[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 26, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1950-H1960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3865, STOP TARGETING OF POLITICAL 
  BELIEFS BY THE IRS ACT OF 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
    2804, ALL ECONOMIC REGULATIONS ARE TRANSPARENT ACT OF 2014; AND 
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 487 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 487

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3865) to 
     prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from modifying the 
     standard for determining whether an organization is operated 
     exclusively for the promotion of social welfare for purposes 
     of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     2804) to amend title 5, United States Code, to require the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs to publish information about rules on the Internet, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and amendments specified in this section and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform now printed in 
     the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 113-38. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of February 27, 2014, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to the bill (H.R. 3370) 
     to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the 
     Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and for 
     other purposes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend 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

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their comments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, you have heard me say it before, it makes 
me so happy to be a member of the Rules Committee because our entire 
resolution gets read down here. The entire Rules resolution gets read, 
and by golly, Mr. Speaker, if you are not proud of what you are doing 
in your committee, you better not sign up for a committee where every 
word of the work that you do gets read each and every time, but I am 
proud of the work we are doing in the Rules Committee.
  The rule that we have on the floor today, Mr. Speaker, is going to 
make two bills in order. Both, I would argue, are incredibly important 
for providing

[[Page H1951]]

not just transparency to what goes on here in Washington but also to 
ensure that the people's voice continues to be heard in Washington.
  House Resolution 487, this rule, is a closed rule for consideration 
of H.R. 3865. That is the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the 
IRS Act, Mr. Speaker. That is in response to what now every American 
understands to be the 501(c)(4) scandal, for lack of a better word; 
that for the first time in my lifetime, there are allegations that the 
IRS is targeting folks on the basis of their political beliefs for 
whether or not they are able to have their organization certified as a 
tax-exempt organization. That is not just a concern of groups on one 
side of the aisle or the other, Mr. Speaker, that is a concern of folks 
across the spectrum, and I would argue it is a concern for all 
Americans who believe that having their voice heard is important.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the 
consideration of H.R. 2804, the All Economic Regulations are 
Transparent Act.
  Mr. Speaker, in that structured rule, we made in order 11 amendments. 
We had two Members come by and testify on behalf of their amendments 
last night in the Rules Committee. We made both of those amendments in 
order. In addition, we made four Republican amendments and five other 
Democratic amendments in order; so for a total of 11 amendments, four 
Republican amendments and seven Democratic amendments were made in 
order on that underlying bill. As is customary, it provides the 
minority with a motion to recommit on both bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Government Reform Committee. We just had a 
Government Reform Committee bill pass here on the floor of the House, 
and we have another one here today. It aims for transparency. There is 
just no question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that we have replaced 
taxation in this country with regulation. Rarely does someone come down 
and say, ``I want to tax an industry.'' What they will come down and 
say is, ``I want to regulate an industry.'' In fact, in my great State 
of Georgia, Mr. Speaker, we are regulating jobs right out of existence. 
We don't have to tax them out of existence. We don't have to outlaw an 
industry. We just regulate it out of existence.
  Perhaps there are some industries that need to be regulated out of 
existence, and we should have that full and open debate on the floor of 
the House, but what is absolutely certain is that the American people 
need to be able to understand the power of the regulatory process, and 
the impact that it has on jobs and economic development in their 
community.
  Today in statute, Mr. Speaker, there is a requirement that the 
administration twice a year publish a notice of all of those 
regulations that are being considered and what their impact is 
anticipated to be, but we have had instances, as recently as 2012, Mr. 
Speaker, where the administration just ignored that statute altogether. 
Now understand, the requirement is that you must inform the American 
people twice a year, just twice a year, about the regulations that are 
coming through the pipeline that will impact them, their families, and 
their businesses, and yet, that has been ignored. There has been no 
ability for folks to understand the magnitude of those regulations.
  So we came back in this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and said, 
listen, not only should you be doing that, you should probably be doing 
it once a month. If you have seen the Federal Register, Mr. Speaker, it 
is thick. It comes out every day of the week. It captures all of the 
new rules and regulations that are coming out. They are coming out like 
water out of a spigot. They are tough to keep track of. So this bill 
says let's do it not twice a year, let's do it once a month. Let's make 
sure that the American people understand in a volume that they can see 
and read once a month what those new rules and regulations are, and, if 
an agency chooses to ignore that requirement, that proposed rule and 
regulation will not go into effect such that the American people will 
get six months of notice about what it is that is going on.
  I will give a good example, Mr. Speaker. It goes to the second bill 
we are considering, the Stop Political Targeting bill that is on the 
floor here today. There is a public comment period that is on right 
now. I don't know if most folks in America know that. I know everybody 
understands the IRS targeting scandal. I don't know if they know that 
the administration is involved in a rulemaking right now. The 
investigation is still ongoing into the IRS. The extent of the abuse is 
not yet understood at the IRS. The committees are continuing to work 
through that process, as the law requires, and yet the administration 
has released a rule that says we think we know how to fix this, even 
though the investigation is not done yet; this is what we want to do, 
and the public comment period ends tomorrow. The public comment period 
ends tomorrow.
  Now, folks can go to www.regulations.gov. They can still go and file 
their comment if they believe that the people's voice being heard is 
important, but think about that, Mr. Speaker. A scandal that everyone 
in America understands, a scandal that I believe is offensive to 
absolutely everyone in America because it doesn't matter which party 
you are in, you shouldn't target folks who disagree with you; we should 
absolutely have an full and open debate and let the best ideas win. Yet 
the administration has proposed a solution to a problem that is not yet 
fully understood, and the opportunity for the American people to 
comment on it ends tomorrow. I don't think folks know that back home, 
Mr. Speaker.
  This transparency bill we have on the floor today intends to address 
that, not just for this regulation, but for all future regulations, and 
the Stop Political Targeting bill that we have on the floor today says 
this and this alone: it says since we don't fully understand what is 
going on, and since we know with certainty that the IRS has breached 
the public's trust, not the entire IRS but just this one scandal here 
in the 501(c)(4) operations, since we know with certainty that the 
public's trust has been diminished, let's not have the administration, 
in the absence of a full understanding by the Congress, the absence of 
full comment by the American people, let's not have the administration 
completely re-regulate that area. Rather, let's put this off, not 
forever, Mr. Speaker, because we all agree that work needs to be done, 
but for 1 year and 1 year only so that the Congress can have a full 
understanding and the American people can have a full accounting of 
what it was that led to citizens' voices being silenced by the Internal 
Revenue Service in their applications for 501(c)(4) status.
  Those are the two bills we have on the floor today, Mr. Speaker. 
Again, all of the germane amendments that were offered, and candidly, 
there were no germane amendments that were offered to the Stop 
Political Targeting Act, so that is a closed rule with just the one 
motion to recommit, and 11 amendments made in order for the government 
transparency bill on the floor today, only four Republican amendments, 
seven Democratic amendments, so we can have a full and open debate. I 
am very proud of this rule, Mr. Speaker.

