Michele Bachmann

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. And if the gentleman will yield, that's exactly what has happened in the United States for the last 10 to 15 years. We have seen dramatic increases in productivity that's added real wealth to the United States. Much of that can be attributed to the fact that we had tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. That may sound technical to talk about that, but the fact is, what are the real results that we have seen from that? We've seen real wealth creation enhancement, not just for those at the top of the economic spectrum, those at every level of the economic spectrum, and that's what we want. We want to see everyone succeed. We don't want to be about just punishing one aspect of American economic society. We want all people in the United States to succeed. We do that when we unleash American productivity. We don't do that when we punish the sector that will allow us to have growth and productivity.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. It's exciting to see what science has wrought just in the last few days, the discoveries that have come about. But the bottom line in all of it is this: Cloning will lead to the exploitation of women. That's harmful and that's not good, especially for poor women in the United States and around the world. Women's eggs are required in the process of cloning, and the extraction technique exposes otherwise healthy women to the risk of infertility and, sadly, tragically, even of death. The recent cloning scandal that we've witnessed in South Korea should serve as a warning here to those of us in the United States. Many Korean women were coerced into donating their eggs for Professor Hwang's fraudulent research. Not only is it wrong, really wrong to destroy human embryos, but it's even worse to put women in a position where their health is at risk to do unethical research, especially now, when we find science has taught us we don't have to. The use of the iPS cells, or the adult stem cells, make it unnecessary to use women's eggs, while researchers who have been pushing human cloning have been seeking them. We all know that November 20, 2007, a Wisconsin researcher and a Japanese scientist discovered, they independently announced their ability to derive pluripotent stem cells through the reprogramming of regular stem cells. This is a marvelous breakthrough. And then just days ago, on March 1, 2009, two research teams demonstrated they could reprogram cells without the use of potentially cancer-causing viruses. This is marvelous. iPS can produce a large number of both patient-specific as well as disease-specific stem cell lines because, according to the Telegraph newspaper, tests on the reprogrammed cell lines showed they behave exactly, exactly like embryonic stem cells. These cells have already been used to make heart muscle, brain neurons, motor neurons, blood, insulin secreting cells. We are thrilled at the advances that science has made. Let's use these advances to make sure that we can further do more research that will protect people's lives. But, at the same time, let's not hurt women, let's not destroy their lives, and let's not destroy their fertility; and certainly we shouldn't do anything that should lead to women's death. And I thank you so much to the gentleman from New Jersey for leading this important hour. Thank you so much.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, last night, President Obama repeatedly expressed a desire to pass fiscally responsible legislation, his fear of passing a mountain of debt to future generations, and his intention to greatly reduce the federal deficit. All sentiments with which I couldn't agree more. However, only two weeks after passing a $1.1-trillion economic ``stimulus'' package and a week after presenting a $275-billion plan to address less than 8% of American mortgages, Washington Democrats today are bringing to the floor an appropriations bill that represents the largest discretionary spending increase, aside from legislation after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, since the Carter Administration. If we look back on the last 19 months, you'll find that the U.S. government has pledged more than $11.6 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers to dig our nation out of the recession--and that doesn't even include the $410 billion we are about to spend in this latest spending bill. Where is the fiscal responsibility? Even more incredulous is the fact that this omnibus appropriations bill contains funding for many of the same agencies and programs that already received funds in the so-called ``stimulus'' bill--162 programs in fact. For instance, it provides $2.9 billion for the 2010 census even though $1 billion was already allocated for this project in the ``stimulus'' package. We also have funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, which, fresh off receiving $50 million from the ``stimulus,'' is now in line to receive $138 million in this latest proposal. The combined fiscal year 2009 funding for these ``double-dipping'' programs is $680 billion--a whopping 80% increase in spending. Furthermore, the Democrat majority is once again using a massive spending bill to shove sweeping national policy changes through Congress without public scrutiny and without proper debate. This bill contains language to terminate the District of Columbia's successful school voucher program; it eliminates the ``Reading First'' program within the Department of Education; and it drastically undercuts construction and design funding for Yucca Mountain, a key component to any plan that puts America on the path to energy independence. The merit of these programs aside, a sweeping spending bill--especially one with no opportunity to amend--is not the appropriate place for any of these measures to be considered. Enough is enough. The American taxpayer is already struggling in this weakened economy and it is time Congress started to show respect to the American people and stop increasing the weight of their financial burdens. The spending spree has to stop now.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, as a mother and a former foster mother to 23 troubled teens, I strongly believe in the important role of the parent or legal guardian in a child's life. This is especially true when it comes to matters as serious as the health and wellbeing of that child. Prescription drugs, such as medication to treat psychiatric conditions, can have a major impact on the mind and body of an adult, let alone the young mind and body of a child. And, let's be clear: As adult as today's teens like to appear, they are still very much children in need of adult guidance. Critical decisions regarding the administration of prescription medications should only be made by a qualified medical doctor with the express consent of a parent or legal guardian. Consider contraception, for example. Contraceptives can cause serious medical problems like blood clots and migraine headaches. Even worse, they can be dispensed in certain combinations to prevent implantation of new baby, a form of abortion that many parents and young girls find morally reprehensible. This ``morning after pill'' can also be used to hide evidence of sexual abuse, one of the very forms of abuse that this legislation is seeking to prevent. Unfortunately, H.R. 911 would not only allow residential treatment facilities to change a child's prescription medication without the consent of her or his parent or legal guardian, but without even consulting them. Committee Republicans offered language to require consent before such a change in prescription medication, but it was defeated during committee consideration, almost by party line. The right of consent is a necessary component of any decision affecting the life of a child, and should be explicitly stated in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the parents and guardians that have raised and cared for these children know and understand their children and their medical histories best. Without language requiring consent prior to any change in prescription medication, the potential positive impact of this legislation is lost, and so is the important role of the parent in the life of his or her child. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to recognize hard-working school board members in Minnesota this year during School Board Recognition Week. Throughout the year, school boards across the nation play a vital role in organizing members of the community to participate in our children's education. Parents, teachers and local leaders are uniquely equipped to meet the needs of students in the classroom. A locally-governed education system requires local involvement. Many of these individuals hold full-time jobs, and yet they selflessly volunteer their time to serving their families and other families in the community by donating their talents and resources through various roles on the school board. Madam Speaker, I want to thank members of school boards across the State of Minnesota for devoting countless hours and energy towards our children's education and ultimately their future. Additionally, I want to encourage continued involvement to ensure our grandchildren receive the same priceless support from which so many of us benefit. I applaud and join my colleagues in recognizing the individuals who selflessly dedicate their time to this crucial role.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, at about 10:00 p.m. last nite, the text of the $792-billion so-called ``stimulus'' package was finally made available to Republicans. At 11:00 p.m., this 1073-page package was finally posted online for the public to see it. And, votes are expected by 2:00 p.m. today. Are Republican legislators really supposed to digest and comprehend the single most transformational piece of legislation that has come through Congress in 16 hours? We do a great disservice to the American people today by rushing this package through. But, the level of disrespect we show the taxpayers today by this perversion of process is far exceeded by the level of disrespect we show the taxpayer by the substance of this package. As the Los Angeles Times stated in an editorial today, this bill ``serves as a case study for the timeworn notion that haste makes waste.'' Whether by design (The Washington Post did report that ``House Speaker Nancy Pelosi . . . called the legislation `historic and transformational' for its investments in Democratic social priorities.'') or as a byproduct of the political wrangling to get the bill to the floor, this bill is chock-full of the pet projects and political priorities that lobbyists and lawmakers insisted upon. But, the bill is supposed to have a single purpose: to stimulate the economy. Congress' one and only criterion for any project or program should have been its ability to help grow the economy and help create jobs. Again, the Los Angeles Times noted that scattered throughout the bill ``are proposals that advance a political agenda more than an economic one.'' Targeted investment in transportation construction is proven to grow the economy and create jobs. The U.S. Department of Transportation reported last year that every $1 billion in federal highway investment, when combined with the required state matching funds, supports 34,779 American jobs. Of that, only about 12,000 are actual construction jobs. The rest are in supplier industries or related economic sectors. That's why Republicans in the House had moved to reprioritize spending in the House bill and triple investments in transportation construction--a motion the majority flatly rejected. There is a substantial and tangible ripple effect to these investments. Yet, it gets lip service in this bill: $27.5 billion of the $792 billion bill (a mere 3.4% of the total bill) is invested in this proven stimulator. Tax relief is similarly stimulative. The Republican alternative that was rejected by the majority would have created twice the jobs at half the cost. It would have done so by putting money back into the pockets of those who would use it to create jobs and to keep money cycling through the economy. Amongst other things, this alternative, which I did support would have: Reduced the lowest individual tax rates from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. In Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District, 272,306 filers would benefit from the reduction in the 10% bracket alone and 228,926 filers would also benefit from the other rate reduction. Allowed small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income. Nearly half a million Minnesota small businesses--each employing 500 or fewer employees--would benefit from this. And, provided a home-buyers credit of $7500 for those who can make a minimum down-payment of 5%. What's more, Mr. Speaker, this package sets upon the shoulders of generations of Americans a debt that I don't think we can even comprehend. With this so-called stimulus, we raise the government's commitment to addressing this economic downturn over the past year to $9.7 trillion. From the first set of rebate checks passed last February to the bill before us now, $9.7 trillion has been spent or pledged to addressing this recession. And, all reports indicate that there is more to come. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner talked about another $2 trillion for financial service sector bailouts just this week. President Obama's economic advisor, Larry Summers, has talked about additional stimulus and financial service bailouts that will be needed in the months to come. President Obama noted that this is just a leg in a stool when he came before the Republican Conference only a couple of weeks ago. That's just for what's actually in the bill. A long history of expanding federal budgets has made it clear to the American people that no increase in spending is ever temporary. As the Los Angeles Times noted the $191 billion in increased benefit spending in this package ``expand programs that may be hard to trim after the crisis passes. . . . What's worse, there are no accountability measures attached to those funds. . . .'' An analysis by staff at the House Budget Committee looked at what happens if Congress continues to fund just 19 of the most politically popular programs at their new stimulus levels--programs like Pell Grants, Head Start, food stamps. Over the ten-year period ending in 2019, ``these 19 programs alone would increase federal outlays and tax entitlements by $1.59 trillion.'' (Wall Street Journal, February 12, 2009) Even before we add in the financial service sector bailout and this ``stimulus'' bill, the American people were looking at the largest budget deficit in modern history for 2009--8.3% of the economy. According to an analysis by the Strategas Group, if you add in this bill and the bailout, ``the deficit could hit nearly $2 trillion, or 13.5% of the U.S. economy.'' The Wall Street Journal rightly calls this ``uncharted territory'' and reminds us that the consequences could mean ``new federal debt in the trillions of dollars over the next few years, which could test the limits America's credit-worthiness,'' and could mean that ``the U.S. will become less desirable as a destination for the world's capital.'' With this bill today, Congress isn't helping America to dig itself out of the recessionary hole, we're merely digging it deeper. I cannot support this new direction for the American economy, Mr. Speaker. I stand today on the side of the American taxpayer and will vote to oppose this bill.