary servitude, which is slavery. Slavery is what we are looking at right now with the debt burden that we are seeing from the Obama administration, where we are looking at having more debt under President Obama than under all previous 43 Presidents combined. That is involuntary servitude when a person has to work three-quarters of the year just to pay their tax bill, and that is what we are looking at down the road for our kids and grandkids, because this Obama administration is clearly spending too much, taxing too much and borrowing too much.

Mrs. BACHMANN. One of the most gruesome quotes--and I don't know if the gentleman has this one--is when she is referring to her beliefs and to people who are like-minded. She said, ``Progressives,'' which would be far-left liberals, ``must not portray all abortions as tragedies. Absent unforeseen technological and medical changes, abortion is unlikely to become truly rare and certainly not nonexistent.'' In this statement, she is lamenting the fact that abortion could become rare. She wants abortion to occur. When do you ever hear anyone say that they don't want abortion to be rare? But that is what Dawn Johnson is saying. When President Bill Clinton was running for President, he said he wanted abortions safe, legal and rare. Hillary Clinton said the same thing when she was running for President. Barack Obama--I'm not sure what his words were, but those were the words of the people running for President. Dawn Johnson is refuting that. She doesn't want abortion to be rare. She wants to see abortions occur. That is in the realm of the macabre. I am amazed at that statement.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I would say that this reflects his position completely because we know, from the President's previous votes when he was a State Senator in Illinois, he was the most pro-abortion State Senator in Illinois. His voting record here in the United States Senate was that of the most pro-abortion United States Senator. He fully supported partial birth abortion, one of the most gruesome, cruel procedures of infanticide one could ever imagine. Also, he voted for the Born Alive Act, which meant that he stood on the floor, as a matter of fact, in the Illinois State Senate and argued that children who were born, born alive, did not necessarily have a right to live, that as to those children who were born alive after a ``botched'' abortion, the doctor would have the right to kill that baby after it was born, and now President Obama voted in favor of that unthinkably gruesome bill.

Mrs. BACHMANN. That is the cruelest thing that could be done to a woman who is in crisis--to tell her that this is an easy quick fix and that you will experience relief. Women are strong, capable, intelligent people. They can handle the truth, and they deserve to be given full scientific evidence of the procedure they are about to undergo if that is the case. We need to respect women, and these statements do not reflect a true respect for women.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I would add that, with all due respect, this is one of the most ignorant comments that I have ever heard--that the experience is no longer traumatic. Speak to anyone who deals in the aftermath of dealing with women who have had abortions. My best friend runs a crisis pregnancy center. She has given her life and has poured her life out because she loves women and she loves abortion-minded women. She wants to meet them at the point of their deepest crises. She has told me that, for women who come in who are considering abortion and also for women who have had an abortion and who come to her, it is completely traumatic. They agonize as they walk into the clinic. They agonize, the women who have had previous abortions, after they have had the abortion. It is traumatic. There are reams of scientific papers that have been done that speak loudly to the trauma that the woman has experienced, let alone the trauma that the baby has experienced. That baby's life was taken in cold blood. That baby was murdered in cold blood. Not traumatic? It was traumatic for that innocent child, but it was equally as traumatic for the mother. The mother realizes and understands what has occurred. This is traumatic. To make that statement, to me, is heartless at worst and ignorant at best.

Mrs. BACHMANN. As if there are unwanted children. Every child is a wanted child. I can attest to the fact that there are open arms for every child who is born. If a child is considered less than perfect, has a physical or a mental disability, there are homes all across the United States that are begging and pleading and waiting for a child. None of us can ever forget the words of Mother Teresa, who said, ``If you don't want the children, I want the children. Give them to me. I will take them,'' this diminutive, little nun from Calcutta who was willing to take any child from across the planet. Here in the United States, we have willing, open hearts that would take every child who is born in this country.

Mrs. BACHMANN. This is a remarkable statement because it seems to invoke the worst hate speech that you could possibly make. To call out those who are praying on behalf of life and to liken them to terrorists and to call them terrorists, that seems to me invoke a hate speech and also a form of bigotry, religious bigotry of the worst order. This really calls into question for me the President's judgment in choosing someone like Dawn Johnson, who used this type of language, and putting her in the position of being Office of Legal Counsel. I think it is shocking and a stunning choice, and it really calls into question President Obama's judgment in this selection.

