Cynthia Lummis

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Are you aware of any employers in your manufacturing district that have pulled up stakes and moved their businesses elsewhere?

Mrs. LUMMIS. My daughter did a study for an economics professor about externalities, meaning decisions you don't necessarily see in black and white on a business plan, that might affect a Wyoming rancher's decision to stay in agriculture or leave agriculture. Because we know that in Wyoming agriculture, especially beef production agriculture--of course, there are no subsidies in beef production agriculture in Wyoming, and other States as well. So the largest group in Wyoming are those that make from 0 to 4 percent profit. The second largest group are those that make from 0 to minus 4 percent profit. And after looking at many factors of what would motivate a person to stay in a business where the profit margin is that low, the answer for especially second, third, and fourth generation ranchers was the ability to pass it on to my children, to give my children a better life, to give my kids the ranch. Now, Mr. Latta has mentioned two things that are of concern if a person's motivation is to give their children a better standard of living, a better life, an opportunity, a shot that maybe they didn't have or that they have enjoyed and they just want their children to have as well. You mentioned that next year the estate tax is going to go back up to a maximum amount of 55 percent of the value of the estate, with only a $1 million exemption; whereas, this year there is no estate tax whatsoever. Think about that and how that will affect you if you have spent your entire life building something with the one motivation of giving that to your children or your grandchildren. That is going to be devastating. Many people I know would accept a smaller estate tax with a higher exemption, but no one I know is going to be satisfied that a 55 percent tax on your life's work that you wish to pass on to your children is anything but a taking. And takings are unconstitutional under our Fifth Amendment. I mean, that's how people look at it. And, you know, if you worked your whole life for something 7 days a week, not 5 days a week, not 40-hour weeks, but every minute of every day that you are awake, growing your family, growing your business, growing their opportunities, creating a community, creating the kind of American Dream that so many people came here with nothing and then built over their lifetimes or their parents built over their lifetimes and want to pass on to their children. The other point you made that I think is going to affect that American Dream is our debt, is these running deficits that are unsustainable over time. Because if we mount our children and our grandchildren with debt, it will crowd out private investment. If we are spending the entire Federal budget, all of our tax dollars on the combination of entitlement programs and interest on the national debt, we have crowded out the opportunity for private investment as well as for discretionary spending within our economy. I yield back to the gentleman to tell us more about the consequences of these bad policies and the kinds of bills that he has proposed to change all that.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Are you aware of any manufacturer that has moved into your district from a foreign country, saying this is a better place to do business? It's more economical here? I can make a better profit here?

Mrs. LUMMIS. Will the gentleman yield briefly?

Mrs. LUMMIS. That $2 billion a day you just mentioned, that would only take either 3 or 4 days for the entire budget of the State of Wyoming for 2 years. That covers our whole budget. It's a stunning number. That's how much money we're talking about. And I yield back.

