Michele Bachmann RSS Articles

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann Hosts Veteran's Round Table

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Today, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann hosted a second round table meeting with local veterans and community leaders to discuss the proposed Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) that will be constructed for veterans in the Northwest Metro Area. Members from the area veterans' groups and local officials came together for the much-anticipated meeting. As Steve Kleinglass, Director of the Minneapolis VA, and featured speaker at the meeting, said, the CBOC needs to be a "total package for the clientele." But he also noted that while the decision-making process is progressing at a much faster rate, the final request for proposals has yet to be issued, though it is expected shortly.

Congresswoman Bachmann has pressed the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the past year for more information about this proposed health clinic. Specifically, local veterans and city officials have wanted clarification on location, costs and process for making bids. Kleinglass was hopeful that an initial report with potential locations would be released in the next month and would answer some of the questions addressed.

Bachmann thanked the group for coming saying, "Your presence demonstrates just how important this issue is to the community. Thank you for coming today, I hope we can all rest assured that a community based clinic will be placed and constructed in the best interests of Minnesota veterans."

###

EPA Substitutes Ideology In Place of Scientific Integrity

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, also referred to as cap-and-trade, or cap-and-tax, or the national energy tax, on the premise that if we don't act now to cut carbon emissions, our planet's environment will incur irreversible damage.

Now, we know that cap-and-trade is an absolutely disastrous economic policy, resulting in higher costs for every single American on energy and all manufactured goods. It is an economic time bomb for our nation's already struggling economy that will serve merely as a huge revenue booster for the federal government. We know that.

So supporters of this legislation claimed that we had to pursue this disastrous public policy because science says we must do it to save the environment. Enter the EPA, and its new administrator Lisa Jackson. You’ll recall that the EPA made a similar announcement not long ago, making an endangerment finding and stating that it would have to regulate carbon dioxide if Congress didn’t.

Last week, CBS News reported that "the Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government."

CBS states that "the EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an email message to a staff researcher on March 17: 'The administrator [Jackson] and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.'" The report's author, a 38 year employee of the EPA, was diverted to other work.

In other words, two weeks before the EPA submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, the EPA center director suppressed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

But, wait, there’s more.

If we go back to January of this year, it was the EPA's Lisa Jackson who said, " I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."

It seems to me that Jackson substituted ideology in place of scientific integrity in this case. If Jackson really meant what she said, this report should not have been quashed but instead given ample consideration and debate. But in rushing through a major policy initiative of this White House and Congress, I guess you can't let the facts and the truth get in the way of action.

To comment, visit the Bachmann Blog

A Responsible Regulatory Framework Needed

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Moving forward, it's vital that we make the necessary reforms to our financial regulatory framework, but the President's proposals miss the mark.

First of all, he proposes expanding the role of the Federal Reserve – the big spender that has pumped about $8 trillion of your money into Wall Street’s bailout with just about no accountability, oversight, or transparency. Turning the Fed into a super-regulator is not the answer.

But, he also proposes a new agency that will give government bureaucrats the task of deciding which financial products are suitable for consumers. This proposal raises more questions than it answers.

Is it really in the best interest of consumers to have a DC bureaucracy dictate what financial products can be sold in our nation? And, should we expect it to operate with the efficiency that the FDA has demonstrated in approving new medical and health products? Will this result in long delays before consumers can access different sources of financing? All the while, consumers would be forced to wait anxiously for the government to approve that mortgage or small business loan that could best suit their needs. How can we be sure that the agency will not become a slow, bureaucratic behemoth – something that regrettably has characterized many a government agency?

Furthermore, I have serious misgivings that the President’s proposal disconnects the mission of consumer protection from that of safety and soundness within the framework of this agency. If the agency’s sole focus is on consumer protection without consideration for broader issues of safety and soundness, that could result in new consumer protection mandates that simultaneously weaken larger financial protections. The last thing we need is another government agency with tunnel-vision – that is already one of the problems within the existing financial regulatory framework.

