the i.r.s., follow that online, should be getting under way shortly, at c-span.org. the house is gaveling in for legislative work and among the bills this afternoon, one that would delay by one year proposed i.r.s. rules, limiting the political activities of certain tax-exempt groups. political leaders said this morning a vote of flood insurance will be put off until next week. it was supposed to be brought up tomorrow under suspension of the rules. live house coverage here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. pray. n conroy: let us eternal god, through whom we see what we could be and what we can become, thank you for giving us another day. in these days, our nation is faced with pressing issues, constitutional, religious, and personal rights, and matters of

great political importance. we thank you that so many americans have been challenged and risen to the exercise of their responsibilities as citizens to participate in the great debates of these days. grant wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to us all as we -- as well as an extra measure of charity. send your spirit upon the members of this people's house who walk through this valley under public scrutiny. ive them peace and solomonic prudence in their deliberations. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford.

mr. lankford: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. lankford: mr. speaker, i rise to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. lankford: mr. speaker, comments for sand in the workplace, sand can cause serious health issues. no one will dispute that. but this new rule is interesting inth design. in the comment request, osha specifically singles out one industry, oil and gas, as the key reason for the rule change. they write, a recent study silicon among workers conducting hydraulic fracturing operations as their prime reason for the rule change. after the rule has been in prays since 1971, that -- place

since 1971. fracking has been around for decades. why the sudden change in this administration? i believe the change is because this administration is looking for one more way to impede oil and gas development in the united states. if this is not just about oil and gas, will osha set new rules for beach lifeguards who work in the sand all day? how about those that work in sand all day? hat about dune buggy operators in northwest oklahoma? the people in my district work every day to provide our nation's energy independence and to get our nation out of the middle east. but they are tired of fighting new unfunded mandates. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognition? without objection, so ordered, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today as a member of the sustainable energy and environment coalition to talk about a significant issue for

massachusetts and our nation. the wind production tax credit. in the past two years, clean energy jobs in massachusetts have grown by 24%, and are projected to grow another 11% in 2014. thanks to the wind industry, the commonwealth has seen an influx of over 200 -- $200 million in capital investment and is home to nine wind-related manufacturing facilities. massachusetts is also home to the wind technology testing center, which at the time of its opening, was the first facility in the country capable of testing large-scale wind turbine blades up to 300 feet in length. this testing center has created high-skilled jobs and has helped spur the development of next generation blades made here in the united states. we must act now to make sure that these innovative american businesses continue to create new manufacturing opportunities here in the united states. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting an extension of

the wind production tax credit. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from kansas seek recognition? ms. jenkins: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: investigations by the government reform committee has uncovered numerous examples of what appears to be a concerted effort by the i.r.s. to target conservative groups and develop new regulations that could essentially silence conservative groups. if allowed to take effect, these proposed regulations impact groups that have always been allowed to voice their positions on public policy. notably, one group exempt from these proposed regulations even though they do similar types of outreach are labor groups. mr. speaker, our nation is founded on the freedom of speech and any effort to hinder grassroots advocacy by the i.r.s. must be stopped. at the very least, the i.r.s. regulations should be put on hold until an investigation into the agency's prior

misconduct are complete. i urge my colleagues to support the stop targeting of political beliefs by the i.r.s. act to ensure the administration does not use the i.r.s. as a weapon to silence groups based on political beliefs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hahn: thank you, mr. speaker. the federal minimum wage has failed to keep up with the cost of living, leaving far too many families on the brink of poverty. for millions of americans struggling to make ends meet on the current minimum wage, times have goten harder and harder. increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would be especially important for the thousands of working women currently trying to pull their families out of poverty. 2/3 of minimum wage workers are women. nearly a third of the families headed by a single female are living in poverty.

this is wrong. no mother who works hard at a full-time job to provide for her children and family should be living in poverty. our success as a nation hinges on the success of women. when women skeds, america skeds. that's why i just signed a discharge petition to bring a bill to this floor so we can vote on raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 for all hardworking americans, including our mothers and daughters. i think it's time. let's give america a raise. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i rise today to call on the organization of american states, o.a.s., to take immediate action in support of freedom and democracy in venezuela. the o.a.s. must not remain silent while the people who are peaceful in venezuela are being murdered on the streets by the

me doora regime. i -- medura regime. i commend the meeting to discuss the violations of the human rights in venezuela. if the o.a.s. can convene a special session over the lack of airspace access for a plane from bolivia, then surely it must convene one on the ongoing democracy crisis in venezuela. as a member of the o.a.s. and its largest international donor, the u.s. has a moral obligation to ensure that these democratic principles are upheld. and if o.a.s. does not do more to address these attacks on freedom, then, mr. speaker, we must use our full voice, vote and influence to compel it into action. i thank the speaker for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. loebsack: thank you, mr.

