Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 32 (Wednesday, February 26, 2014)

[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.

____________________