Mrs. BACHMANN. It also binds the administrative agencies. So this has power throughout the entire Presidential administration. Every agency, every department would be bound by these statements.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment also with the preceding gentleman, my colleague from Oregon. I would agree with him. I think he is 100 percent right. We do need to have an investigation. The American people were outraged last week when they heard about these bonuses. I would agree with the colleague from Oregon. We do need to have an investigation. Who knew what when? And the fingers need to be pointed right here at Members of Congress, Members of the House, Members of the Senate, and also the administration. Who was it that negotiated these payments? We still don't have an answer. The American people deserve to know. We have a timeline. We have some facts in evidence out there. We had Mr. Liddy, the CEO of AIG, in front of the House Financial Services Committee just last week. I sat in that committee. Mr. Liddy, under questioning, I asked Mr. Liddy myself, did the Federal Reserve chair know about these bonuses? Did he acquiesce to them? The answer was ``yes.'' Also the Treasury Secretary. The Treasury Department was involved in negotiating the compensation contracts. Today in Financial Services Committee, the Treasury Secretary again was sitting at the table before the committee. The Federal Reserve chair was there as well. The questioning came before them. The Treasury Department was involved. The Federal Reserve was involved. And we know that the bill that was brought to this body and voted here in this Chamber, the stimulus bill, the $1.1 trillion bill with debt service, this tremendous historic-spending-levels bill that came before us, that was the smoking gun. Senator Chris Dodd inserted that amendment into the bill. He claimed that the Obama administration insisted that that amendment be put into the bill, the language that would protect these AIG bonuses. And as a matter of fact, you could call President Obama's stimulus bill the ``AIG Bonus Protection Plan'' because bonuses were simply protected by this bill. I would agree with my colleague from Oregon. We need an investigation. We need a special independent prosecutor who can look into this and find out the true facts. What did the Obama administration know? When did they know it? What did Members of Congress know? When did they know it? Clearly, this was a government cartel that was protecting these AIG bonuses. And why do we need to know this? Because the American people have figured out something that Congress is only just now beginning to figure out. Under President Obama's budget, we see that the administration is spending too much, they are taxing too much, they are certainly borrowing too much, so much so that the American people are saying ``I have had it up to here, I can't take it any more.'' And the economy is following suit. Well, our colleagues are here today to talk about this. They have a lot to say. Joining me right now is a colleague from the great State of Ohio. He represents the people in the 12th Congressional District of Ohio and the great city of Columbus, Mr. Pat Tiberi, the new father of triplets, and I defer now to my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Pat Tiberi.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Ohio's 12th district, Pat Tiberi. The remarks that he is making about the burdens that our children and grandchildren will bear are startling. I had a baby born to my husband and I back in 1987, and I did a study on what the Social Security tax would be on that baby, who is now 22 years old, when he gets to be in his peak earning years. Now, I know that Mr. Tiberi has triplets that were born this year. We are looking at the debt burden on my son, now 22. In his peak earning years, 25 percent of his income will have to be devoted just for the Social Security portion of his tax bill. It is simply unsustainable. And our concern is that, under President Obama's budget, which clearly spends too much, taxes too much, borrows too much, we are looking at a legacy cost that is simply unsustainable. The President is putting together an unbelievable $3.9 trillion budget, trillion dollar, which, as Mr. Tiberi said, will double the debt limit for every man, woman and child in the United States. Double it. We are seeing these numbers go through the roof of the Capitol right now, like nothing we have ever seen. It is like a sugar high. It is as though the people who are putting together this budget in the Obama administration were all staying up late one night drinking 24-packs of 20-ounce Mountain Dews. They are on a sugar high right now. They can't spend enough of your money. And the message that everyone needs to send to Washington, D.C. is, I can't afford it. My family can't afford it. My small business can't afford the Obama administration's spending habit. We have this movie that is out now called Shopaholic. This is a shopaholic bill that we have got in front of us, and it is time to let the people know that those who are paying the bill, the American people, have enough debt. We don't need to take this on too. Joining us now, from the great State of Texas, is someone, Mr. Speaker, that all Americans are familiar with. His name is Ted Poe. Congressman Ted Poe is a former judge. He understands that that's the way it is in the United States. I yield now to Representative Ted Poe of Texas.