speaker. i rise in support of the critical jobs creating policy for iowa and our country that must be extended immediately, the production tax credit. once again, congress has allowed the tax credit to expire. this is unacceptable. now is the time to not just talk about job creation but to act on a policy that is a proven job creator. the production tax credit has helped revitalize our manufacturing base and build a homegrown industry. the wind industry supports some 80,000 jobs across the country and over 6,000 in iowa alone. with iowa a leader in wind power, the industry is investing in our rural communities and moving us toward a cleaner, homegrown source of energy. the last time the p.t.c. expired, thousands of jobs were lost, including hundreds right in my district in iowa. we can't let these jobs disappear again. the p.t.c. must be extended, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek

recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. harris: mr. speaker, the train wreck of the president's health care plan continues. last friday afternoon, curious timing, the center for medicare services released a report. mr. speaker, the c.m.s. is working with the i.r.s. to implement obamacare, and the report said it looked at the effect on small businesses of obamacare and the effect on the premiums that were going to be paid by men and women who work in those small businesses. mr. speaker, their report, from the president's own administration, said that 11 million workers will pay a higher health care premium under the affordable care act. that's more than five million women who are going to pay a higher health care premium when

the promise the president made was that every family would save $2,500 per year. mr. speaker, they're not only not only going to save $2,500, those 11 million americans are going to pay more for their health care next year. hardworking middle-class americans who can't afford it. america deserves better. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, while we fool around again with a lot of minor bills here today, we refuse to deal with the ones that we ought to be dealing with. we need to be involved in passing things that create jobs. now, the production tax credit has been -- it's an be a slut no-brainer. we have -- it's an absolute no-brainer. we've used it for years and years. as long as i've been in

congress it's been here, and the wind industry is dependent on it. it's 3,000 jobs in my state and thousands of jobs across this country. we passed it in the 1990's. we let it expire. we lost all the jobs. and we're doing it again. now, climate change ought to be impressing people that we have to move away from fossil fuels and look for alternative energy, and this is the way we're going to do it. now in the 0th century, we invested -- 20th century, we invested in aerospace and micro chip industries through the production tax credit and we made all the advances of the internet and everything else on the basis of these production tax credits. the 21st century is going to be about alternative energy, and this house goes around attacking the i.r.s. and doing, trying to repeal the a.c.a. and all of this. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. mcdermott: why don't you

make it a suspension bill? it would pass in a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition in mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, today i want to recognize the 100th anniversary of the logan regional hospital which serves the citizens of cash valley northern utah. 1914, a hospital with 60 beds bolstered hed that patients like an x-ray mb. in 1975, the intermountain health care, not for profit community service, was organized which became a model for health care excellence. 1980, the hospital expanded and moved to its present location thanks to the help of $2 million from private donors. today, the hospital has 148 beds and offers a full range of hospital services. the 100 years of continued health care services has been

possible thanks to the professionals who have donated so much of their lives, provide excellence in health care to their patients. logan regional hospitals fulfills the dreams of its founders. it's not-for-profit governance, provides an excellence in providing for health care services. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, as the cost of a college education continues to rise, americans have become increasingly dependent on federal student loans for access. families are watching tuitions creep up year after year while their income and their savings have not kept pace. to make matters worse, there have been widespread reports of abusive practices in the student loan serving industry and that makes it harder for borrowers to repay their loans. these trends jeopardize the promise of higher education as

a great equalizer, a place of opportunity for all. parents are worried that their children won't ever get a shot at the american dream because they're drowning in debt, and this week, this week the majority will bring up legislation that would undermine consumer financial protection bureau's independent and their rulemaking authority, and this bill, well, it could weaken essential consumer protections and make it all but impossible to fight abuse in the student loan industry. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 3193. stand up for students and families who deserve fair treatment. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hanabusa: mr. speaker, my home state of hawaii is

fortunate to have some of the most abaun daunt renewable energy resources in the world yet we still spend $5.1 billion every year to power our state. this is not sustainable, that's why hawaii is working toward the goal of being 70% alternative energy source by the year 2030. but in order to succeed, we need strong, responsible policy this is a support and invest in clean energy development and all alternative energy options are necessary. we must renew the production tax credit for wind energy. the u.s. now leads the world in wind energy production and the industry supports more than 80,000 domestic jobs. it is in the best interest of our environment, our economy, and future generations that we renew the p.t.c., ensure that our nation cons to be a world lead for the clean energy. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, members of the house, i rise in support of the president and the republicans and democrats in this institution and across this country who want an end to the war in afghanistan. it has cost us trillions of dollar this is a we can ill afford, there's $100 billion that have been spent in infrastructure, the inspector general cannot find where the money has gone or where the projects have been completed. mr. nolan: there's $30 billion in pipeline now, we need to end twheark need to bring the troops home, bring them home now, save that money, put it toward deficit reduction and investing in america, our roads, our bridges, our schools our health care system, our priorities demand it and require it, afghanistan is now

the most corrupt nation in the world. afghanistan supplies more illegal drugs to the rest of the world than any -- all the rest of the nations combined. it's time to end our involvement and stop that shameful waste of american taxpayers' and patriots' blood and treasure. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so order. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, you listen to the other side, you'd think that the costs of the environmental protection agency's efforts to reduce demrobal warming and to protect our environment are breaking the back of our economy. but it's hardly the case. what's really beginning to break the back of our economy is the cost associated with extreme weather events. from hurricane sandy to the droughts in the midwest and the west, it's costing tens of

billions of dollars every year. it's getting worse. in fact, 10 years ago, the insurance agency estimated -- the insurance industry estimated what the cost would be and it was wayless than what it is today and they acknowledge it's because of the effects of climate change. now that's -- now that applies to the hartford insurance group, ample i.g., prudential, the reinsurance association of america, they all say that this is the footprint of climate change and that extreme weather conditions are going to get worse. so you have to ask yourself, the insurance industry is acknowledging the presence of climate change, why can't the congress? well the -- will the majority of this house stay in denial that climate is changing that human activities are contributing to this change and are they going to continue to play an obstructionist role or are they going to act responsibly for the benefit of future yen rations.

i hope it's the latter. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the hisme gentleman has expired. f