Mrs. LUMMIS. The gentleman has mentioned a couple of things that are important to recreating a vibrant economy and to taking the shackles off of American business, and tax policy is high on the list. The fact that we could have an estate tax that is much smaller in terms of its impact on a family, and the American people would accept that is in fact the case. I hear it over and over in this country. We have also heard that it would be helpful in terms of American competitiveness for us to reduce our corporate tax so we are more globally competitive. Among the provisions that anyone can read about is in americanroadmap.org, and that is the proposal to create a flat income tax. That would be a rate, such as 10 or 11 percent, that you would pay on all of your income, regardless of source, regardless of whether it's active or passive, whether it is capital or income from a job, whether it is rental income, royalty income, or, again, active income. All sources of income would be taxed at 10 or 11 percent. So you take all your income annually times 10 percent or 11 percent. Maybe you have a deduction of $20,000, so your first $20,000 worth of income isn't taxed. And then whatever that amounts to, you just write a check and send it in to the IRS. You don't need to have CPAs help you fill out your tax returns. And I can tell you, if we did that, it would save the American people a lot of money. We would garner a lot of tax revenue that we aren't collecting now because of the efforts and machinations that people go through to try to protect as much of their income as they can from being taxable because, A, there is no way to avoid it, whether you are rich or poor; and, B, it's predictable. You know that the person across the aisle from you at work or at church is also paying 10 or 11 percent, whatever it is, of their paycheck. That sounds so fair to me. It sounds so logical. And yet that is something that is so hard to change with all of the interest groups that affect the appearance and shape of our Tax Code. I do want to encourage, as we go along, everyone to go into AmericaSpeakingOut.com and weigh in on ideas that we have proposed to reduce the Federal debt and deficit and stimulate the economy and take the shackles off the American entrepreneur. And also to just weigh in and give your own thoughts about how we might do it. I would like to talk about one of the bills that I have sponsored, and it's a way to reduce the number of Federal employees without firing anybody. It is a bill that would provide that if you look at the curve off here to my left, your right, you will see Federal employment in the year 2010, which is the farthest bar away from me, has absolutely skyrocketed. And this is Federal Government employment full-time equivalents excluding the Postal Service. So it has just grown leaps and bounds. Now, how do we soften the landing for those people that were hired in a way that will allow our economy to return to normal so we can begin to reduce all this deficit spending? And the answer is for every person who retires or voluntarily vacates a position, that vacated position, that vacant position would be moved into a position pool, and only half of the positions would be moved in the position pool. Then the executive branch of government, run out of the President's office, would have to determine whether that position was essential to that agency and needed to be placed back in that agency and then filled with an employee, or whether that position should be moved to another agency that had a more impactful mission on our American economy and on our government regulatory needs. So it's a way over a 10-year period to reduce the number of Federal employees through attrition. They leave. Their position becomes vacant. Half of those positions go away. That saves about $70 billion. Not a small amount of money. Some of the other ideas that Republicans have filed go way back to the stimulus package. We sponsored a bill that would have stimulated economic growth; in fact, it would have created twice as many jobs at half the cost of the majority party's $787 billion stimulus package. How did we do it? We did it by investing in infrastructure instead of earmarks and by cutting taxes. This is something I believe, Mr. Latta, that you and I both supported.

Mrs. LUMMIS. What do you hear from your constituents? Do they believe that they are ready for the kind of reforms that you believe are necessary to save our country?

Mrs. LUMMIS. Are you aware of any circumstance since you have been in Congress where the Members of Congress in the leadership have been called to the White House to sit down and talk about how we are going to cut spending?

Mrs. LUMMIS. You know, among the other pieces of legislation that Republicans have sponsored includes reducing our salaries or freezing our salaries, freezing government salaries, reducing spending across the board. There have been Republican proposals, anything from 1 percent to 5 percent to 10 percent. There have been Republican proposals that would take spending, as Mr. Latta referred to earlier, back to 2008 levels or even 2006 levels. You know, we had enough government then. There were not a lot of complaints that, my gosh, we don't have enough government; we need to spend more on government. So we could take spending back to 2006 or 2008 levels, and I don't believe the American people, other than those who have benefited specifically by being employed by those Federal agencies and Federal programs, would notice the absence of that money, and in fact, they'd probably benefit mightily because it would save so much money that interest payments on the debt and the deficit would be reduced, and we would not have to borrow so much money. A couple weeks ago here in Washington, some U.S. Treasuries were issued. They are issued every day that we are working, Monday