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. And I want to thank the stunning representative from Iowa, Mr. King, who is putting this effort together for this hour. There are many of my colleagues who are here, and many more who want to join and add their words to the wonderful repertoire we are having this evening. As Mr. King had mentioned, it is absolutely true; as we look at the risk that we put the American taxpayer at, we are looking at essentially $9.7 trillion of potential risk. One fact you mentioned, that potentially 90 percent of all home mortgages could be completely paid off with that amount of money. Here is another fact. You could take that $9.7 trillion that the American taxpayer is on the hook for, and you could write a check today to every man, woman, and child in the world for $1,430. That is how much money we are on the hook for. And the reason why I wanted to have the opportunity to stand up right now; my husband and I have been married 30 years, we have 5 biological kids, and we have been blessed to have 23 foster kids. I can't look my 22-year-old in the eye and say to him, ``Harrison, this stimulus is good for you and good for your generation.'' Why? Because I know for a fact that just the Social Security burden alone, the unfunded net liability that the next generation will owe just on Social Security will equal 25 percent of their income when they come into their prime earning years. That is before this level of spending. We are looking at $1 trillion in spending. $1 trillion just in stimulus spending is equal to the entire amount of money that we have in currency, in the currency today, in the United States. This is an enormous amount of money. And that doesn't include the $2 trillion that the Federal Reserve has also just been in the process of promising this week. We had a $3 trillion day here in Washington, D.C. just a couple of days ago. But the great news is that we do have an answer to these economic doldrums. Republicans don't disagree that there is a problem. There is a tremendous problem. But we also know the solution. How do we know? Well, there is a Harvard long-term study that was completed in 2002, and it said very simply this, ``After studying 18 economies, we know what the answer is to increasing economic competitiveness. It is this: Governments need to cut government wages and they need to cut transfer payments, which are welfare payments.'' How do you characterize a downturned economy? Very simply: Increase taxes. We know what the solution is. Imagine if last year, under the Democrat controlled Congress and under President Bush, had we chosen to reject $1 trillion in new spending, and instead had we put in place permanent tax cuts in the capital gains tax, zeroing that out, cutting the corporate tax rate down to 9 percent, cutting marginal tax rates for every American, our problem this year would be finding enough workers to fill the jobs. There is a reason why we aren't seeing an investment in the United States; it is because we are currently the second highest tax rate, corporate tax rate, in the world. We can change that very quickly. And now when the rest of the globe is in economic doldrums, wouldn't it be a pleasure to have the United States be the best climate for investment? We can do that. That is what the Republican plan aims to do. That is what all of us are down here tonight to offer that positive solution to the American people. We are going to hear a lot about how bad this bill is. In fact, we know it is bad, because Senator Judd Gregg just announced that he is withdrawing his name for consideration as Commerce Secretary under President Obama for two reasons: One being that the stimulus package is so bad he can't be associated with it; and, number two, he is so outraged that the current Obama White House has taken the Census out of the Commerce Department, where it has historically been, and pulled it into the White House for what we believe are obvious political reasons that he has said, ``I can't abide by this. I am gone.'' That is why we are here tonight. That is why I commend you, Representative King, for holding this forum, because we know we have solutions that work. And, after all, the American people deserve no less. And I thank you.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Representative King. Just listening to this very important discussion among all of our colleagues, it just struck me that it seems very telling to me that President Obama, who has strong majorities in both the House and the Senate, seems to be pointing as his nemesis in this very historic debate to radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as being the nemesis in this debate of this wasteful historic level of spending. And so I just wonder if it's a coincidence that now we have Democrat Senators who are calling for Congress to reinstate the fairness doctrine, to now silence these voices. I think the American people need to pay attention to what happens when we challenge this current Democrat majority, because now we're hearing United States Senators calling to silence the very voices that have tried to sound the alarm so the American people can know what's happening here in this Congress. And I yield back.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey). He has done a marvelous job laying the groundwork and pouring the pillars of this important discussion. This is historic, as we all know. Our colleagues understand how historic this level of spending is. Never before in the history of this country have we seen the type of profligate spending that has occurred just since January of this year. Just yesterday, as a matter of fact, we had a $3 trillion day here on Capitol Hill. That is big money. You have heard of fantasy football before. Well, this is fantasy economics that is happening here in Washington, D.C. My colleague will recall it wasn't that long ago that we were fighting on expanding the SCHIP program by $35 billion before we first take care of the children who needed to be on the SCHIP program. We didn't want to expand eligibility until we first took care of the poor children that needed to have that SCHIP funding. So to just get things in perspective for the American people, we've moved from fighting tooth and nail over spending $35 billion to today we're talking, as my colleague mentioned, what appears to be $798 billion. But again, that is the raw number. It is just like when you buy a house or if you buy a car on credit and you're making your mortgage payment, you know you pay an awful lot more back to the bank because you have to make all those interest payments. This bill will be well over $1 trillion, including the debt service. So we're not talking about a small amount of money. And just also to put this in perspective and in context, normally this Congress spends about $1 trillion a year in Federal discretionary spending. And we will take what, perhaps 1,000, 1,200 votes in the course of a year until we finally spend about $1 trillion in spending. Well, consider, it wasn't even the end of January and this body spent, in one vote, what this body normally spends in over 1,000 votes over the course of 12 months to spend in discretionary spending. And remember, this body has hasn't even taken up yet the normal appropriations bills that we have to take up for parks, public safety and education. We haven't even gone there yet with regular budgetary spending that is the duty of this House of Representatives to spend. We've already over and above spent now another $1 trillion on the spending package. We're very concerned about the level of profligate spending. I wanted to mention a study that was completed by Harvard in the year 2002. It was a long-term study. It looked at 18 different economies across the globe. And it asked this very simple question. What is it that governments can do to stimulate or cause economies to prosper, and concomitantly, what do governments do to cause economies to go in a downward spiral? Well, here is the bottom line. Here is what the nutshell of what this long-term study discovered. It was this: If you want an economy, any kind of economy, to prosper and advance, governments need to do two things. You need to cut government wages, number one, and number two, you need to cut transfer payments, which is redistribution of wealth. This stimulus package, which is a big government bailout package, does just the opposite. It increases funding eventually of government wages and also of transfer payments. The reverse then also is true in this Harvard