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is clear President Obama's $3.9 trillion plan for the budget, for the American people clearly spends too much, taxes too much, borrows too much for our kids and our grandkids. There is a man that we respect and admire. He hails from West Chester, Ohio, the eighth district. He is the leader of the Republicans in the House, but more importantly, he is the leader on the issue of fiscal restraint for the American people. He stood right down here in the well, Mr. Speaker, he held up so the American people could see what 1,100 pages of a bill looks like. He held those 1,100 pages and made the incredible statement that not one person in this chamber had a chance to read this bill before we were expected to vote on it. There was no true debate on this stimulus bill that was passed earlier this year, $1.1 trillion. And now the President has a budget for $3.9 trillion that spends too much, taxes too much, borrows too much. Leader John Boehner stood on this House and demonstrated to the American people just how massive this is. I yield now to our leader, a man that we respect and admire, from the eighth district of Ohio, leader John Boehner.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I think, Representative Austria, those are wise words, and thank you for sharing those with us this afternoon. I appreciate your work. Mr. Speaker, we are joined now by a great gentleman and a longtime advocate for the people in his district, the Second District in Tennessee. He has been serving as a faithful Member of Congress for 21 years, Mr. Jimmy Duncan, who is a tremendous gentleman, serving the people of Knoxville and the surrounding community. I yield now to Mr. Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of service of Brother Dietrich Reinhart, President Emeritus of Saint John's University in Collegeville, MN. Brother Reinhart faithfully served his community since 1967 in various roles as a student, professor, dean and finally, as President of the University. His accomplishments at Saint John's are numerous and have impacted so many students' everyday life. As liturgy director in 1983, Brother Reinhart led the committee on the revision of the Liturgy of the Hours at Saint John's Abbey, a version that is still used in public prayer services. Brother Reinhart oversaw the completion of student housing units, academic buildings, sports facilities, a student center and the art center as well as implementing the educational Core Curriculum and developing new majors in Peace Studies and in Communications to accommodate both the increasing number of students and the rising student academic profile. In November of 2008, after being diagnosed with malignant metastatic melanoma, Brother Reinhardt commented that ``Saint John's is a community where people stand by each other--they care about each other--and that there is always room in this community''. Brother Reinhart passed away at the retirement center at St. John's Abbey on December 29, 2008. He will be deeply missed by his community and it is my honor to rise with the thousands of students whose lives he enriched to recognize his life and his accomplishments before you today.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, today we understand that the Obama administration's stimulus bill--the $1 trillion stimulus bill--was also the AIG bonus protection plan, because we understand now today that language is contained within the stimulus bill that would ensure that the AIG bonuses would stay with the executives who received them. The American people are outraged. We are outraged as well. But who knew about these bonuses? When did they know about it? CBS News has reported the Obama administration has known for weeks about these bonuses. Senator Chris Dodd also said that he knew about these bonuses, put the amendment into place, but says it wasn't his language, it was the administration's language. This is a scandal that is brewing in Washington. We need to have answers. The American people need answers. This is their money that is being spent for these failing businesses. It's time that the American people know what the real truth is.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Camp for yielding. Now we find out that President Obama's stimulus bill, over $1 trillion stimulus bill, was actually the AIG Bonus Protection Plan. This is a scandal of huge proportions that we are only now just unraveling. It appears that language was put in the stimulus bill that would prevent the United States Government from recouping these outrageous bonuses that were paid to executives at AIG. The Republicans have a message, and it is this: We want 100 percent of these bonuses to come back to the United States taxpayer, and we say ``time out'' on these bailouts. No more bailouts. We don't want to see any more. They haven't been working, and the American people are saying enough is enough. This is a scandal. We need to know, who knew about these bonuses? When did they know about them? Yesterday in the Financial Services Committee, the CEO, Mr. Liddy, disclosed that the chair of the Federal Reserve knew about the bonuses and acquiesced to them. We are now finding out that the Treasury Secretary as well, or that Mr. Summers, also knew about these several weeks ago. We need an investigation and we need answers.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about America's economy and where Americans are at right now. We have seen a lot of trouble over the last 2 years, and it needn't be that way. We could turn this American economy around next quarter. We could truly bring hope and change to the American people if we would put into place a positive solution that would give people certainty about where they are going to go in this economy, and we can. We know it's possible. It's really fairly simple. All we need to do is this: we need to get people investing in the economy, and you do that by making incentives for that. I am a former Federal tax lawyer. I have lived this life, I know how it works. Right now we have a high rate on our capital gains tax. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is looking at increasing that tax. We need to go just in the opposition direction. We need to cut the investment tax called capital gains down to zero. The best thing we could do is make that tax permanent to the investor community. Let Americans know, if you take your money, and if you put it at risk opening a business, hiring people for jobs, in the next 4 years your risk will be paid off because you will have a 0 percent interest rate. That's capital gains. If we would permanently lower the capital gains to zero for 4 years, we would have incredible domestic investment, as well as foreign investment. Even better, we can take the business tax rate--the United States today has the second highest business tax rate in the world, 34 percent. America is not an attractive place to invest money. We can change that. We can go from 34 percent on our business tax and bring that down to 9 percent, make it permanent. What are foreign investors looking for? A safe haven for investment. They want to invest in the United States, but we have a very punitive investment climate. If we would bring down that business tax rate to 9 percent, we would be able to bring foreign money into the United States and invest and create jobs. Rather than seeing jobs flee the United States to other countries, we will see them come right back into the United States. That's what we need now, more jobs, more stability, more certainty. We have had enough with economic uncertainty from 2008 to the present. Let's change that equation. We can have a positive alternative. First, zero capital gains. Second, lower the business tax rate to be one of the lowest in the world. Third, cut every American's tax rate down by at least 5 percent. We can do that, and that will help Americans keep more of their money. Fourth, we need to kill the death tax once and for all. If even one American pays the death tax, it's immoral. Why in the world should Uncle Sam be able to reach in the coffin after death and still try to pull the wallet out of an American who is deceased? This is immoral. It shouldn't be. Then, finally, the alternative minimum tax, we should zero out the alternative minimum tax, which is putting a second tax burden on already overtaxed middle-class Americans. Also, Sarbanes-Oxley, Sarbanes-Oxley has actually chased capital out of New York City over to London. We need to get that investment capital back in the United States. That's a pretty simple plan. If we would stay here for the rest of the day, and if we would stay here tomorrow, as Members of Congress, we could very quickly and simply pass this commonsense legislation that has worked time and time again. Don't just take my word for it, a woman from Minnesota--take a look at Harvard. Harvard did a study back in 2002 that examined 18 different world economies, and they showed the same thing. They said, what do you do to make economies work, and what do you do that makes economies not work? Here is what you do, you lower the wages of government employees, you lower transfer payments, welfare payments, and you lower the tax rates. That's what you do, the study concluded, to make economies revive. What you don't do is increase government spending. What you don't do is increase taxes. What we have seen in the last 60 days is what you do to make an economy not work or bring more uncertainty into our economy. The American people deserve a positive solution, and we have got one. Let's get to work, let's stay here, let's make it happen. Instead, what are we seeing happen? We are seeing more spending and higher taxes. And what did the Federal Reserve try to do this week? They announced that they are going to do another $1 trillion in purchases. And they just announced today another $300 billion in buying up long-term Treasury securities. They have already lowered the interest rates to zero, so now they want to flood more money into the money supply, but this reduces the value of dollar. There is so much we can do to change the economy. Let's get busy.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor John Kurkosky of Annandale, Minnesota for creatively using his song-writing and singing talents to support his neighbors in need. A self-professed ``shower singer,'' John makes a hobby out of writing and singing country, rock and gospel songs. Five years ago, he wrote a song, ``Ice Fishin' My Buddies and Me'' that gained popularity last year when it was featured on the local news story about Minnesota ice houses. Though John has recorded about 40 songs, his tale about one of Minnesota's most popular pastimes seems to be everyone's favorite. So popular is this local song that if you Google ``Kurkosky fish house song,'' you'll get hits all over the web, including YouTube. His CD, ``John Kurkosky: My Mixed Up Music'' sells at a shop in Annandale, Minnesota and is also available by mail. As a construction worker, John doesn't plan to quit his day job anytime soon, but since March is Food Share Month, he is using his talent to set up fundraising events in Central Minnesota for local food shelves. In addition, John already donates a portion of every CD sale to food shelves. This March campaign is the largest food drive in the state, supporting work at 260 food shelves across Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor John Kurkosky on his musical success and his charitable efforts. It is Minnesotans like John that make our communities better places to live, work and raise a family.