Michele Bachmann

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker and Majority Leader, as you know, the important point is that the committee has a chance to look at this measure. They did not have a chance to do so. We want to make sure that they have the opportunity to fix the bill.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Yes, in its current form.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, our Founding Fathers wrote our Nation's fundamental values of freedom and representative government into our Constitution. This includes the people's second amendment right to keep and bear arms. Citizens who are in compliance with the law should not have those rights taken away, including those who live in public housing. Yet, public housing authorities, including the one right here in our Nation's Capital, are telling residents that in order to be a resident of public housing, you must give up your second amendment rights. You must give up your right to own a firearm for sport or for hunting or, most importantly, to protect yourself or your family. Let me quote from the January 2008 dwelling lease agreement for D.C.: ``Lessee and all Others are required to comply with the following use restrictions and requirements . . . To refrain from storing, maintaining, using, distributing, purchasing or selling any type of firearms or ammunition on the Leased Premises or the Development, whether registered or unregistered.'' In other words, Madam Speaker, even if you comply with all the laws of the District of Columbia related to gun ownership, you are prohibited from owning a gun if you are a resident of public housing. We are talking about law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Criminals are already largely prohibited from residing in public housing. Residents of public housing share the same legal rights to possess lawful property and to take measures to defend their lives as do homeowners who control their estate. The D.C. policy clearly discriminates against the poorest members of our society simply because they are residents of public housing. Less than 2 weeks ago, 250 Members of this House of Representatives, including 65 Members of the majority, who said there shouldn't be any gun ban here in the District of Columbia signed a bipartisan amicus curiae brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, which said it is a case that currently is before the United States Supreme Court which questions the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban. The amicus brief supports the ruling by a lower Federal appeals court which upheld the constitutional right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. Just to refresh my colleagues one more time, one notable line from the brief states, and I quote, ``Had Americans in 1787 been told that the Federal Government could ban the frontiersman in his log cabin, or the city merchant living above his store, from keeping firearms to provide for and protect himself and his family, it is hard to imagine that the Constitution would have been ratified.'' The D.C. public housing restriction goes even further than the D.C. gun ban in question in this case. Madam Speaker, we must assure that Americans living in public housing have their personal right to possess firearms for hunting or self- defense. This motion to recommit is simple. It clarifies that public housing authorities that participate in the asset management program cannot prohibit their law-abiding tenants from possessing firearms and ammunition. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to rise today and congratulate an amazing Minnesota couple from White Bear Lake. Clarence and Mayme Vail, ages 101 and 99, just celebrated their 83rd anniversary, making them perhaps the longest married couple in the Nation. Sixty years ago their marriage was almost cut tragically short when Clarence became severely ill. But Mayme made a promise to God that if Clarence recovered she would go to Mass every single day. Sure enough, Clarence got well, and Mayme kept her promise. Clarence and Mayme's marriage has brought much joy to the world and touched many lives--including six children, 39 grandchildren, 101 great-grandchildren, and 40 great-great grandchildren. Their amazing relationship is a profound testament to love, faith, and the cherished institution of marriage. Madam Speaker, I ask that this body join me in honoring Clarence and Mayme for what is truly a moving and inspiring achievement.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank Mr. Bishop so much. The people from the First District of Utah have to be so proud of you, especially on the issue of life. Mr. Speaker, now I would like to introduce the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for whom I have a great deal of respect. He has a tremendous story to tell, and I yield to Mr. Garrett.

