Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for his support of the bill and support of the concept of charter schools. I want to congratulate him on his involvement and say that I think this is a great example of bipartisan cooperation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 392 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2218, the Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter Schools Act, and H.R. 1892, the Fiscal Year 2012 Intelligence Authorization Act. My colleagues on the House Education and the Workforce Committee and I have been working to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. H.R. 2218, Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter Schools, is just one of a series of bills the committee has considered this year. During committee consideration, this legislation received strong bipartisan support, including that of the committee's ranking Democrat member, George Miller. H.R. 2218 reauthorizes the charter school program and modernizes it by allowing the replication or expansion of high quality charter schools in addition to the creation of new charter schools. The charter school program is important to ensure that parents and students have choice in education. With this bill, the House Education and the Workforce Committee has begun the bipartisan process of reauthorizing ESEA, and I urge my colleagues in the full House to support this rule in favor of the bill. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1892, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Mr. Speaker, the intelligence community plays a vital role in our national security and defense. The bill was reported out of committee by a voice vote, and the committee has worked with the Senate to develop a bipartisan, bicameral bill. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Under this rule, the Rules Committee has made it in order to consider six Democrat amendments and three Republican amendments to the Intelligence Authorization bill. We have also made in order five Democrat amendments, two bipartisan amendments, and one Republican amendment to the charter school bill. I am pleased to work with my colleagues on the Rules Committee to report rules for floor debate and the consideration of legislation that promotes transparency and participation. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 392 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the seasons may be changing but our Nation's jobs crisis is not. With unemployment still at 9.1 percent and no measurable job growth in August, I'm glad to hear that this administration is ready to find common ground with Republicans to help create jobs. But before he addresses the Nation tonight, the President should take a close look at our Plan for America's Job Creators and know that House Republicans have already paved the path to job growth for him. So far this year, House Republicans have passed more than a dozen bills that do exactly what countless employers around the country are asking of Washington: Get out of the way so that our private sector can begin creating jobs again. This fall, we'll continue to roll back job-killing regulations and rebuild long-term confidence for job creators. We all hope the President will join us in this effort.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, over the district work period, I had the chance to attend a celebration sponsored by the Statesville Chamber of Commerce to honor the founders of a remarkable organization called Purple Heart Homes, based in Statesville, North Carolina. John Gallina and Dale Beatty, both combat-wounded disabled veterans, founded Purple Heart Homes in 2008 to help other disabled veterans live with dignity. Beatty and Gallina were severely injured in Iraq in 2004 when their Humvee was blown up by an anti-tank mine. As a result of their injuries, these two friends discovered a new passion--helping other service-disabled veterans of all ages. Their mission is to provide appropriate housing solutions to disabled veterans at little or no cost. They know firsthand the value of returning home after serving America while deployed, and they understand just how much it means for service-disabled veterans to have a usable and accessible home. Their leadership, hard work, and commitment to honoring those who have sacrificed so much for their Nation has not gone unnoticed. Last month, Time magazine featured them on its front cover as examples of a new generation of emerging leaders. The people of Statesville and North Carolina could not be more proud of these veterans and their exemplary dedication to serving others. John Gallina and Dale Beatty have overcome great odds to succeed in their mission of serving others. Their stirring example gives me confidence that they have only just begun to accomplish great things. I hope that many others follow in their footsteps and are inspired to serve those in need.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today I want to congratulate the Wilkes County 11/12-year-old-girls All-Star softball team for their amazing and record-breaking season this year. They won 15 games in a row and became the first team from North Carolina to reach the World Series. Although they did not take the World Series title, their third-place finish and their victories over opponents from around the country and around the world on their journey to the semifinals proved that this is a remarkable team. Their teamwork, sportsmanship, and character served to rally the entire Wilkes County community around them and saw them through their historic run for the World Championship of Little League Softball. I want to congratulate the whole team, the coaches, and the dedicated parents who helped make this season one for the record books. The Wilkes Girls All-Stars have inspired many and made their county proud. I hope to see them win their way back to the World Series again next year.