Cynthia Lummis

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. It is the power of the purse that this Congress holds that allows us to gain control of situations like this, and that is why this discussion is so important. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for including us. I yield back.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Akin. Would you be so kind as to pull the chart up that you have behind you, the one that displays what has happened to private sector employment versus public sector employment? As you can see from the chart, private sector employment is an upside down U, in that in the year since the majority party has switched hands and Democratic control of Congress has been in place, we have seen private sector employment decline dramatically. At the same time, we have seen public sector employment increase to the tune of about 188,000 public sector workers increase. At the same time, we've lost about 12 million private sector employees. Now, I have a bill that I believe will begin to address this serious problem that we see with regard to employment. It is the Workforce Reduction Act, but it does it without firing anyone. It does it through attrition. The bill provides that for every employee who vacates a position due to retirement or moving on, that that position would be moved into a position pool. In fact, for every 100 retirements that occurs in the Federal Government, 50 positions would be moved into a position pool, the other 50 positions, vacant, would be eliminated. And then agencies would need to apply for reinstatement of a position based on necessity. Those agencies who critically need employees, such as possibly the Minerals Management Service, in its enforcement functions in the Gulf of Mexico, would be likely recipients of employees in order to meet the obligations of the Federal Government to protect our borders with regard to the encroachment of oil that is seeping into the Gulf of Mexico. For other positions which are less mission-critical, those agencies would downsize. Now, this is not going to be dramatically harmful to Federal agencies because, as I said, since the Obama administration took office, 188,000 new Federal employees have been added, and this excludes people that were hired pursuant to the decennial census. Consequently, we know that somehow we survived without these employees prior to President Obama taking office.

Mrs. LUMMIS. It was not 3 weeks ago that the United States had a sale of the U.S. Treasuries that was undersubscribed, which means there were not enough purchasers of our debt for that particular bond issue of U.S. Treasuries that day, which is to say that in order to attract buyers of our debt, we are going to have to pay a higher interest rate to the people who are willing to lend us the money, which is to say that our interest rate payments are going to go up, which means a larger portion of the annual Federal budget will have to go towards paying the interest on our national debt, which is to say that it is a potential trigger for inflation. Inflation is a job killer. We have asked the Japanese, who had a period of time in the 1990s called the forgotten decade, how we can avoid, in the United States, having a forgotten decade? They have told us, don't raise taxes during a recession. So we are in a conundrum. If we raise taxes, we will increase the length of the recession, potentially. If we don't raise taxes, the deficit will grow, potentially leaving us, in my opinion, with one good choice. The good choice is to cut spending. How does this Congress cut spending? This Congress has never cut spending. I am delighted to be a Member of Congress at a time of economic turmoil because I come from the State of Wyoming. Wyoming is a State where we have had boom and bust cycles because of our dependence on the economies of oil, gas, and coal. As commodities go, the State of Wyoming goes. When I was a Wyoming legislator, I experienced both a boom and a bust cycle, and what we had to do was reduce spending. Recently, the Wyoming Legislature reduced spending to the tune of over 10 percent. In Wyoming, it is customary to adjust to these types of belt-tightening, and expenditures during times of largesse. So when we have money, we have invested in the University of Wyoming, invested in the bricks and mortar of our K-12 system, invested in our technology, in our economy. Yet, when we have to tighten our belts, we do it across the board. You know, it's not the best way to budget. We in Wyoming acknowledge it's not the best way to budget. But I do believe that if we could cut spending across the board, domestic spending, that is, we would have an opportunity to reduce those expenditures. But I would also acknowledge that without addressing the entitlement situation we can never get a handle on our budget concerns. That is why I commend, to the attention of everyone within earshot, a plan that was developed by Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee. It can be reviewed at www.americanroadmap.org. It provides the path, the glide path, towards our economic recovery without raising taxes. It takes a long time, it's not without pain. There are, as Paul always likes to say, sharp knives in the drawer. But, nevertheless, it does it in a responsible fashion, without raising taxes, and addresses, long term, the consequences of overspending and of our potential of becoming a European-style social democracy and a culture of dependency.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I am on the Budget Committee, but the Budget Committee doesn't meet. Maybe the reason the Budget Committee doesn't meet is because they don't want you to see this chart. If we look at this chart, and we look at the blue lines, the blue lines are private-sector employment. It is the private economy employment, the job creators, the revenue creators. Look at the Bush years, those are the years going up. Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush. Look at the Pelosi years. Those are the years going down. Pelosi, Pelosi, Pelosi. The private-sector jobs dropped under Nancy Pelosi. They went up under George Bush. Now look at the red line. The red line is George Bush. The red line for government employment is flat. But look at the Pelosi line. The Pelosi line for government employment goes up, up, up, up. So, under Pelosi, private-sector jobs go down. Government jobs go up. The private sector pays for the public sector, but there are no private-sector jobs. Maybe that's why the Budget Committee won't meet, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. The world is begging America to get its financial house in order. This Congress responds by doubling the debt in 5 years and tripling it in 10. Americans are begging for jobs, careers, and stability. This Congress responds by hiring 17,000 people at the IRS to enforce on Americans government-approved health insurance. Small business entrepreneurs beg Congress to empower them to create jobs. Congress responds with 20 new taxes in this health care bill, amounting to half a trillion dollars. Our military families beg us to leave TRICARE alone. This bill transfers TRICARE out of the Department of Defense. Americans are fed up with government takeovers of business, like the auto industry that closed dealerships and threw Americans out of work. This health care bill includes a government takeover of the student loan business, throwing 31,000 more Americans out of work. We Republicans implored the majority for a bipartisan health care reform bill. The majority party responded with special deals cut behind closed doors to garner votes for its most reluctant members. America deserves better than this. America is better than this. Let's listen to America. Kill this bill. Start over with health care we can afford. Create jobs and save our economy.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit will strengthen and improve the Public Lands Service Corps program by ensuring it is focused on defined, priority activities and by adding safeguards against misuse of program funds. There are four clear and simple parts to this motion: First is an important provision that will protect the young men and women in the program from being subjected to registered sex offenders. People as young as 16 years of age are eligible to participate; and for many, a summer job with a Public Lands Corps project will be their first time away from home for an extended period of time. That is why this motion to recommit would require criminal background checks for the adults in the program who come in contact with the minors and would bar registered sex offenders from supervising these young people. The protections included in this motion are taken directly from those in the AmeriCorps program that we just passed in this Congress a year ago. Sex offenders should not be placed in positions of authority over, or be allowed access to, young people in the Public Lands Corps, just as they are prohibited in AmeriCorps. By voting for this motion to recommit, you will prohibit sex offenders from participating in this program and will be voting to provide basic protections for young people. Second, this motion restores the current act's emphasis on combating the threats of beetle infestation and wildfires that are devastating vast tracts of our public forest lands. Without this motion, urgently needed efforts to combat this ongoing tragedy will receive no priority whatsoever for funding. The Healthy Forests Act passed the House with strong bipartisan support, and yet this bill would erase the emphasis provided for Healthy Forests Act activities in the existing law. This is the wrong approach and a step backwards. Wildfire prevention and battling beetle and other infestations should be a priority to protect local communities and our national forests. These activities must be continued, not eliminated, as the bill would do. Voting for the motion to recommit will ensure this occurs. Third, this motion would prevent misdirection of grant funds by requiring that the projects funded actually make improvements to public lands rather than being used for public advocacy or junkets like the organic, micro-brewed beer bus tour we heard about from Mr. Bishop. This program is billed as a means of connecting young people to our public lands. So this motion very simply requires that funded projects occur on public lands and improve these lands. Fourth and lastly, this motion would make any group that is engaged in a lawsuit against the government ineligible to receive grant funds. If you are going to sue the government, then you shouldn't collect grant money from taxpayers. This will ensure that political advocacy groups that sue the government are not supported by taxpayer dollars. This motion to recommit includes four commonsense improvements to the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote to prevent sex offenders from getting access to young people through this program, to vote to restore the bill to the priority status of wildfire prevention activities under the bipartisan Healthy Forests Act, to vote to ensure grant funds are spent and work actually on our public lands and not bus tours, and to vote to prevent grant money from going to groups that file lawsuits against the government. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes, in its current form.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. The gentleman from Missouri earlier gave a lovely image, and I would like to use image as well. I would like to use the image of President Obama saying over and over and over to the American people, ``If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.'' And this bill does not fulfill the President's promise. Yesterday in the House Budget Committee we worked for 8 hours to instruct the Rules Committee on how to make this a better bill. And we asked them to make the President's promise come true, to pass an amendment that says if you like your health insurance you can keep it. And that was killed on a party-line vote, with all of the Republicans voting to help the President fulfill his promise to the American people and the Democrats voting against it. This bill does not fulfill the President's promise that if you like your insurance you can keep it. I urge that we kill this misguided health care bill.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor a young student from the State of Wyoming who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Amy David of Boulder, Wyoming has just been named one of the top honorees in Wyoming by the 2010 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state. Amy was nominated by the Sublette County 4-H. She is a senior at Pinedale High School and has represented the state as Miss Wyoming Teen USA. Amy has been an ambassador throughout Wyoming promoting physical fitness, healthy minds, self-confidence and goal setting for youth. She has participated in many health-related fund raisers and co-founded an annual race to raise money for cystic fibrosis research. In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it is vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution this young citizen has made. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to insure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like Ms. David are inspiring to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. Ms. David should be extremely proud to have been singled out from the thousands of dedicated volunteers who participated in this year's program. I heartily applaud Ms. David for her initiative in seeking to make her community and state a better place to live, and for the positive impact she has had on the lives of others. She has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world, and deserves our sincere admiration and respect. Her actions show that young Americans can--and do--play important roles in our communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor a young student from the State of Wyoming who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Camille Allsop of Cheyenne has just been named one of the top honorees in Wyoming by the 2010 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state. Camille was nominated by Cheyenne's East high School. She is the lead performer and interpreter in a song and dance group that travels across the country bridging the gap between deaf and hearing audiences. In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it is vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution this young citizen has made. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to insure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like Ms. Allsop are inspiring to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. Ms. Allsop should be extremely proud to have been singled out from the thousands of dedicated volunteers who participated in this year's program. I heartily applaud Ms. Allsop for her initiative in seeking to make her community and state a better place to live, and for the positive impact she has had on the lives of others. She has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world, and deserves our sincere admiration and respect. Her actions show that young Americans can--and do--play important roles in our communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of my friend, Dr. Frederick ``Fritz'' Cubin, husband of former Wyoming Congresswoman Barbara Cubin who served the Cowboy State for 14 years in this U.S. House. After a lengthy illness, Fritz passed away this past Monday. Our condolences go out to Barbara, sons Bill and Eric, and their family and friends. Fritz had many passions: his family always first, hunting and politics taking the silver and bronze. Dr. Cubin served his country in the United States Air Force. He served his family as a confidante to his wife, a devoted father to his sons. A family doctor for many, he also served his community, making his appointed rounds to Casper's retirement homes to the very end. Fritz Cubin was a fierce patriot, with apologies to no one. He will be missed.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, it's a privilege to be here tonight on behalf of the Republican Party and on behalf of its members here in Congress. This evening we will be led by Judge Carter, Representative Carter of Texas, who is on his way to the Chamber at this point, but it's my privilege to cover for him until he arrives. We have just finished, Madam Speaker, a week in our districts where we were meeting with members of our constituency. I want to inform you that among the issues that I heard about when I was home were still concerns from automobile dealers about franchises that have been put in jeopardy due to the automobile issue with General Motors; I heard about people who are trying to build houses in Wyoming and would create jobs in Wyoming doing so and had the building permits and the need for the housing confirms but that financing for building construction in Wyoming remains impossible to get because of new bank regulations that require two-thirds more security for those loans than was previously the case. Banks are simply unwilling to lend under the same terms that they would before to risk-takers who hire people to create jobs to build wealth and value in this country and who have strong credit ratings themselves and solid track records of producing jobs and producing value in the housing and the construction market in this country. That remains an issue around the United States and certainly in my State of Wyoming. Jobs must be the main criteria as we go forward this year; and the looming debt and deficit concerns continue to be voiced by people in my State throughout the week as I met with them. As you know, we are preparing for more budget hearings now that Congress has reconvened after the President's Day recess. I'm on the Budget Committee, and we had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Orszag before the weather curtailed our activities and then the intervening district work period occurred. But we will be resuming those activities, hopefully meeting with Treasury Secretary Geithner soon and discussing the debt and deficit. I want to remind my colleagues that last year we were approached by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about the need for the United States to come up with a plan, a long-term plan to address our debt and deficits. It is not possible for us to accurately and clearly address our debt and deficit issues unless we discuss entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. There are components of those issues that will be discussed this week, hopefully, at the White House conference on health care. We are now joined by the secretary of the Republican Conference and an esteemed Member of this body, a former judge from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding because I have questions. My questions are the same kinds of things that my constituents are asking: Are Republicans just going to be window dressing in this event? Why were we invited if the President is going to take yet another bill drafted by Democrats just as the House-passed bill was, just as the Senate-passed bill was, and now the President has a bill? Why are the Republicans even being included now when the bill that the President is proposing is not yet in draft form, is only in talking points? How is it going to be a bipartisan summit when the party that makes it bipartisan is not really asked to participate in the crafting of the legislation? I yield back.