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am forced to rise again in opposition to the rule and 
the two underlying bills that are counterproductive and aren't dealing 
with the issues that our constituents sent us here to address. Each of 
these bills was brought under a restrictive process, one of them a 
completely closed rule that blocked all efforts from both sides of the 
aisle to improve the legislation.
  Let's talk about the IRS bill first.
  The IRS bill has a title that I think would engender broad bipartisan 
support. If we want to run a bill that prevents the IRS from 
discriminating against organizations based on their political 
affiliations, whether they are progressive or tea party or anywhere in 
between, I think there would be a way to come together in support, 
hopefully near unanimous support, around such a bill.
  Like many Americans, I was outraged that organizations had been 
singled out based on the name of their organization for additional 
scrutiny.

[[Page H1952]]

That is simply not the right criteria that the IRS should be using. I 
hope they got the message over at the IRS loud and clear, and I hope we 
can move to fully implement the recommendations of the inspector 
general to ensure that this never happens again.
  However, this bill actually undoes one of the very recommendations of 
the inspector general from the inspector general's own report. There is 
even a Republican bill in the Ways and Means Committee by Pete Roskam 
that would require the IRS Commissioner to implement all of the 
recommendations of the inspector general, including these very 
regulations that this other Republican bill is seeking to prevent the 
implementation of. So make up our minds here, folks.
  If we want to move together to prevent the IRS from discriminating 
against any organization because of their political affiliation, let's 
do so, whether it is something binding, implementing in statute the 
recommendations of the inspector general, whether it is a sense of 
Congress, I stand ready to work with my colleague from Georgia and 
others to speak with a strong voice that that kind of discrimination 
has no role in the IRS. However, that is entirely separate from what 
this bill does, which guts one of the very inspector general 
recommendations that was designed to remedy this problem going forward.
  As for the other bill, the ALERRT Act, it would slow down the 
regulatory process and increase red tape for agencies. It has been 
estimated that this bill increases reporting requirements for agencies 
by six times. This is a Republican bureaucrat welfare bill. How many 
more government bureaucrats are you going to have to hire to deal with 
six times more paperwork that is going to come from this bill?
  You know, when I talk to my constituents in Colorado about what do we 
need to do, they don't say, ``You need to go to Washington and help 
bury government workers in more paperwork. I want more red tape.''
  Yet, that is the bill we have here today, a Republican bill that 
would bury the Federal Government under six times as much reporting 
requirements for agencies. That is not what the American people want. 
That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and this 
bill.
  Look, there are some issues that we could be working on here today, 
Mr. Speaker. Let me talk about a few of those. These are the kinds of 
issues that I believe if my party had the opportunity to bring bills to 
the floor of this Chamber, we would be bringing those bills to the 
floor of this Chamber. One of those is immigration reform. Rather than 
spending time debating bills that are counterproductive and aren't 
going anywhere, let's consider legislation that would replace our 
broken immigration system with one that works.
  The Senate, Mr. Speaker, was able to come together, 68 Members, 
Democratic and Republican, around a commonsense solution, securing our 
border, ensuring that people who are here illegally get in line behind 
those who are here legally, implementing mandatory workplace 
authentication of workers, making sure the future flow of workers is in 
line with the needs of our economy and America can continue to compete 
in the 21st century. We have a nearly identical bill in the House, H.R. 
15, a bipartisan bill. I think if we brought it forward under a rule, 
it would pass. Let's bring that bill forward, Mr. Speaker.
  Nearly a year ago, the New Democratic Coalition Immigration Task 
Force, which I cochair, released detailed principles on comprehensive 
immigration reform. I applaud the Republican principles that were 
issued on immigration reform. There is a lot that we have in common. I 
believe that we can work together to pass a bill to create American 
jobs, ensure that we are more competitive in the global economy, reduce 
the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, and that reflects our 
values as Americans and reflects our values as people of faith.
  Yet, the House majority has found time to shepherd dozens of bills 
through the Judiciary Committee to the floor of the House, including 
one that we are considering today, but the House hasn't dedicated a 
single moment of floor time to an immigration reform bill. We haven't 
even tried, Mr. Speaker. We haven't had a 3-hour debate, we haven't had 
a 1-hour debate, we haven't had a 1-minute debate on any immigration 
reform bill here on the floor of the House of Representatives. You 
don't get to ``yes'' without scheduling the time and the space for 
Democrats and Republicans of good faith to work together to solve a 
problem that the American people want and demand a solution for.
  Across the country, business leaders, faith leaders, national and 
local editorial boards, and the law enforcement community are calling 
for real leadership on advancing immigration reform now. In fact, just 
yesterday, the Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to Speaker Boehner 
from more than 600 businesses urging Congress to pass immigration 
reform. The Chamber president, Tom Donohue, posted a blog post 
emphasizing the need to have a modernized E-Verify system, provisions 
that are included in H.R. 15.
  Last week, a Wall Street Journal op-ed criticized the Republicans' 
failure to act on commonsense reform. Citing a recent study from the 
American Farm Bureau about the cost of failing to act, The Wall Street 
Journal wrote:

       Republicans have killed immigration reform for now, but the 
     Farm Bureau study shows that in the real economy it is still 
     needed. The irony is that many Republicans who support 
     handouts to farmers oppose reforms that wouldn't cost 
     taxpayers a dime and would help the economy.

  So instead of passing a bill that reduces the deficit, secures our 
borders, and makes the reforms we need, Republicans say let's bury the 
government in red tape, increasing the paperwork for agencies by six 
times, and let's give government handouts to farmers. Those are the 
Republican policies that we are seeing in this Congress, and it is why 
the American people hold this institution in great disapproval. The 
longer we delay in passing comprehensive immigration reform, the 
greater the cost of inaction becomes.