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on

motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. brady: mr. speaker, i move that the -- mr. farenthold: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass and pass the bill h.r. 3308, as amended. the clerk: a bill to require a federal agency to include language and certain educational and advertising materials to make sure that they are disseminated as taxpayer expense. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. farnt hold, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, -- farenthold, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: thank you, mr.

speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. farenthold: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. farenthold: thank you very much. i'm here today to speak on h.r. 3308, which requires the federal government to disclose advertisements and information on government programs and services are paid for by the axpayer. advertisements provide information but many times are used to induce people to buy a product or service. while we can agree -- we can agree that the public knowser that sponsoring a government marketing piece. american december serve to know how their tax dollars are being spent. in h.r. 3308 adds needed transparency to the business of government by requiring disclosures when taxpayer dollars are spent on advertising and educational

materials. this bill is designed to help people know what's going on. it's not intended to be a burden on local broadcasters, their advertisers, or any of the work that they do in local communities. as a former broadcaster, i understand the important role that advertising plays. but it's also important that the people know what's an advertisement being paid for with government money and what's a public service announcement and what's being paid for by private individuals. this bill adds a disclaimer to ads and printed material similar to what many -- what all of nuss this chamber are familiar with on our advertising rules for campaigns where you have the "this was paid for by" so and so. this would require government agencies who purchase advertising to add a disclaimer saying something to the effect of, produced and aired at taxpayer expense. i'll reserve the balance of my

time at this point, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: if under this legislation, any communication an agency make that's an advertisement or provides information about a government benefit or service would have to say it was printed or published at taxpayer expense. emails and radio and television ads would have to say this. some agencies already identify the agency this is a prints them. the army prints paid for by the united states army on its recruiting posters this bill would require the army to change its wording and say, printed at taxpayer expense. i've not heard any explanation, either at the committee or hear on the floor, for why such a change is so necessary.

congresswoman duckworth, the former assistant secretary of veterans affairs, raised an important point during our committee's consideration of this inthism pointed out that some terms printed by the department of veterans' affairs state that the v.a. produced the materials. this is important because veterans need to be able to trust the source of the information and seeing department soft veterans afairs engenders just that trust. four years ago this body passed a law co-sponsored by chairman i, is a chairman of our committee that prohibited nongovernment parties from sending mailings marked census, without a clear disclaim we are the name of the party sending the mailing. that law was pass theafed republican national committee sent a mailing that led recipients to think it was an official census document when it was not. we passed that law because we wanted to protect son qumers from -- consumers from being misled into believing a communication from a nongovernmental source was in

fact an official government document. we should use that same lonlic and caution with this bill. i think it's important that this bill is interpreted to allow agencies to continue to say that a communication is paid for by that agency, rather than being required to say that the documents printed and published at taxpayer expense. during the committee's consideration of this legislation, chairman issa and my friend, chairman farenthold, made commitments to representative duckworth to work with her in finding mutually agreeable language. representative duckworth suggested language that would address the issues we raised with the military and the veterans administration. unfortunately, mr. speaker, that language is not -- not -- included in this bill. and no changes were made at all since the committee considered it, despite the assurances given to representative duckworth. i will not vote against the bill but i certainly hope that

if this bill or a similar bill moves to the senate that the majority in the house will keep the commit. s that are made to representative duckworth and the democrats on our committee to find a satisfactory resolution to the legitimate concerns that were raised. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: thank you and i would like to take a moment to recognize the concerns of the gentleman from virginia before yielding to the author of the bill. during the markup, representative duckworth was concerned about certain agencies, like the v.a. and the department of defense, and during the markup, we did add a provision at the minority's request that allowed the office of management and budget to implement regulations in exactly how this is going to be done. it certainly does not prohibit paid for by the army or paid for by the veterans administration, it would simply add paid for by the army at

taxpayer expense would clearly be compliant with this law. the idea being to determine what the taxpayers are paying for and what is being donated for time, for instance, by a broadcast facility for public service announcements or to differentiate ads that are not paid for by the government. if there's no disclaimer we know it's not paid for with taxpayer dollars, what we're after is to let the taxpayer know when they see something on the television, hear something on the radio, see a prinned material, that their tax dollars funded it and it's something they can either be proud of or they can pick up the phone and call us up here in washington, d.c. and say, what the heck are gow you doing waste your money on these things, it empowers the public to know, we're not trying to limit federal agent circumstances we're not trying to detract from the fine work that the v.a. does or to detract from the cre re-cruting efforts that our armed forces are in >> would my friend yield?

mr. farenthold: i yield. mr. connolly: is there any doubt in a taxpayer's mind that something that identifies as paid for by the u.s. army we all understand that's paid for by the u.s. taxpayer. mr. farenthold: reclaiming my time we've got an alphabet soup of government agecies, as i reviewed documenters in budget i have to google what some of the agencies in the federal government do almost everybody know what is the army is but if you're in the in financial services do you know what the bfbb is or some of the smaller subagencies are? and i think that's what we're getting at. at this point, i would like to yield as much time heas my consume to the author of this bill my good friend the gentleman from missouri, mr. billy long a fellow broadcaster, i might add. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume.

