Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. WOODALL. In reclaiming my time, absolutely, inflation is not going to go away, but we have to make tough choices, and this bill requires us to make those choices in a transparent way for the American people. At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who first said that we must be transparent in this way, that we must be fair and honest in this way. He is the original author of the Baseline Reform Act.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I would say to my friend from Florida, Mr. Speaker, I, too, am prepared to close.

Mr. WOODALL. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Two paths diverged in the wood, and I took the path less traveled, and that has made all the difference. Mr. Speaker, this is Washington, D.C. There is a term called ``Washington, D.C., math,'' which, as my friend from Florida, the sheriff, described earlier is when you can raise spending by $5 and call it a cut. That is Washington, D.C., math. The path less traveled in this town is the path of fiscal responsibility; the path less traveled in this town is the path of accountability; the path less traveled in this town is the path of transparency, and that is what these three measures before us today propose, Mr. Speaker. I held a townhall meeting, Mr. Speaker, about 12 months ago. They asked if I was going to support the congressional pay raise. I said: Well, we are not going to do a congressional pay raise this year, but I hope one day to come home and tell you that I have earned it. I do. I want to show up back home, Mr. Speaker, and tell folks that, dadgummit: I have earned it. Be proud of what we have done in Washington, D.C. I have earned it. I think that is true of every dime of spending the Federal Government does. I don't think we ought to assume, as the current baseline does, that every single Federal agency is going to have their budget increase next year by the cost of inflation. I think those agencies should come to this institution, as they do in an annual appropriation process, and say: I have earned it. I have earned it. I am not just talking about making a difference in people's lives; here are the results. I am not just talking about lifting people up; here are the results. The hardest thing to end in this town, Mr. Speaker, is a Federal program. Once they get started, they seem to last forever. Mission creep. If they solve one mission, they are going to adopt a new mission, roll right on down the line. Nobody wants to work themselves out of a job. Is it so outrageous, is it the role only of the fringe, as my friend from Florida proposed, to suggest that, if we are going to borrow and spend more of our children's money, we should come and justify it? Mr. Speaker, that kind of budget transparency has become relevant only to the fringe of America. It is not the America I know. I tell the young people--and I try to start every day back home with young people, Mr. Speaker. I say, listen, just tell me what you want in terms of support for higher education because the only dollars I am going to spend, I am going to borrow from you. I am borrowing it from you. We all love our children. We all want our children to succeed. But we are borrowing from them. Every decision we make. These three bills ask for three things, and three things only before we make the decision to borrow from our children: Number one, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act. It asks that for those programs that are going to have a big impact on our economy, that we look not just at what the 1-year impact is, not just at what the 10- year impact is, but that we look at a generation of impact. Before we start down that road less traveled, Mr. Speaker, we should know what it is going to cost us and how it is going to benefit us. We don't get that information today, as the gentleman from Florida, the sheriff, noted. We have not reformed the Congressional Budget Act since 1974. That kind of multigenerational information is worthy of this body. This bill would provide it to us for the very first time. The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act. If you are going to lend money, you ought to account for it; you ought to evaluate it. We often talk about our $17.5 trillion debt, Mr. Speaker. That comes from Washington math because if we were anywhere else other than this town, we would have to evaluate all the promises that we have made. I mean, you know how Social Security is funded, for example, Mr. Speaker. It is today's workers that are paying for today's retirees. There is not a dime set aside for today's workers when they retire. The true cost of government, the true national debt, as recently calculated by Dr. Larry Kotlikoff of Boston University, not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, is over $200 trillion-- $200 trillion. ``Trillion''--we throw these words around as if they are nothing--that is 1 million millions. We have not had 1 million days since the birth of Christ, Mr. Speaker. We won't for another 730 years. Mr. Speaker, 1 million millions is 1 trillion. We have borrowed and promised on behalf of our children $200 trillion. The fair value accounting request is only that we be honest with the American people. I am prepared to live by whatever decision the American people make. I believe in our Republic. But we cannot ask people to make decisions without providing people with good information. This bill does that. Then finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill, again, sponsored by my good friend from Texas, Louie Gohmert, a long champion that I have the privilege of serving with in this Congress, the Baseline Reform Act. The Baseline Reform Act says, if you are going to raise spending by $1, you are actually raising spending by $1. I know it sounds radical, Mr. Speaker. I know it sounds like the province of the fringe, but it is not. If you are going to raise spending by $1, you should say you are going to raise spending by $1. Dadgummit, Mr. Speaker, I can't even have a town hall meeting these days and talk about budget numbers--because I am a budget guy--I can't talk about budget numbers without someone raising their hand and saying, now, Rob, when you talk about spending reductions, is that really a spending reduction, or is that just a reduction in the rate of growth? That is how it has become. For 4 years in this institution, we have spent less each and every succeeding year. Now, I would argue, contrary to what my friend from Florida suggested, that we are prioritizing spending on shared goals, and we are deprioritizing spending on which we do not have those shared goals. It seems fair in these difficult economic times, as we are taking those dollars from hardworking American taxpayers across the country, that we identify high-priority spending and low-priority spending. I will take the work at NIH, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker. That is high-priority spending. That is basic research that is going to make a difference in people's lives and not a difference in something minor, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps a life-and-death difference. It is a goal that we share. It is a goal that the Appropriations Committee shares. It is a goal that we are going to be able to realize. But I don't think there is a single man or woman at NIH, I don't think there is a single professor at NIH, I don't think there is a single Ph.D. candidate at NIH who is embarrassed to come up here and say, I have done well. I am a good steward of the taxpayers' money. Trust me again. Mr. Speaker, that is where I want to take us with these budget bills. I want to have folks proud of how they are spending the dollars, proud to come and share that with us here in this Congress and have the American people proud to get onboard with renewing those dollars once again. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support this rule. This rule has made in order every amendment that was germane to these three bills. I ask them to support this rule so that we can begin voting these bills this very day. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 539 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 1010.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It never surprises me how much I have in common with my friend from Florida. We come from very different parts of the world, Mr. Speaker. If you go to many events in this town, they will generally have a Southeastern State section and a Florida section. Florida is a little bit different from the rest of those Southeastern States. Our constituencies may not look the same demographically, may not look the same on paper, but when it comes to caring about one another, I have no doubt that our communities are incredibly similar, as the gentleman from Florida and I are very similar. The debate is not about whether or not we have an obligation to our neighbors. We do. The question is are we meeting our obligation to our neighbors, and I will tell you that we are not. The pathway up in this country is what our obligation is here. I would say to my friends that providing a safety net that has no ladder out is a cruel and unsatisfactory path for this House. I was talking with a gentleman down in southeast D.C., Mr. Speaker, and he runs a project that takes folks from homelessness and drug addiction to employment. He said: The problem with you Republicans is all you do is offer people hope: pick yourself up by your bootstraps; tomorrow will be better than today. He said hope in the absence of access is futile. He said: But Democrats offer help. If you are naked, I will clothe you. If you are hungry, I will feed you. If you are in prison, I will visit you. But he said help in the absence of a pathway out is to condemn someone to a life of poverty. He said: What you all have to do is to come together. You have to provide that help to meet people's immediate needs, but you have to provide that pathway out. Mr. Speaker, I don't care if you are rich today; I care whether or not the opportunity exists in America for you to be rich tomorrow. And I don't mean rich by having six figures or seven figures or eight figures; I mean rich because you have got a roof over your head and you can feed your family. The American Dream, Mr. Speaker, is not to be the next Bill Gates. I don't know where that ever got started. The American Dream is to be able, by the sweat of your brow and the power of your ideas, to be your own man or woman, to make your own decisions. I listened deeply to the words of my friend and I looked for where we might find that common ground, because, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Florida, if you go into any public housing facility in my district, they will tell you that the Federal Government prevents them from succeeding. The residents would say: You have got to let us kick the bad actors out. The residents would say: We