through Friday. There's a sale of U.S. Treasury bonds because we are going into debt so much we have to sell Treasuries every day. This particular issue was undersubscribed. That means there were not enough buyers for the money that we attempted to sell, and the reason is that for the risk that the buyers were taking, they wanted a higher rate of interest. They wanted a better return. When you take more risk on an investment you're purchasing, you want a higher rate of return. As soon as we have to start paying higher interest in order to attract buyers to our debt, we are ensuring that our children and grandchildren are going to be saddled with higher interest payments once again, crowding out other investments in our economy. These are the kinds of things that absolutely stifle economic growth in our country and encourage some businesspeople, as was mentioned by Mr. Latta, to move their businesses elsewhere. We do know that, for example, in the Gulf of Mexico right now, with the moratorium on drilling and no end in sight to when it might be lifted, that there are drill rigs that are considering moving to that tremendous oil and gas find off the coast of Brazil. If one of those enormous rigs is moved off to the coast of Brazil, it will be 5 years before it comes back. It's not going to move back at a moment's notice. That takes so many thousands of jobs away from workers in Louisiana. So they're doubly punished. They're punished because their shores are polluted by oil from the Deepwater Horizon rig which exploded, destroying the fishing industry and retarding the tourism industry. And then they're adding insult to injury; the oil and gas employees lose their jobs in areas where you could drill at a shallower depth or a medium depth in a much more safe and well-understood manner. This is the wrong reaction. You know, the President is speaking later this evening about the situation in the Gulf, and what I would note about that is, we can't legislate our way out of the damage and the devastation to the Gulf. We have to clean it up, and we have to make BP pay for it. Those are our alternatives: Clean it up; make BP pay for it. The President, if he had had executive experience, would likely have called the head of BP within 48 or 72 hours of that oil spill and said, I want you on a conversation with me every single day at a specific time. I want you and me and the Coast Guard and the Governors of the affected States and anyone else who is able to help us clean up this mess, and they could get on the call every day at the same time. The President could have opened a call, and he could have said, I'm not going to stay on this call for more than a minute, but I'm going to tell you that the people on this call are responsible to the people of this Nation to make sure that that oil does not get to our shores, and I want you to do everything possible. BP has said they will pay for it. BP is on this call, and are you assuring us you will pay for it? I mean, under which circumstances, they would have said, yes. And it could have proceeded that way every day with the President's full support for the Governors' requests, for the Coast Guard's requests, for repealing the effects of the Jones Law, which inhibited our ability of getting other countries to help us in the response. All of that could have been handled if it would have begun earlier enough. But the fact that there was an effort to run away and avoid the problem and deal with it not until it was just completely out of control is, I believe, an indication of someone who had legislative skills and not executive skills. There is such a difference. We cannot legislate our way out of the situation, and we should not have a cap- and-tax bill as a response to a devastating accident that may be the worst ecological disaster we've ever had, because taxes are not going to change it. BP has said they're going to pay the bill. To do otherwise would be to impose taxation on the people in this country who can least afford it, those of low and moderate income who are trying to make ends meet at a time when unemployment is still 9.7 percent, at a time when we should be helping them find jobs, not imposing a moratorium on safe drilling, that takes jobs away from them. The Gulf is just one example of where that's true. And I yield back.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Latta has announced a call to action for all Americans, and we are attempting as a Republican Conference to solicit ideas and priorities from all Americans, regardless of party affiliation. Please visit americaspeaking out.com. This will provide an innovative online forum for policy debate and idea generation. It gets us outside of Washington to talk about policy solutions at town hall meetings across the Nation. It allows us to discuss how our principles of freedom and smaller government could be applied to the priorities of the American people. In time, we will produce a new governing agenda for America guided by this open process and built on our conservative principles, and we want to demonstrate that Congress should pursue different policies and operate this House more responsibly than both Democrats and previous Republican majorities. And if I hear something all the time on the Republican side of this room, it is that we don't want to treat the Democrats the way we used to treat them, and we don't want to be treated the way the Democrats have treated us. I really believe that the 112th Congress that begins in January could be a new beginning for our country. It will only be so if the American people say it will be so because the American people are the ultimate governors of this country, and they govern with their vote, and they will have an opportunity in November to vote. So please visit americaspeakingout.com. Give us your ideas. We want to know. We want to build a working, bipartisan