mr. long: they advertise various programs without mentioning the funding for these programs or their ads are coming from. one said sunlight is said to be the best disinfektant. the taxpayer transparency act is about shining the light on how taxpayer dollars are spent by requiring executive branch agencies to disclose that these advertisements are paid for at taxpayer expense. similarly, they have requirements already imposed on the house and senate to the executive branch. it is time for government to start working for the people again. by providing more transparency in their spending, executive branch agencies will have to answer to the people. americans have every right to know exactly how their tax dollars are being spent. as members of congress, we should all support an open and honest government, and this legislation does that by requiring executive branch agencies to be transparent with spending taxpayer dollars which

promote federal programs. i urge support of this bill and look forward for action in the senate and i yield back. mr. farenthold: and i reserve. mr. connolly: can i require from the chair how much time is left, both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has 17 1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from texas has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. connolly: could the speaker repeat how much we have on this side? the speaker pro tempore: 17 1/2. mr. connolly: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i have no other speakers an this side. does the gentleman have others on his side? mr. farenthold: we don't. we're prepared to close. mr. connolly: just in closing, mr. speaker, i certainly lawed the intent of the bill. i certainly wish we applied the same to ourselves here in congress. wouldn't it be interesting for the taxpayers to know, for example, that a dead end kind of inquiry on the i.r.s. being

pursued by the majority in this body, just in our committee alone, has already cost the taxpayers in the united states $14 million, producing virtually nothing? and it would be very interesting to know how much it has cost the taxpayers of this country when we had 46 or 47 repeal of affordable health care act, amendments and bills in this congress and in the previous congress. but having said that, i certainly am not going to vote against the bill, but i am concerned that some of the concerns raised by my colleagues, particularly congresswoman duckworth, were not in fact addressed in the final bill brought before this floor, and it's my hope we can continue to work together to try to resolve that with some compromised language as we work with our colleagues in the other body. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: thank you very much. d without getting into the

pros and cons of the various investigations that this body does, i will say it is our constitutional obligation to provide oversight to the various federal agencies. one of the ways we do that is through the investigation that our committee does bring up. i do want to say we did visit with representative duckworth. we do feel like her concerns are -- having addressed. we could not agree on specific language with ms. duckworth, but we were able -- we did come up with these provisions that the minority requested at the markup that allowed the o.m.b. to come up with the implementing regulations. it also includes a provision suggested by the minority to make clear that communications funded entirely by user fee or by sources other than that that do not include federal funds may indicate how it's funned --

funded through the united states government. but this is a bill all designed by transparency. let taxpayers see the fruits of the spending of taxpayer dollars on advertisements and to make a judgment about that on their own and know weighs going on, know how their -- what's going on, know how their money is being spent. as my colleague from missouri pointed out, sunshine is the business disinfectant. it's about what we are in the government oversight and reform committee. it's about what this bill does. again, designed as a regulation on government agencies, not as an attempt to go after broadcasters, print shops or anything like that. this is just to get the government agencies to tell the taxpayers what they bought with the disclaimer on there. commonsense legislation. i urge all my colleagues to stand behind it. it's something i think will be a huge step forward towards

transparency, and i look forward to this bill's passage and yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3308, as amended. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 487 and ask for its immediate consideration.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 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 986. 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 one, one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means, and two, one motion to recommit with or without nstructions. section 2, at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, 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 ommittee 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. section 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 15, 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 one hour. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only,

i'd like to yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purpose of debate only and i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. you heard me say it before. it makes me so happy to be a member of the rules committee because our entire bill gets read down here. the entire rules resolution gets read. by golly, mr. speaker, if you're not proud of what you're doing in your que, you better not sign -- committee, you better not seen up for your committee where every word of your work gets read each time. i am proud of the work we do in the rules committee. the rule we have on the floor today is going to make two bills in order. both i would argue, are incredibly important for providing not just transpartnersy -- transparency of what goes on here in washington but to make sure that the people's voice gets heard in washington.

house resolution 487, this rule, is a closed rule for consideration of h.r. 3865. that's the stop targeting of political beliefs by the i.r.s. act, mr. speaker. that's in response to what the 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, allegations that the i.r.s. is targeting folks on the basis of their political beliefs whether or not they're able to have their organization certified as a tax-exempt organization. that's not just a concern of groups on one side of the aisle or the other, mr. speaker, that's a concern of folks across the spectrum. i would argue is concern for all americans who believe in having their voice heard is important. mr. speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the cofferings h.r. 2804 the all economic regulations are transparent act.

mr. speaker, that structured rule, we made in order 11 amendment well, had two members come by and testify on behalf of their amendments in the rules committee, we made both of those in order. in addition, we made four republican amendments and five other democrat ig amendments in order, for a teefl 11 amendments, four republican and seven democratic amendments in order on that bill. as is customary, 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, we have another one here today and it aims for transparency. there's no question in my mind, mr. speaker, but that we have replaced taxation in this country with regulation. so rarely does someone come down and say i want to tax an industry, what they will come down and say, i want to regulate an industry. 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's some industry this is a need to be regulated out of existence. we should have that full, 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, the impact it has on jobs and economic development in their community and today in statute, mr. speaker, there's a requirement that the administration twice a year publish a notice of all 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. understand that, the requirement is, you must inform the american people twice a year.

just twice a year, about the regulations that are coming through the pipeline that are going to impact them, their families, and their businesses. yet that has been ignore. no ability for folks to understand the magnitude of those regulations system of 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've seen the federal register recently, mr. speaker, it's thick. it comes out over day of the week. it captures all the new rules and regulations coming out, they're coming out like water out of a spi got. so this -- out of a spigot. 10 this says, let's not do it twice a year, but once a month, let's make sure the people understand in a volume they can see and read, what those new rules and regulations are and if a -- if an agency chooses to ignore the requirement that proposed rule and regulation will not go into effect, such as the american people will get six months of notice about what it is that's going on.