                              {time}  1300

  According to the Congressional Budget Office's nonpartisan analysis, 
passing immigration reform would increase our gross domestic product by 
3.3 percent, raise wages by $470 billion for American citizens, and 
create an average of 121,000 jobs for Americans each year over the next 
decade.
  So, rather than create jobs for Federal bureaucrats having to deal 
with six times as much paperwork, let's create jobs in the private 
sector, Mr. Speaker. Let's pass immigration reform to ensure that 
American companies can compete in the increasingly complex global 
marketplace.
  If we have the ability, Mr. Speaker, to bring a bill forward to the 
floor, another bill we would bring forward is increasing the minimum 
wage to $10.10. Just before coming up here today to manage this rule, 
Mr. Speaker, I signed a discharge petition to bring that bill to the 
floor, a bill that I proudly cosponsor, a bill authored by my 
colleague, Mr. Miller of California.
  Raising the minimum wage would help restore fairness for working men 
and women across the country. It would lift millions of Americans out 
of poverty. It would fuel demand and economic growth.
  A letter from over 600 economists, including seven Nobel Prize 
winners, said:

       At a time when persistent high unemployment is putting 
     enormous downward pressure on wages, such a minimum wage 
     increase will provide a much-needed boost.

  It is no panacea, but if we are looking at helping Americans earn 
enough so that they don't have to be part of the social safety net or 
government welfare programs, we need to make sure that they can do that 
in the private sector because--you know what?--at current minimum wage 
levels, a family working full-time, 40 hours a week, earns about 
$14,000 a year.
  Mr. Speaker, you try living on $14,000 a year. I couldn't do it. I 
don't think you could do it, Mr. Speaker.
  Guess what? That is why we have a social safety net that helps 
Americans and supplements their income. Whether it is Medicaid, whether 
it is food stamps, Americans earning $14,000 a year don't live a great 
life, but they get a little help from us, and that is the right thing 
to do; it reflects our values.
  Do you know what? If we can help them earn a little bit more, they 
will require less help from other taxpayers

[[Page H1953]]

in paying their rent, paying their bills, putting groceries on their 
table.
  So we can be fiscally responsible in reducing the need for social 
safety net programs if we can help lift up more Americans out of 
poverty. One substantial step towards doing that will be to increase 
the minimum wage to $10.10.
  Another issue that we would love to bring forward, Mr. Speaker, would 
be renewing unemployment insurance. Again, when unemployment insurance 
ran out with employment at high levels, it sucked money out of the 
economy, money that could otherwise go to create jobs and private 
sector growth.
  In the past and in prior recessions and in prior times when we had 
this level of unemployment, this has always been a bipartisan issue. 
There has always been responsible governing majorities of Republicans 
and Democrats, in this Chamber and the other Chamber, that have put 
together extensions for unemployment insurance.
  And yet, once again, it has run out, and we seek to bring a simple 
bill to the floor that ensures that we don't endanger our recovery by 
sucking money out of the economy in our time of need.
  I will go on and on, Mr. Speaker, about bills we could be 
considering, but sadly, the truth is--and the American people see 
this--we are not considering those bills here today. We are considering 
a bill that adds six times as much paperwork to already overworked 
Federal workers, and we are considering a bill that guts one of the 
recommendations of the inspector general that was designed to help 
prevent the IRS from discriminating based on political affiliation and 
ensure that we have sufficient transparency, consistent with our Tax 
Code around entities in the political arena.
  We can do better, Mr. Speaker. I encourage my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle to do better. I am confident that, if they are not 
able to do better, Mr. Speaker, the American people will give my side 
of the aisle a chance to do better. Either way, Mr. Speaker, 
immigration reform doesn't solve itself. It takes the United States 
Congress to solve it.
  While the President can move forward with his executive powers, as he 
has with the deferred action program, the only comprehensive solution 
can come from the United States Congress.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work in good 
faith towards addressing the flaws in our immigration system and 
replacing chaos with the rule of law, increasing our competitiveness, 
reducing our deficits, securing our borders, making America safer, and 
creating jobs for Americans.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 10 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a freshman Member, a young Member 
of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia for yielding me the time.
  One of the things that comes when we have these debates, and we have 
a lot of issues that come before the floor, we speak in terms of--and 
my good friend from Georgia, we talked about this before--we talk in 
terms of bill numbers; we talk in terms of rules, the good gentleman 
from across the aisle from Colorado often speaks of; and we all talk in 
the terms that we understand.
  But many times, when you look at bills and you look at the things 
that are coming before the floor, it is a good idea to start painting 
the picture of those that are impacted by it. Mr. Speaker, when we 
begin to do that and when we begin to look at the bills on the floor 
today, I want to tell you a story.
  The story involves Mr. Puckett. He owns a small business that has 
been creating jobs for over 100 years, a family-owned brick company. 
Mr. Puckett attributes the success of his business to their hard work 
and loyal employees.
  Unfortunately, when I met Mr. Puckett, the conversation was not so 
optimistic. He testified before the Judiciary Committee on the first 
bill I introduced, H.R. 1493, which is now title IV of this 
legislation, because his company had just lost 50 jobs as a result of 
two regulations crafted behind closed doors.
  In a Nation of over 300 million, 50 jobs may not seem like much, but 
in Mr. Puckett's town, that is the difference between 50 families 
having food on the table or going hungry; or for small towns, like I 
have in northeast Georgia, it means the difference in staying in their 
beloved part of the State or moving somewhere else to find a job.
  Every State, every congressional district, has their Mr. Pucketts. No 
business has been untouched by the toll of costly and overburdensome 
regulations. That is why I rise today in strong support of this rule 
and the underlying legislative package.
  Now, a lot will be said and has been said about this, in saying that 
we need to do other things, we need to go on to this project. I just 
heard from my friend from across the aisle. As I have done before from 
here, I will simply remind him, in that nirvana state of just a few 
years ago, when they had the choice to do whatever they wanted to do, 
they chose to leave immigration on the table while they fixed other 
things which we are fixing today.

