Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. And is it your memory also that President Obama, then Senator Obama, came back here off the campaign trail and put his blessing on the TARP bailout? It was my understanding that the Congress was controlled by the Democrats and that President Obama, then Senator Obama, said, ``I support it too.'' Is that your memory?

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Minnesota. It's a little hard to follow her. She is so energized and so enthusiastic. The rest of us here tonight are that way, too, but we don't have the same presence she has, but we are so fortunate to have her in the Republican Caucus. I want to add to what she is saying, and then yield in a couple of minutes to our colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who has a lot to say about this subject tonight. I want to point out that our colleague from Minnesota has set the stage for what we're going to talk about tonight, and there are lots of things to try to remember. She has gone over a whole list of all of the spending that was done last year, what has been proposed so far this year. But I want to help people just keep in mind three simple concepts about what has been happening in this Congress so far. The budget, which the Democrats support, President Obama's budget, spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. Those are three simple concepts for us to keep in mind. We can talk a lot about bailouts, stimulus, budget, omnibus budget--there are many, many terms. I know the American people have difficulty keeping up with them because I have difficulty keeping up with them. It's like you're in a whirlwind here with so many things happening. The Democrats are living what the Chief of Staff of the President and the former head of the conference here said. He said, ``Let's never let a crisis go to waste.'' He wanted, with a Democrat-controlled Congress and a Democrat in the White House--talk about being on a sugar high, that is really a sugar high because this is the first time in over 8 years that they have had that situation. And I think it's important that we point that out because there are still many people in this country who don't realize that the Democrats are in charge, they've been in charge. In fact, our economy started tanking when the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007. I think I have a chart to show that; but again, I think it's really, really important to talk about that. I want to say that our colleagues who were speaking just before we were made a comment about how it's Congress' job to assure jobs for Americans. Well, the budget they support and the policies that they have followed thus far have done just the opposite. They've done everything they can to kill jobs in this country. And let me point it out. The Democrats took control of the Congress in January of 2007. That's not something they like to be reminded of. They want to say that all of the economic problems that we have in this country are the result of George Bush's presidency. However, we had 55 straight months of job growth up until January of 2007; that's when the Democrats took control. And look what started happening? This is the chart. The graph is a little bit tough to read, but this is the loss of jobs going up. We probably should have had it going down to make it be a little more specific on what we're talking about. But as they said, they don't want to let a crisis go to waste, but they don't want to accept the responsibility for what their getting in control of Congress did. For 6 years, the first 6 years of President Bush's administration, the Republicans were in control. Did they do all the things they should have done? Did they do everything right? No. They absolutely did not. I was here for 2 of those years, and colleagues of mine did our best to cut spending. And we actually did cut spending that cycle, but we never got any credit for it because of the news that came out about the elections and that kind of thing.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. The Democrat budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. Contrary to what Democrats say on this floor all the time, the government doesn't invest. It spends. It spends money it takes from American citizens, to whom the money belongs. Here's a look at the increase in government spending the Democrats want to impose on the backs of American families. The budget increases spending to $3.9 trillion in 2009, or 27 percent of GDP, the highest level since World War II. This is simply too much spending and will lead to higher taxes, slower economic growth, and fewer jobs for middle-class families. Despite their claims, the Democrats' budget promises historically high deficits stretching out to 2019, when the budget deficit will stand at $712 billion. The Democrats' budget would produce a $1.75 trillion deficit, or 12.3 percent of GDP in 2009. This deficit level is more than three times the previous record deficits. Over the first fifty days of the new Administration, Democrats have spent approximately $1 billion an hour, most of it with borrowed money. Beginning in 2012, and every year thereafter, the government will spend more than $1 billion a day in net interest. Mr. Speaker, American families and small businesses cannot afford all of this government spending and the Democrats need to show some fiscal responsibility, just as President Obama promised. Where is the responsibility and accountability so often mentioned but never embraced by President Obama?

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. That is exactly right. There is another quote, I think it is Mark Twain that says, whenever you rob Peter to pay Paul, you are going to get a lot of support from Paul. So that is the same theory here. What Thomas Sowell is talking about is about this very bad bill that we passed last week on housing. Now, we have had people who feel very compassionate about Americans and want everybody to own a home if at all possible. And our colleagues on the other side of the aisle really pushed this theory, pushed it to the point where many people who shouldn't have bought homes went out and bought homes, and they had lenders who were their willing accomplices in either ignoring the condition they were in or not getting complete information from them. And now we have this situation where we are going to allow people who have mortgage loans up to $729,000 to declare bankruptcy on their primary residence. We have never done that in this country before. And it is undermining our whole capitalistic system. Again, it is being done under the guise of compassion. But what we are doing, as you so eloquently said, we are rewarding people who made bad decisions and punishing those who have made good decisions and paid their mortgages. This is just adding to the kinds of problems that you and my colleagues have been describing.