i'll give you a good example, mr. speaker. it goes to the second bill we're considering, the stop political targeting bill on the floor here today. there's a public comment period that's on right now, i don't know if most folks in america know it. i know everybody understands the i.r.s. targeting scandal, i don't know if they know the administration is involved in a rule making right now they feel investigation is still ongoing into the i.r.s., the extent of the abuse is not yet understood, 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 it, even though the investigation is not done yet, this is what we want to do and the public comment period ends tomorrow. public comment period ends tomorrow. folk cans go to www.regulation.gov, they can still go and file their comment if they believe 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 every in america, because it doesn't matter which party you're on, you shouldn't target folks that disagree with you, we should have fall 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 homing 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 we have on the floor today says this and this alone. it says, since we don't fully understand what's going on, since we know with certainty that the i.r.s. has breached the public's trust, not the entire i.r.s. but just this one scandal here in the 501-c-4 operation, we know that the public's trust has been diminished, let's not have the

administration, in the absence of a full understand big this econgress, in the absence of full comment by me american people, let's not have the administration pleatly reregulate that area. rather, let's put this off, not forever, mr. speaker, because we all agree that work needs to be done but for one year and one 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 501c4 status. those are the two bills we have on the floor today. the germane amendments offered, and there were no germane amendments offered to the stop political targeting act, 11 amendments made in order for the government transparency bill on the floor today, only four republican amendments, seven democratic amendment, so we can have a full and open debate. very proud of this rule, mr. speaker and with that, i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'm forced to rise again in opposition to the rule and 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 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 i.r.s. bill first. the i.r.s. bill has a title that i think would engender broad bipartisan support. if we want to run a bill that prevents the i.r.s. from discriminating organizations based on political affiliations, whether they're progress i have 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 their name of their organization for additional scrutiny. that is simply not the right criteria that the i.r.s. should be using inch hope they got the message over at the i.r.s. loud and clear and i hope we can move to fully implement the recommendations of the inspector general to ensure 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's even a republican bill in the ways and means committee by pete roskam that would require the i.r.s. commissioner to implement all of the recommendations of the inspector general, including these very regulation this is a 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 i.r.s. from discriminating against any organization because of their political affiliation, let's do so. whether it's something binding, i.ing in statute the recommendations of the inspector general, whether it's 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 discreme nation has no role in the i.r.s. 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 alert act, it would slow down the regulatory process, increase red tape for agencies, it's 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's going to come from this bill. when my constituents in colorado, when i talk to them, what do we need to do? they don't say, you need to go to washington and bury more government workers in more paper work. i want more red tape. i want more red tape. yet that's 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's not what the american people want. that's why i urge my colleague it is to vote no on this rule and this bill. look, there are some issue this is a we could be working on here today, mr. speaker. let me talk about a few of those. these are the kinds of issue this is a i believe, my party had the opportunity brick bills to the floor of this chamber, we would be bringing these bills to the floor of the chamber. one of those is immigration

reform. rather than spending time debating bills that are couldn't productive, that 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 legally, implementing mandatory workplace authentication of work, ensuring the future know of workers in line with the needs of commir -- our economy and america can continue to complete. we have a nearly identical bill in the house, h.r. 15, 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 can co-chair, released detailed

principles on immigration reform. i applaud the republican principles that were issued on immigration refore. there's 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're more competitive in the global economy, redeuces the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, and reflects our values as americans and reflect ours values as people of faith. and yet, the house majority has found time to shepherd dozens of bills through the judiciary committee to the floor of the house, including one we're 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 three-hour debate, we haven't had a one-hour debate, we haven't had a one-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 eaders, faith leaders, national and local editorial boards, are -- the law enforcement community, are calling for real leadership on advancing immigration reform now. just yesterday, the chamber of commerce sent a letter to speaker boehner for more than 6 humbings businesses urging congress to pass immigration reforethe chamber president, tom donohue, posted a blog post eemphasizing the need to have a modernized e-verify system, provisions 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 kt a "the wall street journal" wrote, quote, republicans have killed

immigration reform for now but the farm bureau study shows it's still needed. the irony is many republicans who support handouts to farmers oppose reform form -- reform this is a couldn't cost taxpayers a dime, end quote. instead of reducing the deficit, securing our borders and gives farms the workers they need, republicans say, let's bury the government in red tape, increasing the paperwork for agencies by six time -- six times and give government handouts to farmers. that's republican policies we're seing in this congress and that's why the american in le hold this institution great disapproval. the longer we delay in passing comprehensive immigration reform, the greater the cost of inaction becomes. according to the congressional budget office's nonpartisan analysis, passing immigration reform would increase our grose domestic product by 3.3%, 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 -- another bill we would bring forward is increasing the minimum wage to $10.10. . just before coming up here to manage this rule i signed a discharge petition to bring that bill to the floor, a bill that i proudly co-sponsor, 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. would lift millions of americans

out of poverty, would fuel demand and economic growth. a letter from over 600 economists said that, quote, at a time when persist tent high unemployment is putting enormous downward pressure on wages, a moig increase would provide a much needed boost, end quote. it's 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 they can do that in the private sector. 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's why we have a social safety net that helps americans and supplements their income whether it's medicaid, whether