  But today, we are going to talk about the Mr. Pucketts of the world 
and the business owners, but not just the business owners, the folks 
who work for them, the folks that so many times are missed by what we 
are trying to do.
  By reforming our Nation's regulatory system, we jump-start the engine 
of our economy. When our economy gets up and going, our families 
flourish.
  A lot can be said about this whole package. There are other speakers 
who will speak later today about the different titles. I am speaking 
specifically to title IV, which is commonly known as ``sue and 
settle.''
  I have talked to Members of both Democrats and Republicans who go 
home and have townhall meetings. One of the things that happens all the 
time is you begin to talk about regulation in bills and what does this 
do. I see this sense of many who are in the audience. All of a sudden, 
their eyes just glaze over, and they say: Here it comes, Washington 
speak; we don't get it.
  Well, I am just a country boy from northeast Georgia, and I just want 
to put it in simple terms. This makes it very simple to understand the 
sue-and-settle legislation.
  Two people have a problem. They don't get along. Something is not 
right. In one group, they have maybe a business or a group that have a 
disagreement on something going on, and they can't seem to find their 
solution, so the one actually says: Whoa, I see something here. There 
is a regulation that I can sue on. This is a government agency that I 
can go sue. So we have a third party in play.
  So what we do is we take two people who have an issue--and I will 
just use ``people'' as the term here--and we have their outlet as 
saying: I will sue a third party--being the Federal Government--and 
while I am suing, I will work out a deal with the bureaucrats in this 
agency and go to a judge and get a consent order; and then, by the way, 
then that consent order is binding on the other person.
  I grew up in a family with a brother. I have often kidded that I 
thought he was adopted, but he is not. He is actually my brother. It is 
like any other sibling rivalry, but when we would have a disagreement, 
it is sort of like him going to Mom and Mom only believing him, only 
hearing his side of the story, and then punishing me--which, by the 
way, for anybody watching today, that happened quite regularly.
  I have spoken many times to my mom and dad about that. But is that 
fair? No, it is not fair. Both sides need to be heard. You need to have 
the opportunity. That is what sue-and-settle legislation does.
  You can hear a lot, and I am sure there will be many folks who will 
come to the floor today and tonight saying: No, that is not what it 
does; you are gumming up the works. And I will get to that in a minute.
  But when we understand what these do--the abusive use of consent and 
decree and settlements to coerce agency action is often referred to, as 
I have said, to sue and settle--it is the reason Mr. Puckett was losing 
these jobs. He did not have the input because of one of these decrees.
  Agencies are failing to uphold their statutory rulemaking discretion 
and are allowing lawsuits from outside the groups to determine their 
priorities and duties. Between 2009 and 2012, the majority of these 
sue-and-settle actions occurred in the environmental

[[Page H1954]]

realm, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act.
  Again, when you come forward trying to make regulatory rules, we 
have, like we had testified into Rules Committee last night, that 
anybody threatening to say something about the regulatory action is 
wanting dirty water, dirty air, and baby cribs that fall apart, that is 
just a mischaracterization and not worthy of debate to the American 
people.
  There is no one on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that wants to 
breathe dirty air; there is no one on this side of the aisle that wants 
dirty drinking water; and there is no one on this side of the aisle 
that wants malfunctioning parts that hurt people. That is not worthy of 
this debate.
  This is simply saying that we are having an issue of fairness. Our 
President talks fairness. He discusses transparency. We are calling on 
him to say: We agree with you, Mr. President, on this issue. Let's have 
transparency. Let's have fairness here.
  But, when someone enters an out-of-sight backroom deal with unelected 
employees--bureaucrats--to establish when the EPA will meet its past-
due responsibilities, it is effectively deciding how EPA will use its 
limited resources and, thus, creating policy priorities for the Agency.
  If the EPA needs assistance in prioritizing its many regulatory 
responsibilities, I recommend they consult the States who must 
implement these regulations and the communities that will be impacted 
by them.
  Unlike what some claim, H.R. 1493 does nothing to hinder the rights 
of citizens to bring suit against their government. Again, another 
``let's throw up something against the wall to see if it sticks.'' This 
does nothing. They can still bring the suits. We are just simply asking 
for transparency.
  Instead of buying into the mantra of special interest groups that 
benefit from these sweetheart deals, let's look at what it actually 
does. As I described before in basic terms, it allows fairness; it 
allows transparency; and it allows those with constitutional standing 
to be part of a suit so that they can have input into something that 
will affect them. I believe everyone can agree to that.
  If you are being affected, you ought to--and especially when it comes 
to the United States Government--we ought to be able to tell what this 
bill and what these rules and regulations do to us.
  This is good governance. Why should we let just a certain area and a 
certain group--Mr. Speaker, you know of this as well. There are areas 
in which they get into disagreements and only their views are put 
forward. Sue and settle works to eliminate that.
  And then, also, the bill actually requires agencies to publish notice 
of a proposed decree or settlement in the Federal Register and take and 
respond to public comments at least 60 days prior to filing the decree 
or the settlement. Again, it is simply improving public participation.
  This is what we are about here. This is what this bill does. This 
bill takes a measured and reasonable approach to the sue-and-settle 
problem. It ensures that settlements are conducted out in the open and 
impacted stakeholders can have a seat at the table.
  That is good governance. That is putting transparency out there. That 
is doing the things that we are supposed to do here.
  I also have to respond to my friend from Colorado. We have great 
debates down here. I enjoy listening to your perspective and coming 
down, Mr. Speaker, and having this kind of conversation; but I was 
amazed because I believe, today, the American people--there are many 
times I have very frustrated people in the Ninth District of Georgia 
who say: Both your Houses, Republican, Democrats, you are the same. I 
am tired of it all.
  Well, today is one of those days, in this discussion right here, that 
you can honestly say: Here is the difference in governing philosophy. 
And it came out just a minute ago.
  I am here with a bill and other parts of this bill today that are 
actually looking for transparency, openness, and willing to get 
regulations that are effective in a limited form of government which 
our Founders thought of, so that businesses can still be businesses, 
employees can still have jobs, moms and dads can still have paychecks 
and take care of the kids at home and take care of their families.

