Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it's been almost 5 years since the application to build the Keystone XL pipeline was filed. It's also been almost 5 years that Americans have been waiting for the jobs and energy security Keystone would provide. How much longer will President Obama make us wait? American families expect our government to pursue the least expensive, most reliable domestic energy. Jobless Americans expect that their President won't stand in the way of economic relief. But on both fronts, President Obama's choice to cede to environmental special interests and block the Keystone pipeline in 2011 did the opposite. It denied thousands of jobless Americans the chance at high-paying work and blocked a direct connection between refineries in Texas and affordable energy in Canada. But what's more audacious about the President's economically indefensible action is the fact that it is groundless. The President's own State Department concluded ``no significant'' environmental damage would be caused by Keystone's completion. The Keystone pipeline has jobs to offer. Why is the President turning those jobs away?

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, ``Job killers win, American workers lose'' is how the Laborers' International Union of North America, a rare critic of the administration, summed up the President's 2011 call to block the Keystone XL pipeline. The move, they said, would ``inflict a potentially fatal delay to a project that is not just a pipeline, but is a lifeline for thousands of desperate working men and women.'' And what of America's energy needs or diplomatic priorities? By cutting access to North American oil, it is American consumers who will continue to suffer, not the Canadian company seeking to permit the Keystone pipeline. TransCanada's chief executive noted ``If Keystone XL dies, Americans will still wake up the next morning and continue to import 10 million barrels of oil from repressive nations, without the benefit of thousands of jobs and long-term energy security.'' When jobs and affordable North American energy are at stake, Americans deserve better than groundless delays from the President. Let's build the pipeline today.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the IRS admitted to targeting conservative groups with extra scrutiny, demanding donor lists, meeting minutes, personal member information, and even Facebook activity. The Justice Department was caught essentially spying on the Associated Press. And the White House continues to twist itself in knots explaining why it misled the American public in the aftermath of Benghazi. The administration's apologists are in a panic. They claim the President is not responsible for any of this wrongdoing. The President, who made a career touting government as the solution to most every problem, now solicits our understanding. It seems the leviathan is rather unwieldy and difficult to manage. This is my shocked face. These scandals are byproducts of government too big for its britches and proof that the IRS should not be given more power to manage our health care. House Republicans are committed to a smarter, accountable government that works for the people and safeguards liberty against tyranny and bureaucratic incompetence. That starts with repealing ObamaCare.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, what was ObamaCare's central claim? The Affordable Care Act, as it was termed by President Obama, was supposed to make health care more affordable for the American people. Many who believed that claim, however, now have buyer's remorse. ObamaCare was to help save families $2,500 on their health care premiums. But that's not true. Family premiums have increased $3,000 since 2008. Even workers who make $25,000 a year will pay more for health care because of ObamaCare. Young people struggling to pay off debt and find careers in this jobless economy could see their health premiums rise by as much as 189 percent. In spite of lofty promises, health insurance costs are higher. More than 30 studies have found ObamaCare will make health care premiums less affordable by the time it's fully implemented. Promises for affordable health care have delivered a true train wreck to the American people. It's time to repeal ObamaCare and all of its broken promises once and for all.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. It is hard to raise a family and earn a living at the same time. The reality is that every hour you spend working to provide for your family is an hour you can't spend with your family. For nearly 30 years, Federal, State, and local government employees have been able to choose paid time off, or comp time, instead of cash wages as compensation for working overtime hours. Unfortunately, Federal law prohibits employees in the private sector from having the same option. It's time to put an end to this double standard. Private sector employees deserve the same flexibility. That is why Republicans have introduced H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act; and that bill deserves our support. We will vote shortly on the rule for that and tomorrow on the bill. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for fairness for the private sector.