Ms. BACHMANN

Ms. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Hensarling from Texas' Fifth District. He has confirmed once again to me, Mr. Speaker, that not only is he a giant among men here in this body, but he is a gentle giant, and those are the greatest of all. I think I have seen a tenderness here this evening, a softness and an eloquence that he speaks, the foundational nature of the issue that we are grappling tonight. There is a sweet sorrow, if you will, regarding this subject because we are talking about something that is dealing with the foundational nature of this country and yet of all humanity, and that is life and what we will do with life. And I jotted down just a few words before I came up to manage this hour. And I wrote down that every generation, Mr. Speaker, seems to grapple with an issue that transcends all others. That issue for 31 years has been whether government will protect from destruction life, innocent human life. Our American landscape has changed so dramatically over these last 31 years. I was in high school when the Roe v. Wade decision came down. I hate to admit I was so ignorant when I was a junior in high school, I didn't even know what abortion meant. I didn't even know what it was. What innocence that time was in the early seventies here in the United States. In that time, Mr. Speaker, we have lost 50 million fellow Americans, and now we've lost the children, some of whom those 50 million would have borne. There are 50 million women whose bodies were violated by the horrific violence that we call here in this chamber abortion. There are 50 million men who have lost out on the tremendous privilege and joy of fatherhood, and our Nation today is poorer because we're missing, Mr. Speaker, 50 million fellow Americans, so sadly. An inordinate number of these 50 million Americans are children of color. We needed those children of color in our Nation. We needed those African American babies, those Latino babies, those Asian babies. We need them, Mr. Speaker, in our Nation. And we mourn together the loss of these priceless treasures that would have woven a beautiful tapestry of humanity even here in our midst. Yes, we mourn with a great sadness, but we also rejoice, and we also take great joy in the fact that today, even now, we're making a down payment because today is a new day. It's a new day for a future of change, and it's my hope and my prayer that it is today, Mr. Speaker, that the words that are spoken on this floor would captivate the attention of young women and young men across our Nation, young people who may have had the chance to turn this show this evening on television, who would choose to respect their bodies and would choose to respect their sexuality and choose to respect their fertility because fertility is a gift. It's not a given. It's a gift. Ask those people who can't have children. Ask women with love who would love to bear a child but can't, young people who will choose to be givers in this Nation, givers to one another in love, givers to themselves, givers to our Nation and givers to the next generation of Americans. Today, earlier, I had the great privilege of being in my home State of Minnesota. I went up to the steps of our State capitol. Thousands of Minnesotans had gathered. You think it's cold in Washington, DC? There is nothing like a March For Life rally in the State of Minnesota. It was sub-zero. I wasn't wearing boots. I had a wool overcoat on, and in a moment, my feet were tingling, freezing cold. There were thousands that were there that had braved sub-zero freezing temperatures, holding signs, from cities across the State of Minnesota because they wanted to be there to choose life, Mr. Speaker, and march for the greatest gift that any of us have ever had, the gift of life. I want to take these few minutes right now to thank the Americans and the people across the globe who have chosen to adopt children. There is no such thing in this country as an unwanted child. There is no such thing. There is a line a mile long of men and women who would give anything tonight to adopt a child. Yes, even the less than a perfect child there's a mile long group of people who would say me, let me, just like Mother Theresa of India who said give them to me and I will take these children. Thank you to those who have chosen to give life, and whether you kept that child or blessed another family with a child, thank you for choosing life tonight. I want to thank parents who have chosen to be foster parents, who have taken children in less than ideal situations, or parents that couldn't cope with a child who was difficult. I thank the foster parents who have opened your hearts, opened your arms, opened your homes, who've inconvenienced yourselves, but yet, you have chosen a better way, to give life in a different sort of way to children in foster homes. I also want to thank the women who have chosen life and the parents who have encouraged their young daughters or their sons to be supportive of women in a situation where they didn't know if they would choose life or if they would choose to take life. I thank the parents. It's easy when your child is suffering with an unplanned pregnancy to say it's okay, I'll support you, I'll take you to that abortion clinic, I will pay for that abortion. But they don't always recognize that there is a price that that young woman will pay for the rest of her life in her emotion because her arms will be forever empty, and she'll know that there is a baby that could have been hers and yet was not, or a young man who knows he could have been a father to that baby. Parents, think again. Taking the easy way isn't always the easy way, Mr. Speaker, and for boyfriends who just heard the news that their girlfriend is pregnant, oh, my