Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out to my colleague from Massachusetts that the Republicans can't obstruct the President's effort because we are in the minority. And we don't have to obstruct him anyway because they've all failed. Nothing has worked that the President and our friends across the aisle have tried, and so they're going to fail of their own weight. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as has become routine in this Congress, it's my sad duty to come before you yet again today to speak in opposition to spending this House's valuable time to consider a bill that would do absolutely nothing to respond to the very real concerns facing Americans every day. Here we are with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, the largest deficit in our history, and the national debt at almost $14 trillion. The response of the liberal Democratic leadership? A bill making it easier for Federal employees to stay at home to work and creating more government union jobs. Here we are with a financial crisis of global proportions resulting from an unprecedented expansion of government. The response of liberal Democratic leadership? A resolution recognizing National Train Day. Here we are with a torrent of oil gushing into the gulf day after day, depriving untold numbers of people of their livelihoods. The liberal Democratic response? A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of RV Centennial Celebration Month to recognize and honor a hundred years of the enjoyment of recreational vehicles in the United States. In fact, this Congress so far has considered no fewer than 73 bills naming post offices, 36 measures recognizing sporting events and achievements, and 145 designations or recognitions for various days, weeks, months, or years. Despite these very real problems, the liberal Democrats ruling Congress are running around the country trying to convince the American people that everything is just fine and they don't need to worry because the Democrats are solving their problems. While government employees and their union handlers might be satisfied with the liberal Democrat jobs agenda, try asking the small business men forced to close their doors or the 7 million private business employees who've lost their jobs since the liberal Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and want to get back to work. This is the wrong bill at the wrong time. And with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor to visit a North Carolina business success story last week. Bridgestone Aircraft Tire, located in Rockingham County, came to North Carolina in 2007 from Miami when their Miami manufacturing facility was taken in an eminent domain proceeding. Bridgestone brought about 70 new jobs to the community as well as what they call its United Nations of employees. The Bridgestone employees hail from not just Rockingham but around the globe, including Colombia, Venezuela, Jamaica, Singapore, Japan, Haiti, and Honduras. Best of all, Bridgestone and its employees have been active participants in the community. Plant employees volunteer their time, recently helping to restore the local Mayo River Park to become the newest State park in North Carolina, as well as supporting local youth sports, United Way, Salvation Army, and a local charity for noninsured cancer patients. Mr. Speaker, this facility and its dedicated, hardworking employees are truly a tremendous asset to North Carolina.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, throughout the West there are communities struggling to provide basic services because of a limited tax base and a shortage of non-Federal lands to build infrastructure. The Sugar Loaf Fire District in Colorado has provided services to the surrounding National Forest area for years and is simply seeking a tiny parcel of land in order to make much-needed improvements in their facilities. This commonsense land conveyance should have been handled administratively by the Forest Service. Something is not working right when cash-strapped fire districts who are providing incalculable benefits to Federal lands have to spend years and money they do not have to push for legislation for something that should be handled quickly and at the local level. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California may have been trying to be a little humorous in his comments, but job loss in this economy is very serious business. The American people are asking this Congress controlled by the Democrats, Where are the jobs? I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from California for yielding time, Mr. Speaker, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this closed rule which rewrites H.R. 5618, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act and provides martial law/same-day authority for any resolution reported from the Rules Committee through Saturday, July 3. This bill has been rushed through Congress, avoiding committee action. When the Democrats, who are in charge, brought the bill up before the House for consideration on June 29, it failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority required for passage. There was bipartisan opposition to this bill. But why are our colleagues rushing this through? The Senate is not meeting, except to honor Senator Byrd. They know the bill is going nowhere. They say ``extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures'' and that the economic crisis is going to get worse if we don't pass this. But this bill is going nowhere, and they know it. They want to be able to go home and say, We voted to extend unemployment benefits and that Republicans voted ``no.'' Well, Republicans want to reduce the deficit; and if the underlying bill had been offset with reduced spending elsewhere, Republicans would have supported it. But it is