Republicans have an alternative solution. Our plan requires regulators to streamline disclosures, and provides them with more investigative and enforcement tools. This includes increasing both civil and criminal money penalties in government enforcement actions; maximizing restitution to victims of fraud; improving surveillance of bad actors who exploit gaps in the current regulatory regime to continue preying upon innocent consumers; and allowing regulators to share information with foreign regulators and law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and prosecution of financial frauds without waiving privileges.

To comment, visit Townhall.com

Rep. Bachmann Meets with Minnesota Auto Dealers Association

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Today, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann met with local auto dealers and representatives of the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association (MADA) in St. Cloud. Several Chrysler and GM dealerships in Minnesota’s Sixth District have been hit hard by the forced closings and restructurings, and many others are concerned about their futures.

“We’re talking about people’s livelihoods,” said Bachmann. “This isn’t just about their jobs and their employees’ jobs; it’s not even just about the impact on their local economy. These businesses represented a lifetime’s blood, sweat, and tears. These were investments handed down to them and supposed to be handed down to their children.”

Many members of MADA expressed the same concerns as Bachmann. “The only thing we want,” said Lee Carlson, who received a closing letter for Main Motors in Anoka after celebrating 90 years of business, “is to go back to the state contract laws. We’ve got to get this legislation passed. If we can’t get that done, forget it.”

Bachmann has cosponsored legislation to protect dealerships from arbitrary closings and has written both President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner asking them to reverse this unprecedented government interference.

###

Rep. Bachmann Hosts Roundtable with St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Today, Congresswoman Bachmann held a roundtable luncheon with St. Cloud Chamber members. Bachmann met with local business owners to address concerns about the economy, government spending and transportation issues for the area.

“My husband and I have a small business,” Bachmann said, “and I know what it’s like to make payroll, pay the bills and support your family. I also know that more regulation on small business, more taxes and more government is a losing combination.”

The House’s recent passage of the Cap-and-Trade national energy tax, which will mean higher costs on just about every good and service and even more job losses was a hot topic of discussion, as was transportation infrastructure improvements. Bachmann updated chamber members on her requests for the TH15/33rd Street South interchange and the University Drive expansion to be included as High Priority Projects in the next Transportation Reauthorization bill. Bachmann reminded chamber members, “This authorization process adheres to strict oversight and accountability standards designed to ensure transparency and public scrutiny over every project at local, state, and federal levels -- standards that are lacking in the corrupt and broken appropriations earmarking process, which has drawn such extraordinary bipartisan criticism in recent years.”

Bachmann also updated them on work she is doing to help MnDOT, the Federal Highway Administration and the city of Waite Park reconcile differences so the 28th Avenue/137 County State Aid Highway project can break ground. Bachmann spoke to U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood last week to break an impasse on this project.

###

Bachmann Opposes National Energy Tax

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06) today released the following statement after the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Cap and Tax energy bill, a national energy tax that will kill jobs, increase energy costs for all Americans, and stop any economic recovery:

“With unemployment nearing 10%, I find it outrageous that Speaker Pelosi’s number one priority is a national energy tax that will lead to higher energy prices and further job losses—devastating families and small businesses who have already been hit by this Congress’ out-of-control spending spree. Thousands of dollars in extra energy costs and millions of jobs lost is a high price to pay, particularly for a policy that will do very little to clean up our environment, its supposed goal.

“This week, I had hundreds of individuals across the nation flooding my phone lines and pleading for Congress to vote no on cap and trade. The American people do not want a national energy tax; they want energy independence.

“House Republicans offered a plan that renews America’s commitment to clean, affordable, and reliable energy. Unfortunately, House leadership rammed through a 1,200 page bill, with barely any opportunity for amendment or debate on alternatives. Once again, they have denied the American people an all-of-the-above strategy for achieving energy independence.”

Click here to read Bachmann’s oped on clean energy.

###

Name Your Greenhouse Gas

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:00:00 GMT

If our Congressmen actually read this 1,200 plus cap-and-trade bill that will impose massive energy taxes on businesses and consumers -- and for that matter, every single American, then they would come across this section: "Designation and Registration of Greenhouse Gases."