gosh, of course I will pay for the abortion you say, let's do that. You don't need this; I don't need this. We've got a whole life in front of us. Who needs this? We can do this. I will borrow the money from my parents, the boyfriend might say, Mr. Speaker, or yet he might say I'll drop you if you don't have this abortion. I'll leave you. I'll walk out on you. There's another way. There's another choice. There's a choice called life, and it may be inconvenient and it may be embarrassing and it may be expensive, and yes, it will change your life and there may be pain, but there will be joy when you hear that first cry, when you hold that hand that literally covers your finger. And when you look in those eyes and you stroke that silky hair, there is nothing like that baby that you will see, and it will change your life as a young man. It will change your life as a young woman. That baby has the power to change America. Every baby has the power to change this country. They are America's greatest natural resource. I thank my parents, David and Jean, who gave me life. I thank my husband who stood by me with our five babies and who stood by me when we lost a baby. I thank you for standing by me when we didn't know if we could go on anymore, and I thank you for stepping up to the plate, for being willing to bring 23 foster children into our home so we could offer an alternative for those children and hopefully give them a down payment on a future and on a hope. These remarks that we gave here tonight are not about condemning anyone. Who could? Who could? I couldn't condemn anyone. Who could? But it's about lifting up people. We're here to lift up people. These remarks tonight weren't given to judge anyone. Who could? We're here to heal and offer a healing alternative. That's why recently I introduced a bill, and it's a bipartisan bill. Democrats are on this bill. Republicans are on this bill. This is not partisan. This is about life, and this is about humanity and choosing the best that are among us, and in the Positive Alternatives Act, we just say something very simply. It says that today there are tax dollars that go to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion in the United States. Tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood. There are not tax dollars that go to life care centers in this country, and we want to change that. We want to level the playing field. And we want to give a positive alternative all across this great country so that there is a chance for men and women to say, let me think about this. Maybe I don't want to choose death. Maybe I want to choose something else. Maybe there's someone out there who can help me through a difficult time, who could help me with my medical needs, who could help me to get a job, who could help me get some education, who could help me get clothes on my back, who could help me if I want to keep this baby, who could help me if I want to give this baby to a family who maybe doesn't have a baby. It's just common decency to allow for an alternative that leads to life and not lead to guilt and to death, and perhaps remorse that even a lifetime could never erase. We are such a great country, Mr. Speaker. I know you feel that way, I know you do. And we're a blessed country. Let's choose life. Let's choose the better way. It's the American way.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, it truly is a momentous evening this evening and the entire day here on the March for Life that occurred here on our Nation's capital, and it is a privilege for me to be here as a freshman Member of Congress, hailing from the very cold State of Minnesota, to be able to be here on this floor on this momentous occasion. We heard so many eloquent speakers, led by Trent Franks, a man who has a great love for people, not just a love for babies, not just a love for women. He has a love for people, and I am so grateful for the wonderful hour that he just led. We have other Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker, who have come down to this Chamber because they are moved by this issue, not just for their love for babies or their love for women or love for men, but they are moved by many factors that go to increase our Nation and the natural resources that are in our Nation. One of those is Mr. Bishop who is from Utah's First District, and he would like to speak for a few moments on the floor of Congress.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Akin. It was a delight to be able to hear you speak, Mr. Akin. I know the people of Missouri's Second are honored that you are their Member of Congress. That was certainly a heartfelt emotion that you shared with us at the microphone, and I thank you for bringing what for many Americans is the pivotal watershed issue of our day, and I thank you for speaking so eloquently to that. We have next before us this evening during this hour, Mr. Jeb Hensarling from Texas' Fifth District. Mr. Hensarling is a very special Member of Congress to me. He is my mentor here and is a giant among men in many ways. He's a giant in my eyes, and a giant I know for his wife, a giant for his two children. He lives the words that he speaks on a daily basis. There is no greater testimony that any man or any woman could ever have is the testimony of their life, and that, Mr. Hensarling, he knows very well. And so with that, I yield to Mr. Jeb Hensarling of Texas' Fifth District.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Garrett. Appreciate your kindness and your words of love and life for those who are our fellow Americans. Thank you, and thank the people of New Jersey for sending you to this great body. Now we have a man that I've known for a number of years of whom I just have great admiration. His name is Mr. Todd Akin from Missouri's Second District. I yield to Mr. Akin from Missouri.