Ms. FOXX. Will the gentleman from Missouri yield?

Ms. FOXX. I know you're an engineer, but I think you also know a great deal of history. And if my memory serves me, the times that we have been in recession, what seems to have worked has been cutting taxes, not raising taxes. And as we have been discussing these issues a lot in the last few weeks, my memory is that. Is your memory that we have heard over and over and over again, here are the times that we have cut taxes, here are the times we have raised taxes? And one more point before you answer, I know, as you say, Republicans are accused of not having new ideas. Well what I like to say to people is it isn't that we need new ideas, it is that we need to use the ideas that have always worked. And the ideas that have always worked have been where we have cut taxes, or at least that is my understanding. And I would like to get you, if you don't mind, to respond.

Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield for one more question?

Ms. FOXX. I think that it is important that we point out to the American people over and over again that the money that the Federal Government has is not manna from Heaven. The only money that the Federal Government has is money it takes from us forcefully through taxes, money that it borrows from us and other countries, and of course printing money, which creates inflation. But there are people who think there is something called ``government money.'' Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Because it is an issue that I think needs to be pointed out.

Ms. FOXX. I thank you, Mr. Akin, for taking charge of this Special Order this afternoon. You have been doing a fantastic job the past weeks. You always do a fantastic job the past several weeks. You always do a fantastic job, but I know that you have really put out the time and energy to do these Special Orders and bring to the attention of people things that need to be brought to their attention related to the budgets that have been passing, the whole economic situation that we see facing ourselves. And you talked about the problem with what is commonly called mark to market, our friend from Tennessee mentioned it, and what is happening with people not being able to get loans and how complicated our economic situation has become. I want to talk just a minute about an article that came out today in the Washington Times by a very well known person named Thomas Sowell. Thomas Sowell is one of the most brilliant minds we have in our country these days, and any time I see a piece by him I do my best to read it, because I always learn from reading from Thomas Sowell. The conversation about mark-to-marketing, the conversation about compassion made me think about this article. Any time we have a chance to quote Thomas Sowell, I think we should do that. [From The Washington Times, Mar. 11, 2009] Commentary--Subsidizing Bad Decisions (By Thomas Sowell) Now that the federal government has decided to bail out homeowners in trouble, with mortgage loans up to $729,000, that raises some questions that should be asked but seldom are asked. Since the average American never took out a mortgage loan as big as 700 grand--for the very good reason that he could not afford it--why should he be forced as a taxpayer to subsidize someone else who apparently couldn't afford it either, but who got in over his head anyway? Why should taxpayers who live in apartments, perhaps because they did not feel they could afford to buy a house, be forced to subsidize other people who could not afford to buy a house, but who went ahead an bought one anyway? We hear a lot of talk in some quarters about how any one of us could be in the same financial trouble that many homeowners are in if we lost our job or had some other misfortune. The pat phrase is that we are all just a few paydays away from being in the same predicament. Another way of saying the same thing is that some people live high enough on the hog that any of the common misfortunes of life can ruin them. Who hasn't been out of work at some time or other, or had an illness or accident that created unexpected expenses? The old and trite notion of ``saving for a rainy day'' is old and trite precisely because this has been a common experience for a very long time. What is new is the current notion of indulging people who refused to save for a rainy day or to live within their means. In politics, it is called ``compassion''--which comes in both the standard liberal version and ``compassionate conservatism.'' The one person toward whom there is no compassion is the taxpayer. The current political stampede to stop mortgage foreclosures proceeds as if foreclosures are just something that strikes people like a bolt of lightning from the blue-- and as if the people facing foreclosures are the only people that matter. What if the foreclosure are not stopped? Will millions of homes just sit empty? Or will new people move into those homes, now selling for lower prices--prices perhaps more within the means of the new occupants? The same politicians who have been talking about a need for ``affordable housing'' for years are now suddenly alarmed that home prices are falling. How can housing become more affordable unless prices fall? The political meaning of ``affordable housing'' is housing that is made more affordable by politicians intervening to create government subsidies, rent control or other gimmicks for which politicians can take credit. Affordable housing produced by market forces provides no benefit to politicians and has no attraction for them. Study after study, not only here but in other countries, show that the most affordable housing is where there has been the least government interference with the market--contrary to rhetoric. When new occupants of foreclosed housing find it more affordable, will the previous occupants all become homeless? Or are they more likely to move into homes or apartments that they can afford? They will of course be sadder--but perhaps wiser as well. The old and trite phrase ``sadder but wiser'' is old and trite for the same reason that ``saving for a rainy day'' is old and trite. It reflects an all too common human experience. Even in an era of much-ballyhooed ``change,'' the government cannot eliminate sadness. What it can do is transfer that sadness from those who made risky and unwise decisions to the taxpayers who had nothing to do with their decisions. Worse, the subsidizing of bad decisions destroys one of the most effective sources of better decisions--namely, paying the consequences of bad decisions. In the wake of the housing debacle in California, more people are buying less expensive homes, making bigger down payments, and staying away from ``creative'' and risky financing. It is amazing how fast people learn when they are not insulated from the consequences of their decisions.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the American people are hurting. Congress was right to take action to get this economy moving, but higher taxes and massive Federal spending is not the cure for what ails this economy. The American people know that, too. They know we cannot tax and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. Raising taxes during a recession on almost every American is a prescription for economic decline. The stock market and other indicators are showing that. More than half of the Americans paying higher taxes under the Democrat plan are small business owners filing as individuals. Raising taxes on small businesses where a majority of Americans go to work every day will not put American families back to work. Raising utility rates on every household in America will place an undue burden on families struggling to make ends meet. Cutting deductions for charitable giving will harm higher education, scientific research, and religious organizations struggling to do good in our society. Democrats are on the side of more government and more taxes. House Republicans are on the side of the American people. And let me talk just a minute about that so-called stimulus bill which passed here a couple of weeks ago. We were told that the stimulus bill had to be passed, had to be passed immediately because it was going to create 3 to 4 million new jobs in this country. Now, some of us were skeptical about that from the very beginning, but we want to make sure that what is promised is kept. Now, I come from the State of North Carolina, Mr. Speaker, as you do. The State's motto in North Carolina is ``To Be Rather Than to Seem.'' I think it is a good motto for all of us to live by. And let me give an example of how the stimulus package is a package ``to seem'' rather than ``to be.'' Here's a Democrat stimulus myth in the State of Montana. A press release from Senators Baucus and Tester claimed that $1.3 million in stimulus money would create 40 new jobs for the Flathead City County Health Department; sounds great, sounds like a good excuse for voting for a waste of money. But here's the reality; the money will simply provide another year of funding for the Department's community health center, which already has 10 full-time positions. The community health center plans to add only two more jobs--two, not 40. We need to be dealing with what is rather than what the Democrat majority and the President want the American people to believe. Let me say again, the budget, the stimulus, spend too much money. They tax too much--the largest tax increase in history. They borrow too much money--the highest level of borrowing ever. This is not the way to get our economy back on track. The Democrats are going in the wrong direction. House Republicans understand that the American people are hurting. We had an alternative plan that created twice as many jobs for half the cost, but it was summarily dismissed. Republicans aren't saying ``no'' to everything, we're presenting better alternatives, but the Democrat majority and the President want you to believe that all we're saying is no. That's not right. We're ``being'' rather than ``seeming.''