majority with the American people so we are legislating what the American people want, not what liberals want, not what conservatives want, what the American people want. So americaspeakingout.com is a state-of-the-art Web site that allows individuals to suggest ideas of their own or weigh in on ideas offered by others. Everyone can see the ideas that are on the table, make comments on them, and register their approval or disapproval. This Web site brings the Halls of Congress into American homes and uses the best of social media to allow America's many voices to be heard. And we would conclude by saying, to change the way Washington works and the policies it pursues, it will require Washington to listen when America speaks out, and we hope all Americans will join us in this unprecedented process of engagement. For concluding remarks, I yield back to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, tonight's discussion will be about bills that Members of the Republican Conference have sponsored that have not yet gotten a hearing that we still think are very good ideas for our country at this time of high debt, high deficits, and when regulation is being heaped on businesses that actually need the chains to be broken so they can pursue the American Dream of hiring people, creating jobs and fulfilling our role in the country and the world, which is to feed people, clothe people, create jobs, create wealth, create opportunity and so that all Americans have the opportunity to do so without being shackled by the Federal Government. With me this evening is Bob Latta, who is from one of the most diverse districts in the entire United States. It has everything from agriculture to manufacturing, and it has experienced every up and down that is possible for one district to experience. During the course of this evening, Mr. Latta and I hope that we will have the opportunity to refer you frequently to www.americanroadmap.org, which is a draft of the Budget Committee on which we both serve, an opportunity that provides Americans the chance to get out of debt and to eliminate the deficit, and to comprehensively do so without raising taxes. It takes a long time, but it creates a very smooth landing for our country. And we also want to refer you to www.americaspeakingout.com. Americaspeakingout.com is an official function of the Republican Conference here in the U.S. House which allows you to weigh in on ideas that you have for our country that will make it stronger, safer, more efficient, more cost effective and will unshackle this Nation's economy in a way that will allow us to once again pursue our role as a global leader in terms of innovation and jobs. So at this time I would like to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for joining me this evening. I look forward to hearing the remarks of the next group. They are our Democratic colleagues from across the aisle. This group will be led by Representative Wasserman Schultz, who I had the privilege of visiting Israel with earlier this year. She led a congressional delegation to Israel. And for this neophyte in international policy, it was a fabulous experience. We had the opportunity to meet Israeli President Shimon Peres. We visited with Benjamin Netanyahu, with the minority leader, Tzipi Livni, and also with Palestinian Authority leaders. We visited Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and some of the fabulous farming communities near the Sea of Galilee. For someone who had never visited Israel--in fact, I had never seen the Mediterranean Sea in my entire life, and to get to visit it with people who are steeped in the history, the politics, and the worldwide consequences of our relationship with Israel, it was a tremendous experience. So I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida, Representative Wasserman Schultz, for including me on the congressional delegation that she led to Israel. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Is there any instance where the Federal Government has done the same thing? Has the Federal Government gone to its employees and said, We need to cut you back to 32-hour weeks so we can keep you employed, keep you on your benefits so you don't lose your health care, but we need to save some money. Are you aware of that?

Mrs. LUMMIS. This chart illustrates exactly what the gentleman is discussing. If you look at the blue line, that is private sector employment. That is employment in the entrepreneurial economy. This is employment that comes from the employer class of Americans. If you look at the red line, the skyrocketing government employment, that is just that. It is the Federal Government attempting to replace the private sector with public sector jobs. The only problem is a public sector employee pays the same taxes that a private sector employee does. However, the public sector employee's salary comes entirely from private sector employment and the taxes generated by it. There is no way that we can sustain an economy of totally government employees when we have lost the private sector jobs, the kinds of jobs that Mr. Latta has been referring to this evening in his district.