it's food stamps. americans earning $14,000 a year don't live a great life, but they get a little help from us and that's the right thing to do and reflects our values. if we can help them earn a little bit more, they will require less help from other taxpayers in paying their rent, paying their bills, putting groceries on their table. so we can be fiscally responsible in reducing the need for a social safety net program if we can help lift up more americans out of poverty. and one substantial step towards doing that would 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 sucks 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 prior times when we had this level of unemployment, this has always been a bipartisan issue. there's 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'll 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 i.r.s. 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, and i'm 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, and i encourage my colleagues on both side of the aisle to work in good faith towards redressing the flaws in our immigration system and replacing chaos with the rule of law, increasing our

competitiveness, reducing our deficit, securing our borders, making americans safer, and creating jobs for americans. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall:00 mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 10 minutes to a freshman member, a young member of the government oversight and government reform committee, and the supporter of the legislationers, the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. collins: i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding me the time. one of the things that comes when we have these debates and a lot of issues that come before the floor, we speak in terms 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 speaks of, we talk in the terms we understand. but many times when you look at bills and you look at the things that are coming before the floor, it's a good idea to start painting the picture of those

that are impacted by it. mr. speaker, when we begin to do that, and we begin to look at the bills on the floor today, i want to tell you a story. the story reinvolves, mr. puckett, he owns a small business that's been creating jobs for over 100 years, family-owned brick company. he contributes the success of their business to 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 4 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 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. so 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, and i just heard from my friend from across the aisle as i have done before from here, i'll simply remind him in that nirvana state 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. enthe businesses -- business owners, but not just the business owners, the folks who work for them, the folks so many times missed by what we are trying to do. by reforming our nation's regulatory system, we jump-start

the engine of our economy, and when our economy gets up and going, our families flourish. now, a lot can be said about this whole package and there are other speakers who will speak later today about the different titles. i'm speaking specifically to title 4, which is commonly known as sue and settle. across the aisle, and i think i have talked to members of both democrats and republicans who go home and have town hall meetings, one of the things that happen all the time, you begin to talk about regulation and bills and what does this do, and i see this sense of many in the audience all of a sudden their eyes glaze over and they say here it comes, washington speak, we don't get it. i'm just a country boy from northeast georgia. and i just want to put it in simple terms. this is the way i determine makes it simple to understand the sue and settle legislation. two people have a problem problem. they don't get along. something's not right. one group they have a business or a group or -- that have a disagreement op something going

on -- on something going on, and they can't seem to find their solution so the one says, whoa, i see something here. there is a regulation that i can sue on. this is a government agency i can sue. so we have a third party in play. so what we do we take two people who have an issue, i'll just use people as the term here, and we have their outlet as saying i'll sue a third party, which being the federal government, and while i'm suing, i'll 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. now, i grew up in a family with a brother. i have often kidded, i thought he was adopted, he's not. he's actually my brother. it's about like any sibling rivalry. when we would have a disagreement, this 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 this. but is that fair? no, it's not fair. both sides need to be heard. you need to have the opportunity. and that's what sue and settle legislation does. now, you can hear a lot, and i'm sure there will be many folks who come to the floor today, tonight saying, no, that's not what it does. you are gumming up the words. i'll get to that in a minute. when we understand what these do, the abusive use of consent and decree, and settlements to course agency action is often referred to as i said the 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. you see, agencies are failing to uphold their statutory rule making 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 realm. clean water act, clean air act, and dangerous species act. when you come forward trying to

make regulatory rules we had like we had testified in 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's 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 you see when someone enters an out-of-sight backroom deal with un-elected employees,

bureaucrats, to establish when the e.p.a. will meet its past due responsibilities, it is effectively deciding e.p.a. -- how e.p.a. will use its limited resources and thus creating policy priorities for the agency. if the e.p.a. needs assistance in prioritizing its many regulatory responsibilities, i recommend they consult the state who must implement these regulations and the communities that will be impacted by them. unlike what some claim h.r. 1493, there nothing to hinder the rights of citizens to bring suits against their government. another let's throw up something against the wall to he 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 does. as i have described before, in basic terms, it allows fairness, it allows transparency, it allows those with constitutional standarding to be a part of a suit so that he they can have input into something that will affect them. i believe everyone can agree to

that. if you're being affected, you ought to, especially when it comes to the united states government, we ought to be able bill and theseis rules and regulations do to us. this is good governance. why should we let a certain area and certain group -- mr. speaker, you know this as well, that there are areas in which they get into the agreement 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 settlement. again, simply improving public participation. this is what we are about here. this is what this bill does. this bill takes a measured reasonable approach to the sue and settle problem. it ensures that settlements are conducted at an 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. but also i have to respond to my friend from colorado, and we have great debates out 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 my district of georgia, a pox on both your houses, republicans and democrats, you're the same. i' tired of it all. today is one of those days in this discussion right here you can honestly say here's the difference in governing philosophy. it just came out 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, but what i heard a few minutes ago was the concern about the burden on the federal government. are more concerned with the -- with what this may cause. from my perspective i believe this legislation can help because we can trim the size of the federal government, give roles and responsibilities where they need to be with states and others, when we do so, that gives us the proper -- can i ask for another two minutes. mr. woodall: additional two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for additional 2 1/2 minutes. mr. collins: what we see here is we see a concern for the federal government with our government employees are great folks, they do great work, but i'm more concerned with the american business owner and more importantly i'm more concerned with the workers who will lose their jobs, have lost their jobs, or had to change jobs, this is the difference right now, mr. speaker. .

