Cynthia Lummis

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you for yielding. It does, in a way, accomplish just that because it's taking money that is being spent on defense now and rerouting it into domestic spending that is discretionary and creates new programs. Now, I would not object to that but for the fact that this increased spending is in addition to new taxes. And the gentleman was accurate in pointing out the effect that that will have on small business. As you know, my State of Wyoming is all small businesses, that an individual tax rate of $200,000 will trigger a tax increase, that filing jointly at $250,000 in income will trigger a tax increase. And correctly you have pointed out that the brunt of that is going to fall on small business. Small business has been pegged as the opportunity for growth in this country through the entrepreneurial free enterprise ethic. And if that ethic is thwarted through high taxes, that will be a component of our country that is not growing. That is the component of our country that is creating 70 percent of the new jobs. So as large employers lay off employees because they were ``too big to fail'' and then failed anyway, it would be a robust small business community that could absorb them if the tax structure were such that those monies could be made available by expanding the entrepreneurial spirit.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker; you and I are freshmen colleagues, and it's wonderful to see you in the chair this afternoon. You and I came to this Congress as freshmen with a desire to do away with ``politics as usual'' and start anew. And what I saw yesterday on this floor was not exemplary of that particular goal of mine, and I suspect yours and some of our other freshmen colleagues as well. What I saw was a rule that was brought to the floor that would prevent us from discussing amendments to the big omnibus $410 billion spending bill. If you voted for that amendment to stop amendments to the bill, that was your way of being able to voice support for keeping congressional salaries capped. So those of us who are fiscal conservatives had to vote for that amendment in order to be consistent and true to our fiscal conservative roots; but at the same time, we had to disallow ourselves the opportunity to debate and discuss a $410 billion spending package. So I want to discuss it a little bit today. That bill has already passed, but there are some concerns I have about it, especially when coupled with the stimulus package we passed, especially when coupled with the President's budget that we just received today. Some of my concerns are these: the President's proposal would provide that those who are making $250,000 a year and above will be those who are subject to a tax increase. That applies to many of our small businesses in the United States. And my State of Wyoming has no large businesses; it is entirely made up of small businesses. And those businesses create jobs for 70 percent of the jobs in this Nation. So we are, in essence, going to tax those who are creating jobs. And to me, when we're in a budget crisis and a fiscal crisis and a mortgage crisis, those are the wrong people to whom to turn and ask for more revenue. In addition, the previous speaker pointed out that the President's message, although very comforting to me coming from a coal-producing State like Wyoming, that he does acknowledge that we need clean coal technology, in the very same sentence said we also need cap and trade. And cap and trade is a tax, it will fall primarily on coal, that will send us to other nations to derive our energy. And that, I think, is a step in the wrong direction as well. Furthermore, the debt that we're taking on will have to be absorbed in large part by other nations. We're already the largest debtor nation in the world. China already owns over $1 trillion worth of our Treasury notes, our debt. And it must be of great concern to them that we would approach them to buy more of our debt knowing that the consequence of all of this spending will mean we will be paying them back in dollars that are worth less than the dollars that they needed to purchase our U.S. treasuries now. Inflation will be the consequence of all the spending we are doing. Consequently, I was so hopeful that the President's budget would provide a modicum of discipline and would be flat spending so that the American people will have a chance to see if the stimulus package works before we undertake more government spending to see if the budget that was passed yesterday, the $410 billion, is responsive to stimulus so we can flatten budgets in the future. But what we saw yesterday is that we're going to increase spending over last year's budget, followed the very next day, today, by even more spending. The levels of spending just get higher and higher, government intervention into the private sector gets higher and higher. The people of this country need us to go shoulder to shoulder with them and exercise the fiscal discipline that they are having to exercise themselves. Mr. Speaker, again, it's wonderful to see you in the Chair. I thank you for your time.

Mrs. LUMMIS

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

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my time today to compliment the bipartisan work of the Committee on Homeland Security. The bill before you, the FAST Redress Act of 2009, is the result of extensive bipartisan negotiations. This is what my constituents asked for when they elected me to Congress. The people of Wyoming want to see the parties working together for the good of the American people. And this bill is an example of the type of bipartisanship that I hoped to see when I came here. Unfortunately, my first month in this body did not display to me that type of bipartisanship. So to have this example here today is very refreshing. Last week, we had an example that was quite the opposite. The stimulus package went to the Senate without a single Republican vote. But the fact of the matter is, the American people are now weighing in, and they're weighing in with their Senators, and they're giving their Senators the opportunity to make a better decision than we in the House made: a decision based on the spirit of bipartisanship and a decision that's based on job stimulus, not on pork barrel spending. So I want to compliment the Committee on Homeland Security for bringing us a bill that is truly bipartisan. And I would encourage us, as a Congress, the House of Representatives, to take the same spirit of bipartisanship to heart when the Senate returns the stimulus package to us for our subsequent consideration.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. It is poor planning on our part to release this money without giving real consideration to how it will be used or whether its goals will be met. I stand in support of House Joint Resolution 3, and ask my colleagues to stand with me for fiscal discipline and support this resolution.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, it is daunting, indeed, to follow such an articulate speaker on the floor of this House, but I rise today to express my support for House Joint Resolution 3 and my opposition to the decision to release the second half of the TARP bailout funding. Washington, DC, has often been described as 70 square miles surrounded by reality, and I think that description, particularly today, is right on target. Only in this town can people actually believe that throwing more money down a rabbit hole during these harsh economic times will produce positive results. Wyoming people are right to express their frustration about how the taxpayer dollars were spent under TARP. I believe and they believe their hard-earned money has gone to waste due to a lack of accountability and transparency under this program. TARP funding was originally meant to stop the downward spiral of the banking industry. And while I opposed it from the beginning, I am even more appalled by how the funding has been redirected. The Reform Act the House passed yesterday, for example, would direct the second half of TARP funds to go towards the auto industry, foreclosures assistance, and even student loans. While some of these programs may have independent validity, the original intent of TARP funding was not directed towards them and should not now be directed towards them. With a possible trillion dollar stimulus package just over the next hill, we as a Congress and we as a Nation need to assert some fiscal discipline. The release of the additional $350 billion, especially after the lack of knowledge on how the first half has been spent, is not fiscal discipline. It is inexcusable. It is poor planning on our part, on the part of Congress.