Mrs. LUMMIS. You mentioned something that I'm curious about. In one of the little summaries that I read when I arrived back in Washington today, it said that they were reducing the penalty for noncompliant health insurance under the Internal Revenue Code, but that implies that you cannot keep your health insurance if you want to because it implies that there is still going to be a requirement under the President's proposal that your insurance comply with government approval. So, how can the President say, if you like your insurance you can keep it, when the fact of the matter is, if your insurance does not comply with government standards, that you will be penalized under the Internal Revenue Code for keeping that insurance? And I yield back.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Will the gentleman yield for just a second?

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I have many of the same questions that Americans have. I was on an airplane returning to Washington, D.C., today when I learned of the President's proposal; that it was not his intention to have a summit this week where members of the majority party and the minority party had an opportunity to bring ideas to the table; that it would not be an opportunity to take the House minority party bill, the Senate majority party bill, the House majority party bill, and find where the overlap is among all those bills, and then spend their time on February 25 concentrating on the areas of overlap. That's what the American people want us to do. That's what my constituents told me they hoped would happen on February 25. They were hoping that when we were home for the President's Day work period last week that there was an effort here in Washington to find out where's the commonality among all those bills and how might that common ground be front and center to the discussion on February 25. Now, today, as I have arrived back in Washington, I've learned that, although the Congressional Budget Office hasn't told us how much they believe President's proposal will cost, the President's own people believe that it will cost in the vicinity of $950 billion, just under the trillion dollar mark; that it will include over $600 billion in taxes; and that, even though it will provide opportunities for all States to be treated under Medicaid the same way that Nebraska is under the Senate bill, that, in fact, the special deals that were cut for Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and other States have not been altered. Furthermore, I heard one of my majority party House colleagues on another interview program this evening explaining that there's still hope that a public option, government-run health care is part of this package. So I would ask the gentleman from Texas or our colleague from Georgia, a physician, who has joined us to let us know and enlighten me and members of the public via C-SPAN this evening, do we know what's in the President's proposal? Has it received the approval of both the majority party people who will be attending the summit and the minority party people? Do we even know who's going to be in attendance at the summit? Do we know the format of that summit? Will the President be leading this group and only explaining his proposal or will all in attendance have an opportunity to bring aspects of the health care debate forward? For example, will there be a debate on what really are the issues that every one of us knows needs to be discussed: things like portability; things like addressing the problem of preexisting conditions being uninsured under many insurance policies today, and the issue of having an affordable insurance policy for high-risk individuals as well as the general population, and also, the issue of having a level playing field for tax treatment, whether you're self- employed or you have an employer. These are the issues that I've heard about for the last 8 months, over and over, that people want addressed individually, bill by bill, debated, amended, and agreed upon in the House and the Senate; not these big, comprehensive omnibus bills that have so many provisions that have not been discussed, have not been vetted and are not well understood either by the Members here or by the general public. And I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, two points I would like to make. One is this is not the same statutory pay-as-you-go as was in effect in the 1990s. During the years that President Clinton was working with a Republican Congress, they did balance the budget and they did create a surplus, but they did it using a statutory pay-as-you-go mechanism, or perhaps it was a nonstatutory pay-as-you-go mechanism, that actually didn't have as many exemptions as this one does. The fact that we are using a statutory pay-as-you-go terminology that really doesn't limit in any way spending to be paid for is simply disingenuous. The other point I would like to make is about our debt limit. We don't have to raise the debt limit today, the debt ceiling. What we would have to do is put strict spending caps on ourselves, roll back the budget to fiscal year 2008 levels; we would have to pull in stimulus money, TARP money, and other expenditures that have either been returned to the government or not yet made. And we wouldn't even have to raise this debt ceiling. So this is an issue of lacking fiscal responsibility. We are in a situation of borrow-as-you-go, not pay-as-you-go.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I think it is a tribute to you that over these many months of the last year, you have been stalwart in your support of the liberties of this country and the first principles of this country. The gentleman from New York (Mr. King) was so committed to the American people and the vote on health care that he missed his own son's wedding because the vote was taken on a Saturday, and we needed every single vote, not knowing if it would go our way or the vote of socialized medicine. And this gentleman sacrificed seeing his middle child's wedding in order to cast his vote for the American people that day. I applaud you for going up and participating in Massachusetts' election observing. I would like to ask the gentleman before I begin to discuss budget issues. Did you talk to people in Massachusetts today and yesterday? What was on their mind? What was guiding their decisions in deciding to make a change in party after that seat had been held by Democrats since 1953. What was on their mind in casting their ballots today?

