Michele Bachmann

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I am going according to the rule.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will just finish this sentence. At the very least shouldn't we wait to see how the current $300 billion, yes, billion, should be spent. If this is near the end of my time, Mr. Chair, I would submit my remarks for the Record. It's as if the Democrats are predicting that their own program will face a shortfall due to re-defaults or some other course of events. At the very least, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. With an unlimited supply of funds on which to draw, there will be no incentive to improve and HOPE for Homeowners will continue to bleed taxpayers dry without any benefit to the homeowners it is meant to help. Mr. Chair, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Steve Preston recently stated that the HOPE for Homeowners program has been a failure, in part, because ``Congress dotted the i's and crossed the t's for [HUD], and unfortunately it has made this program tough to use.'' Yet here we are again watching Democrats legislate their way to the impossible--only this time they have rejected even the appearance of protecting taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and restore what little taxpayer protection was in place in the HOPE for Homeowners program.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise now to offer an amendment to the bill before us, H.R. 384, which would strike the bill's misguided provisions that, in effect, water down important taxpayer protections in the hope for homeowners---- Point of Order

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2009. While I support the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, and its continued reauthorization, the proposal before the House today reauthorizes this program in an irresponsible manner, at a time when the American people need responsible government more than ever. As you know, I recently joined many of my Republican colleagues in a letter to you, Madam Speaker, and to President-elect Obama asking that any reauthorization of SCHIP contain commonsense provisions to ensure that the program's mission is fulfilled. For instance, SCHIP is meant to ensure that children without means can gain access to health care. The program is designed to cover them first, before extending coverage to children whose families may be able to afford coverage. Unfortunately, the bill with which we have been presented includes no requirement that states focus the funds in this bill on low-income children. There is a likelihood that the failure to include such a provision will lead to funds being diverted from the children who need them most, particularly in the states that have expanded their SCHIP programs most dramatically. Another concern that I have is the impact of this legislation on the private insurance market and the families who depend upon it. In scoring this legislation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that 2.4 million people will drop their existing private insurance, opting instead for the public program. This ``crowding out'' will constrict the health insurance pool and further increase the cost of private insurance for millions more. Given the ranks of Americans who already cannot afford health insurance, this is the last thing the American people need. There are other concerns that I have with this bill and with the way it is being pushed through with so little debate and no opportunity for amendment. While the House leadership has again promised that it will work in a bipartisan fashion, bringing both sides of the aisle together to build consensus legislation, this promise has turned out to be nothing more than empty to the American public. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding a few minutes to me. It's a tremendous honor to be able to sit on the Financial Services Committee. It's been the center of the universe the last 2 years dealing with this crisis that's very real that is impacting not only individuals but businesses, people who are looking at the loss of their life savings, loss of their greatest capital asset: their home. We know that this is a strong reality. But we also realize the magnitude of the tremendous amount of taxpayer resources that have been devoted to this effort. Initially we were told by the Treasury Secretary that in effect a financial Armageddon would ensue if this body did not, in fact, pass a bailout of gargantuan proportions. We were told $700 billion is what the Treasury Secretary would need to have in order to offer an effective front to stave off, in essence, the four horsemen of the apocalypse for our financial markets. We've seen a tremendous roller coaster occur in 2008 regarding our financial markets. For the first $350 billion, the first tranche going forward, what have we seen? This week in the Financial Services Committee, we had testimony before our committee from the administration. Questions were asked: Where has the first $350 billion gone? Who are the recipients of the first $350 billion? What did the money get spent on? What were the answers that we received? What is the effectiveness of that money? Did the American taxpayer receive value for $350 billion that's already been expended? Mr. Chairman, not only did we not receive answers to those questions, we didn't receive answers to the very basic question of what will the next administration do with this next request for $350 billion? We don't have a full accounting of that either. And what is the reason? Again, Mr. Chairman, we're told to do just exactly what we were told with the last $350 billion: Trust me. Trust me. That didn't work so well for us last time. We were rushed into this. There wasn't oversight. There weren't strings attached. Once again with the next $350 billion, this Congress is being told that we will have to go out and borrow $350 billion because the American people need to know we don't have $350 billion in the bank right now, or like my father-in-law says to my mother-in-law, ``Elma, I have to go