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members in this body may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order today.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Representative. What an honor to be able to be here. What an illustrious class we have, and I appreciate the gentleman from California so much for his fine direction, for his leadership and for our class. He is doing a wonderful and able job. He is telling the story that the American people want to hear, and that is where we are in this particular quarter, what is happening with our finances, because that is what we do, after all, when we come here to the United States Congress. We come here for a very simple purpose. We have to deal with 11 spending bills covering various subjects, and we have to take care of those. We have to make sure that we fully fund the priorities that we believe in and make sure that we are keeping faith with the American people and doing so in a way that respects their property, their private property. Because after all, what is it that each one of us has? We have our time. We have our livelihood. And when we go out to work every day, the money that we bring home for our families, the money that we bring home that we hope that some day will buy us a home, put our children through college, maybe have enough to offer us a secure retirement, that is the result of our labor that we take every day. And where are we at now in this country with the amount of money that the government is consuming out of our paychecks? It seems every year those days go a little bit longer and longer when Congress is consuming more money. That is a real concern for a lot of Americans. I know it is a concern for me. It is a concern for our family and for the people that I represent back in Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District. And I know as I have spoken with our fellow freshmen, and many will follow me up here when I conclude my remarks, they will tell you the same thing. They are very concerned about how the people back home are going to be able to hold on to the fruits of their labor, the private property that they have been able to amass and accumulate for the benefit of their family. Well, here's just one topic that I want to take tonight, just one little piece, and spend a very few moments on it, and it's a concept called the alternative minimum tax. Now, this is something that came about in the Tax Code back in 1969. Back in 1969, there was a hue and cry because there were about 155 multimillionaires who didn't pay taxes that year, and rightly so. There were a lot of middle-income Americans, lower-income Americans that were pretty upset about this. They were paying taxes, but they saw that wealthier people, through legitimate loopholes, you might say, or legitimate provisions in the Tax Code, were able to completely escape taxation. Well, this created, as you can imagine, a hue and cry right here in this body. So the Congress decided to create a bill called the alternative minimum tax. What this would do, essentially, is a person would have to figure their tax once. If they didn't have a tax liability, under the alternative minimum tax they figured their tax a second time, and whichever tax liability was higher, that is the tax that we get paid. In other words, whichever way that Uncle Sam did better, that would be the final outcome of a person's tax return. So the American citizen never was able to pay the lower amount of tax; they always had to pay the higher amount of tax. Well, the alternative minimum tax kind of turned into something that you might equate with one of those 1950 science fiction movies called, maybe, ``The Blob that Ate New York City,'' because that is what has happened with the alternative minimum tax. It has become kind of like ``the blob that ate New York City.'' Now, remember back in 1969, 155 Americans were impacted by the alternative minimum tax; in other words, they had to pay a higher tax. That is what that means; 155 Americans. Well, guess what Congress forgot to do? They forgot to index this tax for inflation. So, guess what? Every year more and more Americans had to pay this tax, and more and more Americans were reclassified as being wealthy or rich. Well, guess what? Last year, 3.5 million Americans had to pay the alternative minimum tax. One hundred fifty-five, 3.5 million. Guess where we are today? As of today, this Congress has done nothing, absolutely nothing to eradicate the alternative minimum tax. You know what will happen? Twenty-three million Americans will be impacted by this measure. That is redefining what rich means in this country. So, do you know what the new definition of rich will be? It will be a police officer married to a teacher. Now, think of that, a police officer married to a teacher. We don't usually think of people in those income tax categories as being redefined as rich. But now, under the so-called wisdom of this Congress, that is exactly what has happened Now this is a problem. We cannot allow this higher level of taxation to seep down into the middle class where people are working hard. They aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination. They are just hardworking, decent people, trying to make a go of it; not what this tax was intended to impact. That is something we need to consider. There actually can be a conclusion. Sometimes the curtain needs to come down on ill-advised measures; and if there ever was an ill-advised measure, it's the alternative minimum tax. I just want to give you a figure here. Historically, over the last 40 years, and we are standing here, it's a beautiful December evening in Washington, D.C., the year 