                              {time}  1315

  What I heard just a few minutes ago was the concern about the burden 
on the Federal Government. We are more concerned that this may cause 
extra work. Frankly, from my perspective, I believe this legislation 
can help because we can trim the size of the Federal Government and 
give roles and responsibilities where they need to be with States and 
others, and when we do so, that gives us the proper respect.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I think what we see here is a concern for the 
Federal Government. Our government employees are great folks--they do 
good work--but I am more concerned with the American business owner. 
More importantly, I am concerned with the workers who will lose their 
jobs, have lost their jobs, or who have had to change jobs.
  This is the difference right now, Mr. Speaker. If you want to see 
governance philosophy that is different, I am concerned that government 
should do what it is supposed to do and that the burden they are 
putting on themselves should be removed. My concern is the business 
owner and the worker. My concern is Mr. Puckett. My concern even more 
is for the 50 folks who don't have jobs because the government, through 
regulatory backroom deals, has cut out their livelihoods.
  Who do they see for that, Mr. Speaker? Who do they go and complain 
to? What government agency takes their phone calls when their 
government has, in essence, helped put them out of jobs?
  No one on this side wants anything except an economy that is 
flourishing and people who are working and jobs that are secure. It is 
about the everyday man and woman who gets up and goes to work, but 
their business owners are having to tell them ``not today.'' We are 
being inundated with rules and regulations. I will stand with the 
American worker every day. I will acknowledge the role of our 
government in its limited form, but don't ever mistake there is a 
separate philosophy here, one that encourages Big Government and one 
that says, ``I am for the workers who get up every morning and go to 
work to take care of their families.''
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, before further yielding, I want to address 
some of the comments, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, this bill creates a backdoor increase in the Federal 
bureaucracy. When you are talking about increasing reporting 
requirements by six times and adding 60 additional procedural and 
analytical requirements to the rulemaking process, you know that this 
bill must contemplate increasing the size of the Federal bureaucracy to 
deal with these increased requirements.
  As an entrepreneur who started a number of small businesses, I know 
the importance of having certainty and predictability in the regulatory 
process. The additional bureaucracy instituted by this ALERRT Act will 
simply not help businesses thrive and grow. This legislation would 
create headaches for businesses at a time when many small businesses 
are already struggling to recover from the recession.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1010, which is legislation to 
raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, in order to restore fairness 
for men and women across our country.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition on the motion to move the previous 
question so that this body may consider H.R. 1010, the Fair Minimum 
Wage Act of 2013.
  This crucial piece of legislation will positively impact the lives of 
nearly 30 million American workers and their families by gradually 
raising the Federal minimum wage from its current

[[Page H1955]]

$7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour by 2016. Beyond 2016, the bill ties the 
Federal minimum wage to annual inflation, ensuring that hardworking men 
and women will never again see their wages stagnate due to 
congressional obstruction or inaction.
  Let's first discuss who benefits from this legislation. I am sure 
that many watching at home and some in this very room may have a skewed 
perception of the contemporary minimum wage worker. I will try my best 
to clear up a few of these fallacies so that this debate can be framed 
by fact and not by stereotype.
  The average age of the minimum wage worker is 35 years old: 54 
percent of them are full-time workers, and 55 percent of them are 
women. The average affected worker earns half of his or her family's 
total income, and more than one-fourth of the minimum wage workers have 
children. Of the Nation's, roughly, 75 million children, nearly one-
fifth of them have at least one parent who would receive a raise if the 
minimum wage were increased to $10.10 an hour. An employee working 40 
hours per week for the entire 52-week calendar--no time off--at the 
Federal minimum wage will earn just $15,080 in 2014.
  Now, who can live on $15,000 a year?
  I just heard the gentleman from Georgia speak passionately about his 
concern for the American worker. I would ask that gentleman and others 
who are concerned about the American worker: Are you concerned about 
all of the American workers, or are you just concerned with those who 
earn at higher brackets than $15,080 a year? A worker who works full 
time and is still below the Federal poverty level will qualify for 
Medicaid, for CHIP, for SNAP, and for other public assistance programs 
that will cost taxpayers approximately $7 billion this year alone.
  Let's raise the minimum wage, and let's lift people out of poverty 
without spending a dime of additional Federal money. Let's save on 
those programs that the Federal Government has put in place to help 
those maintain a standard of living who need a helping hand.
  A recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University found that 71 
percent of American workers support raising the minimum wage. That same 
poll found that Democrats, Republicans and Independents are all in 
agreement that raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I refer back to the words of Speaker Boehner 
in his first speech to this Chamber upon being sworn in as Speaker on 
January 5, 2011.
  He said:

       This is the people's House. This is their Congress--it is 
     not about us; it is about them--and what they want is a 
     government that is honest, accountable, and responsive to 
     their needs.

  Seventy-one percent of the American people are asking us to do this. 
If the Speaker's words mean more than just words on a page, I would 
urge him to bring this bill to the floor so that we can respond to the 
71 percent of the American people who think that raising the minimum 
wage is good economic policy and that it is good personnel policy.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague from Colorado if 
he has any speakers remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we do. We have at least one speaker who is 
here and ready to go.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Jeffries).
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, the people whom I represent at home in Brooklyn and in 
Queens have been hit hard by the devastation of Superstorm Sandy, and 
many of these working families are still struggling to recover from 
this vicious storm. Homes were destroyed. Businesses were ruined. Lives 
have been turned upside down.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, we need to deal with the issue that has 
been brought before the people who have suffered from this storm and 
who now face significant flood insurance rate increases as a result of 
the Biggert-Waters law passed in 2012. The people who were victimized 
by Superstorm Sandy are now facing the prospect of significant flood 
insurance premium rate increases that are heading directly at them like 
an out-of-control freight train, and this House should be stepping in 
to stop that freight train dead in its tracks. That is why I support 
the reform of the Biggert-Waters law. We should suspend the flood 
insurance increases that are heading towards these Superstorm Sandy 
victims. We should allow for FEMA to conduct an affordability study. We 
should give Congress the opportunity to get this issue correct.
  The failure of this House to act on flood insurance reform is yet 
another example of the delay and the dysfunction in dealing with the 
real issues that confront the American people, and our inability to 
move forward as previously planned is just yet another time when a 
manmade disaster from this House is being imposed on the American 
people.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes to say, if you 
care about any of these issues that have been brought up today--and 
these are not issues that are involved in the rule, and these are not 
issues that are coming to the floor today--then you care about whether 
or not the American people are able to make their voices heard, because 
I am absolutely certain, as I have learned in my 3 years of having a 
voting card, Mr. Speaker, that the American voters still run this show. 
Now, the voters have a tough time having their voices heard, but if 
they can have their voices heard, they can make a difference.
  We are talking about issues that we wish we could change, Mr. 
Speaker. Today on the floor, we have an issue that we can change. The 
administration is proposing regulations that will silence voices on 
these very issues that my colleagues are raising.
  Let me read from Cathy Duvall, the Sierra Club's director of public 
advocacy and partnerships, who says this about the proposed regulations 
from the Obama administration's Treasury Department:

       The proposal harms efforts that have nothing to do with 
     politics--from our ability to communicate with our members 
     about clean air and water to our efforts to educate the 
     public about toxic pollution.