this is the difference, mr. speaker. i'm concerned that government do what it's supposed to do, the burden that they're putting on themselves should be removed to where our businesses, my concern is the worker. my concern is mr. puckett; but my concern even more is the 50 folks who don't have a job because the government, through regulatory backroom deals, has cut out their livelihood. who do they see for that, mr. speaker? who do they go and complain to? what government agency takes their phone calls when the government is in essence putting them out of a job? no one on this side wants anything except an economy that's 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 and their business owners are having to tell them, not today. we're being inundated with rules and regulations.

i'll stand with the american worker every day. i'll acknowledge the role of our government nits limited form but don't ever mistake, there's a separate philosophy here one that encourages big government and one that says i'm for the work whore gets up every morning to take care of their family. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: before further yielding, i want to address some of the comments. again this bill creates a -- creates a backdoor increase in the federal bureaucracy. hen you're talking about increasing reporting requirements six times and adding requirements to the rule making process, you know that this bill must contemplate increasing the size of the federal bureaucracy to deal with increasing requirements. as an entrepreneur who started a number of small piss, i know the importance of having

predictability in the process. this will not help businesses thrive and grow. it will create headaches for businesses at a time when many small businesses are struggling to recover from the recession. if we defeat the previous question, i'll bring up ap amendment to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. to discuss our proposal, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. wish -- mr. bishop: 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 nearly 30 million american workers and their families by gradually raising the minimum wage from 2016.to $10.10 by

beyond 2016, the men mum wage ll be tied to inflation, ensuring that american men and women will never see their wages stagnate. let's see who benefits from this legislation. i'm sure many watching at home and some in this room may have a skewed perception of the minimum wage, we -- worker. i try to address those fall sis. the average age of the minimum wage worker is 35 years old. 54% of them are full-time workers. 55% of them are women. the average effective worker earns half of his or her family's total new york and more than one thourt of 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 employee working 40 hours a week for the entire 52-week calendar, no time off, will earn just $15,080 in 2014. who can live on $15,000 a year? i just heard the gentleman from georgia seek passionately about his concern for the american worker. and i would ask that gentleman and others who are concerned ability the american worker are you concerned about all of the american workers? or are you just concerned with those who earn at higher rackets than $15,080 a year? a worker who works full time and still is pe low the federal poverty level will qualify for medicaid, for chip, for snap, an for other public assistance programs that cost taxpayers approximately $7 billion this year alone. let's raise the minimum wage.

let's lift people out of poverty, without spending a dime of additional federal money. and 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. recent poll conducted by quin pee yak university found that 70% of american workers support raising the minimum wage. the same poll found that democrats, republicans and independents are in agreement that raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do. i refer back to the words of speaker boehner, in his first speech to this chamber on being sworn in on january 5 20, 11. he said,s the people's house. mr. polis: i yield the gentleman one min. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: this is the people's house, this is their congress. it's not about us, it's about them. and what they want , and i'm quoting now is a government

that's honest, accountable, and responsive to their needs. 71% of the american people are asking us to do this. if the speaker's words mean more than just words on a page, i urge him to bring this bill to the foor so we can respond to the 1% of the american people who think that raise thinking minimum wage is good economic policy and is good personnel policy. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. wood al: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask my colleague if he has remaining speakers. mr. polis: we have at least one speaker who is here ready to ego. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield two and a half minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two and a half minutes. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished gentleman from colorado, mr. speaker, people

who i represent at home in brooklyn and 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 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 -- premium rate increase this is a is 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 reform of the biggert-waters law. we should suspend the flood insurance increases that are heading toward 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 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 where a man-made disaster from this house is being imposed on the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. woodall: to say if you care about any of these issues that are brought up today, these are not issued involved in the rule, they're not issues coming to the floor today but if you care about other issues raised on the floor today then you care about whether or not the american people are able to make their voice heard you care about whether or not the american people are able to make their voice heard. because i'm absolutely certain that the american voter still run this is show. they have a tough time having their voice heard but if they can have their voice heard they can make a difference. but we're talking about the issue this is a we wish we could change, mr. speaker, today on the floor, we have an

issue that we can change, the administration is proposing regulation this is a will silence voices on these very issue this is a my colleagues are raising. let me read from the sierra club. the duval says this about proposed regulations. the proposal harms effort this is a 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. and if you believe the priorities of the 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's why this rule moratorium is here today, mr. speaker. that's why the investigation must go on. that's 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 voter. i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in on igs -- opposition to the rule because it needs an amendment. i rise today in order to ask that when the motion on the previous question to end the debate is brought up that we volt no so at that point an amendment can be introduced. we'd like to introduce and if

that possibility is available, i'd have to bring up the provisions of h.r. 1010 which will provide a long overdue increase in the minimum wage. bills we are considering today are just distraction prs the issues that are most important. we need to be addressing the problem this is a people are having. today's families are struggling to pay for basic needs such as housing, health care, gross groastries, transportation. -- groceries, transportation. someone working full time at a minimum wage job today only earns about $14,000 a year. and at the -- at that federal minimum wage today, $7.25, a parent working full-time, year-round, doesn't earn enough to get above the poverty level. when i say a parent, that's because studies have been den and shown that the average minimum wage worker is 35 years old. raising the minimum wage will

not only increase workers' income and reduce turnover, but stimulates the economy and that's because people in the minimum wage are spending every dime that they get, helping the economy. we've heard fears about possible job losses but the effect of minimum wage on jobs has been studied for decades and has been fruvene show that there's no job loss to be expected new york 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 lift -- left picking up the tab through increased public assistance when they can't pay their bills anden a stagnant economy is not improved as it would be with the minimum wage. i urge my colleagues to vote no when the previous question is moved and also encourage them to support legislation toin crease the minimum wage so that we can improve the quality of life for millions of americans