2007. For the last 40 years in this country, the Federal Government has consumed about 18.2 percent of gross domestic product. That is pretty much the money that is created and generated in this country every year, gross domestic product. Well, guess what? The Federal Government has consumed about 18.2 percent. If this Congress continues to do nothing, and unfortunately, that is a lot of what we have seen this year is a lot of do nothing, if Congress continues to do nothing with the alternative minimum tax, instead of 18.2 percent of all the money that is created in this country, that number will rise to 24 percent. Almost one-fourth of everything that is created, the income that is created in this country will come where, to your pocket? Are you kidding? It will come here to the United States Government. That is not what we want to see happen. This is kind of a dream come true for politicians that love big government, because they don't have to vote for this tax increase. It's just on automatic overdrive. It's going to continue to grow. Just like I said, ``the blob that ate New York City,'' that is the alternative minimum tax. That is not what those of us who are standing up here to talk to you about tonight, with fiscal responsibility, that is not what we are about. That is not what we want. What we are after is a clean, straight repeal. We want this ill-advised tax to go away. People think that a tax is here forever, that you will never get rid of it. You never get rid of death, you never get rid of taxes. Well, it is possible to do it. It's possible to do it if we have the will. I believe collectively the American people would want us to get rid of this ``blob that ate New York City,'' the alternative minimum tax, because why should the government continue to profit from a bad law so that you will have to continue to spend more and more and more of your income. And pretty soon, everybody's going to be redefined as rich, everybody will be, and pay a higher level of taxation. This is absolutely ridiculous. There is no reason why we should continue a law like this, and I fully believe that we need to do something about this bill, and do it soon. Now, here's one aspect that is being debated even this evening. There are those on the other side of the aisle that think that we have to ``pay'' for this tax. In other words, you need to continue to be taxed more. Here's how they plan to do it. They plan to create a bank account, if you will. And what the other side across the aisle is planning to do, you know what they are going to put in that bank account? They want to put tax increases in that account. They want to have a 1-year tax or 1-year patch, or fix. So instead of 23 million people paying that tax this year, they just want it to be 3.5 million people. Still too many. It's 3.5 million too many people, if you ask me. But what they want to do is create a bank account and put tax increases in it. And what they are going to do, just ``take it to the bank,'' as they say. The American people are going to be stuck with a bill of $50 billion in tax increases that you're going to have to pay, maybe not next year, but the year after. That bill is going to be stuck to the American taxpayer. We can do so much better. Do you know that we have more revenues coming in this year into the Treasury than any other time in the history of this country? Revenues are not the problem. We don't need all this additional revenue. What we need is some fiscal discipline, some fiscal responsibility. We need to get our sense about us and realize we just can't be all things to all people. We set our priorities. We do what you do every day at home in your home and in your business. You just realize you need to spend within your means. So we need to get right on this. We need to not create any phony bank accounts where we don't put money in, we put IOUs in that you the American public are going to have to pay. We are going to get rid of that. We want to just do a clean repeal, do away with the alternative minimum tax, be fiscally responsible, be good and kind to the American people. That is a Christmas present that we need to pass and send out to the American people tonight. That Christmas present needs to say that we respect you, we respect your work, we understand how hard you work, we understand that your family means the world to you, your children mean the world to you, your parents mean the world to you, your business could use a little bit more capital investment too. We trust you, and we know that you can put that money to work far better than any of us collectively ever could hope to do. There are essentials that government has to fund, but what we don't need to do is have a blob that eats not only New York City, but the rest of the United States. So I for one, Representative McCarthy, believe with you that we need to do right by the American people, trust their judgment, be sensitive to their family needs, and do away with the alternative minimum tax.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, 'tis the season to be jolly for Americans, unless, of course, you happen to be a tax planner or a taxpayer wondering if your finances are going to throw you into a sea of confusion when you file your tax return in April of 2008. Under the current tax filing mess, because the majority has failed to repeal the alternative minimum tax, the average tax increase for tens of millions of Americans will increase by over $2,000. Children hope for candy or presents in their stocking and not a lump of coal. But since 1969, the alternative minimum tax has represented a lump of coal for millions of Americans. We should do right by the American people, Madam Speaker, and put an end to the alternative minimum tax once and for all. That's a Christmas present every American can use.