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shimkus) for all the work that he has done, the tremendous work on energy. The energy fight that we all participated in last summer when we talked about how we needed to adopt an all-of- the-above-energy standard so that we can increase America's energy supply, your leadership was exemplary on that effort. We all remember how much fun that was last July 4, when we were all paying $4 and more a gallon, thinking that we were on our way to paying $6 a gallon, $8 a gallon. We had no idea where it would lead, because what we are seeing was that the world was diminishing its supply, raising its prices. And here in the United States we adopted a policy that was to not produce more American energy, and that constricted and constrained the American public because they had less supply and they had to pay more money. This was not a scenario that the American people were very happy about, and we can see why. Now, it is curious that under President Obama's spending plan, and that is what we talked about last week on the floor, that the President's budget spends too much, it taxes too much, it borrows too much. All of this radical historical level of spending is mandating massive tax increases. Mandating. Just the stimulus plan alone, which we found doesn't do anything to stimulate, was over $1 trillion in spending. Then we saw after that a $410 billion budget bill which included almost 9,000 earmarks. And our President, who said he would not sign a bill with earmarks, signed a bill loaded with earmarks, and he did it behind a closed door where no cameras were present. And sandwiched in between all that massive spending was a fiscal responsibility summit. Now, that was a little humorous to me, but now here we are today talking about the budget. Moving forward. This historic level of spending, $3.7 trillion, where will the money come? Where will the money come from to fund all of this massive spending? I can guarantee to the American people, there is no vault back here in the Capitol filled with wrapped $100 bills. There is no money here. There is no money tree out on the Capitol lawn that produces money every morning that we can shake and go gather that money up and spend on all these programs, socialized medicine, all the programs that the President is envisioning. So where will we go to get this money? To fuel this radical historic level of spending, we are looking at the system that Mr. Shimkus has spoken of so well, and it is the cap- and-trade system, which we all know now is a subterfuge for an energy tax. This is a massive tax. And just as our President stood right here in this room several weeks ago and looked into the camera and said to the American people: 95 percent of the American people will pay no increase in taxation. And that absolutely is not true. We know it, because during the course of those remarks he said he wants to pass a cap-and-trade system. What will cap-and-trade do? It will increase the price of almost every product and service in the United States. Why? Because think of any commodity that somehow doesn't have energy attached to it. There isn't one. I hail from great State of Minnesota, Minnesota's Sixth District. I will tell you one thing. When October hits in Minnesota, you turn on your furnace, and your furnace stays on until April. Our furnace is still on in Minnesota. It stays on. Energy is a fact of life. And under this cap-and-tax system, we are looking at a minimum 40 percent increase in the monthly energy bill, the monthly electric bill, let alone the increase in the gas tax when you go to the gas station, let alone when you go to the grocery store the increase in taxation. We know this. As a matter of fact, we have some quotes from our President. We have a quote just a few days ago when the President said that he wants to pass this cap-and-tax system, but he said we may need to delay implementation until 2012. Why? Because our President said, in our current economic meltdown, we will not be able to afford a cap-and-tax system. Well, we know something about our economy. We engage in business cycles where we have good times and not so good times. What are we going to do, suspend this tax in not so good times? The President by his own words is admitting this will harm our economic future. In fact, when President Obama was running for President, he said, and I quote, ``What I said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more, that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else's out there.'' So if somebody wants to build a coal powered plant, they can. It is just that they will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that is being emitted. And then he want on to say, ``When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know, under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' Coal is the number one energy electricity producer in the United States, and we have coal in abundance in this country. Coal isn't evil. Oil isn't evil. Natural gas isn't evil. It has given us the energy to fuel the greatest economy that has ever been known in the history of man. And I fear that what we will be seeing is the demise of the American economy if we tie cement blocks onto the coal, oil, and natural gas industry. And I fear even the biofuel industry will be negatively impacted, the solar and wind industries I think also will be negatively impacted, because we need to have money in private hands to be able to create these new, wonderful alternative forms of energy that we need to have in the United States. We want to see more nuclear powered plants, zero emissions. Now, if the President is truly worried about the emissions problem into our atmosphere, why not embrace nuclear power? It produces zero emissions. We should be building nuclear power plants all across this country. I don't want to take up all the time here, and I would be happy to dialogue with my colleague. Again, I want to thank Mr. Shimkus, because Mr. Shimkus understands, unfortunately all too well personally in his own district, what the cost has been when government rolls the dice with people's lives and thinks that they have come up with some grand new idea, but that grand new idea, as we have already seen economists forecast, is a loss of at minimum 1 million jobs. How could America accommodate right now 1 million more job losses because of this new tax? I yield back.