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. And I look forward to the day when you are in the majority party, next year on this floor, and I am in the majority party, God willing, and that we can work together with President Obama to solve the problems of this country; that we can go back as happened in the 1990s, where you had a member of the Democratic party as President and a Republican Congress, and they worked together to balance the budget. That is what the American people, I believe, are yearning for. That is what I am yearning for. And I look forward to working with the President in a way that we can balance the budget and bring the American people back to have faith and confidence in its government because we return to founding principles. You know, there is an old saying: When all else fails, read the directions. The Constitution of the United States is the directions. And at a time like this, when we have record deficits, when we have soaring U.S. interest payments like you see on this chart, when we have Americans concerned about their health care, about their jobs, about the ability to earn an income, when people are concerned about the growth in China and what they see in some cases as the decline in jobs in the United States, that is when you return to founding principles. Let's look at our Constitution more often. Let's return with our President next year, as a majority party, and I hopefully will be serving with you in the majority party at that time, and get back to those founding principles. Read the directions, what made America great, and restore the confidence of the American people in this institution and in our ability to self-govern.

Mrs. LUMMIS. The father of the Massachusetts Constitution, John Adams, died 50 years to the day that the Declaration of Independence was signed. And as he died, he said ``Jefferson lives.'' And ironically, Thomas Jefferson died that very same day, 50 years to the day after the Declaration of Independence was signed. These are people whose founding principles and founding beliefs carried them until the day they died. Although during the years they were political rivals, they respected and admired each other so much because of the work they had both done to help found this country, that they wanted to nurture it and guide it and see that it survived. I believe tonight we are seeing that same nurturing and guidance and seeing the founding principles verified in Massachusetts. So it is indeed an exciting day for our country. Among the things that you mentioned that the people of Massachusetts chose to be concerned about in casting their ballots today is the deficit. I would like to take a minute to show you a chart that explains how this deficit has grown over the last year and that the debt that our majority party here in Congress today says they inherited actually has grown to unprecedented levels while they were in control. When they espouse the fact that during the Clinton years, the deficit was rejected and that there were budget surpluses, it actually happened when there was a Republican Congress. But the gentleman from Iowa has given me the opportunity to bring this chart and show it to you. The Federal deficit tripled in one fiscal year as tax revenues fell and Congress pumped out large sums to stabilize financial institutions and stimulate the economy. This top line shows you where the Federal budget deficit was. Well, that is neutral. That is neutral ground. That is a balanced budget. Down here on this dotted line is the debt that the majority party inherited 1 year ago, a $459 billion budget deficit. That is the difference in money collected from the taxpayers of this country and the money spent during that year. Now look at 2009. Below this dotted line is the amount of deficit spending that has occurred during the last year. And as the gentleman from Iowa just went through, these are the elements that have stepped that deficit to unprecedented levels: $950 billion increase from 2008, and our deficit is $1.4 trillion, almost a trillion dollars more than the Democrats inherited 1 year ago, and here is how it goes. First of all, lower tax receipts due to the recession, something that they didn't factor in. Then the stimulus money, which at $787 billion was about twice what the Republicans proposed to spend on stimulus, and our bill would have created twice as many jobs. And in fact the Democrats' bill that they said would keep unemployment below 8 percent ended up blossoming into double digit unemployment. That is what people are worried about. They are worried about whether they will have a job tomorrow, and whether their children will have a job and whether they will be able to pay their bills and whether they will default on their mortgage. And on top of that, whether their health care benefits will be taxed or whether they will be penalized because the government hasn't approved of the health care plan they have now. But I digress. Now let's go on to the bailouts for financial institutions and auto industries, taking it to even lower levels. Bailouts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an area where the government in its wisdom decided that people who may not financially qualify for loans to own a home should have them, and this is the resultant deficit. And finally, unemployment benefits due to the recession. Plus you add other spending and here we are, $1.4 trillion in deficit spending in addition to the debt that has accumulated over the years. Now if the