study. It said what can governments do to hurt their economies? And it is very simple: Tax increases. That is what hasn't been talked about in this discussion. The only subject of discussion in Washington, D.C. has been, how big can this bill be? How much can we spend? I'm a former Federal tax litigation attorney. That is what I did for a living, deal with taxes. This bill doesn't answer the question, how are we going to pay for this bill? I don't think the American people realize that yet. Congress has been so free with the American people's money to spend it in every direction they possibly can, but they haven't even addressed the question yet of how they are going to pay for this trillion dollars. And my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is exactly right when he said that we have over $10 trillion of debt, $10 trillion in debt. And now we're going to add to that another 10 percent, and we haven't answered the question, how are we going to pay for it? Well, it is real simple. This is not too tough to figure out. There are only two ways to pay for that kind of spending. You either borrow it from other countries, or you increase the tax load on your citizens, or the Federal Government prints money and puts that money out into the money supply. Well, what does that mean? Massive tax increases. We already know it's going to hurt the individual. It will hurt the economy. What about borrowing? Borrowing is the same thing. We have to pay that money back. We pay it back to other countries. Well, guess what? Other countries right now are suffering globally with their economies as well. What about printing money, putting that into the money supply? We could do that, but that's the cruelest tax of all because that's the tax of inflation. So hardworking, prudent Americans who've done all the right things, who've invested well, will see the value of their dollar drop dramatically because their money isn't worth what it once was.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank Mr. Gingrey from Georgia for his fine words. And I think one thing that also we should address is the issue that was brought up earlier this week by our President in his press conference, when he stated that only the Federal Government, he said the Federal Government is the only entity left big enough and powerful enough to pull us out of this recession. And I was really struck by that comment that he made. That is a tremendous amount of faith to have in the Federal Government. And it views the Federal Government almost as a Good Fairy, or as the Easter Bunny, or as Santa Claus, that it's the Federal Government that's going to be able to pull the economy out of the doldrums. If that is the case, then why doesn't the Federal Government go ahead and take over everything and just run this country and we just decide we're going to become full-blown, socialist state. I don't think that's what the American people are calling for. If you look at the living laboratory of the last 100 years of economics, you look at when America has prospered, what economic policies we followed, and when America has foundered, and it's almost like an economic punctuated equilibrium. If you look at the 1930s, under FDR, with historic levels of government spending, historic levels of government intervention, the United States Secretary of the Treasury during the 1930s was Mr. Henry Morganthau. And after nearly 8 years of historic levels of government spending, and historic levels of government intervention, unemployment levels remained the same as they were at the beginning, about 20, 22 percent level. That's horrific in the United States. The economy had not turned around after that period of time, after historic levels of spending. Sitting before the Democratic controlled Ways and Means Committee in 1939, Henry Morgenthau said this: ``After historic levels of spending, we aren't any better off now than we were when we first started. The formula we tried did not work.'' Then if you leap forward to the 1960s and 1970s and look at the historic levels of spending that occurred under both LBJ and again under Jimmy Carter, we heard my colleague Mr. Gingrey talk about the housing recession that we had during the time of Gerald Ford and about this massive government spending. This was not the policy that brought us out of the economic doldrums. You look at what did work. Look at the dramatic tax cuts that took place in the early 1980s under Ronald Reagan that turned this country around, that pivoted us economically and started us moving forward. Under that policy, under welfare reform that President Bill Clinton signed into law in the 1990s, we saw the government rise, and we saw the local economy rise across our Nation. It is phenomenal what can happen, and it is because of the genius of American initiative. We could do that again. We are still the United States of America. We can still flower and can succeed. When I think that all across the globe we look at global economies that are tanking right now, the United States has the potential for being the center of the storm of security because we have so much in place that could offer the world a safe haven for dollars if we were to embrace the policy that both Representative Gingrey and I have been behind, which is this: Dramatic cuts in government spending and dramatic cuts in taxation. If we have permanent levels of taxation cuts where we lay a ground of certainty in the marketplace, we will see investors want to put capital out if we can zero out capital gains for 3 years. The United States now has the second highest level of taxation in the world. Why would anyone choose the United States to invest in right now? We are not a positive investment climate, but if we would cut corporate tax rates from 34 percent down to 9 percent, zero out capital gains for 3 years, cut marginal tax rates at all levels, as Representative Gingrey has said, and also wipe out the death tax, you would see the economy turn around. Within 6 months, we would be shooting up. Within 18 months, I believe we would have gone through a recession and that we would be roaring, and the rest of the world would look to the United States to invest their currency, and we would forever, I think, be the leader on into the future. We have a good story to tell.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia to bring that point up, because what he is stating for the American people is that this Congress is making a decision, together with the Obama administration, we are adding to uncertainty in the marketplace, and that's really the issue, will this Congress address the issue of certainty versus uncertainty in the economy. I have the largest window manufacturer in the United States in my district. I met with the president of that company several years ago and he said to me, Michele, what we need more than anything is certainty in the marketplace. If you go back to January of 2008, when this Congress made a decision to spend $168 billion in rebate payments that went back into the economy, that decision only led to uncertainty for the American people, uncertainty for American business. We could go through all of the spending initiatives that Congress took through all of 2008 and now into 2009. But I think yesterday said it all, when our United States Treasury Secretary, Mr. Tim Geithner, made his press conference that was well anticipated, what will the Obama administration do about the TARP monies that are available? We saw Wall Street's response, and it was to tank. Why? Because the Obama administration said what they want to do is have bigger and more powerful government. That's what they wanted, bottom line, bigger more powerful government. That did not calm the markets. That only led to uncertainty in the marketplace. It didn't lead to certainty. That's what we need. What would lead to certainty? And what would lead to certainty into the marketplace would be permanent tax reductions. If businesses and individuals who were interested in risk-taking with their investments knew that we would permanently cut