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, today America and our allies in Iraq are breathing a collective sigh of relief as we continue to receive successful report after successful report of al Qaeda's demise in Iraq. We continue to pray for a complete end to hostilities, but today we pause to thank America's brave military members and also their family members. Just recently, 168 brave men and women returned from the famous Red Bulls to Minnesota. They were deployed for 13 months, and we thank them for their sacrifice. The happy news is that not one of the 168 returned home with serious injury. Everyone was able to walk out and meet their loved ones. It seems every generation has to learn the lessons of freedom. Freedom is precious, Madam Speaker, and we thank those today who secured our freedom and the freedom of our allies.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, Halloween was last week, but trick or treating may be a part of the House of Representatives this week if the Democrats have their way on the veterans funding bill. It was over 140 days ago that this Congress passed a veterans funding bill. It was a good bill. So why hasn't this bill made its way to the President's desk? The President has said he will sign this bill. Our veterans need this funding. They deserve this funding that the bill would provide. Instead, the Democrats are preempting Thanksgiving holiday by serving up a turkey of a funding bill, a turkey that is filled with pork-based stuffing. The business of national defense and the business of taking care of the very real needs of our veterans is just too important just to satisfy the urge to spend extra money that we just don't have in order to fund pet projects. I want to say thank you to America's veterans, to those veterans who go to our veterans health care center in St. Cloud, Minnesota. I want to thank you for what you have done, for your sacrifice for this country. Let's pass this bill.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I want to bring before the body this morning an issue that needs more attention, not less, and that is the issue of the huge blob that ate the American Dream called the alternative minimum tax. One thing that we are seeing is that the alternative minimum tax, Madam Speaker, is set to rise at a level so unprecedented that the American economy has not experienced anything like this in the last 40 years. Right now, the tax burden for the average American and to the economy is about 18.5 percent of GDP. If we don't scale back on the alternative minimum tax, we are looking at the tax burden of GDP being almost 24 percent by mid-century. We have never seen this level of taxation in our GDP. This means this money will come out of the pockets of the American taxpayer and will go into the coffers of the Federal Government. This is a big concern, Madam Speaker, one that I am very concerned about, as I know most of the Members in this Chamber are as well. In 1969, when the alternative minimum tax came in, it was 155 people. I will close with the fact that this year we are looking at 23 million Americans impacted.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, Minnesota is known as a State of great longevity. We have the longest married couple in the history of the United States living in my district. We also have some of the longest living people in the United States in my district. This week I had the occasion to wish one of my constituents happy birthday on her 102nd birthday. I want to honor another constituent from my hometown who is 100 this week. I want to wish happy birthday to Erna Welte of Stillwater, Minnesota. She has seen the Great Depression, she has seen World War II, she has seen the space race. She has been alive before television and during television. She has seen it all. But Erna says, ``I don't feel that old.'' She's young at heart. Just recently, when she celebrated 90 years of age, her granddaughter taught Erna how to drive a car. For the first time, she learned to drive a car. She's a wonderful, witty, wise individual, and I am so grateful for the senior citizens of the United States, particularly those long-living, happy people who live in my district. Erna, happy birthday to you, and to our Nation's finest, our senior citizens.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 937, I was recorded as ``nay.'' It was my intention to have voted ``yea.'' I would like the Record to reflect my support of H.R. 928.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I come to the House floor today to congratulate a small business in Monticello--a growing community in Minnesota's Sixth District. Ultra Machining Company (UMC) was recently 1 of 5 companies nationally to receive the prestigious Secretary of Defense Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) Freedom Award. The Award was created to recognize employers who provide exceptional support to their employees serving in the National Guard and Reserve. It's the highest in a series of ESGR awards. Sergeant Lou Jacobson, who works at UMC and recently returned from a 22-month deployment in Iraq, nominated UMC for the Freedom Award. Jacobson wrote, ``UMC has made up the difference in my pay while I am deployed. Last summer, a storm knocked down our fence. UMC put out a sign up sheet and the next Saturday 40 of my co-workers showed up at my house . . . UMC paid for all the materials. They said that is what family does, they help.'' Madam Speaker, family does help. Minnesota helps. Americans help. Congratulations and thanks go to Terry and Mary Tomann--founders of UMC, all the employees of UMC and Sergeant Lou Jacobson for his service to our country and for letting all Americans know what it means to be family.