gentleman from Iowa would indulge one more chart. When you hear the term structural deficit, this is the structural deficit, the difference between spending and taxes. This chart runs from the 1970s through 2019. And if you look, this dotted line is today. Look at how the gap between spending and taxes grows and separates going forward, and here is where we are today at a massive point in terms of the difference between spending and taxes. But over the years, regardless of who was President, regardless of who was in Congress, we didn't have those abrupt and wild and dramatic swings. In fact, when the Republicans controlled Congress under a Democrat President, you actually had tax receipts higher than spending. These are the years that the gentleman from Iowa talked about, about which he is most proud and about which I am most proud as a person who was observing as a non-Member of Congress during those years. This chart here shows you where spending went over the last period of time, 1969 to 2008. This very high number for defense, when over 40 percent of the Federal budget was going to defense, was at the height of the Vietnam War. Look at its abrupt decline after the Vietnam War into the 1970s, then back up for a little bounce during the period of the 1980s while we were ending the Cold War, and then you see it declined after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and this is the area of the so-called peace dividend, and then back up only slightly during the war after 9/11. But the real kicker on this chart is the bottom line, the red line, Medicare and Medicaid, because before we were a welfare state, the amount of the Federal budget and in terms of the use of the Federal budget, only about 5 percent went to entitlement programs, Medicare and Medicaid. That number has been dramatically increasing with no end in sight because people of your and my age are going to move into retirement, meaning that Medicare will be more expensive. There will be more of us on it, and Medicaid benefits have increased over time. Consequently, this is going to be eating more and more of our budget. Nondefense discretionary spending is actually down, and Social Security, more level than you would think at about 20 percent of the Federal budget. But there again, that number is going to go up unless we get a handle on entitlements. So these are the areas with which we need to grapple. These are the areas which I believe were on the minds of Americans in Massachusetts as they went to the polls today.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mrs. LUMMIS. Interestingly, over the August recess, when we were all at home having town hall meetings and the people had their opportunities to step forward and express their opinions about this bill, one of the leaders of the majority party in the Senate was quoted as saying, It's getting harder and harder to pass legislation that the American people don't want. So they even acknowledge that the American people don't want this. They even acknowledge that it is the judgment of the leadership of the Democratic Party that this is good for the American people whether the American people know it or not. That's what King George was doing. King George was deciding that he knew what was best for the American colonies whether they knew it or not, but they rose up, and they told King George otherwise--that they knew what was best for them, and they formed a more perfect union. That's what, in part, tonight's election was about. That's what the elections and the discussions may be about throughout this calendar year unless there is some recognition by the majority party and by our President that ``change'' means moving more towards the center. You and I want what's best for our country. We don't want to stand up here and bash the other party. We want to work with them to come up with solutions for our country. I come from a State where we have frequently a boom-and-bust economy. I served in the Wyoming Legislature when we were in boom years and when we were in bust years. We know how to ramp up an economy, and we know how to ramp a government down in response to a declined economy. We could work with a President and with a majority party now if they were willing to do so; but as you and I know, we've seen no indication that they're willing to do so, and you expressed an example of it. It was the night that you were there at 1:30 a.m. in the Rules Committee to try and get an amendment. I had three amendments to that bill. I was there an hour before you were, and I was told that there were going to be two amendments allowed on the floor tomorrow to that 2,000-page bill. One would be Minority Leader John Boehner's substitute bill, which they already knew was going to go down and that it would get the votes of all of the members of the Republican Party and none of the members of the Democrat Party. That was one of the amendments. The other one was the Stupak amendment, because that was demanded by of course every Republican and enough Democrats that they had to allow it to go to the floor in order to get that bill passed. But every other bill that was sponsored in good faith by Democrats and Republicans alike, rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans, were rejected, was not allowed to go to the floor and in fact was essentially blown off in the Rules Committee. That is not government of the people. That is government the way that King George ran it. That is government that the people tonight rejected in Massachusetts.