the capital gains tax, permanently lower the business tax, the corporate tax rate, permanently lower marginal tax rates, do something about the estate tax problem that's going to spring open in 2010, and also, if they knew that we were going to radically reform the Sarbanes-Oxley rules, that would send a signal. Instead, what does the stimulus do? It tells the American people, well, we're also going to embrace socialized medicine. What? Embrace socialized medicine? This is not what the American people bargained for. This is not what they asked for. We also know that the current administration wants to impose the largest energy tax we've ever seen in the history of our country, also known as the cap-and-trade system. This leads to massive uncertainty. If we would have taken $1 trillion last year that we spent on spending and put $1 trillion into permanent tax relief, I think the gentleman from Georgia would agree, this year, our biggest problem would be finding enough workers to fill the jobs that would have been created from permanent tax relief. That's an alternative that the Republican positive solution has put on the table for American business and American individuals. We've got a plan. We've got a big plan. And that's the genius of America. We trust the American people to take their ingenuity to pour it into the marketplace, because we understand that's true wealth creation. Governments can't create wealth. They never have, they never will. It's the American people and American businesses that create wealth. How? By productivity. How do you get productivity? You produce goods, you produce services. How do you do that? You put capital at work. Why do you do that? You know that you're going to have a return on your investment. Today, the American business world sees there will be very little return on investment. But the Republican plan offers all sorts of return on investment. And that's why, to the gentleman from Georgia I know this is a marvelous way to go, and I'll be happy to add to your colloquy as we go. I'll yield back.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank my colleague, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia. I think he has every reason to be very concerned about this Freedom of Choice Act coming before this body, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Why? Because during the campaign, the President stated quite clearly that he wanted the Freedom of Choice Act to be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as President. So important to this pro- abortion President is the issue of the Freedom of Choice Act, he wanted to make that the signature item of his Presidency. It's a cruel statement to make to the children of this country because there's a lie that's been perpetrated over the years since the 1960s. Planned Parenthood has said ``every child, a wanted child;'' which, by implication, means that if a mother does not want the child, it's better to kill the child than to allow that child to receive life. But I can attest to the fact that I believe every child in the United States and across the world is a wanted child because there are arms that are open and waiting of childless parents all across this country who would love to receive a child, but children just aren't available for adoption. My husband and I are fortunate enough to have 5 children born to us, and we were also fortunate to have 23 foster children come into our home. We were delighted to take at-risk children into our home, thrilled that we could have that opportunity. There are people all across this country who would also like to have that opportunity. It is horrific to know that in the African American community, 50 percent of all African American pregnancies in the United States end in abortion, 50 percent. That is a genocide of African Americans of the United States. It should not be. There are Americans all across this country who would love to adopt African American babies, but they can't because 50 percent of all African American pregnancies today are ending in abortion. What would the Freedom of Choice Act do? Very simply, it's this: It would eviscerate, it would take away every State and local restriction that there is today on abortion--reasonable restrictions, restrictions like making sure every woman has the right to know what options are available to her, to know what is an abortion, what does it mean. For women who have the opportunity to see their unborn child on an ultrasound machine, it's an earthshaking experience to see your baby, your flesh and blood, moving on an ultrasound machine. It takes a woman, it takes the father of that baby to think of what this means. This is human life, and it causes them to want to choose life and give life to that unborn child. Reasonable restrictions have been passed all across this country in many hard-fought battles, and 35 years of effort from the pro-life community would be extinguished just like that. But that's what our President wants to have happen. He wants to take away any pro-life opportunity available from American women.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. One thing that I am very concerned about as a former Federal tax lawyer is the burden on the 20- to 25-year-olds. I cannot look 20- and 25-year-olds in the eye and in good conscience say to them, ``This stimulus bill will be good for you.'' It will not. Why? Because kids born during that time period already are inheriting a huge tax bill. Studies have been done. In my postdoctoral studies that I did in tax law, what my research showed is that, by the time they reach their peak earning years, 20- to 25-year-olds will have to pay a tax burden. Just the Social Security portion of their tax burden will be about 25 percent of their total income. That does not include the Medicaid portion of their tax bills, the Federal tax portion of their tax bills, the State portion, their property tax, their gas tax, their local taxes. By the time all of it is added up, the estimates are, in their peak earning years, that 20- to 25-year-olds could be paying anywhere from 70 to 85 percent of their income in taxation. You heard me right. They could be paying 70 to 85 percent in taxation. That cannot happen. We will see a revolt in this country before people get out of bed in the morning to go and hand over 70 to 85 percent of their checks in taxation. We can not do that to the next generation. We can not impoverish them by taxing them against the wall. That is why the kindest thing that we could do for the next generation is to hand them a well-run country with low tax rates. We cannot spend our way into prosperity. That is something that Leader Boehner has said over and over again. My colleague from Georgia agrees with that. We cannot spend our way into prosperity. What we can do is look at the fundamentals of what works. This Harvard study from 2002 bears it out. This is how you do it: You cut government wages. You cut transfer payments. You do not increase taxes. Under this current stimulus bill, there is no provision for payment for this $1 trillion in expenditures. The day will come when we have to pay this bill, and it will come sooner than anyone thinks. That is what we are concerned about today. We have to be adults now. We are Representatives in Congress. We have to be adults with people's money. We cannot just spend money without thinking through how it is going to be paid for, and I think it is important that the American people realize that this Congress has not made provisions for paying for this party, and it is the 20- to 25- year-olds, in the mother of all ironies, who will be the ones to pay for this bill.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I was detained and unable to cast a vote for rollcall vote No. 57, the motion to table the privileged resolution, H. Res. 143. I would have voted ``nay'' on that motion.