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I returned to Washington yesterday from my weekly visit home, and had the privilege of spending time with many of my constituents. They asked that I carry back a message to Washington, a simple message: stop the spending binge. Right now families across the country are hurting. Many have lost their jobs, and many more worry they will be next. Families are tightening their budgets and small businesses are cutting expenses. The American people are making the sacrifices necessary to weather this storm. And yet they hear on their local news that it is business as usual in Washington. It is more spending and more taxes from the Democrat Congress and from President Obama, who promised a new direction. The people in my district know we cannot borrow and spend our way back to a healthy economy. Let's follow the example set by the American people. Let's make the tough choices that are necessary to get our economy back on track. Let's start putting fiscal restraint and the American people first.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Well, I want to thank my colleague, Mrs. Biggert, from Illinois for organizing this Special Order tonight and bringing together a group of--those who have already spoken--exceptional women who have shared their expertise with us tonight. I have a quote that I want to use, it's from Pericles, from 430 BC. Pericles said, ``Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.'' And I think what all of us have been trying to communicate tonight is that there's a lot happening that needs to be shared with the American people. And many people, particularly women, every day are going to work, doing their jobs, coming home, taking care of their families--be it their nuclear family or their extended family--and many don't have time to get involved a lot in the political life. March is Women's History Month, and I think it's important that we talk about the role of women in our culture and how what's happening here is going to have an impact on them. We don't have a lot of time left tonight, but I do want to say that I share with my colleagues the concerns that they've expressed in terms of how raising taxes during a recession is the wrong thing to do, how raising taxes on energy is the wrong thing to do, how raising taxes on small businesses--the engines of job creation--is the wrong thing to do, how raising taxes on investments instead of encouraging economic growth is the wrong thing to do, limiting tax incentives for charitable giving is the wrong thing to do. And I could go on and on about what's wrong with the budget that President Obama has submitted, and which it looks very likely that this Democratic Congress is going to endorse. What we need to be doing in our culture and in our country is to be promoting job growth, promoting economic recovery, and yet everything that's being done seems to be wanting to drive down the economy and harm the economy and the American people. It is a very difficult thing to deal with when you see that happening and you know that's the impact of what's happening, whether it is designed to be that way or not. Today someone gave me an excellent article from National Journal of March 7 by Clive Crook, the title of which is ``The End of the American Exception?'' And he goes through this and talks about how it appears as though the present administration is trying to take us to the place that Europe is right now and compares us to France. I will submit this article in its entirety tonight. Again, I applaud my colleagues for the work that they have done tonight. I think we have just scratched the surface in what we need to be presenting to the American public, especially American women. Right now 59.3 percent of our labor force is made up of American women over the age of 16. There are 71 million of them working. They are 46 percent of the total labor force and projected to account for 47 percent of the labor force in 2016. They are also projected to account for 49 percent of the increase in the total workforce. They're doing a tremendous job for us in this country, but they're going to be hit by this. And many of them are not participating in politics. They're not able to because of the demands of their jobs and their families. But I think it's important that we point these items out to them, and I hope we will be doing another Special Order this month so we can do more by way of educating people about the effects of this budget on the average American family. And with that, I yield back to my colleague from Illinois, who has done such a great job tonight. [From the National Journal, March 7, 2009] The End of the American Exception? (By Clive Crook) During PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer last Friday, the program's resident pundits, David Brooks and Mark Shields, had an interesting exchange about President Obama's first budget. They agreed that the administration aimed to be ``transformative''--and Brooks conceded, ``I think we all want that.'' The real question, he said, is how transformative. Brooks: ``The debate will be over the nature of it: If it's a transformative relationship that basically keeps the American model with repair, you'll get a lot of people in the center for it. If it's a transformative relationship that turns us into France, with a consumption tax and a much bigger federal government, you will not.'' Shields: ``That's a straw man, turning it into France. That's not the case.'' Is it