Mrs. BACHMANN. That's right.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank you for yielding. When we are looking at the money and where all of this massive amount of money will be spent, again, the placeholder in the President's budget is $646 billion. But we are told that is maybe one-third of the true amount of revenue that will be generated. Now just think, that is between $1.5 and $2 trillion in new taxation. That is just one new taxation burden on the American people. And the President has already indicated that he may be using that money not to build new nuclear power plants, which would have zero emissions, but to redistribute the wealth, as he is wont to do, with paying for socialized medicine. So we are going to embrace a socialistic view of socialized medicine for the American people which will further be a burden on the American people. I just wanted to go back on your previous comments on China. There is an article in today's Washington Times newspaper. Open up the inside of the paper. It said this regarding China, China made the comment that they will not be engaging in a cap-and-trade system. They won't be engaging in reducing their own emissions. Why? Because they said the United States are the consumers of products. Japan is the producers of products. They said, with a straight face, ``as the producers of products, we aren't the ones who are truly generating the emissions, it is the consumers.'' Now they are ignoring the fact that they probably have one of the largest pools of consumers in the world. They have no intention of paying this tax. And if you would give Al Gore and the people who are embracing the whole global warming narrative, if you would give them every aspect of what they believe, if you presume every premise they believe, and if the United States would implement all of their radical ideas, all of this cap and tax, let's say we did everything, gave it all to them, what would we produce in lowering emissions? By their own numbers, it shows that we would be reducing emissions by the year 2095--which is a long time from now--by less than 1 percent. That is a negligible amount. And we know that China is going to continue to grow as a manufacturer. India will continue to grow. Their emissions will overtake any savings the United States would possibly have. So we need to recognize the truth of what cap and tax is. Cap and tax, pure and simple, is a big government attempt to reach into Americans' pockets, pull more money out, bring it to Washington, DC, to empower the Federal Government so they can decide to do what they want to do with the American people's money. I would yield back.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I am wondering when it will be that Congress will finally have hearings on itself and on the culpability of Members of Congress for this housing meltdown. We look at individuals who were involved in shielding Freddie and Fannie for years from any sort of tightening, any sort of regulatory burden, any sort of accountability, any sort of transparency--for years. We look at comments that were made even by the current head of the Financial Services Committee. I sit on the Financial Services Committee. And the chairman of our committee, Barney Frank, had made statements when he was confronted by former Treasury Secretary John Snow that Freddie and Fannie were in deep trouble. And he also foretold of a housing collapse that he was portending on into the future for the United States. And the comments from Representative Frank were, don't worry, everything's fine; there's no problem with Freddie and Fannie. People knew we were looking at a meltdown. When are we going to have those hearings? When are we going to hear from Members of Congress, their culpability in bringing about this housing meltdown, about the Members of Congress who loosened and relaxed the platinum level standards of lending in our country? We had platinum levels of standards of lending for over 200 years in our country. Those lending standards were so reduced, that created our subprime mortgage mess. It even created a problem in prime mortgages because the lending standards were so reduced. That just didn't happen in the free market, because private businesses, they want to limit their risks. It was the Federal Government that forced these private businesses to maximize risk. With what? The promises that good old Uncle Sam, the chump called Joe taxpayer would bail these businesses out--AIG, Freddie, Fannie--if anything went wrong. We need to have a hearing where Members of Congress are called on the carpet for their involvement in leading to this housing collapse. I yield back.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, Judge Carter, for yielding on that point. You could not have set up this segment better to talk about ethics and talk about those who are writing our budget, that they need to live under the laws that they are creating. You quoted from the New York Times article that said there are high hopes for AIG. The American people had very high hopes for AIG, the largest insurance company in the world. They should, after all, the American people own AIG now. We own 80 percent of AIG. The American people have been forced to invest $173 billion in this company. And they just found out that $165 million, perhaps as much as $450 million, has been paid out in bonuses to some of the executives at AIG. And the American people are outraged. They realize that is their money, and that money is going out on bonuses. But then along came a story from CNN. And CNN said guess what, in President Obama's stimulus package earlier this year, we remember, that is the over-trillion-dollar bill that none of us were allowed to read because the Obama administration wouldn't release that bill until after midnight, and we started debate