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I commend the State of Wyoming for enacting a resolution that reinforces the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Enrolled Joint Resolution 3 of the Sixtieth Legislature of the State of Wyoming demands that Congress cease and desist from enacting mandates that are beyond the enumerated powers granted to the Congress by the United States Constitution. This resolution joins a groundswell of support across our nation for a return to the federalist principles in our Constitution. I am proud to insert this resolution into the Congressional Record on behalf of the people of Wyoming. Citizens, businesses and States across the country are bracing for the impact of the heavy handed government mandates in President Obama's health care plan. Momentum persists among some in Congress for additional federal mandates, taxes, and regulations that will burden State budgets and put entrepreneurs in Main Street America out of business. There is another way. Our nation's founders left us a recipe for freedom and opportunity in our Constitution, under which the people of the United States consented to a government with limited powers. As stated in the 10th Amendment, all powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the States and the people. I have co-founded in the House of Representatives a 10th Amendment Task Force to advance the principles of federalism and disperse power back to States, local governments and individuals. Before coming to Washington, I spent my entire adult life dealing with State issues--as a rancher, as a State legislator, and as State Treasurer. I am now astounded by the kinds of issues Members of Congress feel are appropriate for federal intervention. States know their people better. They know their issues better. Let's return to States what States do best and maintain a strong limited government in Washington to do what it does best--securing the freedom, strength and integrity of this country. Enrolled Joint Resolution No. 3, House of Representatives--Sixtieth Legislature of the State of Wyoming, 2010 Budget Session Whereas, the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''; and Whereas, the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and Whereas, the scope of the power defined by the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and Whereas, many powers assumed by the federal government and federal mandates are directly in violation of the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution; and Whereas, the interstate commerce clause in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States provides that Congress shall have the power: ``To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes;'' and Whereas, the interstate commerce clause is limited to the federal government regulating trade between the states and between the states and other nations, to help prevent conflicts between states over commercial activities and to prevent the erection of barriers to commerce between the states; and Whereas, the interstate commerce clause should not be used to provide Congress with authority to regulate matters that are primarily intrastate with only an insignificant or collateral effect upon interstate commerce; and Whereas, many federal laws are beyond the scope and intent of the interstate commerce clause and the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and Whereas, the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the union of states, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and Whereas, article 4, section 4, of the Constitution of the United States says: ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,'' and the ninth amendment to the Constitution of the United States adds ``The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.''; and Whereas, Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states. Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Members of the Legislature of the State of Wyoming: Section 1. That the Wyoming Congressional delegation and Congress take action to initiate the amendment process provided by article 5 of the Constitution of the United States to amend the tenth amendment and article 1, section 8 (the interstate commerce clause), of the Constitution of the United States. Section 2. That Congress amend the tenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States as follows, with proposed changes indicated in underscored text: The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This amendment shall be considered by all courts as a rule of interpretation and construction in any case involving an interpretation of any constitutional power claimed by the Congress. Section 3. That Congress amend the interstate commerce clause, article 1, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States as follows, with proposed changes indicated in underscored text: To directly regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, with no authority in Congress to regulate matters that are primarily intrastate with only an insignificant or collateral effect upon interstate commerce; Section 4. That Congress shall specify that the amendments to the tenth amendment and the interstate commerce clause, article 1, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, as provided herein, shall be operative upon ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, provided that such ratification shall occur within seven years from the date of the submission of the amendments to the states by Congress. Section 5. That this state calls on its costates for an expression of their sentiments on the need to amend the tenth amendment and article 1, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States as provided in this resolution. Section 6. (a) That the Secretary of State of Wyoming transmit copies of this resolution: (i) To the President of the United States, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress and to the Wyoming Congressional Delegation, with a request that the Wyoming Congressional delegation take all reasonable and necessary actions to initiate the amendment process to amend the Constitution of the United States consistent with the language proposed in this resolution and that this resolution be officially entered in the congressional record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America; and (ii) To the speaker of the house of representatives and president of the senate, or their equivalent, and the governor of each of the other forty-nine states.