Mrs. BACHMANN

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in proud support of this legislation which commends Minnesota's First Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry Division for their completion of the longest continuous deployment of any United States military unit during Operation Iraqi Freedom. This extraordinary group of men and women, also known as the Red Bulls, is comprised of about 3,700 dedicated Minnesotans and some 1,300 more soldiers from other Midwestern States. Recently, more than 1,000 of our courageous Red Bulls returned home from a 22-month deployment to Iraq. During their time in the Middle East, the First Brigade Combat Team protected lives and helped to preserve the blessings of liberty here at home. They discovered 462 improvised explosive devices, IEDs, before they were able to wreak havoc on the innocent. By finding these IEDs prior to detonation, the First Brigade Combat Team surely saved the lives of countless fellow soldiers and Iraqi citizens. They also captured over 400 suspected insurgents and completed 137 reconstruction projects. In addition, the First Brigade Combat Team successfully processed over 1.5 million vehicles and 400,000 Iraqis into entry control points without any insurgent penetrations. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to honor the First Brigade Combat Team, whose bravery and commitment to serving our country is as apparent today as it has been in wars long past. These soldiers have returned with an outstanding record of achievement and have earned hundreds of awards including: one Silver Star, 151 Bronze Stars, 32 Purple Hearts, 771 Army Commendation Medals, 136 Combat Infantry Badges, 302 Combat Action Badges and 14 Combat Medical Badges. The important measure before us today recognizes the service of our Red Bull soldiers, and reminds us of the price of our freedom, and those who have freely chosen to honor it. To our Red Bulls, and all of the men and women that defend this Nation, my colleagues and I continue to stand in awe of you. Thank you, and may God bless you and your families.

Mrs. BACHMANN

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

Mrs. BACHMANN. In its current form, I am.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, today, over 5 million Americans rely on the National Flood Insurance Program to protect their homes and businesses in the event of a flood. But since January of last year, there have been over 77 declared disasters involving flooding. And just this August, in our home State of southeastern Minnesota, we experienced severe flooding that caused distress to over 1,500 homes. According to FEMA, and according to the Minnesota Homeland Security and the Emergency Management, the Federal Government has disbursed at this point nearly $31 million in Federal recovery funds to over 4,200 people. And currently, there are over 8,000 people, specifically, there are 8,434 national flood insurance policies in effect in my home State of Minnesota. But, unfortunately, as floods continue to occur across our great Nation, the National Flood Insurance Program is in trouble. It's not good news. It's bad news. And the program today, unfortunately, is $18 billion in debt. That's today, as it stands, and it's required to pay that debt back with interest over time. This debt will be paid back with the premiums that are charged to those families who are relying on this flood insurance program. The base bill that's before us is a good one because it attempts to help solve some of the fiscal problems today that are facing the National Flood Insurance Program. We agree with that, Mr. Speaker. But, yet, there is one provision in this bill that has the potential to undo the very positive reform that is before us, and that is to send the flood insurance program into even further fiscal disarray and result in premium increases for homeowners all across America, something that no one in this body would want to do. The proposal, Mr. Speaker, that's included in this bill is to expand the National Flood Insurance Program by creating a brand-new insurance program for wind damage. That's something that has never existed before, and it's akin to a homeowner who, upon discovering that his foundation is rotting, decides to ignore that problem and instead adds a second story on to that rotting house. And he shouldn't be surprised then when the whole house collapses around him. I have a very simple amendment, Mr. Speaker, and it says this: it does not strike the brand-new wind insurance program. What it does is this: it stipulates that before the program can go into effect, three things have to occur. This is something that we can all agree on: Number one, there has to be a certification that the existing National Flood Insurance Program, in fact, is actuarially sound, and this certification would provide all of us with the assurance that this program is correctly pricing its policies and has adequate reserves on hand to handle large flood events. We've seen that there's been a problem with this in some of the State reserve accounts. Today, right now, both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office have reported that the National Flood Insurance Program is likely to not be actuarially sound. Second, there has to be a certification that premiums for people in the existing flood insurance program will not be increased to subsidize this brand-new insurance program. People all over America are wondering if that's going to happen to them as well as the insurance companies. And then third, of this simple amendment, it says there has to be a certification that the new wind insurance program will, itself, be fiscally sound. Who can argue with that? So, Mr. Speaker, the 8,434 people of the State of Minnesota and the 5 million Americans who today rely on our National Flood Insurance Program, they need to serve as a lifeline in the event of a major storm, that they would not have that program in endangered, that their premiums would not, in fact, be increased in order to help create, in fact, this new expansion of an expansion of a wind program. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.