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of this bill. I can't understand why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so opposed to fairness when fairness applies to the private sector. I would like to point out to my colleague that we would have entertained amendments in the Rules Committee had they been germane or if they had not been withdrawn. As he well knows, being a member of the Rules Committee, the amendments that were introduced by his colleagues were withdrawn before the committee had an opportunity to consider the amendments or were ruled nongermane. I also assume that, based on the comments our colleagues have made across the aisle, that because the rights and privileges that are given to public employees are so horrible that they cannot be extended to the private sector, that they will probably be introducing a bill to withdraw those rights and privileges because they're only hurting public employees, and our colleagues don't want to be hurting private sector employees. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to providing more opportunities for more Americans and helping make life work for more families. This legislation is a great step in that direction. The rule before us today provides for consideration of a bill that gives employees across the country the flexibility that they deserve so they can better manage the many daily challenges of family life. Whether the employee is a new parent who wishes to stay at home with a newborn, a proud aunt who wishes to attend her nephew's baseball game, or a son or daughter who wants to care for an elderly parent, America's private sector employees should be able to determine for themselves what to do with the overtime compensation that they have earned. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. FOXX. We have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I am willing to close after the gentleman from Colorado.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A little while ago we had a debate about the pay in the White House. I have an article from the Daily Caller that I would like to enter into the Record, and I will quote briefly from the article. The article is dated January 15, 2013, posted by Caroline May: While President Obama handily won the women's vote by 11 percentage points in November over Republican nominee Mitt Romney, his administration paid the women on his payroll less than his male employees last year. A Daily Caller analysis of the administration's ``2012 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff'' shows that while women comprised about half of the 468 staffers--as the President touted during his press conference Monday--they also earned about 13 percent less, on average, than their male counterparts. The median 2012 salary for female employees of the White House was $62,000; for men that number was $71,000. The article ends with a quote from New York Democratic Representative Charlie Rangel. He, however, called Obama's failure to appoint more women and minorities to high-profile positions ``embarrassing as hell.'' ``The questions I've heard are fair,'' Rangel said January 10 on MSNBC. ``The record does speak for itself.'' With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. [From the Daily Caller, Jan. 15, 2013] Obama White House Paid Women Staffers Less Than Men in 2012 By Caroline May While President Barack Obama handily won the women's vote by 11 percentage points in November over Republican nominee Mitt Romney, his administration paid the women on his payroll less than his male employees last year. A Daily Caller analysis of the administration's ``2012 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff'' shows that while women comprised about half of the 468 staffers--as the president touted during his press conference Monday--they also earned about 13 percent less, on average, than their male counterparts. The median 2012 salary for female employees of the White House was $62,000; for men that number was $71,000. The DC calculated the median male and female salaries by determining employee genders based on their names. In cases where the gender was not clear, The DC either identified the specific employee in other ways or--in a few cases--assigned gender based on the most common use of a given name according to databases of baby names. The 2012 pay disparity represented an improvement from the disparity in 2011 figures the Washington Free Beacon reported last year. According to that analysis, the median female compensation in the White House was $60,000--$2,000 less than in 2012--and the male employees' median was unchanged at $71,000. That amounted to an 18 percent difference. In his statement last year declaring April 17 Equal Pay Day, Obama lamented the pay disparity between men and women in America, echoing the well-worn yet often-questioned statistic that ``women who worked full-time earned only 77 percent of what their male counterparts did.'' He pointed to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which made it easier for women to sue for lost wages due to pay discrimination, and to the creation of the National Equal Pay Task Force in 2010, as examples of the administration's commitment to equal pay. ``At a time when families across our country are struggling to make ends meet, ensuring a fair wage for all parents is more important than ever,'' the president said. ``Women are breadwinners in a growing number of families, and women's earnings play an increasingly important role in families' incomes. For them, fair pay is even more than a basic right-- it is an economic necessity.'' Obama's White House female employees achieved a slightly better 87 percent of what their male counterparts earned, compared to Obama's national 77 percent figure. In recent weeks Obama has come under fire for the composition of his inner circle--initially sparked by an official White House photo of the president published by The New York Times in which he was surrounded by all men. His nomination of white men to all four second-term cabinet positions so far has also drawn criticism. Establishment media outlets and women's groups have been troubled by the apparent lack of female leadership and diversity the administration has exhibited so far--with the National Organization for Women demanding to know ``President Obama, Where are the Women?'' Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem, all co-founders of the Women's Media Center, have pressed Obama to adopt an inner circle that looks more like American. ``[Obama] wouldn't have been re-elected without 55 percent of the women's vote, something he earned by representing women's majority views on issues, yet now he seems to be ignoring women's ability to be not only voters, but leaders,'' the trio wrote Friday in a CNN website essay. NBC's Andrea Mitchell noted Sunday on ``Meet the Press'' that women inside the White House ``are not happy'' with the male- dominated face of Obama's administration. Monday, Obama addressed some of the criticisms about the composition of his cabinet, saying that it is too soon to ``rush to judgment'' and that women were influential throughout his first term. ``So if you think about my first four years, the person who probably had the most influence on my foreign policy was a woman,'' Obama said. ``The people who were in charge of moving forward my most important domestic initiative, health care, were women. The person in charge of our homeland security was a woman. My two appointments to the Supreme Court were women. And 50 percent of my White House staff were women. So I think people should expect that that record will be built upon during the next four years.''

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I assume the gentleman from Colorado has additional speakers, but at this time I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my colleague from California knows, I am very fond of her and respect her a great deal; but I want to say that this bill is not a bad bill. This bill does not roll back the rights of workers at all. And if the bill is so bad and what it does is give fairness to people in the private sector and it gives to the people in the private sector the same rights and privileges that people in the public sector have, then why are my colleagues not trying to roll back those rights for the public sector? It would make sense that all the horrible things they've said about this bill which apply to the public sector you would want to protect the public sector. But that's not what my colleagues are doing. They're simply saying it isn't right to let the private sector employees have the same rights and privileges that public sector employees have. It doesn't make any sense for them to make that argument. It just doesn't make any sense to do that. Mr. Speaker, the Working Families Flexibility Act makes it easier for American workers to juggle the needs of family and the workplace. That's what it accomplishes. I want to urge the people watching this debate to read the bill. Unlike the thousand-page bill that came out that people have to ``wait until it passes'' before they understand what's in it, before we understand what's in it, this bill is basically 8 pages long. Any American can read this bill and understand it. So I would say to you, if you doubt what we are saying on our side of the aisle, read the bill. That is the best way for the American public to be informed. Mr. Speaker, as we consider it, there are some things to keep in mind. First, it in no way undermines longstanding essential worker safeguards or forces workers to give up overtime pay if that's how they choose to be compensated. It simply provides an additional level of flexibility that government workers already enjoy. I don't know how many more ways we can make that point, Mr. Speaker, but we will continue to do that. Further, the bill does not allow employers to bully employees into picking comp time over cash payment. It provides new important safeguards to ensure that the choice to use comp time over cash wages is truly voluntary. Employees can change their minds and request overtime cash payment in lieu of unused comp time. For employees represented by a labor organization, the labor organization and the employer must first reach an agreement to provide this benefit before the employee can choose to exercise it. For an employee who is not a member of a labor organization, the agreement is between the employer and the individual employee and must be entered into knowingly and voluntarily by the employee and may not be a condition of employment. The bill does not change the 40-hour workweek or how overtime is currently calculated and accrued, and it does not affect comp time provisions regarding employees of Federal, State, or local governments. Mr. Speaker, in fiscal year 2012, IRS employees accrued 246,450 hours of comp time in lieu of overtime pay. That amounts to 30,806 full 8- hour days. Employees at the Department of Labor accrued 51,097 hours of comp time, or 6,387 full 8-hour days. Employees at the Department of Education accrued 12,408 hours of comp time, or 1,551 full 8-hour days. It's clear that Federal employees appreciate this flexibility. What is unclear is why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so hell-bent on denying private sector employees this same flexibility. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. We hear the word ``fairness'' from the other side of the aisle constantly. This bill is fair, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 1406 simply affords private sector employees the same flexibility that Federal, State, and local government employees have enjoyed for over 30 years. It is unconscionable to me that our colleagues would vote against this and say you should be a second-class citizen if you work in the private sector. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would believe that the comments of my colleague from Connecticut would be a little more sincere if she would direct the issue of pay disparity to the White House. The White House needs to do something about pay disparity. If we had leaders who led by example, then the White House would straighten out the pay disparity that exists there. Also, my colleagues don't seem to want to talk about the bill before us today because it is such commonsense legislation. They have no real arguments to offer about defeating it, so they want to distract the American people onto other issues. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman from Colorado. Madam Speaker, this bill sounds good because it is good. This is the theme from our colleagues across the aisle: everything about the private sector is bad; everything about government is good. That is their constant theme. This bill allows voluntary participation by employees. It does not require things. I would also like to point out to my colleague from across the aisle, who is very quick to point out any mistake that I might make, is we did not have an amendment from Representative Bishop in the Rules Committee yesterday. Representative Bishop's amendment was offered in the Education Committee, but was not offered in the Rules Committee yesterday. I would also like to say that government employees do not get interest paid on the time that they eventually get paid for instead of comp time, so we are not setting up a double standard here. What we're trying to do is eliminate a double standard, again, that our colleagues across the aisle love to have--bash the private sector. Madam Speaker, we live in the greatest country in the world, and what made us a great country? Look at the rest of the world. What's made us a great country is the rule of law, which means we believe everybody should be treated the same way. It's our capitalistic system which has worked wonderfully well for this country, and every other system has failed all across the world. We don't need to do much but to look at what is happening in the rest of the world and how sorry their economies are, and it's our Judeo-Christian underpinnings. Those are the things that I think have made us great, Madam Speaker, and this bill will allow us to give people who work in the private sector, which is part of what's made us such a great country, the same privileges that people get who work in the public sector. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 198 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. Madam Speaker, it's hard to raise a family and earn a living at the same time. The reality is that every hour you spend working to provide for your family is an hour you can't spend with your family, seeing your children off the first day of school, taking them to a doctor's appointment, or attending parent-teacher conferences. As a mother who worked while my daughter was growing up, I understand the firsthand struggles of working parents. That is why my colleagues and I have introduced H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act. This commonsense legislation will allow private sector workers to choose paid time off instead of cash wages as compensation for working overtime, which is the same privilege that Federal, State, and local government employees have been able to choose for over 30 years. The Working Families Flexibility Act is pro-family, pro-worker legislation that gives workers the flexibility to spend time with family, attend parent-teacher conferences, care for aging parents, or attend to other family needs that may arise. If an employer and an employee agree on comp time, then the paid time off must be granted at time-and-a-half for each hour of overtime worked. Labor unions support flexible overtime compensation for their own members, and this benefit is already included in many public sector union collective bargaining agreements. The flexible approach offered by this bill has worked for public sector employees since 1985. If the policy works for our public service employees, it will work for our private sector employees, as well. Fair is fair, Madam Speaker. The bill maintains protections for workers to ensure that this new flexibility is not abused by making the decision to receive comp time completely voluntary and allows an employee to change his or her mind if he or she initially chooses comp time but later decides to receive cash wages for overtime. All existing protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act remain in effect under this legislation, and it is up to the employee when he or she decides to use accrued comp time. Additionally, an employee cannot be intimidated, coerced, or otherwise forced to accept comp time in lieu of cash wages for overtime. The legislation also maintains all existing enforcement remedies for employees if an employer fails to uphold the agreement, and employers must provide 30 days' notice to employees if comp time will no longer be offered. H.R. 1406 provides proper protection and flexibility for employees and will help American workers better balance the needs of family and the workplace. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 198 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for nearly 30 years, government employees have had the option to choose paid time off or comp time in lieu of overtime pay. Private sector employees, however, haven't had that choice because Washington and an old 1938 labor law won't let them. That isn't fair. When life happens in the form of school plays, Little League games, or family members becoming sick, time and flexibility are essential to working parents and grandparents. Money doesn't buy time. It would certainly help if every worker had the choice to receive comp time when they put in extra hours. Government shouldn't be standing in the way. There are a lot of moms and a few grandmas in the Republican Conference, and we want a solution for American families. That solution is the Working Families Flexibility Act. Our legislation will ensure all workers, whether public or private, benefit from the flexibility of choices in overtime compensation.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, these FAA flight delays have been in effect for less than a week and already the American people are suffering. FAA's financial mismanagement is now costing Americans time and money, and yet the administration has done nothing to reverse it. At a time when families are traveling to see their kids graduate from college, fly across the country to take care of their elderly parents, and make business trips to help support their families, these delays are inexcusable. That's why House Republicans voted twice to replace President Obama's sequester with reasonable and responsible spending cuts--because we wanted to prevent things like this from happening. So I encourage all of you when you travel home this week to talk to people in your hometown airports, take pictures and engage the people you meet about what they're experiencing and then tweet those stories using the hashtag: #ObamaFlightDelays. And, above all, please join me in encouraging the administration to stop playing politics with the American people.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the President's Federal Aviation Administration could use a little help. Faced with the task of trimming its budget only 5 percent--basically, just returning to 2010 spending levels--it has decided to furlough employees and cause flight delays. How can this be their only option when the FAA's budget has grown almost 110 percent over the past 15 years? Rather than inflicting unnecessary pain on the American people, President Obama and his FAA should be cutting waste. Within the FAA's budget, there are $2.7 billion in nonpersonnel costs that should be scrutinized before the President or his Transportation Secretary cry ``doomsday'' or ``delay.'' Examples include 500 million taxpayer dollars spent by the FAA on consultants, $143 million on operation costs for the FAA's 46 aircraft, and $200 million on supplies and travel. The President's FAA officials have the discretion to reduce such excess and apply savings to the essentials. They should stop punishing the American people with flight delays or threats of shuttered air traffic towers and compromised safety and use the power they have to cut taxpayer-funded waste first.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on April 5, 1938, the North Wilkesboro Lions Club was chartered in North Carolina. Tomorrow members of the club, including charter member Blair Gwyn, will celebrate their 75th anniversary as an organization committed to the service of those in need. For years, the North Wilkesboro Lions, like Lions Clubs International, have devoted themselves to combating the problem of blindness. The Record of Wilkes notes that our North Wilkesboro's Lions chapter provides eye exams and glasses to the less fortunate, helps support Camp Dogwood--a Lake Norman summer camp for the visually impaired, sponsors a leader dogs program, and, in addition, runs an annual book drive for literacy in Wilkes County. North Wilkesboro's Lions work to raise funds to support the blind through annual broom sales, the Apple Festival's White Cane Drive, food sales at Merle Fest, and regular dues and donations from members. For seventy-five years, North Wilkesboro has been served by the contributions of its Lions Club. I congratulate each North Wilkesboro Lions Club Member on this monumental anniversary.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize my constituent Virginia Reilly McDevitt and her classmates on the 50th anniversary of their graduation from the New York Methodist Hospital School of Nursing. New York's Methodist Hospital, America's first Methodist hospital, opened in Brooklyn's Park Slope section in 1881. Its nursing school opened shortly thereafter in 1888. For years, nurses prepared at the Methodist Hospital to serve throughout the world, wherever the country might have need. In 1963, Virgnia McDevitt joined the ranks of New York Methodist Hospital's esteemed graduates. Today Virginia McDevitt puts her New York Methodist Hospital education to work serving as a home health and hospice nurse in Davie County, North Carolina. In the communities of Davie County she is well- regarded for the caliber of her care, the excellence of her work, and the pride she takes serving patients and their families even in life's most challenging times. Congratulations are certainly due to Virginia McDevitt and the New York Methodist Hospital Nursing School class of 1963.