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, when you and I and the American people want to start a business and we want to borrow money to do it, we go to a bank, and we have to present a business plan with income projections and where we are going to get the money to pay the debt we're requesting back. When my State of Wyoming is doing a budget, it projects its revenue, and every month we see how much money we have collected pursuant to those projections. And if we don't have enough money, we cut our budget. In Washington, we don't even have a budget. For the first time since 1974, this House does not have a budget, isn't going to pass one. That's irresponsible. That's not leadership. Mr. Spratt was right: If you can't budget, you can't govern. And this is a perfect example, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I rise to commend the State of Wyoming for enacting a resolution in support of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Enrolled Joint Resolution 3 of the Sixtieth Legislature of the State of Wyoming demands that Congress cease and desist from enacting mandates that are beyond the enumerated powers granted to the Congress by the United States Constitution. This resolution joins a groundswell of support across America for a return to the federalist principles in our Constitution. I am proud to insert this resolution into the Congressional Record on behalf of the people of Wyoming. Citizens, businesses and States across the country are bracing for the impact of the heavy handed government mandates in President Obama's healthcare plan. Momentum persists among some in Congress for additional federal mandates, taxes, and regulations that will burden State budgets and put entrepreneurs in Main Street America out of business. There is another way. Our nation's founders left us a recipe for freedom and opportunity in our Constitution, under which the people of the United States consented to a government with limited powers. As stated in the 10th Amendment, all powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the States and the people. I have co-founded in the House of Representatives a 10th Amendment Task Force to advance the principles of federalism and disperse power back to States, local governments and individuals. Before coming to Washington, I spent my entire adult life dealing with State issues--as a rancher, as a State legislator, and as State Treasurer. I am now astounded by the kinds of issues Members of Congress feel are appropriate for federal intervention. States know their people better. They know their issues better. Let's return to States what States do best and maintain a strong limited government in Washington to do what it does best--securing the freedom, strength and integrity of this country.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, thank you. I thank the gentlemen for allowing me to join you both this evening. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy to the previous group that was talking about our policy with Israel. I thought that was appropriate to allow them to finish their remarks and to acknowledge the importance of our allies there. One of the issues that we are going to have to address, as we address this economic downturn we are in, is the role of the Federal Government in exacerbating the problem. As we all know, Federal employment and private-sector employment are not the same thing. A private-sector job pays for other people's jobs through taxes; whereas, a public-sector job consumes more than it pays in taxes. So it's important that we watch the relationship and the growth of Federal jobs versus the decline in private jobs. This first chart that I have shows the Federal Government employment and how it has changed in the past number of years. I'd like to point out the years 2002, 3, 4, 5, and 6 when the Federal Government's employment was relatively flat--in fact, almost as flat as a pancake. Then we get into the Pelosi Congress, and it's going up markedly, with the year 2010 here on the end of this chart showing you that we're getting back to levels that are unprecedented since Republicans took over control of Congress in 1995. I also want to illustrate what has happened to private-sector employment during this time period. This chart compares private-sector employment to public-sector employment, or government employment. The red line is government employment. This more flat line of the red line illustrates, once again, those years that were relatively stable--2003, 4, 5, and 6. Then the Pelosi Congress took effect, and here the government employment begins to shoot up. The scary part of this chart is the blue line, which is what is happening to private-sector employment. It has crested. Then from the Pelosi Congress on, it has declined dramatically, and these are the years of the Pelosi Congress. When private-sector employment plummets, the ability to pay for your family plummets. Unemployment payments go up. Of course, those are coming out of the public sector. Tax collections go down. The number of jobs, of course, declines dramatically. This is an illustration of what has happened to our economy. Unless we get this number under control, we are in trouble. Among the things that I oppose, which the majority party here in Congress is pursuing, are tax increases on the employer class. The employer class includes those small businesses all over the country which are employing less than 50 employees who are unable to borrow money because of the constraints on capital that you addressed earlier, Mr. Akin. All of these create the downward spiral that we are seeing. In order to get out of that spiral, we have to make dramatic changes in our tax policy, in our spending policy, and in our overall economic policy in relation to other countries and in relation to the amount of debt that we are issuing. I yield back.