the next morning at 9 in the morning, contained in that stimulus bill is an interesting provision that was put in by the head of the Banking Committee on the Senate side, Senator Chris Dodd. Senator Chris Dodd inserted a provision into the stimulus bill that said essentially this: it said that the bonuses that would be given out to any of these companies can stay with the people who get the bonuses unless they are given after February 11, 2009. In other words, these bonuses that AIG received are prohibited by the language in the stimulus bill from being recouped by the U.S. Government. We are prohibited. Our hands are tied. This is President Obama's stimulus bill and the chair, the Democrat chair of the Banking Committee, inserted an amendment that prevented the taxpayer from recouping any bonuses that would be paid out to the executives. Now this is a curious thing because CNN also reported that the largest beneficiary of campaign donations in 2008 from AIG was Senator Chris Dodd. So Senator Chris Dodd, CNN said, was the largest recipient at over $103,000, managed to slip into President Obama's stimulus bill, which he didn't give any time for any Member of Congress to read, a provision that would have prevented the American people from recouping any of these bonuses. Now I think that raises questions I would suggest along the line of the gentleman that you've been raising about the ethical requirements of the people who are serving the American people. With that, I yield back to the Judge.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Yes, that's the solar flares, that's true. As a matter of fact, in President Obama's budget, which he has already submitted, and which we are going to be taking up, and we are going to be voting on with appropriations, he has already included, as a baseline part of his budget, remember, his budget is historic. It's so huge, the trillions of dollars are so huge we can't even get our arms around it, 646 billion in new taxes for the energy tax. I am sure that the gentleman and his constituents from Georgia, and I am sure that the gentlelady from North Carolina and her constituents, and the gentleman from New Jersey and his constituents would be interested in knowing, well, what does that work out for me? What does that mean that I am going to owe? Well, people in the Sixth District of Minnesota, we need heat. We don't have a choice in wintertime. We have to turn our furnace on. This is very, very large concern, and I hope we have time to discuss it before the Democrats ask us to vote on this bill. Because we are looking at a good $4,000 per household in increased costs right away to pay for energy. Energy touches every part of our life, and we have got a graph up here that talks about what President Obama and the Democrats' tax plan will do. Gas prices are going to go up. We all remember how much fun it was last July to pay over $4 a gallon and we thought we were quick on our way to $6 a gallon, $8 a gallon? Well, remember that? Welcome back to it. That's called cap and tax. Welcome back to now seeing your home heating fuel, or in the case of Georgia, going up 40 percent. Can you imagine if your constituents get an electric bill that will be 40 percent higher than what it was before? Remember also what happened at the grocery store last summer when gas prices went up. The food prices went up. Why? Energy is in everything we eat. Also if you go to Wal-mart, if you go to Target to buy something to wear. Energy is a component, a basic building block of everything. I know that the gentlewoman from North Carolina has a great graph on this.

Mrs. BACHMANN. That's right. That's what he said to the American people.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for yielding, and I thank you for this opportunity and the kindness to be able to address this body on the issue of taxes. We're very excited to be able to have this opportunity. I'm joined this evening by two wonderful colleagues, Mrs. Foxx of North Carolina, and also Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, who have indicated, also, willingness to speak to this important topic. We see that there is a tremendous change that is about to occur in our Nation. And I just want to begin by talking about the real problem that we have at hand, and that's the issue of certainty versus uncertainty in our economy. There are many people right now who have been unwilling to make decisions about investing in the economy, spending money, buying something, should they save money, should they spend it, can they get a job? And the worry has been ``certainty.'' What's going to happen next? They feel like one shoe has dropped, when will the other shoe drop? What's it going to be? What's going to happen? People are just nervous. I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, I was back in my district this weekend, I'm sure you were, too, and people that I saw are very worried about what's coming down the horizon because they just saw, in the last 55, 60 days, they saw our Congress spend $1 trillion dollars and more, once you count the debt service on the stimulus bill. They're very nervous when they see that level of spending. They've never heard of that before. It's historic, it's never happened before. They saw that, and then right after that they saw us take up the appropriations bill for the rest of the year which spends for the Federal Government, and it's $410 billion. And then they heard it had 9,000 earmarks contained in the bill. And they thought, what in the world is going on? I thought this was an emergency. I thought this was a time when we're supposed to be careful with our money. And the American people are socking away money as much as they can. It was just only about a year or so ago that we saw that the savings rate in the United States was minus 1 