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from California, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding. I just did an interview with the TV station in my district. One of the questions that the interviewer asked is, ``What does this mean to the average person in your district? People are paying attention to what's going on in D.C.'' And I said, ``That's probably the best thing that's happened out of this whole debate, that people are paying attention. Had they been paying attention the last 40 years, we wouldn't be in the situation that we're in.'' I then pointed out to her that in today's dollars, Federal spending per U.S. household went from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. That tells us all that we need to know. The Federal Government is addicted to spending. We need to cut spending, not raise taxes, and this compromise bill does that. Mr. Speaker, as the distinguished gentleman from California said, we want to create jobs, and the best way to do that is to stop taking money out of the private sector, stop overtaxing the people in this country, leave that money in the private sector and allow it to be used to create jobs. This is not a perfect bill. We all say it's not a perfect bill, both sides of the aisle. That generally means that it's a good bill because it's not perfect, and when people want compromise and they hear that, then they know that's right. But the change in direction is historic. We're going from seeing how much money we can spend to how much can we cut. I am intrigued at a lot of my colleagues across the aisle, they've obviously been on the road to Damascus, because their whole language has changed in response to this bill, but I am glad they have finally seen the light and I hope in the future they're going to join us in more efforts like this.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great American, Ralph Nilles. Ralph is a friend of North Carolina and the High Country whose tireless volunteerism is an inspirational testament to his concern for others and his community. Ever since he retired in North Carolina's High Country, he has dedicated his retirement years to volunteering for almost every local organization that was doing good things for the community. One of the characteristics people admire most about Ralph is how he never shies away from hard work--he knows the value of a hard day's work, especially when it is given to help others in need. Although his health has declined recently and taken him from the volunteer work he loved so much, his legacy is strong. He is known as Mr. Volunteer, as the man who will do what it takes to get the job done. From his work with the Foscoe Grandfather Mountain Community Center to his unflagging support for so many good causes, Ralph is the kind of person that every American community loves to call their own. That's why I'm so proud to honor him today for his many years of selfless service and his countless hours of work on behalf of so many deserving organizations. Ralph is a one-of-kind man who has made an indelible mark on his community and I'm confident he has inspired many to follow in his footsteps of volunteerism.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. At the beginning of the debt ceiling debate, House Republicans made it clear that if the President and congressional Democrats wanted us to pay their bills, they were going to have to commit to cutting up the credit cards. The simple truth is that in just 7 months, House Republicans have already changed the broken political system in Washington to move away from ``how much can we spend?'' to focus on how we can stop spending money we don't have. House Republicans have led the fight for controlling spending and saving our children and grandchildren from national bankruptcy, voting to actually shrink a Federal Government that has done nothing but expand for 40 years. The cuts may be small relative to the size of the problem, but the change in direction is historic. For the first time in the history of modern Federal budgeting, House Republicans will cut discretionary Federal spending for 2 straight years. President Obama wanted a ``balanced approach'' to solve our debt crisis, which means historic tax increases on job creators. We don't need a ``balanced approach,'' Mr. Speaker. We need a balanced budget.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, many concerned Americans are fed up with a Washington system that doesn't solve the underlying problems facing the nation, including the ongoing debt crisis. This ongoing debt debate represents not just a crisis, but a crossroads. In the past few decades, Congress raised the national debt limit more than 70 times, usually with little or no debate. Each time very few people batted an eye and this history has been used by liberal extremists as a reason to continue with the status quo, Now things have changed. Over the last five years our national debt has increased by more than 50 percent. In just the past three years the debt increased by more than $4 trillion dollars. Even worse, the debt has increased by $9.2 trillion since a Balanced Budget Amendment failed by one vote in the Senate 15 years ago. As a result, the total national debt is now nearly equal to our entire economic output. The independent Congressional Budget Office warns that the federal government's current path of borrowing is unsustainable and could lead to slower economic growth as debt payments consume more and more of our economic output. Add to this that the private-sector agencies like S&P that grade government debt have stated that if Congress doesn't do something to halt the rapid growth of debt they will downgrade the U.S. debt rating, likely driving up interest rates, The bottom line is simple: the government can pile up only so much debt before it becomes impossible to make the payments without destroying its ability to fund priorities like national defense or Social Security, As the national debt accumulates at a record clip we are quickly approaching that point. If we don't cut spending now, America will face a painful national reckoning in the coming years. This reckoning will make today's high stakes debate look quaint. That's why this debate is so critical. The longer Congress puts off making tough decisions, the more pain the nation will experience when the music stops. So when people ask me if I favor increasing the debt limit my response is, ``it depends.'' Any status quo increase in the debt limit is absolutely out of the question. However, we have to consider what happens if Congress doesn't increase the debt limit. Someone will not get paid. We cannot ignore that the government is currently borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar that it spends. As a result, if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling the federal government would have to slash spending immediately by more than 40 percent. That would endanger America's ability to keep its promises to those who have paid into programs like Social Security for years. Consider these facts. If Congress completely eliminated foreign aid the budget would be reduced by only 2%. If Congress funded only Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as well as the national defense budget there would be no money left to pay for anything else--not even the interest payments on the national debt. If Congress prioritized spending that is on auto-pilot, such as unemployment benefits, Social Security, interest payments and the like, there would be nothing left for the defense budget, or any other spending, including education and transportation. That's why I'm in favor only of drastic spending cuts accompanied by a smaller increase in the debt limit, And for the first time ever, Speaker Boehner's bill does just that, by proposing deficit reductions of $2.7 trillion--including $22 billion next year. Large reductions like this that protect Social Security and Medicare for current retirees will stop the reckless accumulation of debt and help us avoid the sort of catastrophic debt crisis we will face if Washington continues with business as usual. It's not news that no one wants to raise the debt limit. The real news is the old way of raising the debt limit is over. Raising the debt limit, as Congress has done in the past, without accompanying spending cuts would be a disaster with severe economic consequences. Washington is in debt because it has a spending problem. It's past time we addressed that and today's bill does just that. Due to chronic overspending, Washington is at a crossroads. I'm confident that Congress can find a way to tackle this issue responsibly. It will not be without difficult or unpopular decisions. But refusing to make tough decisions today will result in even tougher ones tomorrow. For the sake of future generations of Americans we need to make the right call today and put dramatic, permanent spending cuts in place and pass a Balanced Budget Amendment before raising the debt limit.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, is President Obama really pushing to raise taxes while unemployment hovers around 9 percent just to get an increase in the debt limit? Republicans beg to disagree. Increasing taxes on American job creators and families will mean fewer new jobs are created, which will result in more Americans remaining unemployed. Washington does not need tax hikes to raise the debt ceiling. Washington needs spending cuts. The Federal Government is addicted to taxpayer money. The solution is not giving it more of Americans' hard-earned money. No. The solution is to halt the runaway spending and permanently reform Washington's reckless spending habits. We can fix this problem and pay our bills on time, Mr. Speaker. However, refusing to cut spending and going with status quo tax hikes would be a recipe for disaster that will rob future generations of a chance to fulfill the American Dream.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, our record debt of $14.3 trillion is growing, and it poses a direct threat to our national security, our economy, and our children's future. The American people deserve real leadership right now, not politics as usual. The President's bipartisan deficit commission called the House-passed Path to Prosperity a ``serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our Nation's enormous fiscal challenges.'' On the contrary, the Democratic cochair of the commission, Erskine Bowles, recently criticized the President's fiscal plan, introduced on April 13, by stating that ``When you compare it to the Ryan plan and to the commission's plan, it really doesn't stabilize the debt. The debt, as a percentage of GDP, gets up to around 77 percent, and it never gets to primary balance.'' If President Obama and the Democrat leaders of the Senate wish to take solving our spending-driven debt crisis seriously, the solution is simple: Washington must stop spending money it doesn't have.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that Members of Congress should be extravagant in their spending in any way whatsoever, but I think it's up to the voters to hold those Members responsible for what they do. If there is a Member that is leasing a car that's paying an exorbitant amount of money, then the voters should turn that person out if they think they're wasting their money. I would certainly think that person is wasting his or her money. That's up to the voters to take care of. We're doing our part here in the Congress. We are balancing between making sensible cuts and making sure that the public is well served when it visits Washington, D.C., and the public should be well served by the individual Members. And I hope that if there are abuses on the part of any Member of Congress, no matter which party he or she belongs to, that the voters will look into that and take care of that person. But that is not our exact responsibility here. Our responsibility is, as it is everywhere, to allow a certain amount of money to be spent in the Members' offices, and then each Member should be held individually responsible. Mr. Speaker, we have discussed at great length today why America needs this rule and this bill. Voting for these measures will allow the House to continue its work toward resolving the debt crisis currently gripping the Nation. As we continue this debate, we must remember the simple truth that tax increases have been tried before and led us to the mess that we have today. We should not be raising taxes because tax increases do nothing more than fuel parasitic, wasteful government spending. We are cutting the spending for the leg branch in a very responsible way, and that's what we should be doing. But it is past time that we pursue an innovative idea, one that is unparalleled in modern American history, and that is to cut spending and shorten the long arm of government that is currently choking economic prosperity. That is what is happening in every appropriations bill that we're passing. As we rapidly approach our Federal debt ceiling, our economy is struggling and people are looking for jobs. Americans crave accountability and belt-tightening in Washington and need the Federal Government to stop draining job-creating resources from the private sector to fund misguided adventures in social engineering. They demand action and they deserve answers. H.R. 2551, for which this rule provides consideration, reflects the House Republican majority's unending commitment to restore the fiscal discipline that is so long overdue in this city. It represents a sensible balance between the vital need for budget restraint and funding the critical functions of the legislative branch. Without compromising the safety or security of critical infrastructure, this bill further trims the fat and encourages efficiencies while demonstrating that we are not immune to feeling the effects of much needed spending cuts that are so desperately needed throughout our bloated Federal bureaucracy. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill so that we can begin to restore the trust Americans have in their Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 359 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2551, the fiscal year 2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2551. This rule represents a continuance of fulfilling the new Republican majority's pledge to implement a more open legislative process in providing for consideration of a bipartisan list of 16 amendments, which is more than at any time dating back to at least 1988. Twelve amendments were made in order in both the second session of the 103rd Congress and the first session of the 104th. This is in stark contrast to the past two Congresses in which Democrat domination of this House provided for a collective grand total of four amendments that were allowed to be debated during the past 4 years, when three were made in order during the first session of the 110th and one in the first session of the 111th. In fact, even considering a Legislative Branch appropriations bill is a change of pace from Democrat control when 2 years yielded no consideration of standalone funding legislation, second sessions of both the 110th and the 111th Congresses. In other words, with the consideration of this single rule and bill, the House Republican majority is making in order four times as many amendments on standalone legislative branch appropriations legislation as were provided for in the previous 4 years of liberal Democrat House domination combined. Given the terrible budgetary mess we inherited from the liberal Democrats, the underlying bill reflects the Republican House majority's continued drive for restoring the fiscal restraint that is so desperately needed in this city. The bill appropriates $3.3 billion for legislative branch entities, including $1.2 billion for House operations and $2.1 billion for legislative branch agencies and other offices, including the Capitol Police, Congressional Budget Office, the Library of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and Government Printing Office. This total is $227 million, or 6 percent less than the current funding, and $472 million, or 9 percent less than requested by the offices and agencies covered by this bill. The cuts come on top of the 2.5 percent, or $115 million, cut from fiscal year 2010 contained in H.R. 1473, which was the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution deal that was ultimately signed into law. That bill provided $4.5 billion for the legislative branch, including a reduction of $55 million in funding for the House from the year before, and provides a 5 percent cut in Member, committee, and leadership office expenses, except for the Appropriations Committee, which offered a larger 9 percent cut. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I will insert at this place in the Record a budgetary outline of H.R. 2551. Out of the $1.2 billion provided in this bill for House operations: $574 million is provided for operating members' offices, $39 million (or 6%) less than current funding and $60 million (or 9%) less than requested. $293 million for allowances and expenses, $24 million (representing 8%) less than current funding and $15 million (or 5%) less than requested. $153 million for salaries and expenses of House committees, $10 million (representing 6%) less than current funding, and $10 million (or 6%) less than requested. -and- $178 million for functions performed by the various House officers and employees, including the Clerk of the House, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer, $16 million (or 8%) less than current funding, and $26 million (representing 13%) less than requested. Furthermore, the bill provides funding levels for the following agencies: $490 million for the Architect of the Capitol, which is $37 million (or 7%) less than the current level, and $129 million (or 21%) less than requested. $340 million for the Capitol Police which is equal the current funding, but $47 million (or 12%) less than requested. $575 million for various activities of the Library of Congress which is $53 million (or 9%) less than the current level and $91 million (or 14%) less than requested. $113 million for activities of GPO which is $22 million (or 16%) less than current funding and $35 million (24%) less than requested. $44 million for CBO which is $3 million (or 6%) less than current funding and $3 million (or 7%) less than requested. $511 million for GAO which is $35 million (6%) less than current funding and $46 million (8%) less than requested. Even with all of these funding reductions, it's easy for those who look at Washington, D.C., and see only political dysfunction to oppose providing any funding at all for the legislative branch. While they may see this bill simply as a vehicle for fattening the paychecks of congressional staff and other undesirables, we must remember the important work these support people provide in the function of the most important branch of government. Contrary to popular belief, congressional staffers work notoriously long hours for relatively little pay and help us represent the views of our constituents. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of constituents throughout the country are helped to navigate the Federal bureaucracy every day by our local case workers working in nearby district offices. Their work here is hardly the self-enrichment many people are led to believe by populist media sources eager to pose the catchiest headlines. At the same time, we must remember the many important functions this funding provides in serving and protecting the American public. Given ever-evolving security threats, this bill funds the Capitol Police who protect critical infrastructure as well as secure the safety of the thousands who visit Capitol Hill every day. And we thank the Capitol Police for their invaluable service. Furthermore, this bill's funding provides for the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of 17.4 million square feet of buildings and more than 460 acres of land throughout Capitol Hill, including the House and Senate office buildings, the U.S. Capitol, Capitol Visitor Center, the Library of Congress buildings, the Supreme Court buildings, the U.S. Botanic Gardens, the Capitol power plant, and other facilities which are needed for Presidential inaugurations and other ceremonies of national importance. The responsible funding level in this bill provides adequate funding for the critical functions of the legislative branch but also represents a step in the right direction towards enhancing government efficiency. During these times of fiscal restraint, this bill underscores the new House Republican majority's will to share in the pain of difficult spending decisions. Mr. Speaker, not too long ago, it used to be that if funding levels weren't rising fast enough, then Congress was seen as cutting a program. That reality is no longer. When the new House Republican majority says we're going to cut spending, we actually reduce spending. This is the commonsense understanding of the American people which is reflected in the underlying legislation. And I will urge my colleagues over and over to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Colorado would have the American people believe that we can't make any cuts in spending at the Federal Government level, but I don't believe that argument is going to go very far. The American people know that we can make big cuts in spending at the Federal Government level, and Republicans are making sensible cuts in spending at the Federal Government level. In the leg branch, it's not a huge amount of money that we have control over; but we believe, on our side of the aisle, that we should make spending cuts everywhere. Many millions of Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats took control of this Congress in January of 2007. We had a 4.5 percent unemployment rate when they took over, and now we've had north of a 9 percent unemployment rate for several years. Those people didn't have any choice at all about whether they continued their income or not. What we're saying is, we want to continue the vital functions, those particularly that serve the American people. We want to keep this Capitol looking great. We want to keep the Capitol Police force at full force. We want to give them the tools that they need. But everybody in Washington, D.C., can work a little harder and spend a little less money to make it easier on the American public, and that's what we're recommending in this bill. And I believe this rule does a very good job of representing the amendments that were presented to the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on about what are the problems that we're facing here, but I think it's better if I quote someone who put some of the situation that we have here in perspective. And so I'd like to quote a Washington Post article by Charles Krauthammer, a brilliant essayist, who put forward this article. He said other solutions are being suggested by ``the man who ignored the debt problem for 2 years by kicking the can to a commission. ``Promptly ignored the commission's December 2010 report. ``Delivered a State of the Union address in January that didn't even mention the word `debt' until 35 minutes into the speech. ``Delivered in February a budget so embarrassing--it actually increased the deficit--that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected it 97-0. ``Took a budget mulligan with his April 13 debt plan speech. Asked in Congress how this new `budget framework' would affect the actual Federal budget, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf replied with a devastating `We don't estimate speeches.' You can't assign numbers to air. ``The flip-flop is transparently political. A clever strategy it is: Do nothing and invite the Republicans to propose real debt reduction first; and when they do--voting for the Ryan budget and its now infamous and courageous Medicare reform--demagogue them to death. ``And then up the ante by demanding Republican agreement to tax increases. So first you get the GOP to seize the left's third rail by daring to lay a finger on entitlements. Then you demand the GOP seize the right's third rail by violating its no-tax pledge. A full spectrum electrocution. Brilliant. ``And what have been Obama's own debt reduction ideas? In last week's news conference, he railed against the tax break for corporate jet owners--six times. ``I did the math. If you collect that tax for the next 5,000 years-- that's not a typo, 5,000 years--it would equal the new debt Obama racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since-- first in shekels, then in dollars--we would have 500 years to go before we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone. ``Obama's other favorite debt reduction refrain is canceling an oil company tax break. Well, if you collect that oil tax and the corporate jet tax for the next 50 years, you will not have offset Obama's deficit spending for February 2011.'' Mr. Speaker, there you have it: Liberal hypocrisy exposed in another brilliant Krauthammer essay. The choice before the American people is clear. We can either continue accommodating the passions of the liberal elite in cementing a bloated dependency state fueled by job-crushing tax increases, or we can trim spending so private sector employers and innovators, who are the real creators of wealth, can do what they do best in healing the wounds of unsustainable government largesse. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply cannot stand any kind of cuts. What they want are tax increases and continued irresponsible spending. Republicans are bringing a different message, a message from the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 359 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. 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