Essentially, this section lists seven greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, and a catch all, “other” which can be designated by the Administrator of the EPA at some later date with a citizen petition for consideration of the next generation of gases. (pg. 543)

What this means is that if you and your friends have an issue with a certain gas that you think should be a greenhouse gas, and you can generate enough support on a petition, you may be able to get that particular gas banned.

Get ready for another couple of knocks on your door from the greenhouse-gas-of-the-month club.

Let's be clear, cap-and-trade is an absolutely disastrous policy for you and every single American that will result in higher costs on energy and all manufactured goods. After all, I can't think of anything produced that doesn't involve the use of energy – Director of the Congressional Budget Office couldn’t think of anything that would be impacted either when he testified before Congress earlier this year. Let's hope enough lawmakers come to their good senses and defeat this awful piece of legislation when it comes to the floor later today.

To comment, visit Townhall.com

Deal or No Deal on Speaker Pelosi's National Energy Tax?

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:00:00 GMT

No matter how Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) re-arrange the deck chairs, the fact of the matter is that their bill is a huge national energy tax. The so-called “deal” that was struck between Waxman and Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) is a sham. Hollywood, San Francisco and Boston still get a sweetheart deal at the expense of families, farmers, and small businesses. Here are the facts on the so-called Waxman-Peterson deal.

PART I – USDA, EPA & Agriculture Offsets

Myth #1 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” on agriculture offsets will allow agriculture to benefit from the legislation.

FACT, Part 1 – Today the nation’s largest organization representing farmers, the U.S. Farm Bureau, voiced continued strong opposition to this misguided legislation, calling it “seriously flawed” and “detrimental to U.S. agriculture.” This influential group with members in all 50 states argues that the bill would “…force agriculture and other productive sectors of our nation’s economy into a position of severe competitive disadvantage with trading partners like China and other nations who will not burden their economies to control carbon emissions.”

FACT, Part 2 – Farmers and ranchers spent $60 billion on fuel, electricity, fertilizer and chemicals in 2008 and for some crops, those energy intensive inputs account for more than 70 percent of production costs. There is no debate that each of those inputs will increase in price under Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax. An agriculture offset program – no matter if it is administered by USDA or EPA – will allow farmers to recoup a fraction of their increased production costs. The Heritage Foundation recently estimated that farm income would drop $8 billion in 2012 and $50 billion in 2035 and that offsets will make-up for less than 10 percent of this lost income.

FACT, Part 3 – Many farmers will not be able to participate in an offset program, and will simply be stuck with significantly higher energy costs. Some crops like fruits, vegetables, rice, cotton and potatoes are simply not suitable for no-till or other farming practices to sequester CO2 in soil. The start-up costs to purchase the necessary equipment to engage in farming practices potentially eligible for an offset can be cost prohibitive, with some equipment costing more than $1 million. And, a new analysis by EPA projects virtually zero potential for soil sequestration.

Myth #2 – Under the Waxman-Peterson “deal,” the EPA will have no ability to regulate farmers and ranchers.

FACT, Part 1 – According to press reports, Chairman Waxman’s description of the deal is that “we will seek guidance from the Administration to figure out the appropriate role for the EPA.”

FACT, Part 2 – The 1,200-page Waxman-Markey has more than 800 references to the EPA or the EPA Administrator and includes the phrase “the Administrator shall” 274 times. In addition, for just the cap-and-trade section of the bill, the EPA is required to produce more than 60 rulemakings, agency and regulatory actions or reports. In contrast, USDA and “agriculture” appear a total of 12 times. Make no mistake, the EPA is the top cop on the beat.

FACT, Part 3 – The devil is in the details…of which there are very few. Until legislative language is produced and reviewed, it is impossible to determine the true impact of the so-called deal between Chairmen Peterson and Waxman. According to press reports, even the Blue Dog’s are reluctant to support a bill if given very short notice to review it. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) said the following:

“The coalition is just not going to be ready to vote on this next week, particularly if we don’t get language until Monday,” she told E&E last week. “Because many will insist that we have a number of days to review the language ourselves, to have back and forth with our constituencies and stakeholder groups, to understand how the system with a significant manager's amendment will work. Yes, absolutely, we need to chew on this awhile”

PART II – Indirect Land Use & Biomass Definition

Myth #1 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” on indirect land use fixes the problem.