percent. During the Great Depression, the savings rate was minus 1.5. What was the savings rate in January? It was plus 5 percent. It's plus 5 percent because the American people have figured out, we're in trouble. And so they are battening down the hatches and they're doing everything they can to make sure their ship is in order, their house is in order so they at least have a job and so that they can at least take care of their bills. What has Congress' response been? It has been to spend $1 trillion, and then $410 billion--plus 9,000 earmarks contained in that bill--and sandwiched in between was something called a Fiscal Responsibility Summit. Now, people are scratching their heads saying, you people call yourselves fiscally responsible when you've just spent that kind of money, let alone what's happened with the Federal Reserve and all the money that the Federal Reserve has committed? The reason why I'm bringing that up, Mr. Speaker, is because today marks a very important anniversary. I know Mr. Garrett remembers this anniversary. It was 1 year ago today that for the very first time in the history of our country the Federal Reserve opened the discount window to a private investment bank called Bear Stearns. We all remember that, it was $29 billion. Just preceding that, this body had spent the outrageous sum of $168 billion in a stimulus package that was supposed to rescue our economy from diving into the doldrums. So what did our body do? We spent $168 billion, and we got into helicopters and we dropped checks all across the United States and said, ``Have a good time. Spend money so that our economy doesn't tank.'' Our economy tanked because people said you can't spend money like that and think that your house is going to be in order. So people got nervous, they got very worried. Then they saw us bail out a private investment bank at $29 billion. Well, it wasn't long after that that we heard that Freddie and Fannie, the secondary home loan mortgage companies, they were in bankruptcy. We had to bail them out. So the Federal taxpayer had to cough up $200 billion to bail out Freddie and Fannie. This really scared people. At the same time, the Federal Government took $400 billion and infused that money into the Federal Home Loan Association. People thought, my stars, what's about to happen? Well, they didn't even catch a breath, and the Treasury Secretary said, now we need $700 billion; we've got to have $700 billion for the TARP program, which was to have money to be able to buy troubled assets, the mortgage security bailout. And we were told we had to get this done within a week or the whole economy was going to fail. Well, we had that tussle, we had that struggle. And you remember, Mr. Speaker, that last September we were all here in this Chamber. We came in, the galleries were filled with people, the press was up in the press box; what were we going to do? We were going to pass this historic level of spending, $700 billion, and the vote failed. It was a Monday. No one could believe it. So there was regrouping going on; took another vote, the vote passed. Only this time it was wrapped in another $110 billion worth of very expensive gift wrap called ``vote buying.'' And so that bill was passed. Pretty soon, the year went by, and between this body and the Federal Reserve trillions of dollars flew through the door. People were looking for hope and change; I was looking for hope and change. And when January 20 came and the Obama administration was sworn in, what did we see? We saw over $1 trillion worth of spending out of the gate. And what did it do? Has it calmed the waters? Has it brought us certainty? Are you kidding? We saw GDP tank. We saw the Dow Jones Industrial Average go to such historic lows, no one could believe it. We were looking at 6000 on the Dow Jones. We saw job losses spike through the charts, unbelievable levels of job losses. Where is the certainty? Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm here to say, there is a certainty that we can tell the American people tonight, and that certainty is that their taxes are just about to have the roof blown off. They're going to have the roof blown off. And it was here in this body, not too long ago, when President Obama stood right here and he told the American people in that camera right up there, he said, ``I will not raise taxes on 95 percent of the American people. You can take that to the bank.'' And in the course of his remarks, he said that he is going to pass the cap and trade tax. That's the new tax on energy, which 100 percent of Americans are going to be spending. That's what we want to talk about tonight, Mr. Speaker. We have to talk about this tonight. We've been talking about all the spending; now it's time to talk about the taxing. And it's really a shame because the time to have been talking about taxing is when we were talking about spending. We didn't even have a paragraph of conversation on this floor about how we're going to pay for all this spending. Congress just had a sugar high. It's as though every Member of Congress just ingested a 24 pack of Mountain Dew and said, ``Hallelujah. I'm on a sugar high. We're going to spend money and we're going to rev this economy up.'' Well, I'm telling you, if you had a 24 pack of Mountain Dew, you would not only be on a sugar high, you would be zooming, but you would crash. And that's about what we are going to be seeing. That crash is called taxes, Mr. Speaker. And the American people haven't seen anything yet when they open up their tax bills. At this point, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina to take it from there. And we're going to go in a game of tennis here tonight. We're going to volley back and forth and we will have a great discussion on taxes. I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).