have got folks here who are trying to make a difference, and we have got folks here who are bringing us down. You have got to give us the ability to keep our kids safe. You have got to give us the ability to keep our community safe. You have got to give us the ability to run our lives. But Federal law says no, Mr. Speaker. Federal law says we know what is fair; we know what is best. But I know the gentleman from Florida and I share a heart for letting folks in these communities take control of their lives, make those choices that will enable tomorrow to be better than today. Mr. Speaker, with this budget--again, I can't make this point sharply enough--the President proposes to spend $6 trillion on interest alone over the next 10 years--$6 trillion. Now, at the President's spending levels, Mr. Speaker, that is almost 18 months of running this country. Understand that because of the borrowing patterns of past Congresses and administrations, we are losing 18 months of the very services the gentleman from Florida proposes that we provide. Eighteen months are eroded out of the next 10 years with interest alone. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act does, for example, is say you have got to project out over 40 years. You will remember, when the President proposed his health care bill, no question, his intention was to help folks; no question, his intention was to make life better for folks. We can absolutely debate whether or not those were successes or failures, but this is the way that budget sorted itself out. He said: I am not going to spend more than $1 trillion on this program. Now, I don't know when in the world, Mr. Speaker, $1 trillion became the low number that we decided would be tolerable as a program, but he said: I don't want to spend more than $1 trillion on this program. So, instead of creating a 10-year program, he created a 6-year program, put the implementation off for 4 years. Critical health care services, absolutely necessary we provide these services to the American people, but they can wait 4 years. We have got families in need, families that don't have options, families that don't have choices, but I am not going to help them get choices for another 4 years. Six-year program, $1 trillion. The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act says we need to look at programs over 40 years because that $1 trillion, 6-year program explodes in years 7 and 8 and 9 and 10. And it may be money well spent. I hope that is what the gentleman from Florida believes because I know he supported the program. I don't believe it is money well spent. I think we are losing trillions of dollars in health care costs that could be better controlled. I think we are losing trillions of dollars in care that could have been provided to folks but, instead, is being lost in an inefficient health care system. But we don't have those answers when those bills come to the floor of this House for a vote. Who is it that opposes that, Mr. Speaker? Who is it that opposes, when we make trillion-dollar decisions that are multigenerational, that we don't have access to long-term data? The gentleman from Florida says it seems disingenuous for us to pretend inflation does not exist. That is not what I am proposing, but disingenuous to pretend that it does. I think it is similarly odd to pretend that the program stops after 10 years instead of it continuing on in perpetuity, as these programs do. These bills do nothing but provide us with other information. I will close with this, Mr. Speaker. My experience in this House with a voting card began in 2011. And while the gentleman is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, when he talks about inflation and how services can be eroded, my experience in this House, your experience in this House, Mr. Speaker, is that we spent less in 2011 than we did in 2010, not more. Inflation was there, but we spent less. My experience, Mr. Speaker, is that we spent less in 2012 than we did in 2011, less in 2013 than we did in 2012, less in 2014 than we did in 2013. Every year I have been here we have spent less. I think that is what our constituency expects from us, not to cut critical service programs, but to increase our productivity and prioritize their dollars, prioritize their dollars to those places where they can do the most good. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to thank my friend from Florida for laying out exactly what the case is that needs to be made today. It just so happens all of those spending priorities that the gentleman from Florida mentioned are spending priorities I share-- investments in education; investments in roads and bridges; investments in cutting-edge research that makes a difference in people's lives, not just in terms of treatments, but in terms of cures. In the absence of crystal-clear budgeting, in the absence of the reforms that we have proposed here today, the $5 trillion that the Budget Committee passed that proposes to reduce Federal spending over the next 10 years is exactly the same as the interest that that very same budget proposes to pay over the next 10 years. I want you to hear that, Mr. Speaker. Every single reduction in spending that the gentleman just laid out is necessitated because, dollar for dollar, we are wasting those same amounts on paying the debts that previous Congresses have racked up. That is a Budget Committee-passed budget. The President's budget, Mr. Speaker, proposes to spend $6 trillion over the next 10 years on interest alone--interest alone. Mr. Speaker, by not taking responsibility today, not only are we mortgaging our children's future by piling these debts on them, we are trading away opportunities to make a difference in their future. Because those dollars that we are sending to the Chinese and Germans who loan us money and the money that we are spending to pay our debts is money that we could be spending on those shared investment priorities that the gentleman from Florida and I have in common. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. Nugent), one of the great members of the Rules Committee, a former sheriff.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, this is a big day for me down here on the House floor. I don't know if you were catching every word of the rule as it was being read, but what you've got here in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, is a rule that makes in order absolutely every germane amendment that was offered, not to one budget reform bill, not to two budget reform bills, but to three budget process reform bills. We talk so much about numbers in this institution, Mr. Speaker. We talk about baselines. We talk about CBO scores. We also talk a lot about people. We talk a lot about families. We talk about why what we do here matters in the lives of folks back home. Father Conroy prayed this morning, Mr. Speaker, that we could get out of some of our old habits that the inertia leads us to disagree and find those things around on which we do agree. There is one thing that is undisputed in this Chamber--in fact, on Capitol Hill; in fact, in this entire town--Mr. Speaker, when it comes to budget process, and that is that every time we decide we are going to spend money today, we get a little boost in the economy, and that boost comes from a mortgaged future. We can get a little today at the expense of a little tomorrow, or, conversely, we can lose a little bit today in exchange for gaining a little bit tomorrow. There is no free lunch when it comes to budgeting, Mr. Speaker. I only get to spend each dollar once in this institution, and I can either raise that dollar from today's taxpayers or I can borrow that dollar from tomorrow's taxpayers. There are arguments on both sides. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. What these three budget process bills before us today, Mr. Speaker, will do is make sure we are working from the same shared set of facts. Now, again, this rule, Mr. Speaker, provides for these three bills. It is H. Res. 539. It is a structured rule for H.R. 1874, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act. That is going to be on the floor today immediately following this rule. If we are able to secure passage, and I certainly hope that we can, we will be debating H.R. 1874. H.R. 1874 will instruct the Congressional Budget Office to calculate, when we make these decisions, whether we are going to spend a little today and mortgage tomorrow or whether we are going to save a little bit today in exchange for growth tomorrow, to calculate that impact. It is not enough to spend the dollar, it is not enough to save the dollar. We have to explain, not just to our colleagues, but to the American people, what the benefit or the burden of that decision is going to be. H.R. 1874 brings some clarity to that decision. One of my personal favorite bills, Mr. Speaker, is H.R. 1871. H.R. 1871 and H.R. 1872 are also made in order by this bill. H.R. 1871 happens to be the Woodall bill, Mr. Speaker. It is the Baseline Reform bill. Candidly, I can't claim credit for it. I want to, pride of authorship and all. But, Mr. Speaker, the truth is it is the gentleman from the great State of Texas. Mr. Louie Gohmert has been fighting for this bill long before I arrived in this institution. I happened to get a seat on the Budget Committee; he happens to serve elsewhere; so I am carrying this language. I couldn't be prouder to do it, but I want to give credit where credit is due. The fight that the gentleman from Texas has been making over the years--and it is not a fight against one another; it is a fight against inertia, as Father Conroy talked about this morning--is to say that it is just crazy in today's tight economic environment to assume that if the government spent X dollars this year, we are going to give them X plus 3 percent next year, that irrespective of what your mission is, irrespective of what your productivity is, irrespective of what your success is, we are just going to assume that your agency is going to get more money next year than it got this year. That is not the way anybody operates at home. That is not what we do around the dinner table. That is not what any business in America does. That is not what we should be doing. So H.R. 1871 says we are going to assume you are going to get next year what you got this year, with absolutely no inflation whatsoever. Now, this is not an area of wide agreement. I would argue what you get next year ought to be less than what you get this year, because we ought to expect some productivity increases from you. It is fair in the industrious society in which we live that we expect you to do more with less next year. But we are not trying to achieve all of that today. We are just saying that what you get next year is going to be what you get this year. Eliminate those automatic inflaters that bias us towards less productivity and more cost. Finally, H.R. 1872, Mr. Speaker, that is