not. Instead, Democrats are relying on budgetary tricks to avoid their own PAYGO rules. They are waiting until the last minute to address important issues and labeling the cost as ``emergency spending'' so they don't have to account for it in terms of our spending rules. Frankly, the need for this bill in the first place is a direct admission of the failure of the Obama-Pelosi policies because the many spending bills, which have already been passed, have failed to create the jobs promised by Speaker Pelosi and President Obama. So they're admitting by saying, We have to extend unemployment benefits, that all the spending has failed. Economists on both sides of the political spectrum are expressing concern over the fiscal health of the U.S. Government. Yesterday, CBO said, ``Our debt is now 62 percent of GDP, up 20 percent in 2 years''-- the 2 years when Democrats controlled all of Congress and had a Democratic President--and it's the ``highest since World War II.'' Congress cannot continue this spending spree. We're simply living beyond our means, and I fear the consequences of our actions are not far off. Here are a few lines from an article written by John Goodman on June 28 entitled How Bad is Our Fiscal Crisis? ``Already, we've seen some local governments declare bankruptcy. Expect more of that. In the next several years I believe some very large cities are going to announce they cannot pay their bills. State governments will be next. Whereas local governments can declare bankruptcy, State governments can only default. A default by the State of California seems almost inevitable. ``But is it conceivable that the U.S. Government could default? Actually, yes. Every projection shows the gap between spending and tax revenues rising through time. ``Two years ago the first of the baby boomers started claiming early retirement under Social Security. Next year they'll start signing up for Medicare. Before they're through, 78 million people will quit working, quit paying taxes, quit contributing to our retirement system and start drawing benefits instead.'' That's the end of Mr. Goodman's quote. The underlying bill adds $34 billion to our ever-increasing debt. When Democrats passed their only unemployment insurance extender bill that was offset by other spending cuts last November, the administration hailed it as a ``fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits,'' adding that ``fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs.'' The cost of extending the Democrats' unemployment insurance policy is growing because their failed stimulus bill has not created the promised jobs. Democrats predicted their trillion-dollar 2009 stimulus bill would create 3.7 million jobs. Instead, the debt has grown by $2 trillion, and nearly 3 million more private sector jobs have been eliminated since then. Democrats promised unemployment would remain under 8 percent if their stimulus passed. Yet it remains stuck near 10 percent today. A total of 48 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the stimulus passed. However, our colleagues keep spending and keep ignoring economic realities. That is totally irresponsible. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Our colleagues across the aisle are saying yes, what the American people want is to see jobs and they keep asking where are the jobs. We keep being told that these failed policies passed by this administration and this Congress are going to produce jobs. That is not the case. They like to tout the May employment report issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics which appears to be positive with the addition of 431,000 new jobs. However, 412,000 of those new positions are for temporary government census workers. In other words, 96 percent of May's job growth will be eliminated in just a few weeks. That's almost half of the jobs that my colleague from New Jersey wants to point out. The June unemployment rate we believe, as my colleague from California said, will edge up to 9.8 percent from 9.7 percent in May. But they keep bragging about how effective they've been at providing jobs. The bottom line is, since February 2009, with Democrats in charge of Congress and the White House, more than 3.3 million jobs have been lost in the private sector. The Federal Government has gained more than 590,000 jobs over the same period. I hate to tell you, but the government jobs don't provide a viable solution in helping get the economy back on its feet. Government jobs are supported by tax dollars, and that tax burden is ultimately borne by the entrepreneurs and small businesses that are the engines of economic growth. Further strain on these employers will not help facilitate a healthy economy over the long term. Now, my colleague from New Jersey just talked about a myth that our colleagues continue to perpetuate, which is about how many jobs were lost in the Bush administration and about how many jobs were gained. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a piece by Keith Hennessey. This is a fairly new Democratic claim about job creation. Our colleagues are really searching for ways to justify their terrible policies; but as Mr. Hennessey points out, the Democrats are picking their time frames very carefully. They ignore the 4 million jobs lost during the first 11 months of a Presidency that is, so far, 16 months old. What they don't point out is the fact that President Bush inherited a recession and that their statistics, again, are totally unfounded. If you will look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics' payroll survey that was done in 2001 to mid-2003, you will see a steady employment decline, followed by a steady, strong, and sustained period of job growth for almost 4 years. This is the chart put out by Keith Hennessey. He notes that, in the 46 months that we had job growth