  Mr. Speaker, if you believe in this process as I do, if you believe 
in this Nation as I do, then you believe that it is paramount that the 
people's voices are able to be heard. That is the issue here today. If 
you believe that the priorities of this House should be changed, if you 
believe the priorities of this Nation should be changed, if you believe 
anything in this Nation should be changed, you must believe that we 
should preserve the power of the individual's voice.
  That is why this rule moratorium is here today, Mr. Speaker. That is 
why the investigations must go on. That is why we must reject the 
administration's rush to judgment here and ensure that our priority 
continues to be that of the board of directors of this country--the 
American voters.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because it needs an 
amendment. I rise today in order to ask, when the motion on the 
previous question to end the debate is brought up, that we vote ``no'' 
so that at that point an amendment can be introduced.
  If that possibility is available, I would like to bring up the 
provisions of H.R. 1010, which will provide a long overdue increase in 
the minimum wage. The bills that we are considering today are just 
distractions from the issues that are most important. We need to be 
addressing the problems that people are having.
  Mr. Speaker, today's families are struggling to pay for basic needs, 
such as housing, health care, groceries, transportation. Someone 
working full time at a minimum wage job today only earns about $14,000 
a year. At that Federal minimum wage today of $7.25, a parent working 
full time, year round, doesn't earn enough to get above the poverty 
level. When I say a ``parent,''

[[Page H1956]]

that is because studies have been done and have shown that the average 
minimum wage worker is 35 years old;
  Raising the minimum wage not only increases workers' income and 
reduces turnover, it stimulates the economy. That is because people 
earning the minimum wage are spending every dime that they get, thus 
helping the economy. We have heard fears about possible job losses, but 
the effect of an increased minimum wage on jobs has been studied for 
decades, and these studies have proven that no job loss can be expected 
with a modest increase in the minimum wage.
  We have a clear choice. We can choose to require a fair, living wage 
so that people can afford food and housing for their families, or we as 
taxpayers can be left picking up the tab through increased public 
assistance when they cannot pay their bills, and we can be left with a 
stagnant economy that is not as improved as it would be with an 
increased minimum wage.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' when the previous question is 
moved. I also encourage them to support legislation to increase the 
minimum wage so that we can improve the quality of life for millions of 
Americans and improve the economy in the process.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I say to my friend from Virginia I think he is absolutely speaking 
from the heart when it comes to sharing the voice of his constituents 
in Virginia. My constituents take a slightly different view. They look 
to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that said, yes, you can 
raise the minimum wage. You called it a modest raise. I think they 
called it a more than 40 percent increase in the minimum wage. But you 
can raise the minimum wage, as some are proposing, and that is going to 
lift 900,000 families above the poverty line and that is going to 
destroy 500,000 jobs.
  I don't fault my colleagues at all for being concerned about those 
900,000 individuals that are going to be lifted above the poverty line. 
I think we all want folks lifted above the poverty line. I don't want 
folks working a lifetime for minimum wage.
  I want people working their way up the ladder. It is a ladder of 
opportunity that we ought to be building in this House. But to dismiss 
those 500,000 individuals that the Congressional Budget Office said 
will lose their jobs altogether are not partisan fights we have, Mr. 
Speaker. These are heartfelt discussions that we have about how best to 
serve the American people to whom we have sworn an oath to the 
Constitution that rules this land.
  These are very difficult issues, but they are made better each and 
every time, I am certain, Mr. Speaker, if we preserve the power of the 
American people to have their voice heard in this debate. That is what 
is so important about this rule and why we must pass this rule today--
to bring to the floor the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the 
IRS Act--so that Americans' voices are not just silenced on the basis 
of their content, but not silenced period.
  It is abhorrent that we would silence voices on the basis of their 
content, but I would argue, Mr. Speaker, it is abhorrent if we have an 
opportunity to stop voices from being silenced at all.
  I believe this House will take that step today, and that is why I am 
proud to be here representing this rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I would inquire if the gentleman from Georgia has 
remaining speakers.
  Mr. WOODALL. I do not have any remaining speakers.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, these underlying bills are destined, if they 
pass this Chamber, like so many bills, for the Senate's bill graveyard. 
Why? Because they are counterproductive. They are not what the American 
people want. They don't do what they say.
  If we had a bill that fully implemented the recommendations to 
prevent any kind of discrimination based on political affiliation at 
the IRS, we could pass that bill. That would be an important step 
forward in ensuring that the terrible embarrassment and pie on your 
face that the IRS had, the loss of confidence that it engendered among 
the American people, will not happen again.
  That is a good issue to work on, but that is not what we have. 
Instead, we have a bill that actually guts one of the very 
recommendations of the inspector general designed to prevent this from 
happening again--the exact opposite of the title of the bill.
  We also have a bill before us that creates more red tape in the 
Federal Government and regulatory agencies. I don't think the American 
people are calling out for more red tape. I don't think small 
businesses want regulators, whose approval they need, to be so buried 
with six times as many reports and 60 times more analytical 
requirements that they won't even be able to give routine approval for 
various things that small businesses and entrepreneurs need. It is a 
counterproductive step.
  So instead of addressing the issues that the American people want us 
to act on, from immigration reform to raising the minimum wage to 
extending unemployment insurance, we are debating counterproductive, 
single-Chamber bills that will die in the Senate and would be harmful 
to the country if passed.
  My colleagues Mr. Scott and Mr. Bishop gave eloquent testimony for 
the importance of raising the minimum wage. I certainly agree with my 
colleague from Georgia that it is not a panacea. Would that there were 
a silver bullet to lift people out of poverty, it would have 435 votes.
  I do believe that the American people agree that when you work full 
time, you shouldn't need a government handout. You should be able to 
support your family at a very basic level. You shouldn't have to live 
in poverty if you are working 40, 50, 60 hours a week at a backbreaking 
job. Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will help accomplish that.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1010, legislation to raise the 
minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, to restore fairness for working men and 
women across the country.
  Someone working full-time, year-round at minimum wage earns just over 
$14,000. That is nearly $4,000 below the poverty line. It means that 
other Americans will need to subsidize that person through government 
support, welfare, or food stamps. Because, guess what. That $14,000 
isn't enough to provide for a family, have a shot at the American 
Dream, or even to put a roof over your head and food on the table.
  By raising the minimum wage to $10.10, we can help Americans become 
self-sufficient to support themselves and their families with pride and 
have a job that gives them pride to put food on their table and a roof 
over their head without the need for government support.
  Increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 is simply a return to the level 
of the minimum wage in the 1960s. It would allow millions of additional 
American workers to support their families.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Georgia said, this rule 
does not contain immigration reform and minimum wage, but I think it is 
important for the American people to know what it could contain, what 
it should contain with this Chamber under Republican leadership, what 
it would contain if this Chamber were under Democratic leadership.
  The agriculture community, the faith-based community, the business 
community, the law enforcement community, and the fiscal responsibility 
community all speak with one voice on immigration reform. What we are 
doing now doesn't work.
  There are over 10 million people here illegally. Companies violate 
the law every day. There is over close to 2 million deportations, each 
at cost to the taxpayers of $10,000 to $20,000.
  It is time to replace our broken immigration system with the rule of 
law, reduce our deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, create over 
100,000 jobs