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The chart he has up does compare the U.S. to Greece. But what is really frightening about that chart is, in 5 years, our debt to GDP will be at 112 percent, whereas right now Greece is 115 percent. In other words, in 5 years, we're going to be right where Greece is right now. And that illustrates the type of nosedive that the gentleman said we are in. Mr. Akin, could I ask you to put up the chart that you have there that is called ``Tidal Wave of Debt''? The chart that he's going to put up was prominently displayed on numerous occasions today in the House Budget Committee, where we heard from Dr. Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Multiple questions made reference to this chart. And it is the trajectory on this chart that Dr. Bernanke expressed such concern about. If you look at the line of 2010 and follow it through the year 2046, which is the end line of that chart, you see the enormous upward spiral of our debt. This is, of course, part of the unsustainable situation that Dr. Bernanke was asking us to address. And if we do not, we will put our country in terrible financial straits. So, we talked about a number of alternatives. One is americanroadmap.org, which is the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan's proposal. It is very comprehensive. It would have a slow glide path to bring both our deficits and our debt under complete control, and do it without raising taxes, and do it without affecting the Social Security or Medicare benefits of people over age 55 or 56. The problem is, the longer we wait, the more out of reach that type of strategy becomes because of the enormous crowding out of our budgets that will happen by interest on our national debt. Consequently, we need to address the Paul Ryan proposal sooner rather than later. Even under the Paul Ryan scenario, when compared to our anemic economy, the budget cannot be balanced and the debt cannot be eliminated until the second half of this century. So it takes over 40 years, given that scenario, to balance the budget and eliminate the debt. However, that is the kind of slow glide path that we have to take with an economy this anemic, and in a way that does not raise taxes. And if we learned anything from the Japanese in the 1990s, it was: You don't raise taxes during a recession. That is what slowed and retarded their growth out of their economic slump.

Mrs. LUMMIS. In May of this year, we issued some Treasury bonds, and the sale was undersubscribed, which means there were not enough countries or individuals who purchased U.S. treasuries, our debt, at the price at which they are being offered, which means that pretty soon we are going to have to raise the interest rates that we are willing to pay people who purchase our debt. When we have to raise our interest rates, that means that we are paying more in interest on the debt every year. That crowds out private investment from our economy. That makes it more difficult for the private sector to create the jobs that were on this chart earlier. That is part of the death spiral that we have been talking about.

Mrs. LUMMIS. The Republican Study Committee has a proposal through Jim Jordan's subcommittee on the economy that would balance the budget in 10 years. It would cut spending in areas other than homeland security and defense, and it does not touch Social Security. I am one of those who believe that we have to protect our entitlement system by reforming it rather than by leaving it alone. But let's save that discussion for another day. Another proposal, one that I have with Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, would reduce the size of the Federal employment force through attrition. In other words, every time someone vacates a position through retirement or other means, that position would go into a position pool. And only those positions that are absolutely necessary to sustain the rolls of government as contemplated by the Constitution would be reclaimed and redeployed into the Federal employment force. There are any number of ideas. The Paul Ryan proposal, the Jim Jordan proposal, this proposal. Jeb Hensarling has proposals, many that are comprehensive in nature that will provide that glide path to a better economy and do it without raising taxes. So even though you hear frequently that the Republicans are being shortsighted in the fact that they do not want to consider tax increases as part of an economic recovery plan, you are correct that most of us don't. And the reason we don't is because we know we can recover this economy without raising taxes, and raising taxes will slow our ability to recover. I yield back to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. One of the great ironies of being a freshman in Congress is you see who people quote. It is so ironic that we Republicans, as Mr. Akin and I are, frequently quote JFK. JFK never disavowed American exceptionalism. He acknowledged American exceptionalism and he harnessed American exceptionalism. And it is fascinating that we find ourselves frequently returning to his speeches, as Republicans, to review the importance of American exceptionalism in stimulating the economy and growing the economy and acknowledging what Ronald Reagan acknowledged, that we are a shining city on a hill and that we are to be emulated, but only to be emulated when we deserve to be emulated. And it is at this time in our country's history when we need to review those great leaders and our great Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and our founding principles in a manner which provides the roadmap to our future. And, indeed, it does. When we return to our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence, we