to the backyard and shake the money tree to get the money out.'' There isn't money there in the bank. We have to go and borrow money that we don't have. And who pays that back? It's the American taxpayer. I think, Mr. Chairman, we need to have some very basic answers to our questions before we go forward with this extraordinary request. We are being forced to vote without details on how this $350 billion will be spent, but the trouble is we haven't held even a single hearing on the merits or the necessity of releasing the second tranche because the House is proceeding as though the decision has already been made to release the second $350 billion without holding any substantial debate on whether or not such a release is the appropriate step for stabilizing the financial markets and getting these markets moving again. Congress handed the Treasury Secretary a $700 billion blank check. Let's just be clear about that. The original bailout was passed, and we were told that the $700 billion was essentially a big number. It was picked out of thin air, but it was needed to calm the markets. Now, I think most Americans would be appalled to learn that that was the truth. But we also need to recognize the United States Treasury doesn't even have to spend every penny of that money. Many experts, even Secretary Paulson himself, stated that was the case. But here we are again and the House is moving forward with a preemptive decision that jumps ahead of this very fundamental question, and it's this: Is it even necessary to release the second tranche for the state of our financial markets? We remain unconvinced, many of us, that the case hasn't even been made that it is. This bill is attempting to make sweeping changes to the way that TARP must operate. I would agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that TARP has very serious flaws, many of which were predicted by many of us on both sides of the aisle, and we should look at ways to address the flaws. But Congress should not be forced to rush to vote on this bill the way that we are being forced to rush on it today. Congress was rushed into this gargantuan decision, and we need to take the time to be deliberative.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, today Congress is about to embark upon another corporate bailout--this time for Detroit's Big Three automakers--without any assurances to the taxpayers that it won't be back for more. In fact, from all news reports, while this bailout comes with a starting price of $15 billion, Congressional leadership negotiating the deal fully expects that this is just the beginning and that taxpayers will be hit up again in the new year. Though the already-passed $700-billion Wall Street bailout has had little to no success, Congress is about to go down this same road again. And, it appears that it does so with few qualms about the impact of its actions on hard-pressed taxpayers. We hear promises of strict oversight and accountability measures--but who does the Congress think it's kidding? Already two nonpartisan, independent panels have lambasted Treasury for its execution of the current bailout scheme. The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) scathing report about the Federal Government's poor oversight says it all in the title: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure Integrity, Accountability, and Transparency. Why should taxpayers expect the government's oversight of this bailout be any different? Unfortunately, the Democrat-led Congress has chosen to blindly oblige Big Labor at every turn, regardless of whether it's in the best interest of taxpayers. They have dismissed consideration of alternative proposals that could truly restructure these companies over the long-term and help them rein in costs. They don't want Ford, GM and Chrysler to reorganize under the protection of the bankruptcy courts, even if it would save them without a taxpayer bailout, because it means that they would actually make structural changes and renegotiate labor contracts without the threat of outside lawsuits. The Democrats have already spent more than a trillion dollars in bailouts this year--why not a few billion more? Mr. Speaker, the hardworking men and women in America did not sign up for this. They did not turn over their hard-earned money to Uncle Sam just so Congress can dole it out to unaccountable companies that made poor business decisions for years. Throwing taxpayer money at Detroit's spiraling problems will not fix their long-term management and productivity troubles and they will only be back for more time and time again. Congress should not look the other way and put the taxpayers, and their children and grandchildren, on the hook for billions more in unaccountable spending.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise to share a story of two true public servants, Jack and Genevieve Chapman of Minnesota. As we enter a season when people's hearts and minds are turned to the spirit of giving, these two people have lived a life of selflessness and charity. Jack Chapman of St. Paul was recognized by the Army as a Shot Expert Rifleman as an ROTC high school student. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, he was an electrical engineering student at the University of Minnesota. One year later, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and was sent to the prestigious Bellevue Radio Materiel School at the U.S. Naval Research Lab. His lifelong love of Ham radio made him a perfect candidate for the new science of radar. He was assigned to the Marine Night Fighters in the South Pacific, the very first to use radar at night. He earned two Bronze Service Stars on the Asiatic-Pacific campaign ribbon. Jack also earned the American Theater Campaign Bar before being honorably discharged to return home and complete his college education. Genevieve Christgau of Minneapolis pursued a nursing degree and became a registered nurse working in the operating room at Asbury Hospital. Her status as essential personnel kept her from joining the Army Nurse Corps. But, as soon as her status changed, she