a bill from my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett). That bill says we ought to have accurate accounting, fair cost accounting, of government loan programs. We are in the business of guaranteeing a whole lot of loans in this institution, Mr. Speaker, loans for all sorts of meritorious activities that we would agree on both sides of the aisle are worthy of being carried on, but the question is how do we account for that in the budget process. Today we assume that those loans will never go bad--that those loans will never go bad--and that we will only reflect a cost of the American taxpayer guaranteeing those loans when and if those loans do go bad. But that is not what happens in the real world. That is not what we ask of our bankers down on Main Street. That is not what we ask of any financial institution. We would run you right out of town if you tried to do your accounting that way in the real world, Mr. Speaker. So what Mr. Garrett says is: Why can't we apply real world accounting to this institution? Why can't we hold ourselves to the same high standard that we hold folks back home? I applaud him for that. I think that is something, again, that brings us together rather than divides us. What I like most about this rule, though, Mr. Speaker, is that when the amendments were offered--and that is the way the process goes, for folks who don't watch the Rules Committee as closely as my friend from Florida and I do. Members of Congress come; they submit their amendments to the Rules Committee; and the Rules Committee decides what is made in order. But we do that in consultation with the Parliamentarians. We need to make sure that amendments are germane. We want to make sure that the conversation is on the topic that the bill is on. We don't allow nongermane amendments most of the time, but sometimes Members submit amendments in good faith that don't comply with the rules as they were submitted, but they can be worked on to make them better. What I am particularly proud of, Mr. Speaker, is that, when we received some amendments that were not quite within the four corners of the rules, rather than just rejecting those amendments out of hand, which would have been a perfectly appropriate response, we didn't do what was appropriate; we did what was right. And that was to go and work with those Members to improve those amendments, get them within the four corners of the parliamentary process, and make those in order today. So, again, every single germane amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee on each of these three bills was made in order for debate under the bill. We will do the first of those bills today. If this rule passes, we will do the remaining two next week, and all done in the name of transparency and accurate information for the American people. It is perfectly legitimate to have your own opinion about what the Federal budget ought to look like, but you are not entitled to your own facts about what the impact of those decisions will be. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 539 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Rhode Island for bringing the amendment. He and I were elected in the same class together just 3 years ago, and I think we have been able to work together to make a difference in the short time that we have been here. I share his commitment to making sure that we have jobs estimates coming out of legislation, which is why I am so proud that as drafted-- as drafted--this bill, introduced by my friend from Georgia, Dr. Price, requires ``employment and labor supply analysis'' in subsection B. Now, that is incredibly important, Mr. Chairman, because what we do in Washington absolutely has consequences, and what those consequences are is a fair subject of debate here in the Chamber. But today there is no mechanism for determining, again, employment and labor supply numbers on a dynamic basis over time recognizing what those actions are. Now, my concern about the amendment from my friend is that, rather than scoring those jobs dynamically--again, understanding that for every action there is a reaction--it scores in a static methodology assuming that the government creates jobs, that there is anything at all that the government does that actually creates a job. Now, we can redistribute the wealth, but short of putting someone on the Federal payroll, this amendment perpetuates the myth that the government is in the job-creation business. The government is absolutely in the job-destroying business, and we both work together on that facet, and we can make some decisions that help the private sector to succeed. It is those decisions, Mr. Chairman, that the bill, as drafted, will make sure are measured, recorded, and reported here on the House floor for the first time. Again, I very much appreciate the intent of the gentleman to make sure that this Congress is focused like a laser on job creation, but scoring it as if the government is creating jobs instead of recognizing it is only our actions that the private sector is being impacted on that creates those jobs, I believe, would take what is a very good underlying bill and move it in the wrong direction. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Chair, this is often characterized as a Western issue, and it is not a Western issue. The water wars that go on in the West are certainly a special type of battle; but this is an American issue in what it does. There are two really interesting things going on, on the House floor today, that I hope all of my colleagues and I hope the American people are watching. On the one hand, there is a really neat moment of agreement that is happening here. You hear so much about disagreement in Washington. The Federal Government issues an order that says, in order to continue to exercise your business, you must surrender your private property to the government. Well, we could all agree that is outrageous. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) for leading in the effort to repeal that, which has been a bipartisan effort on both sides of the aisle. We have an actual order--an actual proposal, and we can come together and agree that this is not who we are, as a people. It is very interesting, and I am glad that we are able to do that. The second thing that is happening, Madam Chair, is that there is a concern that a certain class of citizen is going to get a higher and better use of land; and I just want to point out that that certain class is the owner of a private property right. Right? That is actually the debate that is happening here. If you own something, if something belongs to you, should you be allowed to use it? Or in the name of creating a better country, in the spirit of maximizing the utility of Federal lands, should the Federal Government be able to take that from you and redistribute it, so that things are fairer? That is a legitimate discussion to have. I come down on the side of my friend from Colorado who says not only is it outrageous that the government tried to take private property rights in this circumstance; but why not take this step now to recognize that private property means something? Not only are we going to protect our ski resorts, but we are going to make sure this never happens to any other American citizens again. ``Extortion'' is a strong word. It is a strong word, but I can think of no other word to apply to what the government was trying to do here today. I am grateful to my friends on both sides of the aisle for moving to stop that.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, you know, back home, folks don't think we find areas of agreement. I have only been on the floor for about 20 minutes this morning, and I have already found areas of agreement with my colleague from California. You can't just walk the walk and talk the talk. You have got to get in here and make things happen. We have an opportunity today as we talk about jobs, as we talk about energy security in Ukraine, we have an opportunity today to move forward on the Keystone pipeline, which has languished for more than 2,000 days. The President cannot say he is interested in energy security and then thwart those very proposals that would provide it. The President cannot commit to energy security for our friends overseas, and then thwart those efforts that would provide it. Mr. Speaker, we are blessed in this country, blessed by the Lord God Almighty with more energy resources than any other nation on the planet, and yet the President is standing between the American people and those resources. It is about national security, Mr. Speaker, and yes, it is about jobs.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate his leadership on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He has only been in this institution for 3 years, but he brought with him, when he came, a heart of service that he has been applying his entire lifetime; and it is that heart of service that I think has enabled him to work in a bipartisan way across the aisle. I will say that it is not without a heavy heart, Mr. Chairman, that I hear folks talk about a Republican assault, a majority this, conservatives that; there are some things that happen in this institution that are party line events. There are things that happen in this institution that are Republicans driving in one way and Democrats driving in the other. But this is an openness bill today, and by its very introduction, Mr. Chairman--I have a copy of the bill here; it is available for anyone to read online--the very first thing they will see when they open up this piece of legislation are the men and women who came together to offer it. Now, one of those people is my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lankford from Oklahoma; but so, too, is the gentlelady from California, Loretta Sanchez, who believes in this piece of legislation--not just believes it passing on the floor today, but believes in being a part of the process that drives this forward. Yes, we heard from my friend, Virginia Foxx, Republican from North Carolina, but also among the original cosponsors bringing this legislation forward, Mike McIntyre, Democrat, from North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about one thing and one thing only, and that is providing more information and more transparency to all the stakeholders in the process. There are things that are worth doing and there are things that are worth using the power of government to do, but if we are proud of what those things are, we should be proud of sharing that information. When you get in a car today, Mr. Chairman, there are airbags everywhere. I can't even count the number of airbags when I rent a car these days. Old cars that folks drive, they don't have them, but the new cars do. I don't know what it costs to put that airbag in. I don't know what it cost to promulgate that regulation. I would like to know. But I promise you that, if we were to