in the Bush administration, it is the second longest in recorded history for sustained job creation in the U.S. More than 8 million jobs were created during this period. A mild recession began in late 2007--who was in charge of the Congress at that time? The Democrats. They always fail to mention that--followed by a severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the Obama administration. So this chart shows it very well, and it is very objective, Mr. Speaker. It isn't opinion on my part. It's the numbers. As I said, our colleagues are very, very selective in how they make the comparison. [From Keith Hennessey.com, June 8, 2010] The New Democratic Claim About Job Creation A new claim about job creation appears to be bubbling up through the Democratic ranks. Here is the clearest statement of that claim, from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) on Stuart Varney's show: On the pace that we're on, with job creation in the last four months, if we continue on that pace, and all the leading economists say that it is likely that we will, we will have created more jobs in this year than in the entire Bush Presidency. Ms. Wasserman Schultz is picking her timeframes carefully, in particular by ignoring the four million jobs lost during the first 11 months of a Presidency that is so far 16 months old. Even today, after five straight months of job growth, three million fewer people are working than when President Obama took office. That's hardly something to brag about. And looking just at last month's strong net increase of 431,000 jobs, we see that nine out of ten net new jobs were temporary government jobs for census takers. We all hope the pace of private job creation accelerates, but it's too soon to declare this a strong and consistent employment recovery or to project its trend into the rest of the year. Let me point out one other chart that has been put together, and that is to compare the unemployment over time between administrations, or among administrations, using the average unemployment rate. You will see it is very low under President Johnson at 4.2 percent. Under President Eisenhower, 4.9 percent. The average under President Bush 43, 5.3 percent. The average under President Obama, 9.5 percent. This is what the American people are interested in. They are asking: Where are the jobs? Why do the Obama administration and Pelosi policies continue to have us lose jobs? Unemployment is at almost 10 percent.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to help the long-term unemployed, but agree with the American people that new spending needs to be offset by cuts otherwise. During the Rules Committee markup of the Democrats' H.R. 5618, Mr. Heller from Nevada offered a Republican amendment in the nature of a substitute which was not made in order by a vote of two to seven. This fiscally responsible alternative would have extended unemployment insurance, COBRA, and the current poverty guidelines until September 25th, and paid for it with unused funds from the failed stimulus bill. Again, the bill before us extends Federal unemployment benefits only through November 2010 and is not paid for, adding its $34 billion price tag to our $13 trillion debt. Democrats claim their bill satisfies their PAYGO requirements by declaring it is spending in an emergency. But that is simply an excuse for not paying for it. Let me tell you how an emergency is defined in their rules. In general, the criteria to be considered in determining whether a proposed expenditure or tax change meets an emergency designation includes, one, necessary, essential, or vital, not merely useful or beneficial; two, sudden, quickly coming into being and not building up over time; three, an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; four, unforeseen, unpredictable, unanticipated, and not permanent, but rather temporary in nature. We have known about this for a long time. This does not meet the criteria for emergency spending. Declaring it emergency spending is just a gimmick. It is a way to not have to comply with PAYGO. In fact, there are 160 spending programs already exempt from PAYGO or operating under special rules. You know, just because our colleagues say that it is so, doesn't make it so. Saying that it is PAYGO compliant doesn't mean that there is an offset to it. So our colleagues are very clever in the way they say things. President Obama said in February 2010, Now Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else. After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Both the President and our colleagues across the aisle are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They go out and announce that they are making something PAYGO compliant, but they don't. Rather than face facts and support sound economic policies like lowering taxes and reducing regulatory burdens, the Democrats continue to advocate misguided policies that expand the government's control and increase the Nation's debt. This is not the way to create jobs. The American people continue to ask the question, where are the jobs? Mr. Speaker, this bill is not going to create the jobs, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, the President has said that every economist that has looked at his stimulus plan and all the plans that he has put forth agree with him. But let me quote Carnegie Mellon economist Allan H. Meltzer, in an article in the Wall Street Journal op-ed June 30: Why Obamanomics Has Failed. ``The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The President and his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible. Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have, through their deeds and words, heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.'' Economists get it, Republicans get it, and the American people get it. It's high time the Democrats wake up to the fact that the stimulus isn't working as promised. We need to cut government spending, repeal nonsensical regulations, and lower taxes. We should not be passing this extension without an offset in spending. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the bill. Let's answer the question the American people are asking, Where are the jobs? Let's put in policies that really create jobs. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is not we Republicans who are rewriting history. It is our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I will point out once again that Republicans were in charge of the Congress during 6 of the 8 years of Mr. Clinton's administration, and that is when we had the job growth--when Republicans were making the policy here. Mr. Obama did promise to create the jobs. He promised that unemployment would not go above 8 percent. He made lots of promises. As far as I've been able to see, none of the good ones have been kept. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Whit Merrifield of Advance, North Carolina, who brought in the winning run in the 11th inning for the University of South Carolina to win the NCAA's College World Series over UCLA. Merrifield's game-winning hit capped a two-game sweep of UCLA for South Carolina and helped the Gamecocks capture their first-ever College World Series title. The team's coach called his historic game-winning hit ``the biggest hit of his career,'' and I couldn't agree more. Merrifield, who is the son of Bill and Kissy Merrifield, comes from a family of North Carolina athletes. He played for Davie County High School, was on the 2007 South Carolina/North Carolina All-Star Select Team, hit .400 his senior year at Davie High and .464 his junior year, and was a two-time all-State selection. And after his history-making RBI for the Gamecocks, his family, friends and the people of Davie County, North Carolina, are proud to call him their own.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, President Obama promised over and over during his Presidential campaign that he would end the practice of funding the wars with supplemental funding, as we are about to do today. Then in February of 2009, during his first address to Congress, he said, ``For 7 years we have been a Nation at war. No longer will we hide its price.'' In other words, no more supplemental war funding bills. Okay, fair enough. Then in April 2009 President Obama requested $83 billion in additional funding for the wars, saying, ``This is the last planned war supplemental,'' in a letter to House Speaker Pelosi. He called for ``an honest, more accurate and fiscally responsible estimate of Federal spending'' after years of ``budget gimmicks and wasteful spending.'' Now his administration is requesting a $33 billion war funding supplemental bill and calling its passage essential. What gives? Is this a budget gimmick, or is it essential spending? Mr. Speaker, this administration can't have it both ways. We need to provide funding for our troops, and we need to do it expeditiously and without billions of pork. Unfortunately, because of the hypocrisy of this administration on this issue, we're faced today with a supplemental funding bill that is stuffed with unrelated spending that breaks another of the President's promises.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of a great American hero, Ssgt Jeremy Austin of Statesville, North Carolina. Jeremy is a Marine who lost both his legs in an IED explosion in Afghanistan on April 11, 2009. Like many of our men who have given so much for our country, Jeremy is a work of art. His courage, his faith, and his strength of character are golden examples to us all. He and his wife Chrissy are a credit to our Nation and to the United States Marine Corps. Jeremy and the many fathers and mothers like him who were injured in the line of duty have set an example for our Nation's sons and daughters that will help carry them through life, and make our country a much better place. I ask that this poem, penned in honor of Jeremy and his family by Albert Carey Caswell, be placed in the Record. ``I Want'' (In Honor of an American Hero, SSgt Jeremy Austin, the United States Marines 2nd Force Recon CO) I want to be! Just, like my Father . . . my Daddy . . . A United States Marine! One of the greatest things, this country has ever seen! I want, to grow up to be strong and tall! With hearts of courage full, ready to answer our Nation's call! To go where Angels, so fear to tread! Who with tears in eyes, for my beloved brothers who have bled . . . Someone, who stands for something! For Honor, Faith, Courage, and Grace! Who brings tears, to even our Lord's face. . . To Teach people! To Reach People! To All Hearts, To So Beseech People! All in what, his fine life has said! Who all in his lifetime, has never followed . . . but led! Who Could give up his two fine legs . . . Who will not moan, will not beg! And come back home, And rebuild with his courage all over again! If only, I could be half the Man! But, now I Know . . . I know I Can! Because, inside of me . . . beats, his my fine Father's heart! For part of him, is now of me . . . The best part! For I am of his blood, and I have his heart! For I am so blessed, because my Father is one of America's best! Superman and Batman, are not real! But, my Daddy . . . He's an American Hero, The Real Deal! And my Mommy is, for all she's been through! Yes, I want! I Want To Be! Just like Father, Just My Daddy! A Freedom Fighter, A United States Marine