really a straw man? I was hoping that Brooks would press Shields to say what exactly it is about France he objects to, what makes him recoil at the parallel. Where has France gone too far, in the view of an American liberal? Presumably, liberals approve of the universal health care, the generous and extensive welfare state, the comprehensive worker protections, the stricter regulation, the vastly more- generous subsidies for higher education, the stronger unions, the higher taxes, and especially the higher taxes on the rich. At least I assume they do, since they advocate all of those policies for the United States. Have I left something out? As far as social and economic policies are concerned, Democrats really ought to be holding up France (or maybe Italy or Germany) as the model to which they aspire. The fact that they do not--that they even deny the validity of the comparison--seems revealing. No doubt it is partly a matter of tactical calculation. The idea that the United States should model itself on any other country, rather than offer itself as the model for the world, would be new to most American voters and would take some getting used to. But I do not think it is just that. Perhaps some liberals privately long to make the United States over in the image of France, but the great majority, I imagine, are more interested in taking the things they regard as best in the European economic model--all the things I just listed--and combining those ``socially enlightened'' policies with the traditional economic virtues of the United States. Take French social policies and welfare-state institutions and add them to the American work ethic, spirit of self- reliance, and appetite for change. Et voila, the best of both worlds. Color me skeptical. Culture shapes institutions and vice versa. Culture--that bundle of traits of self-reliance, self- determination, innovation, and striving for success-- underpins the American exception. To state the obvious, it helps explain why this country has a markedly different form of capitalism than Europe, based on smaller government and lower taxes. In ordinary times, this culture makes it hard for a government to push the United States in a European direction: Voters push back against bigger government and higher taxes. But now, maybe, the time is ripe. This unusually severe economic crisis has called American capitalism into question, highlighting its weaknesses and making it easier to forget its strengths. Liberalism has a rare opportunity. And just as this opportunity has arisen, American liberals also have, in Barack Obama, a remarkably popular and appealing leader to press the advantage. But the interaction between culture and institutions works both ways. Change the system and, with time, you will change the culture. How much you will change it is debatable, and so is whether change of that kind would be good, bad, or indifferent for the country's economic and political prospects. But it would be an error to assume that the policy transformation that some liberals long for--and which Obama, if his budget is any guide, appears to be aiming for--would leave America's unusual cultural traits unaffected. I had better declare an interest on this question of good, bad, or indifferent. As you may recall, I am a Brit who lives in the U.S. Politically speaking, I think of myself as an old-fashioned English liberal, a comically outmoded orientation that has little or no voice in modern European or American politics. In U.S. terms, you get a sense of where I stand if you think ``liberal on social issues, conservative on economic issues'' (but with exceptions; so do not hold me to that). To put it mildly, I admire this country's instinctive suspicion of concentrated state power; its anti-collectivism, its veneration of the individual spirit and individual enterprise. At different times and in different ways, Democrats and Republicans alike have been at war with aspects of that mind-set, but as an admiring foreigner; I am here to tell you that this culture survives, that the American exception is alive and well, and that it is more than likely the secret of this country's awesome success. If I were a citizen with a vote--as one day, immigration authorities permitting, I hope to be--I would need to think long and hard before casting it for ``transformation.'' Repairs here and improvements there, of course, but transformation? It would be a shame to see America revert to the Western European norm. It would mean I bad wasted a trip, for one thing, and I am not sure where I would go next. Brooks's invoking France as a possible destination for Obama's social experiment does seem far-fetched. But the staggering breadth of Obama's ambition makes it reasonable to ask where all this is heading. Thoroughgoing health care reform would have been a bold undertaking by itself, one for which there is broad centrist support. But the budget and the fiscal stimulus also call for wide and ongoing commitments to public investment. Obama is fond of saying that the question is not big government or small government, but what works. The fact is, whether his programs work or not, taken together they represent the biggest and fastest expansion of government since the New Deal. Moreover; the tax increases to pay for this expansion, he says, are to fall entirely on high-earning households. So his plan to enlarge government is married to an uncompromising assault on economic inequality. And if all of this is not enough to remind you of Europe, Obama