FACT – According to press reports, this “deal” simply kicks the can down the road by delaying the rule for five years and having the EPA and USDA jointly study the issue. The legislation Rep. Peterson introduced (H.R. 2409) permanently prohibited EPA from using indirect land use changes in the calculation of lifecycle GHG emissions.

Myth #2 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” improves the definition of renewable biomass.

FACT – There is no deal. According to press reports, Chairman Peterson “hoped” to have an agreement by the end of the day (Wednesday). This issue – using the language from the 2008 Farm Bill to define biomass – is also included in H.R. 2409.

PART III – Rural Co-ops

Myth #1 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” protects Rural America from electricity price increases.

FACT, Part 1: Farmers, families, and ranchers in rural America will still pay higher electricity prices. Why? The deal that the Democrats struck with the rural co-ops leaves some states way in the hole. The sham deal leaves many state co-ops still far short of the free permits they will need to comply with the new standards in the bill. Translation: rural America will pay more to comply with the bill.

FACT, Part 2: The Democrats’ backroom deal ties the hands of the co-ops to help offset the costs to their consumers. The few additional free allowances that were given to rural co-ops have strings attached. The money can only be used for efficiency, renewable, or low-income assistance. The local distribution company cannot use these allowances to cover the increase in the electric costs due to carbon permit costs. But these local distribution companies need the permits BECAUSE they face higher electricity costs, but the bill says they are not allowed to use these permits to pay for those costs?

FACT, Part 3: Although the bill made marginal improvements by prohibiting “excess distributions,” the deal simply means that states like California and Washington don’t actually make excessive profits on this provision. This Waxman-Peterson deal still means consumers in most of rural America will end up paying more for electricity.

Myth #2 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” protects consumers and small business from electricity price increases.

FACT: Residential or commercial customers who use a lot of electricity, such as groceries or convenience stores, could be especially harmed by the Democrat deal. The deal now provides for industrial customers to receive allowance value based on the quantity of electricity they purchase and to reduce costs for them. However, utilities are NOT required to reduce costs to residential or commercial customers - the bill only requires that the allocations should be used for the benefit of ratepayers, and specifically prohibits rebates based on the amount of electricity they buy.

Myth #3 – Free allowances to the electricity sector are equitable.

FACT: The bill still distributes allowances to LDCs based 50 percent on emissions and 50 percent on retail sales. This is unprecedented. The much-touted acid rain permit program, for example, allocates permits solely on the basis of emissions. The Waxman-Peterson deal means that states with higher CO2 emissions are penalized. None of the changes they made in the bill remedy that inequity.

Bachmann Honored for Work to Protect Family Business

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06) yesterday received the Benjamin Franklin Award from the 60 Plus Association for her exemplary record of supporting small businesses, particularly her efforts to repeal the death tax.

60 Plus Association President Jim Martin noted, “It is with a great deal of pride that 60 Plus honors Rep. Bachmann with the Benjamin Franklin Award because if Rep. Bachmann has her way, we will get rid of that third certainty—taxes after death—and make Mr. Franklin’s famous quote accurate once again.”

“Small businesses are the job engine of America, and many of these small businesses are built and passed down through many generations. Unfortunately, the death tax places an undue burden on their backs and punishes families for building savings and prosperity to pass on to their heirs,” said Bachmann. “It is an honor to be recognized by an outstanding organization such as the 60 Plus Association, which is dedicated to preserving personal and economic freedom for Americans today and in future generations.”

60 Plus Association is a nonpartisan organization advocating for seniors.

Questions About the Census

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:00:00 GMT

In recent weeks, there's been much attention paid to the content of the 2010 decennial census and the American Community Survey (previously, the “long form”). I encourage everyone to read them through and decide for yourself what you think of the questions. I've provided links to both of them below.

2010 Census Short Form

American Community Survey

My phones in D.C. and my district offices have been ringing off the hook with folks offering their opinions on the census, and I'd love to hear what you have to say on this blog.

Also, if you get the chance, give this piece a read from the New York Post.

To comment, visit Townhall.com.