and improve the economy in the process. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: i say to my friend from virginia, i think he's absolutely speaking from the heart when he comes to share the voice of his constituent there is in virginia, my constituents take a slightly different view. they look to the congressional budget office, the nonpartisan congressional budget office that said, yes, you can raise the minimum wage, you can -- you called it a modest raise, they called it a more than 40% increase in the minimum wage, but you can raise the minimum wage as some are proposing and that's going to lift 900,000 families above the poverty line. and that's and that's going to destroy 500,000 jobs. i don't fault my colleagues at all for being concerned about those 900,000 individuals that will be lifted above the poverty line. i think we all want folks lifted

above the poverty line. i want folks working their way up the ladder. it's a ladder of opportunity we ought to be building in this house. but to dismiss those 500,000 individuals that the congressional budget office says we'll lose -- will lose their jobs altogether, these 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 their 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's what's sews important about this rule, why we must pass this rule today to bring to the floor the stop political targeting act. so that americans' voices are not silenced, not just not silenced on the basis of their content, but not silenced, period. it's abhorrent we would silence

voices on the basis of their content. but i would argue, mr. speaker, in support, if we have an opportunity to stop voice from being silenced at all if we don't take it, i believe this house will take that step today -and that's why i'm proud here representing this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. poll cloins inquire if the gentleman from georgia has remaining speakers. mr. woodall: i do not have remaining speakers. mr. polis: i'm prepared to close. i yield my southwest balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for the balance of the time. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. 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. 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 i.r.s., 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 i.r.s. had, the loss of confidence engendered among the american people will not happen again. that's a good issue to work on. but that's 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 opposition of the title of the bill. we also have a bill before us that creates more red tape than 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's 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 colleague, mr. scott, mr. bishop gave eloquent testimony for the importance of raising the minimum wage. i certainly agree with my colleague from georgia, it's not a panacea. would that it were a silver bullet to lift people out of poverty. it would have 435 votes. i do believe, and i believe that the american people agree, that when a family works full-time and 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're working 40, 50, 60 hours a week at a back breaking job. raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will help accomplish that. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to bring up h.r. 1010, legislation to raise the minimum wage to 1010 an hour to restore fairness for men and women across the country. someone working full-time year round at minimum wage earns just over $14,000. that's nearly $4,000 below the poverty line, and it means that other americans will need to subsidize that person through government support, through welfare, through food stamps, because, guess what? $14,000 isn't enough to provide for a family, have a shot at the american dream, 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, to have a

job that gives them pride. put food on their table and 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 1960's. 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: without objection, it a pier in the record. mr. polis: mr. speaker, as my colleague from georgia said, this rule does not contain immigration reform and a minimum wage. but i think it's 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, the

fiscal responsibility community all speak with one voice on immigration reform. what we are doing now doesn't work. there's over 10 million people here illegally. companies violate the law every day. there's over -- close to two million deportations, each at a cost to taxpayers of $10,000 to $20,000. it's time to replace our broken immigration system with the rule of law to reduce our deficit by hundreds of millions of dollars, create over 100,000 jobs for americans, finally secure our borders, and ensure that nobody works illegally in this country potentially undermining wages for american workers. that's 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.

doesn't have everything 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. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield my southwest balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for seven minutes. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, you've 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 heart fement 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 an i hope to collaborate with him on even more. i fear he's 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 read from the sierra club earlier. let me read from the aclu, mr. speaker, from their comment 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 he proposed rule, that's the

administration's rule, that's the rule we are here today to stop, the proposed rule threatens to discourage or sterilize an enormous amount of political discourse in america. mr. speaker, i have a chart here today, you can't see it from where you are, but it lists what tax exempt organizations are able to do. a 501-c, that section of the tax code that deals with tax exempt organizations. you have 501-c-3's, able to do get out the vote work, voter registration work, candidate forums. 501-c-4's are where the administration is regulating and that's the source of the scandal, the targeting of american citizens based on their political beliefs, and 501-c-5 those are the labor unions in this country. what folks need to understand is, as we sit here today, all of these groups can do get out the vote work, all these groups can do voter registration work, all these groups can do 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. it's proposing for 501-c-5's, labor unions, to continue doing all of that material. for 501-c-3's to continue doing all of that, but the 501-c-4's, the very same 501-c-4s that were targeted by the i.r.s. on the basis of their political beliefs, those groups and those roups alone would be silenced. mr. speaker, america is not advantaged by that rule. maybe in some shortsighted way someone believes that personal political agenda is advanced by that scheme, mr. speaker, but we do not. we as a nation do not. it is a shortsighted game. that's why.

we put this bill on the floor today to delay these regulations, these new regulations, this change of how american political discourse occurs, for one year and one 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, 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, quote, mr. speaker, quoting from the

report, to make america a better place to live, you could be subjected to special scrutiny. now, 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 se 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 ,un 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 many things that happen on the floor of this house. you can't tell the difference between who's who regionally, politically, what it is that folks believe, but this issue, this issue is one of those defining issues. do you believe that the board of directors of america, the united loud citizen, deserves a 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 a full and open debate is the

only way in which this country will succeed w that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and moves the previous question. the question is on ordering the previous question. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. mr. polis: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor of the request for the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clausele of rule 20, this 15-minute vote will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting the resolution if ordered and passing h.r. 1944. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]