has also expressed strong support for the Employee Free Choice Act, arguing that bigger and stronger unions are a vital part of sharing prosperity more widely. To somebody who watched unions cripple the British economy, until voters elected Margaret Thatcher to sweep them away, this is the part of Obama's program that seems most in need of an international reality check. This promised transformation is not a move into unexplored territory, after all. The policies that Obama is proposing have all been tried elsewhere. Ideas that look bold and new in this country are old hat across the Atlantic. And we know something about how well they work. A strong case can be made for many of Obama's proposals, taken one at a time. I admire his ambition to mend the country's failing, unjust, and needlessly expensive health care system. I also applaud his focus on raising the incomes of the working poor, through tax cuts and wage subsidies (such as his ``make work pay'' tax credits). But tradeoffs need to be faced. A good hard look at Europe makes this plain. Bigger government requires higher taxes--in the end, for most taxpayers and not just the rich. Europe shows that tax systems tilted too far against high earners stifle the incentives that spur economic growth. Welfare systems that are more generous and have fewer strings tend to raise unemployment. Stricter regulation can and does retard innovation. Stronger unions can raise unemployment and, in the aggregate, lower incomes. The president cannot be accused of misleading voters. For the most part, he is planning to push through the policies he advocated during the election--policies that the country voted for. His apparent determination to keep his word is unusual, and a little startling, but this is more a criticism of other politicians than of him. Although he cannot be accused, not yet, of breaking promises, I think it is fair to ask whether he has thought through the implications of his agenda taken as a whole. His style of explanation, or salesmanship if you prefer, is heavy on pragmatism and on mending one thing at a time. But the breadth of his program, and the connectedness of his ideas, belie that modest stance. As the president said during his Inaugural Address, ``It has been the risk takers, the doers, the makers of things . . . who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom.'' That is a very American sentiment. It is fair to ask what the full scope of Obama's transformative agenda implies for the risk takers, the doers, and the makers of things. Aside from higher taxes if they succeed, obviously.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. We do have several speakers, Mr. Speaker. I would now like to recognize my colleague, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Chris Lee, for 2 minutes.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague, and I wish that just his saying something would make it so. Unfortunately, my distinguished colleague who has a distinguished service not only in Congress but also as a judge, you simply cannot say something and make it so. This is not going to stop the problem that we have in the housing market. This is actually going to make it worse. Let me make a couple of comments about why that is the case. We have talked over and over about the fact that this is going to drive up the cost of loans in the future and about why it's going to hurt people who have played by the rules. You know, House Republicans support responsible homeowners who live within their means, who make honest representations on their loan applications, who pay their debts, and who work hard to achieve the American dream. But that's not what this bill does. What this bill does is it rewards bad behavior. It extends the welfare program in this country, and it's going to make home mortgages in the future much, much more expensive. Why is that the case? As my colleague has said, in the past, home mortgages have been left out of the bankruptcy law because they then become higher in risk. That has held down interest rates. By putting these home mortgages into the bankruptcy law, it is going to make the interest rates higher in the future. Even Justice Stevens said that taking the principal home out of the bankruptcy law was to encourage the flow of capital into the home lending market, but now we're going to increase the risk to lenders, and this is going to drive up the cost of interest rates. As for the comments about millionaires and billionaires, that's a straw dog, just a straw dog, and we don't need to be putting those things out. This rule and the underlying bill are opposed by both the Heritage Foundation and the New York Times. That doesn't happen very often, Mr. Speaker. It very rarely happens that those two entities oppose something, but they do. I want to say something about the fact that we were here a week ago today to deal with this rule, and we thought we were going to be voting on the underlying bill, so it was pulled off because it was going to be made better, but you know, this is just the bait-and-switch game. I want to say to my colleagues that this underlying bill was not made better. This rule was not made better as a result of this week that has passed by. In fact, it may have been made worse. I challenge my colleagues who have hesitation about this bill and whether to vote for it to read the bill, to read the rule. See if you think that this has actually made it better. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back.

Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from California for giving us a great history lesson and reminding us of the kind of things that we ought to be about, again, regardless of what party we come from. And I want to say that I proudly voted against the bailout, predicted it would be a failure. And I voted every time in the last 4 years for reduced spending because many of us who came here in 2005 could see what was ahead. I want to now yield some time to our colleague, one of the most dynamic people that we have here in the Congress, Michele Bachmann, from the great State of Minnesota, where they say ``Minnesota nice''--I learned that this summer. So, Mrs. Bachmann, if you would, please, join us.

Ms. FOXX. I wrote this note down just after we started this session tonight, and I want to ask you if you have ever heard this famous quote by Einstein: ``Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.'' Do you think that characterizes the situation that we find ourselves in?

Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?

Ms. FOXX. Well, I think this distinguished group of new Members should put together a Special Order one night and let's talk about energy. We've been joined by another one of our colleagues who came into the Congress along with the two of you who have just been speaking, and I have been very pleased to have had him come over and help me on a couple of Rules that I have handled on the floor and am very pleased to have him join us tonight. We have Mr. McClintock from the great State of California, which is not exactly in the best financial shape these days. I don't know if he wants to share any of that with us. But I know he's going to have some great comments to share, and I want to give him an opportunity to join in our discussion here.

Ms. FOXX. I would yield.

Ms. FOXX. Well, I thank the gentlelady for sharing that experience that just happened today. I haven't heard it explained exactly that way, but I've known for a long, long time that we in the United States are not creating the problems. If there is a problem with global warming--I will tell you that I am a social scientist, not what would be called a ``pure'' scientist, but I've read enough to know that we cannot in any way prove that we are causing global warming. I think that the Lord's in charge of this Earth, and a lot of things have happened before human beings got here. There's been climate changes without us, and I think they're going to continue. So I appreciate you bringing that in.

Ms. FOXX. What does that word ``revenue'' mean? Don't we know it by another name?

Ms. FOXX. Would the gentlelady yield?

Ms. FOXX. Well, some time soon I am going to share with you an article that I read in Human Events last November about what the Federal Government looked like in the '30s and what our society looked like and what our budgets looked like in the '40s. But it has been done, and that's what we need to do. I want to ask someone else to join us in our conversation here. We have our colleague from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) who is with us tonight. And I know that she has some interesting points that she wants to add to this discussion. And I want to bring her into it at this point.