enlisted and was assigned to the 77th Field Hospital in December 1944. Her tour took her to France where she worked with soldiers preparing to return home. Many had come from POW camps and were suffering severe malnutrition. Before her honorable discharge and return to the States, Genevieve was stationed in Nuremburg, Germany. When she returned home, she resumed nursing; this time in the Veterans Hospital in Minneapolis. During the Cuban Refugee Crisis, she worked at Fort McCoy, WI, and she earned certification as a Public Health Nurse, helping provide early childhood screenings and school nursing services. Genevieve and Jack married on February 18, 1949 and continued to live a life of service. Both are active volunteers at Pax Christi Catholic Church. They also have been members of ``Friday Friends,'' a group that visits Presbyterian Homes, formerly the Eagle Nursing Home, and of Bridging, an organization that provides household furniture and goods to those who need them most. Always putting their family at the center of their generous spirits, they have raised seven children, giving them 16 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. These two fine people have lived a life of service to their country, their community, and their family. They are two of the many unsung heroes that make America work, and today I rise to sing their praises and to thank them for their selflessness.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also want to thank the Speaker of the House for making the case why so many Republicans are unwilling at this point to sign on to this legislation that's before us. However, I do believe also, Madam Speaker, that Democrats and Republicans are both committed to finding a way out of this financial challenge, and we think we have one. But the answer we believe needn't cost taxpayers $700 billion. The problem is a lack of credit for creditworthy people, people who are fully capable of paying that credit back. Why is there a lack of credit? It's because the SEC has mandated accounting rules that have forced banks to value assets well below their actual economic value. So what does this mean? It means that if a bank has $1 worth of deposits, they can make $10 in loans. But if accounting rules are forcing banks to devalue assets, $500 billion, then that means that banks are prohibited from making $5 trillion worth of loans. And that's why we have a credit crunch. Unfortunately, the bill that we have before us today doesn't even address this credit crisis. Let's first direct the SEC to suspend mark-to-market accounting rules for assets for which there is no market. That only makes sense. Second, stop naked short selling. Then the FDIC can issue net asset certificates that saved banks during the S&L crisis and the FDIC can write a letter to United States banks telling them in the absence of fraud that the FDIC will fully back all deposits for first-tier creditors. Let's try these practical solutions before we pull the trigger on a $700 billion bailout that doesn't even address the underlying program. Today, Madam Speaker, Republicans and Democrats agree. It's time for a rest. It's time for a break. Let's embrace a practical solution before we tie a $700 billion bailout around the neck of the American people.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, on September 23, 2008, I was unexpectedly detained and could not vote on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act (roll No. 622). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on this issue, which is perhaps the most important vote that Members will take during their entire congressional career. I know for me, this is my first term in Congress. This is the pivotal vote that I will be taking. And my heart has been breaking. I have been despairing over this vote that is coming before us not because I am afraid to take the vote but because I am despairing over what could be the outcome because I grieve over the fact that we may reject, for the first time in the history of our country, in a wholesale manner, free markets, free answers and free capitalism. And what that means is freedom. And there is nothing more important in this country than freedom. It's why a mom would put her 5-year-old in an inner tube in Havana and brave the shark-infested waters for 90 miles to get to Florida so that she could see her son enjoy something she never knew. And that is a concept called ``freedom.'' And what does that have to do with the bailout? It has everything to do with the bailout because what this bailout represents is the wholesale leap downward towards socialism, towards saying that we can never have failure again. Nobody can ever have a bad day. Congress has to jump in and make it right every time, because government has to take up risk and back up everybody's risk. I wrote something earlier this week that I would like to share in the course of my remarks this evening. When Bear Stearns hit bottom in March of this year in 2008, the credit crisis claimed the first big Wall Street victim. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said, we had to bail out this bleeding financial giant at the cost to the taxpayers of $29 billion. Even for Washington that is a lot of money. Secretary Paulson said that would stabilize the markets. But it didn't. Next, Treasury Paulson said that we had to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All roads in this big fat mess go through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is a monster of ugly proportions created by the government. That should be our first lesson. Government should never create a private business. But it created this private monstrosity and then decided it would back up with a wink and a nod any risky, hare-brained loan or mortgage-backed security that Fannie and Freddie came up with. The starting price of that bailout was $200 billion and climbing. And that is on top of $300 billion that was passed by Congress only a month or so earlier in another massive housing bailout bill. We were told then that this would surely calm the markets. But it didn't. Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke then siphoned $85 billion from taxpayer coffers to save another private company known as AIG from bankruptcy, and again with the stated purpose of stabilizing the markets. Did it do the trick this time? No. Things appear only to have gotten worse. More than $600 billion into these market-calming bailouts, the market turmoil has only ramped up. And it's continuing. In fact, it has now grown to such an incredible crescendo that here we are tonight, and the Treasury Secretary and the Federal Reserve Chair has told Congress, in no uncertain terms by the way, that we must spend another $700 billion in taxpayer funds. We are told we must do this now, without delay, without deliberation, as Congressman Garrett has said, without answers to most of our questions. This would bring the bailout tally to well over $1 trillion, now that is real money, even for Washington, approaching half the size of America's entire budget. In other words, every American who has played it safe and has played it smart to avoid being in debt is now being asked to spend the rest of his or her life paying off the debts of Washington and the debts of some miscreants on Wall Street. We are well on our way to privatizing profit but socializing risk. And we are well on our way to eliminating moral hazard from economics altogether. This is antithetical not only to the free-market basis of the United States economy, but also to the rich heritage of liberty, that is called freedom, that we've long enjoyed. It runs counter to the American Dream, to what we hold dear, unless you're a fat cat that is rolling the dice with taxpayers' money. Then who cares? American taxpayers are chumps here in this equation because American taxpayers are being asked to clean up a mess that the American taxpayer didn't create. Congress must not rush to judgment on this matter. We can't do that. It's a complicated issue. That is true. This isn't easy for any of us to sort out. All Members of Congress, I think, are going through a crash course in a Ph.D. in high finance all within less than 1 week's time. And the consequences could threaten generations with lack of prosperity. We can't just stick a $1 trillion Band-aid on that problem. We don't have that kind of money in our back pocket, because after all, when Uncle Sam opens his cash box this week, there are no greenbacks in there. There are only feathers flying out that cash box. We have to examine the root causes of this problem. And we have to seek to address the core issues. It's real simple. Government got involved where it shouldn't get involved. We spent more money than what we had. It's not too tough to figure out. Otherwise it's only a matter of time before we find ourselves right back where we were. The recklessness of government is the primary culprit here. Once again, just like on energy, it is Congress that created this problem. For years Congress has been pushing banks to make risky subprime loans. You heard me right. It wasn't the lenders on their own. Congress passed laws that said we're going to fine you and we're going to file lawsuits against you lenders if you don't make risky loans. And using the authority of the Community Reinvestment Act, the big push for subprime mortgages began in earnest during the Clinton administration. Republicans aren't completely lily-white here with hands. The Clinton administration however ramped this up. And banks that didn't play ball were subjected to serious fines and lawsuits, and regulatory obstacles were placed in their way. Expanding access to the American Dream is a worthy goal. We all agree with that. But by blindly pursuing that goal and allowing the end to justify means, we put millions of Americans today at financial risk. Although we question what that risk might be. Because many of these home loans are backed by mammoth government- sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and the Freddie Mac, kind of like your weird uncle and weird aunt, Wall Street was more than happy to trade on these egregious loans. The assumption, which was proven right, was that Uncle Sam would guarantee them. Fannie and Freddie quickly grew too big. And all calls to regulate them, made even in fact by this administration, more closely to reform their structures were ignored, ignored I would say by the current Chair of the House Financial Services Committee of which I'm privileged to serve on. In fact, leaders in Congress such as Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, resisted reforming Fannie and Freddie at every turn. When former Treasury Secretary John Snow pleaded before Chairman Frank before his committee for Fannie and Freddie reform, the chairman responded, ``Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially.'' O, that Barney Frank were right. But Treasury Secretary Snow was right. And millions of homes and a mountain of wealth were built on a foundation of sand. And when the housing bubble burst, it all began to collapse. And suddenly, the homeowners who took out loans that they couldn't afford had homes that were worth less than when they bought them. And stalwart financial giants were left holding on to billions in securities that they just couldn't cash, what are called ``illiquid assets'' that you read about in your morning paper. And without liquidity and without the free flow of credit, the market ground to a halt, and companies began to buckle. Endless government bailouts will not prevent this crisis from repeating itself. We need to remember that. It will further cement the precedent that got us here in the first place. There are other options to bringing much-needed liquidity to the market, including infusing the market with new capital by suspending the business tax and the capital gains tax. Also Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need to be dismantled and quick. Now that the implicit taxpayer guarantee that they enjoyed for years has been made permanent, we have to make a clean break with them. Accounting that artificially devalued securities and other assets could be temporarily suspended. And before Congress jumps to a full trillion dollar plus bailout, it should explore these and other market reforms. Congress should look for the best way to provide the greatest stabilization in the markets with the least taxpayer exposure. And that is where House Republicans come in. We do not want the American taxpayer to bail out this $700 billion tab. It isn't about Wall Street. It's about this street, Washington, D.C. The Congress created this problem. For 2 years, the Democrat-controlled Congress, while this head of steam has been building, has failed to dismantle Freddie and Fannie. They have failed to dismantle the Community Reinvestment Act. But the real issue here is the forgotten man. That is the issue. It's the forgotten man. It's the poor, beleaguered American taxpayer. Who is going to be left to bail him out?