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, in January 2010, the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that corporations and unions alike have the right under the First Amendment to speak out in political races. What that decision overturned was the portion of current law that allows political speech to be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity. The Supreme Court ruled that this ban is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment right to free speech and I share this sentiment. The Constitution clearly states ``Congress shall make no law, abridging the freedom of speech.'' Upholding the Constitution and our freedoms does not in any way degrade our democratic process. The First Amendment has long been applied not only to isolated individuals but also to groups and associations whose members gather for a wide variety of purposes ranging from political to commercial. Political speech is indispensable to decision-making in a republic and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. If the government can ban expenditures related to political speech, it could easily apply that to any communication. In the argument before the Supreme Court, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart even asserted that under current law the government has the authority to ``prohibit the publication'' of books and movies by corporations containing even one line of advocacy for or against a candidate for public office. That statement is chilling. During the drafting of H.R. 5175, the so-called ``DISCLOSE'' Act, Democrats dismissed Republican requests to collaborate and wrote the bill behind closed doors. Due to lack of support for this unconstitutional bill, they were forced to pull it from consideration on at least two occasions. After weeks of opposition to this very bad bill which was opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Citizens Against Government Waste and National Taxpayers Union, the Democrats were able to craft language acceptable to the NRA which then lifted its opposition because it became exempt from the bill. That action alone violates what the Supreme Court said which is that all groups must be treated the same. The DISCLOSE Act's effort to limit political speech is not even- handed, those favored by the Democrats are excluded from the requirements, and it encourages partisan advantages. But the bill is more than inequitable treatment; it is an outright attack on free speech and the First Amendment. It is government censorship and I oppose H.R. 5175.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mark Rogers of Mount Airy, North Carolina. Mark is an accomplished auctioneer and real estate broker and has been in the business for nearly 30 years. Over his distinguished career, Mark has conducted auctions in a dozen States, selling estates, farm machinery, equipment, and real estate at public auction. As a real estate broker, he served as the regional vice president of the North Carolina Association of Realtors in the early 1990s. He was also the president of the local Board of Realtors in 1987 and was named Realtor of the Year for the local board in 1986. It should come as no surprise then to learn that Mark was elected to be president of the National Auctioneers Association last year and takes office this July. What's remarkable about this achievement is that Mark's father, Bracky Rogers, who founded the family's real estate and auction business in 1964, has also served as the president of the National Auctioneers Association. When Mark takes over as president, he and his father will be the first father-son duo to have both been elected president of the association. Before being elected as the National Auctioneers Association's president, Mark served as president of the North Carolina Auctioneers Association in the 1990s and in 2003 was inducted into the Auctioneers Association of North Carolina Hall of Fame. He was elected director for the National Auctioneers Association in July 2003, treasurer in July 2007, and vice president in July 2008. Just as impressive as his professional qualifications is the personal character that commends him as an exemplary North Carolina citizen. He is known as an active participant in his community, giving back and reaching out to those who need a helping hand. Among his many pursuits in the community is his work with Habitat for Humanity, The Shepherd's House, and with Young Life of Surry County. He's also a member of First Baptist Church of Mount Airy. He and his wife, Deidre Blackmon Rogers, have been married for more than 25 years and are active in their children's activities. The people of Mount Airy are proud to have such a committed businessman as part of the community. He is an asset to the State of North Carolina and to the people of Mount Airy. Today, I congratulate him on becoming the president of the National Auctioneers Association and wish him the very best during his tenure.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, when I'm home in the Fifth District of North Carolina, folks tell me they're concerned about the debt, the deficit, and job loss. What's the reaction of those in charge of Congress? Well, they canceled the adoption of the budget. House Democrats have failed in their responsibility to lead by not proposing or passing a 2011 budget resolution. The House has never failed to pass an annual budget resolution since the current budget rules were put in place in 1974. In 2006, then House Whip, Steny Hoyer, now House majority leader, said the most basic responsibility of governing is enacting a budget. Where's that responsibility now? They plan a deeming resolution later in the week. That is not a substitute for a budget. Democrat jobs bills have failed to create jobs. Democrats continue to spend at a near record pace. Through the first 8 months of the current fiscal year, the Federal Government amassed $935 billion in deficit spending on track to an annual deficit approaching last year's record $1.4 trillion.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute again to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).