[[Page H1957]]

for Americans, finally secure our borders, and ensure that nobody works 
illegally in this country, potentially undermining wages for American 
workers. That is what we can accomplish. We recognize it would be a 
bipartisan solution.
  H.R. 15, the Senate-passed bill, doesn't have everything that 
Democrats want in it; it doesn't have everything that Republicans want 
in it; but it would be good for our country. It would be great for our 
country and for the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. 
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, you have heard a lot of heartfelt sentiments from my 
friends here on the floor of the House today. Unfortunately, what you 
haven't heard is what we are going to do together to ensure that the 
heartfelt sentiments of every single citizen of these United States can 
be heard here in Washington.
  I fear my friend from Colorado is right. I don't say that lightly. He 
has a lot of good ideas, and I hope to collaborate with him on even 
more. I fear he is right that this is a single-Chamber solution. I fear 
that only the United States House of Representatives is concerned with 
protecting the voice of the people--not just people who agree with me, 
Mr. Speaker, but people from all stripes.
  I have read from the Sierra Club earlier. Let me read from the ACLU's 
comments to the administration on this rule. This is what they say: 
``Social welfare organizations praise or criticize candidates for 
public office on the issues and they should be able to do so freely, 
without fear of losing or being denied tax-exempt status.''
  That is ``the heart of our representative democracy,'' the ACLU says.
  ``The proposed rule''--that is the administration's rule; that is the 
rule we are here today to stop--``threatens to discourage or sterilize 
an enormous amount of political discourse in America.''
  Mr. Speaker, I have a chart here today. It lists what tax-exempt 
organizations are able to do. A 501(c) is that section of the Tax Code 
that deals with tax-exempt organizations.
  You have 501(c)(3)'s that are able to do get-out-the-vote work, voter 
registration work, and candidate forums. 501(c)(4)'s are where the 
administration is regulating, and that is the source of the scandal: 
the targeting of American citizens based on their political beliefs. 
And 501(c)(5)'s are the labor unions in the country.
  Mr. Speaker, what folks need to understand is that, as we sit here 
today, all of these groups can do get-out-the-vote work. All can do 
voter registration work and candidate forums. Why? Because it advances 
our Republic. It advances the cause of freedom and discourse in 
America.
  But this, Mr. Speaker, is what the administration is proposing. For 
501(c)(5)'s, or labor unions, it is proposing they continue doing all 
of that material. Also, for 501(c)(3)'s to continue doing all of that. 
But the 501(c)(4)'s--the very same 501(c)(4)'s that were targeted by 
the IRS on the basis of their political beliefs--those groups, and 
those groups alone, would be silenced.
  Mr. Speaker, America is not advantaged by that rule. Maybe in some 
shortsighted way someone believes their personal political agenda is 
advanced by that scheme, Mr. Speaker, but we do not. We as a Nation do 
not. It is a shortsighted gain. That is why we put this bill on the 
floor today to delay these new regulations, this change of how American 
political discourse occurs, for 1 year--and 1 year only--while the 
investigation completes itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to read from the report that the inspector 
general crafted at the Treasury Department. He says, What were the 
words, what triggered this additional investigation that went on?
  This is what they were, Mr. Speaker.
  If you use the word ``Tea Party,'' you might get special scrutiny. If 
you use the word ``patriot'' in your name, you might get special 
scrutiny. If you were concerned, Mr. Speaker--and this is reading from 
the Treasury Department report--if you were concerned about government 
spending, government debt, or taxes, you could be subjected to special 
scrutiny. If you wanted, Mr. Speaker, to ``make America a better place 
to live,'' you could be subjected to special scrutiny.
  The administration has gone far beyond that, Mr. Speaker. They are 
not just going to subject some groups to special scrutiny, as is the 
source of the scandal. They are silencing all groups. If you had a 
statement in your case file, Mr. Speaker, that criticized how this 
country is being run, you were subject to special scrutiny.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not just our right, that is our obligation. Our 
obligation as citizens is to criticize the way this country is being 
run when we don't agree. Because, after all, Mr. Speaker, the President 
doesn't run this country. The Congress doesn't run this country. We the 
people run this country.
  This rule to bring this bill is about one thing and one thing only, 
and that is making sure that those people to whom the Constitution 
invests every bit of power that the country has to offer, the American 
citizens have a voice with which to express their concerns and the 
information on which to educate that voice.
  My colleague from Georgia was absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. There 
are so many things that happen on the floor of this House, you can't 
tell the difference between who is who regionally, politically, and 
what it is that folks believe. But this issue is one of those defining 
issues.
  Do you believe that the board of directors of America, the United 
States citizen, deserves a loud voice and full information? If you do, 
you vote ``yes'' on this rule, you vote ``yes'' on the underlying 
legislation, you reject the administration's effort to silence the 
American people on both sides of the aisle, and you commit yourself to 
believing that a full and open debate is the only way in which this 
country will succeed.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud 
cosponsor of H.R. 3865, the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the 
IRS Act, offered by my friend and Chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. Camp of Michigan.
  In the wake of the IRS's admission last year that it improperly 
targeted conservative groups, troubling information continues to come 
to light detailing just how high the scandal went. In response, the 
President briefly feigned the appropriate indignation and did some 
cursory bureaucratic reshuffling.
  Then, rather than actually addressing this stunning abuse of First 
Amendment rights, the Administration decided to double down by 
proposing a regulation that all but codifies the targeting. The 
proposed IRS regulation--which would change the way that tax exempt 
status is determined for social welfare organizations--is a move that 
would significantly impact the activities and First Amendment rights of 
those organizations. It adds a massive paperwork burden for 
organizations, and broadens the IRS's power over political activity.
  The IRS issued the rule despite six ongoing investigations into the 
discriminatory targeting and the fact that the existing guidance has 
been in place and functioning for more than 50 years.
  In order to combat this proposed overreach by the IRS, H.R. 3685 
prohibits it from finalizing this unnecessary rule--and similar rules--
for one year.
  Despite President Obama's claims that there was ``not even a smidgen 
of corruption'' at the IRS, I believe the American people still deserve 
real answers and a true commitment to preserving their First Amendment 
rights. H.R. 3865 is critical to working to regain the trust of 
Americans and preventing the Administration from codifying the IRS's 
unacceptable and discriminatory targeting.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve more than opaque and hurried rule 
changes meant to crush political discourse. At the very least, the 
Administration should commit to having all the facts from completed 
investigations before drastically changing the rules to suit its 
election year strategy. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join 
me in fighting the IRS's continued attempts to stifle free speech by 
supporting H.R. 3865.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3865.
  For years, Congress demanded action on this issue. In an independent 
report, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 
told the IRS and Treasury to remove the gray and give clear guidance 
regarding the tax treatment of social welfare organizations.
  There were dramatic hearings, and the public demanded clear, fair 
rules. Members of this Congress from both sides of the aisle agreed 
that the IRS should implement all nine of the TIGTA recommendations.