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of a true patriot, David Peterson, of Sartell, Minnesota. David is a City Councilman, community leader, attorney, husband and father. And, he is about to make his first deployment to Iraq as a Captain with the Minnesota National Guard's 34th Infantry Division. Even a quick glimpse at David Peterson's life reveals the heart of a true citizen. An attorney by profession, David has worked in legal aid services, as a prosecutor, and in the civil division of the Stearns County Attorney's office. He will use that training as a JAG officer during his deployment. His long and strong history of community leadership led him to run for City Council, and in January 2007, he was sworn into office. He will take a leave of absence from that position while he serves his fellow Minnesotans in Iraq. Tonight in Sartell, David's friends and family and neighbors are meeting to wish him Godspeed as he prepares for his deployment. Along with the Sartell American Legion, the Mayor and City Council will present Captain David Peterson with a flag flown over the U.S. and Minnesota capitols and the Sartell City Hall. They've asked David to take it with him to Iraq and they will fly it again over the City Hall when he returns. I join all of Sartell in our pride of this citizen-soldier, and I, too, wish him Godspeed and God's blessings on his journey.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise to share my profound disappointment in the continued extraordinary anti-Israel rhetoric and policies of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is again endorsing a conference that denies the horror--indeed, the existence-- of the Holocaust and that places blame for much of the world's woes with the people of Israel. Tehran's Sharif University of Technology conference, entitled Holocaust? A Sacred Lie by the West, is in and of itself disturbing. It is evidence that the hatred that underlies the violence in the Middle East is, regrettably, alive and well. But, for the head of a nation to lend the imprimatur of government support to such an event is real cause for alarm. President Ahmadinejad, in his statement of support for the conference, stated that the ``Zionist regime is the `illegitimate child' of the Holocaust phenomenon.'' This is dangerous rhetoric. There are millions of peace-loving peoples in the Middle East-- Israelis, Palestinians, Iranians, Iraqis; indeed from every nation of the region. They will never be able to experience peace and security as long as hatred like this is spoken, taught, and endorsed by the leaders of the region. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has just announced his intention to run for another term as Iran's President. I am hopeful that the people of Iran will send him a message that they want to live in peace with their neighbors and that they want to put an end to the cycle of violence and hatred that conferences like this one epitomize.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Bruce Anderson, who retires as Sheriff for Sherburne County, Minnesota, on Friday, January 30th. As County Board Chairman Arne Engstrom has said, Bruce Anderson ``raised the bar so high for sheriffs in our state.'' Bruce Anderson, raised in Elk River, Minnesota, first started with the Sheriff's Office in 1975, when he forfeited a football scholarship to the University of Minnesota to take a job as a dispatcher-jailer with Sherburne County. He was just 19 years old, but he knew he wanted a career serving his community in law enforcement. Fourteen years ago, he took his experience with the office to a new level when he was elected to serve as the County's Sheriff. His professionalism and dedication earned him re-election three more times, without any opposition. When he told the County Board that he would be retiring, his announcement was marked with the same humility and commitment that Sherburne residents have come to expect of his service. In fact, he thanked the Board for their support, thanked the citizens for the privilege to serve them, and thanked his staff--calling them ``unsung heroes.'' Bruce Anderson's tenure as Sheriff was marked by a number of enormous advances in the Office's operations. He oversaw an expansion of the County jail and worked out an arrangement to house federal inmates there as well. He brought extraordinary technological advances, including updating their radio system to digital to better enable Sherburne sheriffs to communicate with neighboring jurisdictions. And, he solved some real mysteries and crimes, including a high-profile 1992 murder. Bruce's successor will be Captain Joel Brott, who has served in Sherburne County law enforcement for 12 years. Captain Brott has said that he considers Sheriff Anderson a mentor and with such tutelage, Sherburne is sure to be in good hands. In the meantime, we look forward to seeing what next wonderful adventure in public service awaits Bruce Anderson. Sherburne County Commissioner Felix Schmiesing called Anderson's retirement ``the end of an era'' but I believe it is the start of a wonderful new chapter both for Bruce Anderson and for the people of Sherburne County, who I am certain he will continue to serve in some new way.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, one week ago today Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. Millions flooded into Washington, DC to witness this historic occasion, presenting law enforcement authorities with an enormous logistical and security challenge. To meet this challenge, the selfless men and women of Minnesota's National Guard came to Washington to assist with the Presidential Inauguration and to ensure the safety of the President as well as everyone present for inaugural festivities. The superlative conduct and ability of Minnesota's guardsmen helped to make certain the ceremony and surrounding events occurred as safely as possible for all attendees, despite the many obstacles present in such a complex undertaking. And so it is my honor to recognize and pay tribute to all the brave citizen-soldiers of the Minnesota National Guard. Their exceptional service during our President's inauguaration is a true source of pride for all Minnesotans, as is the Guard's continuing and unbroken tradition of noble service to our State and country.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and for the fine work that he is doing on these moments that we have together. One guarantee that we do have from the stimulus bill that we can count on, that we can take to the bank, on which there will be no disagreement and no dissent is this: If we pass this $825 billion stimulus tomorrow, and it seems to be a certain thing because the majority has the votes, and if we add to that the debt service which would be over $300 billion added on top of that, bringing us to a total of over $1.1 trillion, the certainty, the guarantee that we will take to the bank, that we will need to look at the American people straight in the eye and be four square honest in telling them is this: You will encounter punishingly high tax increases at every level of the economic spectrum. It's a given. We have to. Why can we say this with certainty? Because someone has to pay this bill. When you go out to eat, the check comes and someone has to pay for it. Maybe a nice person at the other table will pay for your check. But at the end of the day, someone is paying that check. And it's the American people that are paying for this party. Make no mistake. This stimulus bill has very little to do with stimulating the economy and helping the average American. This is a bailout for big government. And let's get ready. We are looking at massive tax increases and we are looking at massive inflation or both. In fact, we could be looking at hyperinflation. I don't want to be ``Debbie Downer'' bringing bad news to the American public, but it's a certainty. If you spend money at this level, and consider we are spending almost as much money on this stimulus bill as we will spend in our discretionary spending, take it to the bank. That is our future. Mr. Chairman, the legislation under consideration today will saddle generations of taxpayers with hundreds of billions of dollars of debt and will, I fear, not