look at those numbers, we would say it is worth it. It is worth it. Regulatory burdens on this economy--and we are seeing GDP revised down again today, Mr. Chairman--are undeniable. Maybe they are worth it, but the burden is undeniable. Let's just tell folks what that burden is, and then let's come together and decide whether or not it is something worth doing. This is not a partisan bill today, Mr. Chairman; this is a bipartisan bill. This isn't about hiding the ball today; this is about transparency. This bill is not about dividing folks; this is about, again, what my friend from Oklahoma has been about since the day he showed up in this institution, and that is bringing people together around tough challenges, but challenges that this institution can rise to do. I am very proud of the many, many hearings that have been held, the many, many hours of effort that have been invested, and I am pleased to support this legislation on the floor here today, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I do not have any remaining speakers.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I say to my friend from Virginia I think he is absolutely speaking from the heart when it comes to sharing the voice of his constituents in Virginia. My constituents take a slightly different view. They look to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that said, yes, you can raise the minimum wage. You called it a modest raise. I think they called it a more than 40 percent increase in the minimum wage. But you can raise the minimum wage, as some are proposing, and that is going to lift 900,000 families above the poverty line and that is going to destroy 500,000 jobs. I don't fault my colleagues at all for being concerned about those 900,000 individuals that are going to be lifted above the poverty line. I think we all want folks lifted above the poverty line. I don't want folks working a lifetime for minimum wage. I want people working their way up the ladder. It is a ladder of opportunity that we ought to be building in this House. But to dismiss those 500,000 individuals that the Congressional Budget Office said will lose their jobs altogether are not partisan fights we have, Mr. Speaker. These are heartfelt discussions that we have about how best to serve the American people to whom we have sworn an oath to the Constitution that rules this land. These are very difficult issues, but they are made better each and every time, I am certain, Mr. Speaker, if we preserve the power of the American people to have their voice heard in this debate. That is what is so important about this rule and why we must pass this rule today-- to bring to the floor the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act--so that Americans' voices are not just silenced on the basis of their content, but not silenced period. It is abhorrent that we would silence voices on the basis of their content, but I would argue, Mr. Speaker, it is abhorrent if we have an opportunity to stop voices from being silenced at all. I believe this House will take that step today, and that is why I am proud to be here representing this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes to say, if you care about any of these issues that have been brought up today--and these are not issues that are involved in the rule, and these are not issues that are coming to the floor today--then you care about whether or not the American people are able to make their voices heard, because I am absolutely certain, as I have learned in my 3 years of having a voting card, Mr. Speaker, that the American voters still run this show. Now, the voters have a tough time having their voices heard, but if they can have their voices heard, they can make a difference. We are talking about issues that we wish we could change, Mr. Speaker. Today on the floor, we have an issue that we can change. The administration is proposing regulations that will silence voices on these very issues that my colleagues are raising. Let me read from Cathy Duvall, the Sierra Club's director of public advocacy and partnerships, who says this about the proposed regulations from the Obama administration's Treasury Department: The proposal harms efforts that have nothing to do with politics--from our ability to communicate with our members about clean air and water to our efforts to educate the public about toxic pollution. Mr. Speaker, if you believe in this process as I do, if you believe in this Nation as I do, then you believe that it is paramount that the people's voices are able to be heard. That is the issue here today. If you believe that the priorities of this House should be changed, if you believe the priorities of this Nation should be changed, if you believe anything in this Nation should be changed, you must believe that we should preserve the power of the individual's voice. That is why this rule moratorium is here today, Mr. Speaker. That is why the investigations must go on. That is why we must reject the administration's rush to judgment here and ensure that our priority continues to be that of the board of directors of this country--the American voters. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague from Colorado if he has any speakers remaining.

Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a freshman Member, a young Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in support of this legislation.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their comments.