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House considered and passed H.R. 6353, the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. This legislation will ensure that purchasers of potentially dangerous prescription drugs are evaluated face-to-face by a physician, removing the potentially dangerous anonymity inherent in the current federal regulations which allow prescriptions to be written based on a telephone call or online questionnaire. To be sure, online pharmaceuticals makes it possible for millions of Americans to conveniently and affordably access the prescription medications on which they rely. However, the online system of prescribing and dispensing medication has been accompanied by a disturbing increase in the level of harm and death due to prescription drugs. This increase is, in large part, a result of the current federal guidelines that allow online pharmacies to write prescriptions for patients based on a telephone conversation with a physician or a simple online questionnaire, empowering patients to diagnose and prescribe for themselves virtually any drug and dosage they desire. Without the necessary information for adequate oversight by a qualified physician, many people have been exposed to dangerous and, all too often, deadly medications. In response, many states have enacted laws requiring that individuals seeking access to powerful medications such as Vicoden and Xanax be evaluated in person before being prescribed a controlled substance. For example, in my state of Minnesota, the legislature and governor have recently worked together to establish Justin's Law. Named for a vibrant young man whose bright future was cut short by an overdose of prescription painkillers obtained through an internet pharmacy without a physician visit, Justin's Law has already been implemented to hold illicit online pharmacies accountable. That said, the lives affected by online pharmacies are not limited to a particular state, and moreover, the interstate nature of the commerce conducted via the internet warrants that legislation be enacted at the federal level to help protect online consumers. As a result, I applaud my colleague, Congressman Stupak for introducing H.R. 6353. This legislation, of which I am a cosponsor, will help stem the dangerous tide of controlled substances being dispensed without adequate supervision.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, over the weekend Secretary Paulson asked taxpayers to pony up an astonishing $700 billion to buy financial services sector debt on top of the existing bailouts that are already implemented this year. All told, that amounts to an astonishing $1.5 trillion. Spending at this proportion doesn't just impact a fiscal year, it will impact generations of prosperity. We are told that the consequences of inaction, even of deliberative action, will be severe, but I am concerned that the consequences of hasty action could be just as dire. I have had hundreds of constituents call my office, as have my colleagues, over the last 2 days, asking this question. They are all expressing skepticism for this plan. They remain unconvinced, as I remain unconvinced, that they will get much result for their investment. We should not be in the habit of writing blank checks. We should not rush to take action in a week when the consequences could last several lifetimes, because the forgotten man in all of this is the everyday American taxpayer. It's with them in mind that we should fully focus on our responsibilities and not rush to judgment because of an artificial deadline.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, this weekend, the professional pipefitters of St. Cloud Local No. 539 and contractors from the Minnesota Mechanical Contractors Association will head out to 30-40 local homes to provide free furnace service for low-income, senior, and disabled homeowners. They are putting their skills and experience to work to help those who are less fortunate in our community. Maintaining a furnace is a very important household task. An inefficient furnace can cost a family hundreds of extra dollars each year--and the winters get pretty cold in Minnesota. With energy prices already high and with food and other costs skyrocketing as well, few can make room in their tight budgets for those hundreds of dollars. And, this is especially true of seniors and others on fixed incomes. The free services provided by these professionals, however, not only help save money, but also help save lives. By installing detectors during their inspections, they will help keep so many people from exposure to life-threatening levels of carbon monoxide. For 22 years, HEATS ON has provided more than 25,000 hours of services to more than 6200 households. While the money value on these services exceeds $2.7 million, the real value is so much greater. And, I commend these men and women for their work and their dedication to their community.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership, for what he's doing on this bill. He's a remarkable talent, and we're well served by Mr. Campbell. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill that's before this body. Given the current instability in our credit markets and, Madam Speaker, given the pressing need for this United States Congress to focus on the financial services bailout that is now before us, this bill is simply not what the United States Congress should be debating today. In fact, this bill is just another example of how this Congress far too often charges ahead without full contemplation of the consequences of its actions. In today's global marketplace, Madam Speaker, consumers are paying for products and services more and more with credit and debit cards, rather than with cash payments. It's a completely different way today that we have of doing business. In fact, electronic payments now account for more than half of all consumer purchases here in the United States. With the increasing role that credit cards play in the everyday lives of most Americans, it's both timely, and appropriate that we update and improve standards to protect those American consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices. I also believe, Madam Speaker, that it's imperative that we improve access to useful, understandable and complete disclosure about the terms and conditions that govern credit card use here in our country. The Federal Reserve Board has made a proposal. They proposed a rule known as Regulation Z which prescribes uniform methods for computing the cost of credit for disclosing credit terms and for resolving errors on certain types of credit accounts. This proposed rule is virtually identical to H.R. 5244, the Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights Act of 2008. While both Regulation Z and this bill are offered with the best of intentions, both could have very serious unintended consequences, and they could pose potentially significant, unnecessary costs on consumers and the United States economy. Goodness knows we don't need that right now. Madam Speaker, Congress should absolutely allow the Federal Reserve Board's rulemaking process to play out before we rush to codify this proposed rule into law. The public comment periods, the public notice both serve a very important role that I think we all agree that will ensure that this government carefully considers every angle before we jump to regulatory change. I'm very actually sorry to see the House Financial Service Committee hastily move to implement H.R. 5244 before the rulemaking process even had time to play out. It seems like that's the game now in Washington, DC: rush to judgment. Quick, hasty moves before the public even has time to weigh in. That's not democracy at its best, Madam Speaker, because this action shut out the comments of consumers. It shut out nonprofit organizations. It shut out industry representatives. It's certainly not in the best interests of credit card holders. We all know that when Congress moves too quickly and bypasses important parts of the process, that it often does more harm than good. Take a look at this week. Take a look at what we're about to do: put the American consumer on the hook for almost another trillion dollars in bad debt. This Congress has a responsibility to the people that we serve and to businesses to analyze this proposal's overall effectiveness and the effect on the cost of credit and market liquidity. Let's remember, the underlying, underpinning of this current crisis is the lack of liquidity. In other words, money into the marketplace. And that's very true today. Ironically, the premise of this new $700 billion bailout is to restore that form of liquidity.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Why would Congress dismiss outside input from the experts? Are we so smart that we don't need that outside input? I think experience proves otherwise, Madam Speaker. Should we not hear from those who are impacted most from these stressful times? We are imprudent, to say the least, if we do not allow for that comment. I could not support this bill, Madam Speaker, when it moved out of committee because it was imprudent to jump ahead; and given this new instability that's broke out in the last 2 weeks, I absolutely in good conscience cannot support this measure now. Congress should exercise prudence--wouldn't that be a novel idea?--and allow the Federal Reserve Board to finalize this proposal before we codify it with a vote of Congress. I want to thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank the gentleman for his absolutely supreme work that he's doing on this bill.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. What that means is $700 billion translates to one- sixth of the American economy. Eighteen percent of the American economy was transferred from your pocket at the pump overseas to people who don't like us very much. Now those countries are enriched with $700 billion worth of American money that could have stayed here. You mentioned that you had the largest washing machine plant in the United States. I have the largest window manufacturer in my district. Well, we all know what's happened with the mortgage industry and with the housing industry. Imagine the impact that that's made on this company in my district for manufacturing windows. This is tremendously important. This is real. This is real pain that the American people are feeling, and it is fueling this crisis that we're seeing, both on Main Street and on Wall Street. I don't know about you, but I've gotten an earful when I'm home talking to my constituents, and they want to know that, they are incredulous that the Democrat-controlled Congress, because, again, Republicans have not controlled Congress for almost 2 years. The Democrats have controlled Congress. And under Democrat control, in 2 years we have seen gas prices escalate 76 percent. That's right. Gas prices have escalated 76 percent, and we have seen the largest wealth transfer in American history go out of your pocket over to countries that don't like us very much. How can we reverse that? Congressman Latta, what would be the solution that we can reverse that so that we could keep American money right here in the economy and start buying those American-made washing machines that are in your district and American-made windows that are in my district?