lead this country to real economic recovery. The Democrats' bill has a starting price of $825 billion--enough money to give every person living in poverty in the United States $22,000. In fact, the total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire Federal Government. To make matters worse, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the real cost of the legislation will be more than $1 trillion. CBO reports that if Congress borrows more than $800 billion, it will burden future generations with an additional $347 billion in interest payments. That totals more than $1.1 trillion. And, regrettably, that total includes frivolous spending on items such as $600 million for new cars for the Federal Government and $21 million for sod to fill in the mall after the inauguration. We must not forget our responsibility to the taxpayer simply because we label something a crisis or even a response to a crisis. The Democrats' have tried to sell this proposal as a transportation and infrastructure investment package. And, I'm all for investing in rebuilding our Nation's roads and bridges and believe that government spending on transportation infrastructure projects is absolutely important. However, only $30 billion of the bill--or three percent--is for road and highway spending. And, CBO states that much of this spending will take several years to make any stimulative impact. My constituents understand that we cannot spend our way to prosperity and that serious consequences lie ahead if Congress goes down this irresponsible borrow-and-spend path. What the American people really need are long-term, permanent tax cuts which will impact families twice as fast as the Democrats' government spending in this bill. These tax cuts will spur job creation and help stabilize the economy over the long run. I support much-needed, incentive-based relief for small businesses, the job-creators and the backbone of our economy, and I believe we must reduce the financial burden that the Federal Government imposes on middle-class families. I'm a cosponsor of the Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act, which is a real economic recovery plan that has NO welfare spending, NO pork-barrel spending, and NO bailouts. This package would immediately inject private capital into our economy and at the same time, it would lay the groundwork for sustained economic growth. It includes a permanent 5 percent across-the-board income tax cut. It increases, and makes permanent, the child tax credit to $5,000 and makes the lower 15 percent capital gains and dividends rates permanent. It repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, on individuals--a punitive and outdated relic of a tax which will hit more than 30 million people in 2009. It permanently repeals required distributions on retirement accounts and makes all withdrawals from IRAs tax- and penalty-free during 2009. And, it increases by 50 percent the tax deduction on student loans and on qualified higher education expenses. These are just some of the key initiatives of this legislation. We have seen the mistakes of tax-and-spend government policies in the past and know that they will not lead to long-term economic growth and recovery. We must implement real, permanent tax relief for American families and stop this Washington spending spree that will burden many generations to come.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor 34 men and women and one whole family from Albany, MN who have put their heart and soul into making that community such a wonderful place to live, work, and raise a family. This weekend, the Albany Chamber of Commerce honored these people for putting their ``hand and heart into everything they do'' to serve their colleagues and their fellow citizens. From keeping us safe to teaching our children to caring for our elderly, these men and women are the rock on which we stand. The chamber, which itself is such an integral part of this community, has taken this opportunity to draw attention to the selfless and kind acts of these individuals and their nominating organizations: Richard ``Hunk'' Wolf, Albany Fire Department; Richard Schiller, Albany Senior Dining; Bertha Schiller, Albany Senior Dining; Rosie Finken, Albany Senior Dining; Bob Pauly, Albany Senior Dining; Bob Thielman, Albany Senior Dining; Ralph Vos, Albany Senior Dining; Norbert Vos, Albany Senior Dining; Rosie Krebs, Albany Senior Dining; Howard Krebs, Albany Senior Dining; Robert St. Marie, Albany Senior Dining; Richard Carlson, Albany Senior Dining; Grace Carlson, Albany Senior Dining; LuAnn Jopp, Albany Home Bakery; Pam Kraker, Albany Lions; Sarah Kittelson, Albany Police Department; Tammy Jurek, Albany Police Department; Darren Trousil, Albany Police Department. Paul Nelson, Wells Concrete Products; Steve Stromme, Albany Area Schools; Ron Paulsen, Albany Area Schools; Herb Binsfeld, Albany Food Shelf; Mary Binsfeld, Albany Food Shelf; Kathy Pung, AAH & Medical Center; Judy Zenzen, AAH & Medical Center; Janet Christen, Holy Family School; Ryan Scherping, Holy Family School; Patty Leyk, Our Savior's Lutheran Church; Val Oehrlein, Mother of Mercy Auxiliary; The Sand Family, Albany Chamber; Al Amdahl, Albany Jaycees; Brennan Shay, Albany Pioneer Club; Bev Lieser, Albany Women of Today; Nathan Meer, Albany Boy Scouts; Justin Overman, Albany Boy Scouts. I share in the chamber's recognition of their great public service.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I would like to just thank him for the years and years and years of commitment that he has had to the unborn here in America. The unborn have had a friend in Chris Smith. I thank you. That through thick and thin, it seems like we got a lot closer to our goal. Right now, it seems like we are a lot farther away when you look at the way the winds are prevailing. It has been 36 years since we have had the fateful decision of Roe v. Wade. In 36 years, we look at the fruit of that decision and what it has led to. Has it been freedom for women? Some might say so. Has it been enslavement for women? There are a lot of women who testify that yes, it has been enslavement for them, to years of depression, fighting perhaps alcoholism, drug addiction, because they had no idea what terminating the life of their little child would do to them in terms of ripping up their insides. They didn't really know what the decision would mean. My husband has had the privilege of counseling women and men who have been in that decision, abortion-minded women, who have later deeply regretted that decision that they made. I know for my husband and I, we are just so grateful God gave us five biological children over the years that we are grateful for, and we lost one. The baby that we lost taught us so much. When that baby died, it changed our lives. I know for me, personally, I couldn't speak for 3 days after I lost that baby. Something was touched in the center of my soul, something so deep, so fundamental about human life that I can't even put into words right now. But the one thing I do know is that we are created in the image and likeness of a holy God. I just think that we should not be about the business of taking away something that is so precious and so life-giving and that can never be altered. It is a decision that, once it's made, can't be changed. When we lost our own baby, my husband and I decided we wanted to open up our home to children that were in difficult circumstances. And so we brought in 23 children over the years, not all at once, but over the years, and it changed us for the better, bringing in kids who are in really some of the very tough, tough situations. But, you know what? I have often heard that phrase from Planned Parenthood that says, ``Every Child a Wanted Child.'' I just want the American public to know, every child is a wanted child. There's a foster parent out there that wants to take in a child in at-risk situations. There are adoptive parents out there that are crying tonight, literally crying themselves to sleep, because they want to take in a child. No, we are