are reminded that we were endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, not by our government, by our Creator, and that we chose and consented to be governed and that we chose and consented to be governed pursuant to a Constitution that provided limited obligations to the Federal Government and reserved the remainder of the rights to the States and to the people. If we in Congress would vet bills pursuant to that model, we would return to that shining city on a hill and we could turn over to our children and grandchildren the Nation that we inherited from our parents. It is stunning--and Mr. Akin has seen these numbers--that people in America today, when you ask them, Do you have a higher standard of living than your parents, acknowledge that indeed we do. And then you ask those same baby boomers, Do you believe your children will enjoy a higher standard of living than we do? They say no. They're concerned. They see a path, a pattern, a culture of dependency forming. But I'm convinced that this year being another election year and another opportunity for government of the people to rise up, to take control, and to consent to being governed in the way they wish to be governed, that we will see an opportunity next year to return to government of the people and to our founding principles. Now, Mr. Akin and I both know that that will all be for naught unless those who are in a position to govern next year take seriously the messages of the people of this country. And I can assure you, based on what I have heard as a freshman Member of Congress, that we will indeed take seriously the messages of the people in this country and that we will restore for the American people our first principles and that we are going to be able to be a strong, vibrant country and proud to hand the reins to our children and grandchildren. I yield back.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes. Recall that President Obama, since he took office, will double the debt in 5 years, triple it in 10 years. This is absolutely unsustainable. When the Budget Committee met with Mr. Orszag, who is the director of the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, we asked him if this budget was sustainable. In other words, if there are adequate revenues being collected to pay for the budget that we have passed. And Mr. Orszag acknowledged that there are not. We cannot do that. Yet we do it year after year after year.

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman for the question. His question is very relevant because Republicans are asking the same question. Our chairman of the Budget Committee, John Spratt, is an honorable man, and we have pursued with him frequent efforts to encourage him to convene the Budget Committee for purposes of passing a budget. Normally, the Budget Committee passes a budget by April 15. That's part of the traditional process of this House. And that budget sets the ceilings or the parameters by which the Appropriations Committee will act during its efforts to vet the line items within the budget, meaning really going through the budget carefully, deciding what to spend money on, what the priorities of Congress are this year. So it is unprecedented, as Mr. Akin pointed out, for this Congress not to consider a budget. And here we are at the end of May, fully 45 days into the period of time during which we normally have a budget for the Appropriations Committee to work with; and, Mr. Akin, we do not have a budget. And it is becoming more and more apparent every day that the Budget Committee will not be convened. I am certain that John Spratt, who is the chairman of the Budget Committee, finds this painful. But I am also of the impression that the leadership within his party has encouraged him not to convene the Budget Committee out of concern that passing a $3.8 trillion budget, the budget as proposed by the President, would set a tone for this election year that Democrats don't want to face up to. They don't seem to want to face up to the fact that we are at over $12.9 trillion in debt.

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the Representative from Missouri and look forward to the opportunity to join you this evening. I am a member of the Budget Committee. And last year we had a lengthy budget debate in the committee, it was very robust, to discuss possible amendments to the budget. And even though the majority of the Republican amendments to the budget were not passed, we did pass a budget. It was over the ``no'' votes of the Republicans. However it fulfilled a duty of this body to pass a budget. At $3.6 trillion, it was the largest budget in the history of the United States. President Obama this year proposed a $3.8 trillion budget. At a time of recession, he proposed a budget that was $200 billion larger than the budget the year before. And the budget the year before included some astronomical increases, such as a 39 percent increase in the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. Well, as you can see from a full day of hearings that were held today in the House Natural Resources Committee, that additional 39 percent increase in one agency's budget in 1 year, as now applied in the Gulf of Mexico to the oil spill, has not yielded the kind of efficiency that we expect from government. The United States is in charge of this cleanup. The President of the United States is in charge of this cleanup. And on occasion he has dispatched members of his Cabinet, members of the Coast Guard, members of other agencies to involve themselves in the cleanup. But the fact that they increased their budget 39 percent in 1 year has not contributed to the coordination efforts of Federal agencies in cleaning up the gulf.