[[Page H1958]]

  This is just what the IRS and Treasury did. They are taking their 
time, and trying to do the right thing--once and for all. The IRS 
already received 23,000 comments on the proposed rulemaking--23 
thousand, Mr. Speaker.
  And today, not even eight months later, this body is trying to tear 
down long overdue progress and restart the clock at square one. So, you 
can see why I oppose bringing this bill to the Floor today. It makes no 
sense, no sense at all.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress can be constructive, supportive, and 
effective. Instead, this bill returns to the old tradition of no, by 
any means necessary.
  I urge each and every one of my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary 
bill.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on H.R. 3865 the 
Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act, legislation to 
prevent the IRS from implementing newly proposed rules to restrict the 
First Amendment rights of certain non-profit groups. This legislation 
is an important step in holding the IRS accountable for its illegal 
targeting of conservative organizations in the run-up to the 2012 
election.
  Last year it was revealed by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
Administration that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to review 
organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names and 
policy positions. Now the IRS wants to rewrite the rules to justify its 
inappropriate and likely criminal behavior. Congress should not let the 
IRS take ANY regulatory action until wrong-doers within the IRS are 
held accountable.
  In April, top IRS official Lois Lerner revealed in a public forum 
that the agency had been discriminating against more than 75 groups 
with conservative sounding names in the run-up to November 2012. Ms. 
Lerner actually went so far as to plant a question in the audience 
about the issue in order to pre-empt the release of the Inspector 
General's audit.
  When all this became public, Members of the Administration including 
the President and the Attorney General expressed their outrage and 
called it unacceptable. The Attorney General even went so far as to 
declare his intent to conduct a criminal investigation.
  Furthermore, it's clear from testimony given during the various 
Congressional hearings over the years and correspondence with the IRS 
that officials there were not telling Members of Congress the truth. In 
March of 2012--a year before this story broke--then-IRS Commissioner 
Douglas Shulman assured Congress: `there is no targeting of 
conservative groups.' On April 23, 2012, I joined with 62 of my House 
colleagues in writing the IRS Commissioner inquiring further about the 
possible targeting and we were assured that there was no targeting or 
delay in processing IRS applications submitted by conservative groups.
  Ms. Lerner, a longtime federal employee and senior IRS official, has 
since asserted her Fifth Amendment Constitutional right by refusing to 
testify before Congress and tell the American people exactly what the 
IRS was doing and who had ordered these discriminatory actions.
  To make matters worse, it was further revealed that IRS employees 
released confidential donor information and even private taxpayer 
records. Disclosing confidential taxpayer information is one of the 
worst things an IRS employee can do--it's a felony, punishable with a 
$5,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison. In fact, the Treasury 
Inspector General noted at least eight instances of unauthorized access 
to records, with at least one willful violation.
  These are serious abuses but to date, not a single IRS employee has 
been indicted. The FBI has refused to file criminal charges. The 
Washington Post has reported that the investigation into this scandal 
is being led by Barbara Bosserman, a partisan who `donated a combined 
$6,750 to President Obama's elections and the Democratic National 
Committee between 2004 and 2012.' Furthermore, she does not serve in 
the Public Integrity Section that typically oversees these matters, but 
rather the Civil Rights Division, historically the most partisan office 
at the Department of Justice.
  This week I am joined by nearly fifty of my House colleagues in 
writing to the Attorney General demanding the appointment of an 
independent special prosecutor to investigate the IRS's illegal 
targeting of conservative groups. Only an independent investigator who 
is not aligned with either political party will have the credibility to 
get to the bottom of this matter and hold wrong-doers accountable--
whoever they may be.
  I have also introduced H.R. 3762 which would hold federal employees 
at the IRS personally accountable when they release private taxpayer 
information. Under this bill, individuals whose private information is 
released would have a personal right of action against the employee 
rather than simply hoping that the Department of Justice will take 
action.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 487 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1010.


        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H1959]]

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and 
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1944.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 192, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 65]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--192

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Blumenauer
     Brooks (IN)
     Cantor
     Davis, Rodney
     Duckworth
     Ellison
     Gosar
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     Miller, Gary
     Pastor (AZ)
     Posey
     Rush
     Tiberi

                              {time}  1411

  Ms. KUSTER and Messrs. CICILLINE and KENNEDY changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. RIGELL and BROOKS of Alabama changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 65 I was 
meeting with a local official, Mayor Chris Koos, and missed the time to 
cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 185, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 66]

                               AYES--231

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--185

     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)

[[Page H1960]]


     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Blumenauer
     Cardenas
     Cooper
     Ellison
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Gutierrez
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     Miller, Gary
     Pastor (AZ)
     Roe (TN)
     Rush
     Tiberi

                              {time}  1421

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________