not talking just perfect children. We are talking special needs children. Children with disabilities of every kind. There are parents that want to adopt those children. And so when I look at the policy that is coming down the pike here in our Nation's Capitol or we are looking at reviving this policy of having the American taxpayer pay for international abortions, my heart breaks. It breaks because it's all so unnecessary. It's unnecessary because there is love. There are homes. There are men, there are women that want to offer the positive alternative. For years, one of our colleagues from Pennsylvania, Joe Pitts, offered legislation called the Positive Alternatives Act. He was gracious to allow me to offer that bill last year. I offer it again now this year. It says to the men and women of America who are in a pregnancy that maybe they didn't count on that there's another way. Abortion isn't the only answer. There's a positive alternative. Can we allow tax money, your tax money, the American people, to go to pay for international abortions? Shouldn't we allow your tax money to go to offer to pay for positive alternatives for men and women, to offer them counseling, hope. Isn't this the time of hope and change? Let's offer true hope and change that will make an eternal difference in the lives of America's next generation. We have lost 50 million. We have lost 50 million Americans. Part of the generation that would be up and working right now to build this country into a better Nation, but we have lost them to eternity. We have lost them. I say we have a chance now for true hope and true change, to have a positive alternative so that tax money won't be spent just on death, but tax money now could be to offer life, a true positive choice. That is why I am so grateful to my colleague from New Jersey, the wonderful Representative Chris Smith, because for years and years and years he has known, he has fought. He gets it. The next generation needs us. They need our voice. And that is why I am so grateful that I can be a Member of Congress, to make that message now and to make that plea with my beloved colleague, just to beg our colleagues to join us. If we can offer death, certainly our country is good enough to offer life. With that, I yield back.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 39 to honor the immense influences and contributions that Catholic schools have made on their students and their surrounding communities. For centuries, Catholic schools have provided families with a strong alternative to the public school system, offering a vital faith component that enhances a child's overall education sadly unwelcome in the halls of our local public schools. A Catholic education prepares our Nation's youth to lead lives of commitment to the message of Jesus Christ while at the same time fostering an environment for academic success. It continuously challenges its students to a life-long pursuit of intellectual growth both in and outside the classroom while also stressing the need to take an active role in the betterment of their neighborhood and community. But most importantly, Madam Speaker, Catholic schools instill in their student body the precious ideal of setting one's heart upon things above, not merely on goods on earth--a much needed lesson in a society that is quick to get caught up in the latest gadget and the never- ending chase for dollars. Madam Speaker, I stand today to humbly honor the contributions Catholic schools make to the betterment of our society, and pray for their continued success.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 384, which would strike the bill's misguided provisions that would water down the important taxpayer protections in the Hope for Homeowners Program. When the majority created this program, Mr. Chair, 3 months ago, it was not that long ago, Mr. Chair, they promised that it would help a lofty 400,000 families who were behind on mortgage payments and possibly facing foreclosure. This was a worthy goal, Mr. Chairman, but it seems that the majority created a government program for which there has been very little public demand. With a little over 300 applications in the pipeline, it's clear that this program has been an enormous waste of time, of energy, of money and of other taxpayer resources. Just 12 days ago, Mr. Chair, as of January 3, 2009, the Hope for Homeowners Program, which cost taxpayers $300 billion, can be credited with helping, not 400,000 families, just 13 families actually refinance. So what will the majority do? How far will they go to prove that their failing program is a success and not a boondoggle? Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, today we are seeing the answer before this body. My Democrat colleagues are willing to strip out the essential taxpayer protections in an effort to spur more participation in this program. Mr. Chair, we are talking about taxpayer protections which were already weak at their very best light. In the underlying bill, they are virtually nonexistent. The people who will benefit, the participants, will no longer be required to pay any up-front premiums. In other words, Mr. Chair, they will have no skin in the game, which was originally required to help sustain this program. The annual premiums are even significantly decreased under H.R. 384 and, in fact, the Federal Housing Administration is given the authority to weigh them all together whenever they see fit. These two mechanisms were common sense. They were regularly touted, with all due respect, by our Chairman Frank and other supporters of Hope for Homeowners as important safeguards to protect the taxpayers when the program was established. We agreed to that. Yet today they seek to eliminate those protections from title V. Additionally, title V removes the requirement in the current program that ensures taxpayers will receive a home equity appreciation share as payment for the taxpayers' investment through Hope for Homeowners. In other words, people will be permitted to receive assistance from the government to pay their mortgages, but should their home values rise, they can make a profit, and they won't have to give anything back to those same taxpayers who lent them a helping hand in the first place to keep their home. Our chairman, again, explained this issue best once upon a time when our chairman stated you are not going to get a program approved that helps people refinance loans on their homes and then allows them to turn around the following year and make a profit on that home. However, that's exactly the direction that the bill before us, H.R. 384, takes for this program. This bill scales back the haircut that lenders must take to participate in Hope for Homeowners from 90 percent to 93 percent of the loan-to-value ratio, but it simultaneously removes the already weak taxpayer protections that are in the program. This provision also authorizes payments to servicers for every loan ensured under the Hope For Homeowners Program. While I too have concerns that some servicers may not be refinancing loans as quickly or as often as they could, this is real. The bill's language, unfortunately, is so vague, Mr. Chairman, so open ended, that servicers could be paid billions of dollars in return for refinancing loans. This provision essentially increases the risk to the cost of the taxpayers while reducing the burden on investors and servicers to submit bad loans to the government for modification, not the direction we want to go, I submit. Title V also allows taxpayer dollars authorized under TARP to be used to further fund Hope for Homeowners should it run out of the 300 billion the program has already received. What that means is that this bill gives an already failing government program an unlimited supply of tax dollars under TARP should they run out of money. Now how in the world does this make sense for American taxpayers?

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I am going in order of the amendments. I am going in order of the amendments as they're offered. Parliamentary Inquiry