Mrs. BACHMANN. It's a crisis, and if the gentleman would yield. It seems that our energy policy right now is being determined by bureaucracy and by socialistic tendencies, not by the free market. It's imperative that people have the ability to choose the energy needs that they have. Here in the State of Minnesota, the people that I represent, they're all very soon going to be turning their thermostats up. Some homes are heated by natural gas, some by fuel oil. And we're going to be looking potentially at dramatic spikes in costs for people on their fuel oil and home energy heating. People in Minnesota don't have a choice. They have to turn on their fuel. As the gentleman had stated, people right now are making choices about whether or not they could even afford to go to work if they're travelling 50 miles to be able to get to work. I represent people in the great city of Saint Cloud, Minnesota. I toured a nursing home recently. One thing I was told by the administrators was a lot of the people that they have doing some of the basic work in the nursing homes are making not a high level of income and they don't see also that it's worth it for them to go to work. This is not a good situation that they're being put in. And again, this is artificial because we don't need to be in this situation. Again, it's because, unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress has maintained a prohibition-era mentality with American energy production. They're just saying, ``No way, no how.'' I don't understand that, Representative Latta. I absolutely don't understand the mindset that says when you're sitting on your own solution, why in the world wouldn't you legalize and open the door to American energy production so we can create jobs and people can pay a lower cost, and so we aren't sending $700 billion overseas. Here is something I'm very concerned about, Representative Latta. It is Sharia Law, because many of the Islamic nations are now wanting to do business under Sharia Law, Islamic law. This is happening now in the United Kingdom, and this is very concerning. All of the equity, all of the liquidity, the dollars that are available to do business now are in the hands of the people of the Middle East. It makes sense. We just sent them $700 billion of American money----

Mrs. BACHMANN. You're dead on when you talk about the hurricane, dealing with Hurricane Ike recently, and the devastation that ensued in the gulf coast region, and then also we look on the international front what's happening. Russia invaded Georgia not too long ago, and of course, we know that a big part of that invasion had to do with controlling oil. I mean, it was only a few months ago that we saw newspaper accounts. It almost seemed humorous because there was a Russian-made submarine that traveled under the arctic region and planted a Russian flag at the bottom of the Arctic Sea and said, We take this Arctic Sea for Russia. Well, as if the Americans hadn't been there years prior and had made claims, but it makes sense because just several weeks later the U.S. Geological Survey released a report that stated there's an estimated 90 billion, 90 billion barrels of oil that are under the Arctic Sea. There are tremendous international pressures right now and particularly with Russia making very aggressive incursions in the Arctic and also in Georgia. This makes the United States even more vulnerable. But again, great news is on the horizon. We have the answer right here in our border. The problem has been the Democrat-controlled Congress has said ``no'' to American energy production.

Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield, unfortunately, that's exactly what happened last week by the Democrat-controlled Congress. They kicked the can down the road to the next Congress, because the bill that they passed won't produce one new drop of oil or one new watt of electricity. What was that whole exercise for? Did they not realize that for 21 months that gas prices have gone up 76 percent? This is shocking. This is the only thing my constituents have been talking about is the dramatic escalation in the price of energy. Everyone else seems to get it, but unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress sat on its hands for 21 months, and just as the clock is striking midnight now on the 110th Congress, they pass a cruel hoax of a bill last week that won't go anywhere. It's dead on arrival in the Senate. The President will veto it. And here we are, looking at this huge crisis. And what do the American people have to look forward to? A reduction in energy prices? Not on your life. Today, there was a dramatic increase in the price of oil. Why? Because international investors in oil commodities see, hey, the Democrat-controlled Congress, they're not going to do anything about bringing down the price of oil, and guess what, the clock is timing out now on the 110th Congress; I guess we can go ahead and increase the price of oil. That's speculators. What speculators do is set a pricing function, and they do it based upon information. And the information that this Democrat-controlled Congress has sent out to the world markets is don't worry, we're not going to do anything to increase American energy production; we're going to keep it exactly as it is. And what that does is guarantee that the poor, beleaguered American taxpayer, the forgotten man in all of this, is doomed to pay even higher prices of energy. This is not good news, not good news at all.

Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman will yield, it was 2,000 acres out of the 19 million.

Mrs. BACHMANN. In one year at the gas pump. So just think about this now: $700 billion has left American pockets, has gone overseas to the Middle East, to OPEC nations that don't like us very much, they're sitting on $700 billion worth of capital. Guess what Americans are starved for right now? Capital. Money. We have to go somewhere. Our banks right now are starved for money. We're in a credit crunch right now. But Middle Eastern nations are saying, ``Hey, you want to do business with us? You need to come under Sharia, Islamic law.'' So now think of that. American companies would have to come under-- not under American law, but under Sharia Law if they conduct business transactions, let alone the Chinese nation that is in the process of buying up United States' securities. These are very sobering times for us in the United States Congress. We may make the most important decision and cast the most important vote of the 110th Congress this week. And that vote will be on how we handle this financial crisis. And would that the Democrat Congress last week had passed a real energy freedom bill so we could unlock American energy resources and create wealth here in the United States rather than taxing the American people yet one more time so we can continue to send more money over to OPEC and tax more money from people to put in Washington, D.C. You don't want to send more money to the United States Congress that has proved themselves completely incapable of handling the American people's money. The Democrat-led Congress has proved itself completely incompetent in handling the American people's money.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you to Congressman Bob Latta. Thank you so much for your leadership on this issue and also for the fact that you've been willing to take on interest group after interest group on this issue, because one thing that I have learned, being a freshman Member of Congress, is that there are interest groups who are speaking loud and clear, and they aren't speaking on behalf of the American people who need to get gas prices back down to $2 a gallon or less, what they were just months ago. It wasn't that long ago that gas prices were $2.32 cents a gallon. And I'm sure that our colleague from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey, remembers. When we took office in January of 2007, gas prices were $2.32 a gallon. What are we being told now? That'll never happen again. We can never get gas prices back down to that level. Well, we can't if the special interests that are now running this town stay in charge. They're exactly right. We never can get it down. But we can get it down to $2.32 a gallon if we do what the American people called us to do when we came here, because as Congressman Latta knows, this is a congressionally created problem. This is not a problem of lack of energy resources in this country. This is not a problem of lack of technology for accessing these resources. The problem is the United States Congress that has made it virtually illegal to access the answer to our problem that's contained right here underground, whether it's 27 percent of all the world's coal supplies, as I heard Congressman Gingrey state in his remarks, or whether it's the fact that we are the ``Saudi Arabia of Oil'' with three States, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, that have more oil than all of Saudi Arabia contained in shale oil. Or whether the answer is in natural gas, which we have over 420 trillion cubic square feet in the Gulf Coast region, or whether it's wind or solar or conservation. We've got it all. And again, the United States Congress is the problem. What's that led to? That's led to the largest wealth transfer in American history. Over $700 billion has gone out of our pockets directly overseas to people who don't like us to purchase energy. $700 billion. Isn't it interesting that what we are hearing right now in this financial crisis is that the American people are being asked to pony up $700 billion to bail out private companies out of a financial mess that they've gotten themselves into. So just think about that for a moment. Had we been drilling here in our own country, rather than going overseas to purchase foreign sources of energy, we would have had $700 billion worth of American dollars staying here within our own borders. Now, Congressman Latta, I'm sure that you would agree with me that we would far prefer to see $700 billion worth of investment stay in the United States, because that would mean $700 billion worth of jobs that could have been created in the United States.